Bangernomics W202 C-Class with controvertial wheels.

selectamatic

https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/mercedes/14229684

A rare car to get in Ireland
W202 C230 kompressor imo the best chassis Mercedes put this engine in.
200bhp and plenty of torque
All important manual box the auto ruins them.
3 owners according to cars Ireland
Supposedly a service history
Test till August 17
A car that'll hang with altezzas and 325i's for a fraction of the price and I'd bet it's a dam sight easier to insure.
Also tends to be overlooked by diffwreckers so chances are it hasn't been abused.
Asking just €600

A real Christmas bargain, Ho Ho Ho.

Duke O Smiley

I'm no huge fan of that model. But that is a bargain

WhiskeyGoblin

Massive fan of those Mercs. Saddened by the fact I'll probably never get to drive one because you know it's over 12 years old so therefore a rust bucket and has an engine size greater than 1.4 so therefore a speeding death machine that no one would insure me on

blindside88

selectamatic wrote: »

https://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/mercedes/14229684



A rare car to get in Ireland
W202 C230 kompressor imo the best chassis Mercedes put this engine in.
200bhp and plenty of torque
All important manual box the auto ruins them.
3 owners according to cars Ireland
Supposedly a service history
Test till August 17
A car that'll hang with altezzas and 325i's for a fraction of the price and I'd bet it's a dam sight easier to insure.
Also tends to be overlooked by diffwreckers so chances are it hasn't been abused.
Asking just €600

A real Christmas bargain, Ho Ho Ho.

Can also be insured as a classic from Jan

CianRyan

Paging Pigeon, this car is for you.

26000 Elephants

selectamatic wrote: »

W202 C230 kompressor imo the best chassis Mercedes put this engine in.
200bhp and plenty of torque

I didnt think the saloon got that engine in 1997. One hell of a sleeper. Especially manual.

colm_mcm

200 HBO from a 2.3 supercharged engine doesn't sound that great

26000 Elephants

colm_mcm wrote: »

200 HBO from a 2.3 supercharged engine doesn't sound that great

Its enough when you are expecting 120.

A friend had a mustang back in the 90's with a 2.3 that made 80-ish hp. True story. It was so shyte.

homer90

colm_mcm wrote: »

200 HBO from a 2.3 supercharged engine doesn't sound that great

Maybe not by modern standards, but pretty good in its day tbh.

colm_mcm

Meh. My 95 non turbo FTO did that from a 2.0

CianRyan

How much were Nissan/Toyota/Subaru/Mitsubishi making from 2l in the early 90's?
Not to mention Mazda. :cool:

166man

colm_mcm wrote: »

Meh. My 95 non turbo FTO did that from a 2.0

But sure comparing japs and Europeans of that era is pointless anyway. Japs were getting 160bhp from 1.6's and we were only getting 100-120.

200bhp isn't bad for that engine and it could probably do more.

colm_mcm

Tax to power ratio all wrong.

CianRyan

I am firmly #teamColm.

Just getting a flashback to 166man talking lovingly about his first 156 and stating that it must be the most powerful NA 1.6 ever made. :pac:

Edit: Euros have been making engines for many years longer so being that far behind really was not acceptable.

wotzgoingon

CianRyan wrote: »

Just getting a flashback to 166man talking lovingly about his first 156 and stating that it must be the most powerful NA 1.6 ever made. :pac:

I'm pretty sure Nissan have that title with the N1.

CianRyan

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Nissan have that title with the N1.

200ps, still unbeaten. AFAIK.
For a factory car like, I've been in Civic's with more from a B16.

166man

CianRyan wrote: »

I am firmly #teamColm.

Just getting a flashback to 166man talking lovingly about his first 156 and stating that it must be the most powerful NA 1.6 ever made. :pac:

Edit: Euros have been making engines for many years longer so being that far behind really was not acceptable.

Well which Euro 1.6 from that generation had more power? I was referring to the Euros!

Sure I knew the Levin engine had more power...:D

unkel

colm_mcm wrote: »

Meh. My 95 non turbo FTO did that from a 2.0

You're missing the point entirely. That car is not about how many brake horse power it has per litre of engine capacity, it's all about that it looks dead slow, but it's a lot quicker than people would expect.

The exact opposite of the cars boy racers prefer

Ded_Zebra

unkel wrote: »

colm_mcm wrote: »

Meh. My 95 non turbo FTO did that from a 2.0

You're missing the point entirely. That car is not about how many brake horse power it has per litre of engine capacity, it's all about that it looks dead slow, but it's a lot quicker than people would expect.

The exact opposite of the cars boy racers prefer

No I think the point that everyone is raising is that it looks dead slow, the tax is expensive, and it is dead slow!
That's a hatrick

unkel

You don't seem to get it either!

Looking dead slow is good, not bad. Unless you're a boy racer

And 0-100km/h in about 8s is not slow. Not slow at all. Particularly not slow for a slow looking car

CianRyan

unkel wrote: »

You don't seem to get it either!

Looking dead slow is good, not bad. Unless you're a boy racer

And 0-100km/h in about 8s is not slow. Not slow at all. Particularly not slow for a slow looking car

About the same as my MX5 and everyone thinks that's slow too, only mine's a 1.6.

26000 Elephants

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

No I think the point that everyone is raising is that it looks dead slow, the tax is expensive, and it is dead slow!
That's a hatrick

looks dead slow - isnt that the point of a sleeper?

tax is expensive - irrelevant surely?

it is dead slow - its not.


Hardly a hat trick.


An fto making 200hp from N/A 2 litre is commendable. Its just that a 2.3 16v merc with a compresser is a very different prospect. Some people would prefer that prospect.

The same way as some would prefer a nice craft beer over a flagon of frosty jack.

unkel

CianRyan wrote: »

About the same as my MX5 and everyone thinks that's slow too, only mine's a 1.6.

Another one. I give up!

(and I had a 1.6 convertible too that was reasonably quick. Because it weighed nothing, had RWD and a mid engine. But it was very far removed from being a sleeper...)

Edit: ha! 26000 Elephants to the rescue

unkel

26000 Elephants wrote: »

An fto making 200hp from N/A 2 litre is commendable.

Funny thing is that the 0-100km/h acceleration is about the same in that superfast FTO as it is in the "dead slow" Mercedes...

26000 Elephants

unkel wrote: »

Funny thing is that the 0-100km/h acceleration is about the same in that superfast FTO as it is in the "dead slow" Mercedes...

If you compare the torque figures ( the ones which count in the real world) you will find that the merc makes 280Nm @ 2500 while the FTO only manages 200 at a buzzy 6500.

2 very different beverages indeed.

unkel

Talking about beverages, I'm just guessing here, but the Merc will do its thing on the cheapest boggo unleaded petrol, whereas the FTO might need high octane, very expensive and hard to get fuel to actually get to its on paper performance?

26000 Elephants

unkel wrote: »

Talking about beverages, I'm just guessing here, but the Merc will do its thing on the cheapest boggo unleaded petrol, whereas the FTO might need high octane, very expensive and hard to get fuel to actually get to its on paper performance?

At a compression ratio of 10:1, regular would not be too good for it. However the mercs 8:1 will probably run fine on Albanian 2 star.

Ded_Zebra

26000 Elephants wrote: »

unkel wrote: »

Talking about beverages, I'm just guessing here, but the Merc will do its thing on the cheapest boggo unleaded petrol, whereas the FTO might need high octane, very expensive and hard to get fuel to actually get to its on paper performance?

At a compression ratio of 10:1, regular would not be too good for it. However the mercs 8:1 will probably run fine  on Albanian 2 star.

Seeing as the Americans have engines at 11.5:1 and running on 87 octane I doubt it'll be an issue. 

OK well slow might not quite be the word but spending 1000 a year to tax a 4 banger is just not gonna float my boat. Coupled with a manual gearbox in a Mercedes is just a recipe for disaster. Mercs only work as autos.

unkel

It seems we agree after all

Anan1 who was a regular contributor on here, had a W202 C280 auto iirc. Straight 6 and similar performance as the 4 pot we are talking about, yet all the smoothness and balance of the normally breathing engine. Modern ZF 5 speed autobox too. I always thought that was a very clever choice of sleeper car.

colm_mcm

unkel wrote: »

Funny thing is that the 0-100km/h acceleration is about the same in that superfast FTO as it is in the "dead slow" Mercedes...

A manual MIVEC FTO will do 60 in a lot quicker than 8 seconds.

26000 Elephants

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

Seeing as the Americans have engines at 11.5:1 and running on 87 octane I doubt it'll be an issue. 

Before the ECU, the canonical approach to tolerate poor grades of fuel was to reduce the CR of an engine.

I' m not sure what you mean by "americans" but if you mean 'manufacturers' then i would doubt an 11.5:1 CR would run properly on 87 gas. alchohol maybe.

If you mean 'home builders' then yeah, no problem. A long enough duration cam will make it workable. Just not very drivable.

More recently manufactrers (mazda) have got around the HC/pinking conundrum, but we are talking about 2 cars from the '90's here.