PDA

View Full Version : Kleemann SC for the C43



supersparker
03-02-2004, 03:22 PM
Anyone have any experience with the Kleemann SC set up on the 113 Series V8's??

manny
03-02-2004, 03:32 PM
Nobody here has enough money for a C 43 AND a Kleeman SC. :D

Denlasoul
03-02-2004, 03:41 PM
Noone has one in their C43 to my knowledge. You can go to other sites and look if anyone has the CLK430 or E430 s/c with Kleemann. From what I was told the performance of a s/c C43 from Kleemann would be identical to the CLK/E 430's. :(

supersparker
03-02-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Denlasoul
Noone has one in their C43 to my knowledge. You can go to other sites and look if anyone has the CLK430 or E430 s/c with Kleemann. From what I was told the performance of a s/c C43 from Kleemann would be identical to the CLK/E 430's. :(

So you are saying a stock CLK430 (lets dont even talk about an E430) will run with a C43 ?

Dude... reality check.......

pnsji
03-02-2004, 03:59 PM
SuperSparker, maybe you should get reality check. Go to MBUSA website and look under starmark and model overview.

The data:

'99 C43
Net power 302 hp @ 5,850 rpm
Net torque 302 lb-ft @ 3,250-5,000 rpm
Curb weight 3,448 lb/1,564 kg

'00 CLK430
Net power 275 hp @ 5,750 rpm
Net torque 295 lb-ft @ 3,000-4,400 rpm
Curb weight 3,323 lb/1,507 kg

C43 is a W202 with a V8 4.3l mercedes engine with a little bit of midification (increase 27hp and 7lb-ft tourqe) and they call that AMG.

pnsji
03-02-2004, 04:00 PM
also:

C43
0-60 5.9 seconds

CLK430
0-60 6.1 seconds

supersparker
03-02-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by pnsji
SuperSparker, maybe you should get reality check. Go to MBUSA website and look under starmark and model overview.

The data:

'99 C43
Net power 302 hp @ 5,850 rpm
Net torque 302 lb-ft @ 3,250-5,000 rpm
Curb weight 3,448 lb/1,564 kg

'00 CLK430
Net power 275 hp @ 5,750 rpm
Net torque 295 lb-ft @ 3,000-4,400 rpm
Curb weight 3,323 lb/1,507 kg

C43 is a W202 with a V8 4.3l mercedes engine with a little bit of midification (increase 27hp and 7lb-ft tourqe) and they call that AMG.

supersparker
03-02-2004, 04:14 PM
C43
0-60 5.9 seconds

CLK430
0-60 6.1 seconds

I have owned both cars. In real life, the performance figures above are very conservative in favor of the CLK430. Off the line to 100 MPH, the C43 reminds me alot of my 95 911 Porsche..

Try reality check AND spell check ;)

pnsji
03-02-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
C43
0-60 5.9 seconds

CLK430
0-60 6.1 seconds

I have owned both cars. In real life, the performance figures above are very conservative in favor of the CLK430. Off the line to 100 MPH, the C43 reminds me alot of my 95 911 Porsche..

Try reality check AND spell check ;)

I am not sure what your intention is.

Yes I am not a Native American and I need spell check. But still, that does not help you to proof your point.

My point is proven not only by driven a C43 myself, but also by the number posted on MBUSA website.

Numbers do not lie and many peoples have agreed with me that C43 is overrated.

supersparker
03-02-2004, 04:26 PM
Dude relax..........

Andrew C280
03-02-2004, 05:48 PM
although i have no idea what you guys are talking about. If you so shure that the C43 can take a 1995 911 then go out an race one and then see, the C43 is very capable, if I had a 500 Hp W202 then I would be happy but since I dont have a million dollars I just live with my 200hp W202 C280 Sport, all my friends talk shit about there civics and cavilears and neons, pocket rockets and rice burners, when they see my car go they all back off and so what, you can only go the speed limit anyways unless you want to get tickets and shit. I had enough of court for one year my tickets where all thrown out because there where not proper for what i did.
where the mb gets them all is top speed although i have never been in a civic i dont think i would go 155Mph in a civic. one thing to remember is 304Hp in a very heavy car well i dont consider that to be a big proformance car any way, it a good start but i think mercedes AMG needs to make at least 385hp + in the C43. all you have to do is look at stats they dont lie unless there are false to begin with

Anyone know about the possibility of a C43 C55 w203 the new generation C class

Denlasoul
03-02-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
So you are saying a stock CLK430 (lets dont even talk about an E430) will run with a C43 ?

Dude... reality check.......

What I am saying is that all three cars have the same basic engine. After EXTENSIVE talks with Kleemann distributors and doing my basic research, I have been told that there will be no advantage in haivng the AMG tuned engine. The output is relatively the same.

Now in terms of perfromance and such, the lighter cars will obviously be the fastest. In addition, like many owners can/will testify, the performance of the CLK430 and the C43 are very similar.

supersparker
03-02-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Denlasoul
What I am saying is that all three cars have the same basic engine. After EXTENSIVE talks with Kleemann distributors and doing my basic research, I have been told that there will be no advantage in haivng the AMG tuned engine. The output is relatively the same.

Now in terms of perfromance and such, the lighter cars will obviously be the fastest. In addition, like many owners can/will testify, the performance of the CLK430 and the C43 are very similar.

As I have said "I have owned both cars"

Denlasoul
03-02-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
As I have said "I have owned both cars"

You kinda got me confused. In the earlier posts, you question the performance of the C43 compared to the CLK430. I am guessing that you feel the C43 is more powerful, and seem doubtful about the CLK430's performance (in terms of the two being close).

In my post, I state that many owners can testify about the performance of the C43/CLK430 being similar. Which you then respond by indicating you have owned both cars. I am led to believe that you feel the performance is substantially different between the two cars, correct?

Have you ever ran your car(s) against the other? Have you ever ran them on the track? Have you had any comparison between the two? I hope you are supporting your performance opinion with something more than a "butt dyno."

Either way, I'm sure we can dig up a bunch of willing C43/CLK430 owners to compare performance. My point being is that no matter which way you look at it, a Kleemann s/c C43 will perform relatively close to a CLK430. I got that info direct from a distributor.

Regards

pnsji
03-02-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
As I have said "I have owned both cars"
hahahaha
this is really funny. keep claiming and no data to back your ass up???????

talking trash is easy. Proofing a point? that is .... difficult

You are a newbie here and you already posting craps in classifieds without reading the rules.
Now you are talking smack about how C43 is similar to your '95 993??

How about we start with:
pics of you with your '95 993, C43, and CLK430.

Then we could talk further.

J Irwan
03-03-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by supersparker
Dude relax..........



please be polite and don't make a "smart ass" comment..!!!

that won't get you anywhere in this forum for sure.... ;)



Regardz,

manny
03-03-2004, 09:53 AM
Uhhhh, this is getiing testy/nasty.
Where do I hide ? :D

supersparker
03-03-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by pnsji
hahahaha
this is really funny. keep claiming and no data to back your ass up???????

talking trash is easy. Proofing a point? that is .... difficult

You are a newbie here and you already posting craps in classifieds without reading the rules.
Now you are talking smack about how C43 is similar to your '95 993??

How about we start with:
pics of you with your '95 993, C43, and CLK430.

Then we could talk further.

Went to MB dealer today with my brother and borrowed" a CLK430 for "an extended test drive" (there are tons of these for sale here) we performed: standing start, 60 MPH roll on, 80 MPH roll on......CLK lost by a noticeable margin, esp from a dead stop......Do you really want to see pics of my 993? C43. etc??
Please,,,,,,

supersparker
03-03-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by pnsji
hahahaha
this is really funny. keep claiming and no data to back your ass up???????

talking trash is easy. Proofing a point? that is .... difficult

You are a newbie here and you already posting craps in classifieds without reading the rules.
Now you are talking smack about how C43 is similar to your '95 993??

How about we start with:
pics of you with your '95 993, C43, and CLK430.

Then we could talk further.

Here ya' go...JUST BOUGHT THIS CAR WEEK BEFORE LAST -
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2460134034&category=6334

Dont own the '95 993, or the CLK any more, How 'bout pics of me at the track with my '93 RS America ?(that's a limited production lightweight 911) AND ITS CORVETTE FAST - I have been doing PCA club racing for over 10 years -

C280Sportster
03-03-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
Went to MB dealer today with my brother and borrowed" a CLK430 for "an extended test drive" (there are tons of these for sale here) we performed: standing start, 60 MPH roll on, 80 MPH roll on......CLK lost by a noticeable margin, esp from a dead stop......Do you really want to see pics of my 993? C43. etc??
Please,,,,,,

I'm not taking sides...but we have had this discussion before (benzsport maybe). The MBUSA listed 5.9sec 0-60 time for the C43 is wrong (insurance reasons maybe?). You never know with Mercedes, they lied about the new E55 hp, for whatever reasons insurance, marketing (maybe it will hurt S55 sales, etc), who knows...

After I drove a C43, it "felt" like a 5.5 sec. 0-60 car. Then Speedybenz confirmed my suspicions; he ran a 0-60 in 5.5 (or lower, this is all from memory so I could have a few details wrong). I think all he changed were his wheels/tires.

The CLK 430 has a lower Rear axle ratio of 2.87:1; the C43 is 3.07:1

This helps the C43 out accelerate the CLK 430. The heavy AMG Monoblock kill some of the C43s quickness...if you lose the monoblocks (55+ pounds, ouch,) you might be able to drop 20 pounds a wheel... that's close to 80 pounds of (un-sprung, I believe) weight. This will give any car a boost.

Now the CLK 430 is a great car, a sleeper too. But the C43 has some major handling advantages with its AMG upgraded suspension. I've read about some CLK owners not being too happy with the handling/feel of the CLK; the sport package (old model) for the CLK consists of just AMG wheels. Even the Sport package for the W202 had wheels, plus AMG suspension components (out handles the CLK, I believe).


Please, don't think I'm(we) bashing the CLKs, they are fantastic cars. I saw a white CLK 500 Cabriolet the other day and it looked incredible!

supersparker
03-03-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by C280Sportster
I'm not taking sides...but we have had this discussion before (benzsport maybe). The MBUSA listed 5.9sec 0-60 time for the C43 is wrong (insurance reasons maybe?). You never know with Mercedes, they lied about the new E55 hp, for whatever reasons insurance, marketing (maybe it will hurt S55 sales, etc), who knows...

After I drove a C43, it "felt" like a 5.5 sec. 0-60 car. Then Speedybenz confirmed my suspicions; he ran a 0-60 in 5.5 (or lower, this is all from memory so I could have a few details wrong). I think all he changed were his wheels/tires.

The CLK 430 has a lower Rear axle ratio of 2.87:1; the C43 is 3.07:1

This helps the C43 out accelerate the CLK 430. The heavy AMG Monoblock kill some of the C43s quickness...if you lose the monoblocks (55+ pounds, ouch,) you might be able to drop 20 pounds a wheel... that's close to 80 pounds of (un-sprung, I believe) weight. This will give any car a boost.

Now the CLK 430 is a great car, a sleeper too. But the C43 has some major handling advantages with its AMG upgraded suspension. I've read about some CLK owners not being too happy with the handling/feel of the CLK; the sport package (old model) for the CLK consists of just AMG wheels. Even the Sport package for the W202 had wheels, plus AMG suspension components (out handles the CLK, I believe).


Please, don't think I'm(we) bashing the CLKs, they are fantastic cars. I saw a white CLK 500 Cabriolet the other day and it looked incredible!

Owned a '99 CLK430, and until today was basing my position that the c43 is quicker just from memory, or "butt dyno" as had been posted in this same thread, UNTIL TODAY - My brother is looking at a silver CLK430 and basicly had it for the afternoon, he was (and myself) very curious how these two would match up.
The C43 pulled the CLK by quite a bit off of the line, and had similar results on 60, 80 mph "roll ons"...A previous post in this thread aluded that the C43 for the most part is not really an AMG..Well it has different heads, cams, ECU, intake, etc. The "advertised" 27 HP difference is a very conservative rating.
The rear end ratio in considerably lower on the C43 Also, which
accounts for part of the acceleration advantage over the CLK.
I looked at the CLK55 but just could not get past the big thick square back end which (I feel) will become dated sooner than you'd think , esp for the price. Either I will do mad mods on the C43, or hold out for a year or two ( I've got 3 yrs MB starmark wty on the c43) and snag an '03 E55 when they drop down a bit..Drive my '93 RS on weekends only

pnsji
03-03-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
Here ya' go...JUST BOUGHT THIS CAR WEEK BEFORE LAST -
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2460134034&category=6334

Dont own the '95 993, or the CLK any more, How 'bout pics of me at the track with my '93 RS America ?(that's a limited production lightweight 911) AND ITS CORVETTE FAST - I have been doing PCA club racing for over 10 years -

wow nice car so you get rid off both porsche and clk eh??
edit so you owned both '95 993 and '93 RS eh?

pnsji
03-03-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by supersparker
Either I will do mad mods on the C43, or hold out for a year or two ( I've got 3 yrs MB starmark wty on the c43) and snag an '03 E55 when they drop down a bit..Drive my '93 RS on weekends only
So you still own the '93 RS????

supersparker
03-04-2004, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by pnsji
So you still own the '93 RS????

Its a '93 RS America, and yes I still own it , and fly it every weekend,,The "RS" was never imported into the USA as they are not DOT/EPA compliant: No door beams, non DOT glass, and so on.. If you were ever to find a (964 series) 911 Carrera RS, It would bring mad cash......

supersparker
03-04-2004, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by pnsji
wow nice car so you get rid off both porsche and clk eh??
edit so you owned both '95 993 and '93 RS eh?

Dude, what is with all of the suspicion, etc........I've owned over 20 cars......it’s not hard ..it just takes a little cash and creative financing........your paranoia is getting very tired......please don’t contribute to this thread if you don’t have anything positive to say.

WeatherMan
03-04-2004, 05:23 AM
On topic:
I'm not sure many drivers would prefer the CLK430 on the track vs the C43 due to the performance (drivetrain and suspension) differences.

Also, forced induction eliminates most of the difference between the AMG 4.3 and the standard 4.3 - a supercharger negates intake and cam differences (so says Kleeman, Renntech, others). However, the AMG setup should be more durable for a supercharger setup due to the internals having been strengthened already...

By the way, the C43 does feel very comparable to a mid-90s or 80s 911 IMO (having driven 911s). The straight-line acceleration numbers even bear this out if you check...

WeatherMan
03-04-2004, 05:23 AM
Off-topic:

Originally posted by C280Sportster
The heavy AMG Monoblock kill some of the C43s quickness...if you lose the monoblocks (55+ pounds, ouch,) you might be able to drop 20 pounds a wheel... that's close to 80 pounds of (un-sprung, I believe) weight.

55+ pounds seems a little excessive for 17" wheels- that's heavier than most 20" truck wheels! I was under the impression th weight was in the mid to high 20s per wheel.

This is just a minor point, but I don't want owners freaking out about their wheel weight too much- but I do agree lighter wheels will definitely help!

pnsji
03-04-2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by supersparker
Dude, what is with all of the suspicion, etc........I've owned over 20 cars......it’s not hard ..it just takes a little cash and creative financing........your paranoia is getting very tired......please don’t contribute to this thread if you don’t have anything positive to say.

Off Topic:
Then maybe you should consider behaving *nicely* in this forum. You come to this forum as a newbie and start posting in classifieds without reading the rules. You are pissed and start talking thrash to me even tough I have the data from mbusa. what's up with that?

I don't need no pics of your cars. I don't care about what car you own in the past. But thrash talking is not welcomed and please follow the rules. Rules is here for you to follow. If you don't like it, then go to other forums. Nobody force you to stay.

On the topic:
Many people may not realize this, but increasing 27 hp from a regular 4.3L is achiveable fairly easy. Not to add that Mercedes never push their engine to the limit.
Will I call that an AMG from Affalterbach? NO!

So I drove my friend's CLK430 and CLK55. I also drove many C43 in the past. Many of my friends aggree with me that C43 is not that fast. from my butt dyno, given the exact same condition, in the 1/4 mile, CLK430 will keep up with C43 pretty nicely. The CLK is ligther than C43, but C43 has 27 more hp.

hp/weight ratio:
C43 -> 0.087587006960556844547563805104408
CLK430 -> 0.082756545290400240746313572073428

As you can see, the number is very similar.

If you think MBUSA figure is *conservative*, then they are not in the business today to sell cars. People will look at other cars easily and decide that M3 is a better car than AMG C class. Number is for comparison. That is why they are there so people could compare how many hp does AMG has over the ///M.
Not to mention, we are comparing the same brand. Both CLK and C43 are from mercedes and both numbers are from the same website. If the number for C43 is conservative, then the number for CLK is conservative too.

pnsji
03-04-2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by supersparker
Either I will do mad mods on the C43, or hold out for a year or two ( I've got 3 yrs MB starmark wty on the c43) and snag an '03 E55 when they drop down a bit..Drive my '93 RS on weekends only

So in here you said 3 yrs starmark warranty

on the other thread:

Originally posted by supersparker
With that said, I have purchased a MINT CONDITION (this car really looks BRAND NEW) black / black 2000 c43 with 1 year starmark warranty for $28,000. I will be installing the KLEEMANN SC in about 1 year. and then possibly a low miles engine out of an E55. The supercharger on the C43 engine is the same as used on the 5.5 litre. This setup has dyno'd at over 560 HP and does MID 11's in the 1/4 mile all day ON STREET TIRES . There is a shop in ATLANTA which can do the conversion; (5.5 litre and keemann SC) for about $25 - 30K.THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD SPEND THIS KIND OF MONEY ON A CAR THAT WAS NOT IN TRULY MINT CONDITION. Yes.....I could buy a VIPER or Porsche 996 Turbo...
but there is nothing SWEETER than smoking someone in a 4 door MB sedan.
In here you said 1 year starmark????

Please post correctly. Thanks.

supersparker
03-04-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by pnsji
So in here you said 3 yrs starmark warranty

on the other thread:

In here you said 1 year starmark????

Please post correctly. Thanks.

Bought car with 1 year starmark......Bought an additional 2 yrs MB extended wty for $1,950...Thats 3 years

supersparker
03-04-2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by pnsji
Off Topic:
Then maybe you should consider behaving *nicely* in this forum. You come to this forum as a newbie and start posting in classifieds without reading the rules. You are pissed and start talking thrash to me even tough I have the data from mbusa. what's up with that?

I don't need no pics of your cars. I don't care about what car you own in the past. But thrash talking is not welcomed and please follow the rules. Rules is here for you to follow. If you don't like it, then go to other forums. Nobody force you to stay.

On the topic:
Many people may not realize this, but increasing 27 hp from a regular 4.3L is achiveable fairly easy. Not to add that Mercedes never push their engine to the limit.
Will I call that an AMG from Affalterbach? NO!

So I drove my friend's CLK430 and CLK55. I also drove many C43 in the past. Many of my friends aggree with me that C43 is not that fast. from my butt dyno, given the exact same condition, in the 1/4 mile, CLK430 will keep up with C43 pretty nicely. The CLK is ligther than C43, but C43 has 27 more hp.

hp/weight ratio:
C43 -> 0.087587006960556844547563805104408
CLK430 -> 0.082756545290400240746313572073428

As you can see, the number is very similar.

If you think MBUSA figure is *conservative*, then they are not in the business today to sell cars. People will look at other cars easily and decide that M3 is a better car than AMG C class. Number is for comparison. That is why they are there so people could compare how many hp does AMG has over the ///M.
Not to mention, we are comparing the same brand. Both CLK and C43 are from mercedes and both numbers are from the same website. If the number for C43 is conservative, then the number for CLK is conservative too.
Originally posted by C280Sportster
I'm not taking sides...but we have had this discussion before (benzsport maybe). The MBUSA listed 5.9sec 0-60 time for the C43 is wrong (insurance reasons maybe?). You never know with Mercedes, they lied about the new E55 hp, for whatever reasons insurance, marketing (maybe it will hurt S55 sales, etc), who knows...

supersparker
03-04-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by supersparker
Originally posted by C280Sportster
I'm not taking sides...but we have had this discussion before (benzsport maybe). The MBUSA listed 5.9sec 0-60 time for the C43 is wrong (insurance reasons maybe?). You never know with Mercedes, they lied about the new E55 hp, for whatever reasons insurance, marketing (maybe it will hurt S55 sales, etc), who knows...

We could go on and on about this.......so I'll just let you go on and on about it.......You sound very inexperienced with cars, Real cars, not some internet dream car.........

WeatherMan
03-04-2004, 10:15 AM
This thread needs to be closed...

CKlasse
03-04-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by supersparker
We could go on and on about this.......so I'll just let you go on and on about it.......You sound very inexperienced with cars, Real cars, not some internet dream car.........

I hate to pass on any judgements; nevertheless, you sound way too smart for someone who has owned 20 cars in his life. :D

Ok, mods.. close this thread please ;)

supersparker
03-04-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by CKlasse
I hate to pass on any judgements; nevertheless, you sound way too smart for someone who has owned 20 cars in his life. :D

Ok, mods.. close this thread please ;)

Yes mods, please close this thread…As it looks like someone has an agenda.

Brabus
03-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Let's throw some more controversy into the mix...

How about HPS vs. Kleemann? :D hahah

J Irwan
03-04-2004, 11:57 AM
supersparker...


not to take any side..

but as newbie you better behave yourself...

you could claim your C43 is noticebly faster than CLK430 all you want... (although this discussion has been beaten to death and the result as Denlasoul mentioned. CLK430 and C43 performance is similar. You could say all you want about your brother drove a borrowed car form the dealer, but having to actually own a CLK430 and race another C43 is different as one would try to do his best driving his own CLK430 to beat C43 and vice versa)

Also what you say is your opinion vs the fact that some other has performed..


I am closing this thread... as this has no benefit to others.. :mad:


Regardz,