Why does the MBUSA website, the 2002 C-Class brochure, and all performance reviews rate the C320 as 215 horsepower while my owner's manual and other MB with the 3.2 litre engine rate it with 221 horses? Not that 6 HP's is everything, but why leave it off the table if it is really there??? I know the CLK320 rates the higher number, isn't it the exact same Mill? What am I missing?

I believe you are mistaken on the 221..thats the torq.
215 is the hp.

Dave

__________________
David Weis
Old Rides================
70 250
73 450SL
78 300D
88 Grand Am
Current Rides=============
95 280C *
98 SL500 *

Dave,

I was incorrect about the 221HP number for the CLK320, I thought I saw that somewhere on the web. However, I'm looking in my Owner's Manual for the 2002 C-Class under Technical Data and it states (Page 377):

Output acc. to SAE J 1349:

C240 - 167hp/6000rpm
C320 - 221hp/5600rpm
C32 - 349hp/6100rpm (WOW!)

Maximum torque acc. to SAE J 1349:

C240 - 177ft lb/4500rpm
C320 - 228ft lb/3000rpm
C32 - 333ft lb/4400rpm (NICE!)

What gives, anybody care to explain?

I also found 6 more HP by opening my owners manual? What a cheap way to gain HP! It was listed in the Technical Data. MBUSA list 349 HP/391 torque while my owners manual says 355 Hp/390 torque. I sent an email inquiry to MBUSA and they say they are looking into it.

MBUSA listed 2001 E55 as 349 while S55 & CL55 listed as 354. Now MBUSA lists 2002 S55 & CL55 at 355 and my owners manual has 2002 E55 with same. Did MBZ use the same engine in E55/S55/CL55 and forget to mention it?

(Note: These are SAE and not DIN ratings used in Europe)

2002 E-Class Technical Data:

__________________

• My Website - www.E55AMG.com