Case against the 2006 C230 V6
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C230SS 6MT, 1966 Triumph TR4a IRS, Shelby Cobra 427 Supercharged
From what a source at MBUSA told me, you guys have it backwards... The 230 will become the 280 with about 230 horse (the same as the '06 SLK 280) and the 240 will get the 2.5 V6... This is what I was told from him, it could be wrong, although it would make sense to give the sport model more power.
#27
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'14 GLK250 Diesel
I think it would be wise for everybody to take a deep breath and remember that MBUSA is not anxious to lose any of their audience for this car. I anticipate that the C230/2.5 will be available with most of the same "sport" stuff that seems so important to some of you, in a car that will easily outrun the current 1.8SC, as well as being quieter and smoother. AND, with the new heads and valve management software, I would be very surprised if there is any fuel economy penalty with this engine vs the 1.8.
Across the board, with the C280/3.0 replacing the C240/2.6, and the C350 replacing the C320, you're looking at more power, lower emissions, BETTER fuel consumption [especially with the automatics], smoother and quieter operation. It's just a win-win all around for a change.
As for pricing, the current atmosphere doesn't allow much room for them to make any dramatic upward changes. AND, the plain fact is that the new V6s cost about the same, or a bit less, than the supercharged 4 cyl to actually manufacture [labor and materials]. I just don't see the sky falling here at all.
Across the board, with the C280/3.0 replacing the C240/2.6, and the C350 replacing the C320, you're looking at more power, lower emissions, BETTER fuel consumption [especially with the automatics], smoother and quieter operation. It's just a win-win all around for a change.
As for pricing, the current atmosphere doesn't allow much room for them to make any dramatic upward changes. AND, the plain fact is that the new V6s cost about the same, or a bit less, than the supercharged 4 cyl to actually manufacture [labor and materials]. I just don't see the sky falling here at all.
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,823
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'06 Lexus GS300 RWD, '07 Camry SE V6 auto, '91 190E 2.6 auto
Originally Posted by Young Doc
Agreed, although it does make sense to take the AMG front end off the C230 - I think us 05ers just got lucky on that one.
#29
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by Jim Banville
Hasn't the C230 sedan had the AMG designed lower bodywork since it was introduced in '03? The picture on MBUSA.com shows it when you look at the '03 via the "model history".
The biggest change for '05 is the AMG kit. Where have you been?
#30
But what about the 3.5 engine?
I keep reading about the lesser motors, but what about the C350? This motor is far and away the main reason I am considering a C class this fall to replace my 2002 BMW 530. Before this engine and re-styling of the interior this car wasn't even on my radar. Too slow and and interior inappropriate for a car in this segment ruled it out even though the 4matic was something I could really use. But, thanks to Chris Bangle and his utter ruination of BMW here I am. I liked the E class, but (to me) its just not worth 60-65K. A loaded C350 should still be a good 15K to 20K less than the E, but with the 3.5 engine be only a tiny bit slower, if at all, than the E500, but with 50% better gas mileage.
I'd like to see some discussion and comments on the merits of the 3.5 engine. I'd also like to be able to combine te sport handling with the AWD lusxury model, but thats unlikely. I'll probably have to get the lux version and get 17" wheels later on.
I'd like to see some discussion and comments on the merits of the 3.5 engine. I'd also like to be able to combine te sport handling with the AWD lusxury model, but thats unlikely. I'll probably have to get the lux version and get 17" wheels later on.
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally Posted by jrct9454
with the new heads and valve management software, I would be very surprised if there is any fuel economy penalty with this engine vs the 1.8.
The current C320 gets pretty average mileage. The C350 doesn't do any better, but who cares, it makes real power. Its safe to say that a v6 C230 is going to use more gas than a rather small four cylinder engine. Its kinda hard to get away from the fact that you need to fuel 2 more cylinders all the time. The M271 isn't an old motor...its a very new design infact. NO WAY will the V6 get better mileage. Unless its packing a huge battery pack and a very strong starter motor The new seven speed will help, and probably put the slush box on even footing with the manual.
The cost of the V6 will depend on how cheap MB was getting the blowers for the 4s. I don't think they were costing that much. The V6 is all about marketing. All the asian competiors sport standard sixes, keeping a four puts the C-Class down a level into competition with the Audi A4,or worse, the lowly TSX.
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,781
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
'05 A4 1.8TQM6
Originally Posted by JWS3
A loaded C350 should still be a good 15K to 20K less than the E, but with the 3.5 engine be only a tiny bit slower, if at all, than the E500, but with 50% better gas mileage.
#33
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by Outland
Huh? Valve management software? Have you been watching too much star trek?
The current C320 gets pretty average mileage. The C350 doesn't do any better, but who cares, it makes real power. Its safe to say that a v6 C230 is going to use more gas than a rather small four cylinder engine. Its kinda hard to get away from the fact that you need to fuel 2 more cylinders all the time. The M271 isn't an old motor...its a very new design infact. NO WAY will the V6 get better mileage. Unless its packing a huge battery pack and a very strong starter motor The new seven speed will help, and probably put the slush box on even footing with the manual.
The cost of the V6 will depend on how cheap MB was getting the blowers for the 4s. I don't think they were costing that much. The V6 is all about marketing. All the asian competiors sport standard sixes, keeping a four puts the C-Class down a level into competition with the Audi A4,or worse, the lowly TSX.
The current C320 gets pretty average mileage. The C350 doesn't do any better, but who cares, it makes real power. Its safe to say that a v6 C230 is going to use more gas than a rather small four cylinder engine. Its kinda hard to get away from the fact that you need to fuel 2 more cylinders all the time. The M271 isn't an old motor...its a very new design infact. NO WAY will the V6 get better mileage. Unless its packing a huge battery pack and a very strong starter motor The new seven speed will help, and probably put the slush box on even footing with the manual.
The cost of the V6 will depend on how cheap MB was getting the blowers for the 4s. I don't think they were costing that much. The V6 is all about marketing. All the asian competiors sport standard sixes, keeping a four puts the C-Class down a level into competition with the Audi A4,or worse, the lowly TSX.
the TSX is indeed an insult, but that thing is pretty small, and has a NA 4. I don't think it's in the same league.
if MB could have came out with a supercharged 4 that put out a little over 200 similar to Audi's 2.0T, then that would have been awesome.
I really regret not waiting for the C350, but hell, I would have only had a C-Class when it was current for a year. At least I have two years to enjoy my w203 before I start wanting a w204.
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,781
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
'05 A4 1.8TQM6
ya, what's wrong with the A4?
I agree that the 1.8T engine is a bit underpowered...170HP but it gets the job done and the engine is pretty much bulletproof.
The new 2.0T FSI on the other hand is a whole new ballgame. 200HP/207TQ. Virtually NO turbo lag like the 1.8T and is pretty quick. It'll be on the same level as the new 2.5L V6 from MB putting out ~200HP.
I agree that the 1.8T engine is a bit underpowered...170HP but it gets the job done and the engine is pretty much bulletproof.
The new 2.0T FSI on the other hand is a whole new ballgame. 200HP/207TQ. Virtually NO turbo lag like the 1.8T and is pretty quick. It'll be on the same level as the new 2.5L V6 from MB putting out ~200HP.
Last edited by GDawgC220; 04-23-2005 at 10:27 PM.
#35
Originally Posted by nlpamg
what's wrong with the Audi A4? I like that car, I would have gotten that over the w203 if MB didn't put on the AMG package for '05 and the fact that I was scheduled to get a C320 and then thought about it some more and the C230K was more logical... I would MUCH rather get an A4 over a damn 325 that's for sure.
#36
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by mick1
me, i was gonna get a cadillac cts-v but changed my mind because it looked too weird
#37
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 White C230 SS
Originally Posted by jrct9454
I think it would be wise for everybody to take a deep breath and remember that MBUSA is not anxious to lose any of their audience for this car. I anticipate that the C230/2.5 will be available with most of the same "sport" stuff that seems so important to some of you, in a car that will easily outrun the current 1.8SC, as well as being quieter and smoother. AND, with the new heads and valve management software, I would be very surprised if there is any fuel economy penalty with this engine vs the 1.8.
Across the board, with the C280/3.0 replacing the C240/2.6, and the C350 replacing the C320, you're looking at more power, lower emissions, BETTER fuel consumption [especially with the automatics], smoother and quieter operation. It's just a win-win all around for a change.
As for pricing, the current atmosphere doesn't allow much room for them to make any dramatic upward changes. AND, the plain fact is that the new V6s cost about the same, or a bit less, than the supercharged 4 cyl to actually manufacture [labor and materials]. I just don't see the sky falling here at all.
Across the board, with the C280/3.0 replacing the C240/2.6, and the C350 replacing the C320, you're looking at more power, lower emissions, BETTER fuel consumption [especially with the automatics], smoother and quieter operation. It's just a win-win all around for a change.
As for pricing, the current atmosphere doesn't allow much room for them to make any dramatic upward changes. AND, the plain fact is that the new V6s cost about the same, or a bit less, than the supercharged 4 cyl to actually manufacture [labor and materials]. I just don't see the sky falling here at all.
That's not quiet right. The new C230 will be 204 HP and 182.29 lb toque (I calculated by myself) and C280 will be 231 HP and 223.2 lb torque, since C350 is not a secret anymore so I didn't bother to calculate the torque, but one thing I noticed, the new C230 is slower than the current C230 and sucks gas bad just like IS300, 0-100 for 2006 C230 is 8.4 with stick, 8.9 with 7 speed auto
#38
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by LMing
That's not quiet right. The new C230 will be 204 HP and 182.29 lb toque (I calculated by myself) and C280 will be 231 HP and 223.2 lb torque, since C350 is not a secret anymore so I didn't bother to calculate the torque, but one thing I noticed, the new C230 is slower than the current C230 and sucks gas bad just like IS300, 0-100 for 2006 C230 is 8.4 with stick, 8.9 with 7 speed auto
#39
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 White C230 SS
Originally Posted by nlpamg
how the hell did you calculate that? I hope you're wrong, b/c I'd rather have a 4 cylinder with 10 more ft-lbs or torque than 15 additional hp. that change would just be dumb and purely for marketing then... ugh, it gives more credence to the 230 changing the 240 now.
PS. Since C230 and C350 is almost the same engine, their gas consumption is almost the same
For your reference
Gas consumption for 2006 C230
City
13.8 L/100km =17.047 mile/gal
Highway
7.1 L/100KM = 33.129 miles/gal
Last edited by LMing; 04-23-2005 at 11:38 PM.
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 4,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 A4 S Line
I wouldn't be surprised if it's all for marketing. I have heard so many people say they would rather pay extra to get the 240 over the 230 because they figure that 4-cylinder engines are crap...until they drive the two and see for themselves.
#41
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by LMing
I got the full spec from German MB site Click Me and rest is just math, it has almost the same gas consumption as the IS300, so I am pretty happy with my I4 C230~
PS. Since C230 and C350 is almost the same engine, their gas consumption is almost the same
For your reference
Gas consumption for 2006 C230
City
13.8 L/100km =17.047 mile/gal
Highway
7.1 L/100KM = 33.129 miles/gal
PS. Since C230 and C350 is almost the same engine, their gas consumption is almost the same
For your reference
Gas consumption for 2006 C230
City
13.8 L/100km =17.047 mile/gal
Highway
7.1 L/100KM = 33.129 miles/gal
#42
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 White C230 SS
Originally Posted by nlpamg
wow, ok thanks. **** the new 230 then! :p
Last edited by LMing; 04-24-2005 at 12:02 AM.
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
excites your girlfriend
Originally Posted by LMing
That's not quiet right. The new C230 will be 204 HP and 182.29 lb toque (I calculated by myself) and C280 will be 231 HP and 223.2 lb torque, since C350 is not a secret anymore so I didn't bother to calculate the torque, but one thing I noticed, the new C230 is slower than the current C230 and sucks gas bad just like IS300, 0-100 for 2006 C230 is 8.4 with stick, 8.9 with 7 speed auto
#44
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 White C230 SS
Originally Posted by ctC230K
uhhh how do you figure the new c230 will have less torque??? and slower than the current c230? i doubt it, otherwise why would MB bother to make a new car that's slower??
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally Posted by Blake P
I wouldn't be surprised if it's all for marketing. I have heard so many people say they would rather pay extra to get the 240 over the 230 because they figure that 4-cylinder engines are crap...until they drive the two and see for themselves.
Listen to how many C240 owners defend the car, even though its accelleration is measured in streetnames, not seconds. I put my Gtech on a C240 4matic, it couldn't do any better than 9.5 seconds to sixty.
US buyers are snobs about the number of cylinders. Honda and Toyota both played second fiddle to cars like the Taurus until they started taking V6's seriously, even thought the four bangers were just fine compared the weezing pushrod sixes in most domestic sedans.
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
excites your girlfriend
Originally Posted by nlpamg
if MB could have came out with a supercharged 4 that put out a little over 200 similar to Audi's 2.0T, then that would have been awesome.
Anyone tried it?
#48
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by ctC230K
Powerchip claims with their PowerchipGold 93 207 hp and 211 lb.-ft torque for $640.
Anyone tried it?
Anyone tried it?
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
excites your girlfriend
true but it's cheaper then Renntech's chip and more powerful, Renntech says 199HP, 204TQ for $995, ouch. Still I'd rather have a kit from Renntech or Kleeman for a couple grand and get a lot more power than just a chip.
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The blue white rock, third out.
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally Posted by nlpamg
what's wrong with the Audi A4? .
You can disagree, but these are the facts. And I don't dislike Audis. Now, MB can't play down to that level in the eyes of snobby customers, the same guys who gotta have ANY six over ANY four, even if the six is a weezing turd that would get the wind knocked out of by your average Buick.
.
I would MUCH rather get an A4 over a damn 325 that's for sure.
.
.
the TSX is indeed an insult, but that thing is pretty small, and has a NA 4. I don't think it's in the same league..
if MB could have came out with a supercharged 4 that put out a little over 200 similar to Audi's 2.0T, then that would have been awesome..
I really regret not waiting for the C350, but hell, I would have only had a C-Class when it was current for a year. At least I have two years to enjoy my w203 before I start wanting a w204.
Last edited by Outland; 04-24-2005 at 12:25 AM.