1998 Mercedes C230 Kompressor Sport Manual.

The springs seem great, the usual Eibach (Pro kit), dropped car about 30 mm I think, but I wasn't too concerned as I was adjusting the final height with spring pads. There's also Eibach Sportline springs, they will drop the car by 45 mm, if I recall correctly.

There's a photo of the front arch gap back in this thread, that was the height alround.

See here.
www.eibachshop.co.uk/info-part-list?make=MERCEDES-BENZ&model=C-CLASS%20(W202)&spec=C%20240%20(202.026)%201997-06%20-%202000-05

Don't mind the prices, shop around. I got mine for around €150/£120. No doubt you're aware there's other brands besides Eibach so, you might have a look at those, especially when on a budget which I was. I just kept shopping around and leaving searches on eBay.  

Maybe, do your shocks first as they'll have more ware than the springs (if everything is original) and adjust the height with the spring pads for the time being?

Wheel refurb. The n/s/r wheel suffered damage (guilty) and the repair was solid but not air tight and needed the pressure checked far too often, probably every week. So, I got a used rim again for cheap via eBay. I gave it a good clean & painted it. I've 8x16's ET36 225/50 on the rear and standard 7X16 ET37 205/55 on the front. Increasing the rear width to 8'' doesn't seem to make any difference, none that I noticed. I just went with the wider wheel because they were an option on the CLK & SLK which use the  C-Class chassis, the thinking being if they are an improvement on those models, why not on the C-Class? And hands up, I like the looks of the wider rears anyway.   

I'm currently using Yokohama Advan tyres, previous it was Bridgestones which I was very happy with but I can't fault the Yoko's.   
 
8x16
IMG_20200407_153923665 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr
8x16
IMG_20200409_092819608 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr
8x16
IMG_20200414_211825566 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr

7x16 205/55
IMG_20200414_212306532 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr

 Further progress. Oil & filter today.

Drove the car a couple of miles to let the front suspension settle and ended up with these settings which were taken from wheel centre to wheel arch. Happy enough even if it would nice to get the rear down by 5 mm or so. Anyway, it will do as I've had enough of removing & refitting springs for this year. 

 N/S/F 345 mm --------- O/S/F 342 mm

N/S/R 353 mm ---------- O/S/R 350 mm

Thanks. Yep, too much work put into really, still no regrets.  As I said previously, it's a slippery slope but also an enjoyable one. A couple of my mates think the same as your mates but mine go quiet when they can't shrug off the old Merc in their more modern stuff.  


The I.C. currently fitted is from a C250 TD. Same size as the original one but all alloy, i.e. no plastic end tanks. The far larger I.C. that I tried had a boost drop of 1.4-1.5 psi with better I.A.T.'s. Temps were down by maybe 6-8C and it was taking longer to get heat soaked. There was no noticeable different in power when actually driving (meaningless in a sense as I can't back that up with figures). I just removed that I.C. as I prefer to have the boost pressure and I couldn't get the larger I.C. to fit 100% behind the bumper. It was good bit heavier too being a bar & plate design.. 

A/F/R's are good.  11's @ wide open throttle. Plug colour always looks spot on as well. When this Covid business is over or there's less restrictions on movement I'll double check the figures and post them up. The new I.C. plus a tested system with no leaks, a new S/C belt (old one was slipping) ,different new plugs and a later T/B inlet may have changed things?

I've tried the stock 3.8  and a 4.0 Bar FPR and found no performance gains, the only difference with 4 Bar is that fuel trims change. LTFT is more negative which is not an issue, all it means is the ECU is reducing the fuel amount as it's not required. The only time you'd need to go above 3.8-4.0 Bar is with a smaller S/C pulley, 12-13 psi. I'm only running 10 psi. I reckon the people that do fit a higher FPR or the adjustable type with just a larger crank pulley do so to be safe and accept everything they read on the net or don't read between the lines. Also, since  it's so easy and inexpensive to change the FPR they decide it's a good idea. 
 
I have the injector flow figures somewhere using different FPR's and according to those figures my engine is very safe with the 3.8 and the gauge AFR's seem to back that up. Hope I'm correct!

Yes, as I said in this thread I've had limited success with a BMW E60 M5 MAF. It made a big difference, most noticeable was the increase in torque right from the off. The downside was I need to clear the ECU memory every 250 miles as the S/C wouldn't engage after that mileage. Basically what I think was happening is, the ECU had reprogrammed itself by then and decided it didn't like the MAF voltage ouput signal. I've also got an E39 M5 MAF to try out and then there's two possible MAF locations, the original at the I.C. outlet and where my MAF is currently located near the T/B. I'll get back to the MAF's sometime in the future and experiment, just that this year has mainly been all about getting the suspension right or trying to get it right.

Hope that answers most of your questions, just don't take everything I've said as gospel. 

  

 

The stater motor decided it wouldn't engage sometimes without a bit of encouragement from a hammer. Not really surprised as I had the same problem once back in 2016.

I shopped around online. What a minefield that was. Between different brands, non brands, power outputs of 1.1-1.3 kw, recon'ed units, new and exchange units. Then the massive difference in pricing anything from £45 to £350! Normally, I'd never bother with all of this and just get the old starter motor reconditioned locally but the C-virus has put paid to that.

Anyway, I settled on a recon Hella, recon'ed in China. Just hoping that Hella demanded some reasonable quality from the factory there. It was 52 quid which seems reasonable, some retailers were asking as much as £108 for the exact same motor. I reckoned it was worth the risk and if it packs up I'll get the old starter to repaired.


IMG_20200425_223735635 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr


So, not a very interesting post I must admit but it does highlight it's worth shopping around if nothing else.

Double post.

Sorry about the Double Posting, not to sure what happened there.


Yep, the earlier cars have a different engine management system, non Canbus too. I don't know if you can reset your ECU ( I think you can), my one resets itself if the battery is disconnected and reconnected for something like 30 mins or it can be reset via the OBD diagnostic port with a Merc Star or similar OBD reader.

Your M111 was 190 BHP/193 PS from the factory, the same as mine. It seems our exhaust systems are different. I've a 2.25''/57 mm pipe, two cats, a central resonator (which has been removed) and a large back box. Supersprint make a slightly bigger system, it really looks the business too, they also make an exhaust manifold but it won't fit R/H/D cars. The only downside is cost. The Cat back system alone is big bucks but by all accounts there's a definite improvement in top end power. I think just fitting a better flowing back box would help things.

207 BHP seems a little low, I'd expect 210 - 215 if everything was in rude health. I had 214 BHP with a failing fuel pump on the first dyno run after having a generic remap done. I replaced the pump, had injectors cleaned and fitted a 4 BAR FPR. The car  performed better at the top end but I couldn't get back to the same dyno in Hampshire. Ended up using another place (which will remain nameless) and they dyno'ed it at 231 BHP which was bullsh1te. It's more like 220 BHP. Possibly 225 BHP on a good day but I'm doubtful. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm very happy with the way the car performs for just fitting a larger pulley, remap and the slightly higher FPR.

Anything above 10 - 11 psi boost pressure will require either the ECU to be reprogrammed or a piggyback ECU will be required from what I understand, but you could possibly get away with an adjustable FPR to run up to 12 psi with a milled down S/C pulley. A 6mm reduction is the norm. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd need a MAF clamp as well. I've stuck with 10-10.5 psi as I just don't want the complications to make the engine run safe at any higher boost pressure and as sure as the day is long, higher boost pressures will bring on head gasket failure far sooner.

You're spot on right, get readings first before doing any other modifications. I always keep an eye on fuel trims, IAT's, boost pressure and timing.

As for your 0.9 Bar pressure, I doubt it. More like 9 psi taken from after the I.C., I've my boost gauge plumed into the FPR vacuum line. Yep, I was losing boost pressure nearing max rev's and that was due to a couple of things. I had boost leaks, two small one's at the hose clamps and the S/C belt started slipping. Some new silicone hose, good quality wide hose clamps and a new belt solved the issues. All good now and hitting 10.5 psi @ 6000 RPM which is just before the limiter. Better again I've an instant 7 PSI at the touch of the throttle. If you haven't replaced the S/C belt tensioner I'd reckon it would be a good move to get a new one. Also check the tensioner belt marks and see if it's max'ed out (photo's in this thread).

Ah, being candid I don't know what the future plans are for the car. I know how to improve it further but it all costs and makes it difficult to justify considering the car is worth the price of a Mars bar & a packet of crisps. More weight reduction is one of them. I do have a Water Meth kit which I haven't fitted, that would help but I'm not really too happy about it's control system. I might at some stage buy a new more modern controller and fit the kit. The other item I've been making up is an I.C. sprayer kit, it's almost complete, at some stage I'll fit it. But, what our cars would benefit from is a larger I.C regardless. 25-40% bigger. No power increase per se, it would just help to keep maximum power.

If you're going to overhaul the rear suspension, the most important parts are the lower control arm inner & outer bushes and the front sub frame mounts and them there's no need to pull out the complete sub frame. You're right, doing a full overhaul was a pain, especially if you do like I did, on the ground with just axle stands. Still, I'm glad I did do it, well worth the trouble.

Try to remember everything stated but will fail on most but I agree that the 207 seemed a little low , but saying that 5bhp or so between dyno’s is a variation I can swallow.
It drives well & perhaps the tailing off at the top end explains it a bit.
I will give the charger tensioner & belt swap a go along with FPR & hopefully return when everything opens back up again.

Also could you give me the part number & details for the belt you used & where you got the Ecu done?
Out of interest does your later car also have a limiter when on idle of around 4500ish rpm (from memory) & a rev limit when in gear of 5800rpm?

Regarding my boost pressure of 0.9bar, that’s what it measured on my gauge & it’s not a cheap Chinese one but does sound a bit high so would like to double check it with another.

As I said that’s what it peaks at at a certain RPM point but it does not hold that to the limiter.

Approximately what RPM does your car now hit peak boost & what does rpm does it hold it to?
Can you not measure your boost from the inlet manifold after the throttle body, my early car had a little nipple with a blank on there just perfect for picking up a feed.
So with the modifications you currently have what sort of AFR readings are you getting?

Sorry if I’ve made a tuning biased reply I’m just very interested in the potential or possibly lack of with the 2.3k engines.

Will PM if that’s better

I accidentally came across an air filter/bypass valve modification which was for sale in Poland.  It allows the fitment of a cone filter while deleting the complete air filter housing while still using both original intake hoses and PCV breather hose.  I couldn't resist buying it as I always wanted to try this mod.  (Sorry about the small photo's but can't do anything about it.)  

dolot-mercedes-kompressor-cold-air-intake iii by Johnny Slow, on Flickr

Here it's fitted to a 190E that has a 230 Kompressor engine transplanted. My car's setup  will look very similar, except I'll box in the filter and have two cold air feeds. 




As it is currently with the stock filter housing.
 
IMG_20200503_213544104 by Johnny Slow, on Flickr

I'm just hoping there's a noticeable difference in the IAT's  (which I can check) and better air flow to the supercharger. I do know when this engine is tuned for 240 BHP or more this type of C.A.I. system produces great results.  I suppose if you're not in you can't win. So, I'll try it as I've nothing much to lose.