Hi Lee and other MB performance experts..

does anyone have performance stats on stock E320 Coupe 1994-95?

what tuners provide good performance upgrades for this car without adding $10-20-30K prices??

thanks!!!

Whan,
The E320 coupe should perform nearly identically to the sedan of the same year. (0-60 in the 8.0 ballpark, 1/4 high 15's-low 16's) It is electronically limited to 130mph if memory serves.

The M104 can be converted to 3.6 liters for 5 figures from most tuners but that is a bit pricey. There were some twin-turbo kits out there that put HP up around 305HP with a similar increase in torque. Those kits were around $7,500 + labor. Try giving Mosselman or Kleeman a call. (if you get in touch with them let me know what they say)

Hope this helps...Lee

Hi lee...
as usual, thanks for the info.
how do i get in touch with Mossel and Kleeman? i think the Turbo will the way to go. more price sensitive.
what kind of performance do you think i can see with this turbo upgrade?

thanks lee!!

whan

Whan,
CEC = Mosselman I believe.

Kleeman is coming to the US as we speak. Should be a couple months though.

As for performance...I seem to remember trading emails with a guy who had a twin-turbo M103 300E and a CLK430. According to him the turbo 300E was slightly faster.

Hope this helps...Lee

Hi lee...
i have to admit, that is pretty slow. 8 sec 0-60 for 217HP, 229 ft/lbs torque, 32V 6cylinder. does this car weigh less the E320 sedan? i believe this car weighs about 3500 lbs?

what can a better catback do? k&n filter? chip?

thanks Lee!

There really isn't any significant' weight savings in the coupe vs sedan. The same mechanical tweaks apply to one as would the other. You might get a few HP out of the tweaks you mention but you'd be far better/faster off to start with a 92/93 400E and change the differential from 2.24 to something in the high 2.xx's to high 3.xx's.

Catback on most of these cars will get you next to nothing. A chip will might get you a few HP but be careful. I've yet to find a good chip tuner for MB. K&N's might get you some HP if there is a breathing shortage from the stock airbox but I doubt there is so don't bank on many HP there. If you are looking for style go with the coupe. If you want a performance sleeper get a 400E (without ASR) and change the diff. Also, since there is a known breathing shortage on the W124 M119's a pair of K&N's will help in that situation.

Hope this helps...Lee

thanks lee...
its does help.
i guess if i seriously consider a 1995 E320 Coupe, the best thing would probably just leave it stock and do a suspension, wheel and tire upgrade and maybe a cool AMG muffler with some nice AMG tips. i am sure on the highway it would cruise really nicely and i am sure off the line 8 sec. really isnt that bad.

or, i could find a C36 V6 engine and put it in!!! how bout that idea?

Seems like every body who asks about changing the engine in MB for a bigger one, gets imideatly shot down.
What is the deal with the prices on such jobs?
A friend of mine had replaced a stock engine on his Lexus 300SC with a Toyota Supra Twin Turbo. The modification cost him only 6 grand!!! And that included the new tranny and drive shuft.
Its preaty sad that MB mods are so expencive
I am dreaming of puting a 500E engine in my 300CE, but...... I'm not even going to ask.

Dmitry
90' 300CE

The C36 conversion (actually it is an inline 6 cyl instead of a V6...) can be done with a bore/stroke/blueprint/hot-cams/etc treatment but that will set you back $14,000 at Renntech. For performance it is far easier/cheaper to trade/purchase a faster model to begin with and do minimal mods that fix its "weak spots" rather than trying to make one thing into something else. This is unless, you are already at the top of the "food chain" such as a C36, 500E, E55, etc...then you get to tune it from there.

As far as a 500E engine in a coupe...the W124 was never designed to hold a V8 and the M119 ins't tiny. To fit the V8 some mods had to be made that don't mesh well with non-sedans. (coupes, convertibles, etc) so though it might be doable, you'd lose some balance, rigidity, and/or gain a bunch of extra weight not associated with the motor. Of course, cost would be highly cost prohibitive...

If memory serves, the inline 6 in the SC300 is similar enough that the low-compression turbo motor from a Supra should go right in. Plus the numbers and commonality of higher production design work in its favor. I'm sure there is more to it so if you have any more specs I'd be interested to hear them.

Hope this helps...Lee

Lee and others..
sometimes justifying the cost for buying a pre-owned 1995 E320 Coupe is tough when cars like the Acura CL 3.2 S-type come out. this car is a sport coupe, 260 HP, 250 ft/lbs torque from 2200-4400 RPM, loaded at $32,000 sticker price. Motor Trend says 0-60 @ 6.4 sec and 1/4 mile at 14.7 sec. on top of all this, a very comprehensive warranty.
how can an E320 coupe compete?

what is the price of a 1995 E320 coupe?

thanks all!

Whan

Just an FYI- I read (Car&Driver Magazine?/ Road& Track?) a few months ago that that Honda/Acura Coupe (while posting great performance figures) grossly can't compare itself to a BMW or Benz for a whole host of true european luxury car parameters. From memory those include: faux wood inserts (plastic), sub par finish/materials/ride, ...

IMHO (and I am biased)- the E320 Coupe is really in a class by iteself (even compared to the CLK). I've seen here in SF and Los Angeles, CA low model '94-'95 Starmark E320 Coupes pricing from US $33K-$40K, E320 Cabs pricing from $39k-$65K!

I'm thinking... for yourself- you can decide by driving both the Honda/Acura and E320 Coupe and choosing the one that best fits your individual taste.


Good Luck
-fad

'94 E320 Coupe Starmark (78K miles)
Totally Stock, Black on Grey, chrome factory wheels, traction control option, heated seats option, CD, phone.

Had:
'72 280SE 4.5 (mint w/16"BBS)
'69 250SE 4-speed on floor (mint)
'88 325is
'80 BMW 320is (x2)
'86 Alfa Romeo Spyder Quadrifoglio
'79 Triumph Spitfire
etc.

Hi fab...
i hear what you are saying. the overall fit and finish of an E320 is pretty awesome and i am sure on the highway and daily driving it is smooth as silk. i am just looking for a black on black E320 Coupe. the only mods i plan are AMG 17" rims and perhaps lowering it a little.

what are the differences between the 1994 and 1995 E320 coupe? the prices you listed seem so high! i figure if the prices are that high, i might as well get a CLK320 what do you think? you seemed to imply that the CLK320 isnt nearly as good as the E320 Coupe. the E320 Coupe was over $63,000 brand new in 1995!!

whan

I have owned several Honda/Acura products. My first Honda had lots of problems, but my Acura Legend coupe 5 spd has eaten me alive on repairs after 100,000 miles. Check the site http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/servicemmy1.cfm
and look at the 15 service issues on the 87 300E, compared to the 101 issues on the Acura. In addition to these, I have a glove box full of plastic trim parts that have fallen off, the plastic is peeling in layers on the center counsel. The car EATS CV joints, boots, brakes, clutch hydraulic cylinders, AC units, and tires. This car has had 3k oil changes with Mobile 1 and TLC (garaged CA car) from day 1, and was Car&Drivers/Road&Tracks "10 best" pick in 88. My Acura Tech told me most Honda products are not that durable after 100,000 miles, and are real expensive to repair ($250 parts charge for the driver door window switch, for example.) My Toyota is a great car, over 225,000 miles on the car with mostly tires, brakes, water pumps, etc. so it isn't a Japanese vs. German issue. The point of this tirade is:
If you are leasing a performance coupe for 3 years only, go for the Acura if it meets your needs. If you plan on keeping it around for a while, you can pay for quality up front, or pay for lack of quality later on.
OK, off my soap box. Good luck on the car selection.




------------------
JCE
87 300E, 65k miles
Smoke Silver

Hi Whan

It is my understanding that there are no differences between the actual builds (technical/ cosmetic) of a'94 and '95 E320 Coupe (maybe an exception only for ID numbers and/or color schemes). The '94 had extremely limited production and the '95 was even more limited than the '94 (see MBZ website for production runs). These coupes appear to be even more limited in production than the SL's (also check out the production runs of the E320 Cabs).

RE: Fit and Finish of a current MBZ vs. '94 or '95- - You can talk to MBZ Factory Authorized Service in your area (or on this site) and ask them to comment based on their experience (they see volumes). I've been told by the techs here in San Francisco that they have seen a pattern of CLK's, E series, SLK's with inherent quality issues that relate to designing and mass producing a down market $40K-$50K MBZ (maybe MBZ has already addressed this).

RE: Price of a '94-'95 E320 vs. CLK- prior to my purchase- I had that same thought- that with the price of a E320 Coupe so high and with the task of trying to find as fully optioned mint condition low mile Starmark vehicle at the price I was willing pay.... I might as well do the CLK. Myself, I'm 110% satisfied with the E320 Coupe. In my discusssions with numerous MBZ dealership sales people, they all personally favored the E320 Coupe for a host of very sound reasons. Here's a thought- - Compare what you get with an automobile designed to be a $60K+ vehicle vs. a vehicle designed to be a $40K vehicle. I did and went the E320 Coupe route. I penciled the math on my coupe in '94 dollars: $60K MSRP then add for options: chrome factory wheels, factory CD stacker, factory hands free mobile phone, traction control, heated seats....looks like with tax and license someone paid at least $70K for this thing in '94. I bought it nearly two years ago Starmark and added the extended 100K warranty and have alot of car to enjoy. I even like the way it looks (factory flat face Euro look headlights w/ wipers & lighting pattern illuminating higher on the right side vs left included- - seems to be the rage on this website). You may also ask techs to comment on the M104 I6 w/ 24 valves motor technology/ maintenance vs. current V6 twin-spark plug 3?/valve per cylinder.

RE: '94 vs. Current Technology/Design/Performance. I would think that this is a personal choice based on weighted preferences, 'cause having something with all the newness is very different than having something that comes with 6-7 years old.

In closing: I've been fortunate to drive and own MBZ's (and other European, American, & Japanese autos) my whole life and favor MBZ's- - in my book you can't go wrong driving and/or owning whatever MBZ fits your preference- new/old.

My favorite stealth fighter MBZ is the last production run 300SEL 6.3, My dream MBZ to own and cruize is the 280SE 3.5 Cab top down.

Good Luck.
-fad