Capt Nemo o2

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.

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.

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".

nlpamg

are you kidding me? NO! the "model history" page is incorrect (and that isn't surprising, look at the C230K Spec page, it says 2006 C230K and we know that's not happening).

The biggest change for '05 is the AMG kit. Where have you been?

JWS3

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.

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.

GDawgC220

currently, yes the 3.5L V6 is a tiny bit slower than the 5.0L V8...but the 5.0L V8 is going to be replaced soon. I believe it starts with the w221 S-Class...so for now, the performance will be almost close but when the 5.0 gets phased out and the new V8's in...then it'll be a bigger gap in performance.

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.

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.

GDawgC220

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.

mick1

me, i was gonna get a cadillac cts-v but changed my mind because it looked too weird

nlpamg

well, you made the right decision. the CTS, I don't care if it's the v, looks like ****.

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

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.

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

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.

nlpamg

wow, ok thanks. **** the new 230 then! :p

LMing

Heh, me too I can't find any reason for me to get a 06 C230 expect the smoothness and quietness of V6 or maybe for those people who want to downgrade their SUPER FAST C240 for a V6 C230 ?

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??

LMing

Full spec of 2006 C-class is HERE just convert it to our units, not very hard

Outland

Youre the smartest guy in this thread.

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.

ctC230K

Powerchip claims with their PowerchipGold 93 207 hp and 211 lb.-ft torque for $640.
Anyone tried it?

ctC230K

lololol

nlpamg

$640? That's kind of steep. Maybe that's why the Renntech pulley kit with their chip is pretty expensive. I'm waiting to see how evosport's kit will do, but evosport has been pretty quiet on it...

ctC230K

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.

Outland

I'm on record here already as saying I like the preugly nose A4. If they had a Coupe version of the car, I'd be all over it. I like two doors. But lets be honest, Audi's are considered a step down from the top level nameplates of BMW and Mercedes because of three things...Audi's cars all VW DNA- which makes them no more special than Acura or Lexus, Audi's are FWD, and Audi has always traditionally positioned itself as a "bargain" german luxury car.

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'd take a 325 Coupe over the A4. But if I needed four ports, the A4 would be it.

Its in the same league as the Audi. And in the minds of those who shop appliances, a jazzed up Gold Star is just as good as a Maytag. I think the car is pretty darn over rated myself. It pushes like a shopping cart, and you feel like your in a nice Civic, certainly not a European Accord.


Thanks the C320 they had to make sure the supercharged engines would not outperform the top dog V6. They are close already in performance. A 200+HP supercharged four would probably exceed the performance of a 215HP, heavier, V6. Gotta make those guys think they got more than smoothness for the extra dollars.

If MB would offer the C350Coupe in the US, I'd be all over it. W204 is looking like a complete turd styling wise. The car looks very asian. Not what I want in a German car.