2006 C230 SS vs. 2005 C230 SS
07-21-2005, 03:02 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Avon, CT
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 G35 Sport 6MT, 2005 C230K SS (sold), 1998 Jeep GC 4x4 (da-heep!)
2006 C230 SS vs. 2005 C230 SS
I went onto MBUSA this morning and saw the new stats for the 06 C230 Sport Sedan. I was somewhat disappointed that I just bought a 05 since the 06 now are a V6 (201hp) with 12 more HP than the I4 (189hp) 05. However, after comparing the cars in more detail I am actually happier with my 2005 purchase. Here's why, and a comparison between the two.
Gas Mileage:
2005: 24 City / 32 Highway
2006: 21 City / 29 Highway
Winner: 2005
Horsepower:
2005: 189 hp @ 5800 RPM
2006: 201 @ 6200 PRM
Winner: 2006
Torque:
2005: 192 @ 3500 RPM
2004: 181 @ 2,700 - 5,000 rpm
Close Call. The 2005 has more torque but makes it later and probably doesn't hold it throughout the RPM band as long as the 2006.
Curb Weight:
2005: 3250 lbs
2006: 3405 lbs
Winner: 2005
Power to Weight:
2005: 3250 / 189 = 17.2 Hp per lb
2006: 3405 / 201 = 16.9 Hp per lb
Winner: 2005
So I guess the jury is out on this one. I only really compared the performance aspects of the two cars since from what I could tell most everything is the same between the model years, such as dimensions and features.
Looks like the performance between the two are very close. I'm sure the NA V6 will be a smoother ride and be easier to modify than the supercharged four. But man I love the whine of that charger and the "kompressor” badging. Plus better gas mileage isn’t all that bad either.
Gas Mileage:
2005: 24 City / 32 Highway
2006: 21 City / 29 Highway
Winner: 2005
Horsepower:
2005: 189 hp @ 5800 RPM
2006: 201 @ 6200 PRM
Winner: 2006
Torque:
2005: 192 @ 3500 RPM
2004: 181 @ 2,700 - 5,000 rpm
Close Call. The 2005 has more torque but makes it later and probably doesn't hold it throughout the RPM band as long as the 2006.
Curb Weight:
2005: 3250 lbs
2006: 3405 lbs
Winner: 2005
Power to Weight:
2005: 3250 / 189 = 17.2 Hp per lb
2006: 3405 / 201 = 16.9 Hp per lb
Winner: 2005
So I guess the jury is out on this one. I only really compared the performance aspects of the two cars since from what I could tell most everything is the same between the model years, such as dimensions and features.
Looks like the performance between the two are very close. I'm sure the NA V6 will be a smoother ride and be easier to modify than the supercharged four. But man I love the whine of that charger and the "kompressor” badging. Plus better gas mileage isn’t all that bad either.
07-21-2005, 03:09 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego, CA & San Jose, Costa Rica & Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
1959 220S / 1979 230 G / 2002 A210 AMG / 2003 C320 SC / 2004.5 C320 SS / 2005 ML350 SE / 2008 smart
more reasons to love my C320's
07-21-2005, 03:47 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2003 Citron Green C230KMT
im very happy with my M271. though more low end torque and to be a little quicker off the line would be nice at times, im still happy with my 4-banger! 
07-21-2005, 04:04 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C320wz
how about expected reliability ?
I have a feeling that the newer V6 would have better reliability since it doesn't have to work as hard as the 4 cylinder engine.
anyway, if i had two cars to choose from, the 05 c230 and the 06 c230, i would pick the 06 simply because it was the newer model.
I have a feeling that the newer V6 would have better reliability since it doesn't have to work as hard as the 4 cylinder engine.
anyway, if i had two cars to choose from, the 05 c230 and the 06 c230, i would pick the 06 simply because it was the newer model.
07-21-2005, 04:20 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego, CA & San Jose, Costa Rica & Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
1959 220S / 1979 230 G / 2002 A210 AMG / 2003 C320 SC / 2004.5 C320 SS / 2005 ML350 SE / 2008 smart
Originally Posted by skahung
Maybe in 2007 they'll have V6 with Supercharger, then '05 & '06 owners both will cry. :p
Trending Topics
07-21-2005, 04:23 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saprissa
that would be the 2002-2004 C32 (V6 w/ K)
07-21-2005, 05:13 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: mars
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bike
Originally Posted by ctC230K
eh forget the 2006 c230 i want a C55
Last edited by skahung; 07-21-2005 at 05:27 PM.
07-21-2005, 05:58 PM
#11
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Illinois, Indiana
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 C230 Sedan 6spd
Originally Posted by skahung
I love the big Sister too (C55), but after hearing my friend saying how much gas goes in her...forget it! He spends $100-$200 on Gas each WEEK
Are you serious? $100 will get me 3 FULL TANK of gas! (1000 or more miles) Does he go on road trip every week or something?
07-21-2005, 10:58 PM
#14
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Illinois, Indiana
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 C230 Sedan 6spd
Originally Posted by skahung
well, he drives alot
whoot? 3 full tanks with $100...no way, fillup for me is $40-45
whoot? 3 full tanks with $100...no way, fillup for me is $40-45
Maybe gas is more expansive in Boston, I get my gas in Indiana and Chicago area. Which average about $2.48 per gallon for premiums @ BP
07-21-2005, 11:08 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BabyBenz6spd
Maybe gas is more expansive in Boston, I get my gas in Indiana and Chicago area. Which average about $2.48 per gallon for premiums @ BP
07-22-2005, 01:13 AM
#19
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08' BMW E92 Coupe
Originally Posted by Buellwinkle
As your car slows down in the summer heat you would appreciate the V6 but at 3400+ lbs, that's a porker, almost Audi A4 weight.
07-22-2005, 03:08 AM
#21
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by mbny
weighs more than the A4 2.0T but just a touch less than the 3.2 quattro. but i hear what your saying. car does feel abit heavy and you can really feel it around the turns. only thing i like about the C320 when i test drove it, was the little extra torque. but after comparing specs and test driving a manual C320, i couldn't pass down the C230. only 26 less hp (figured one or two grand could close that gap on minor engine mods), 200 pounds lighter and almost $9,000 less. i wasn't impressed with the 320's performance (probably cause i was still driving my 330) and couldn't justify $9k for 26 more hp and half a second 0-60 difference.
07-22-2005, 03:09 AM
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego, CA & San Jose, Costa Rica & Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
1959 220S / 1979 230 G / 2002 A210 AMG / 2003 C320 SC / 2004.5 C320 SS / 2005 ML350 SE / 2008 smart
San Diego is a bit worse... $2.51 for 87 $2.63 for 89 and $2.75 for 91
07-22-2005, 09:50 AM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
A4 2.0T blows away the C230 (2005 or 2006 model)
In the latest issue of Road & Track, they test the new A4 2.0T Quattro sedan with a 6 speed manual transmission and sport package. This engine has 200HP and 207 ft-lb torque.
0-60 in 6.4 seconds and 1/4 mile in 14.9 seconds
It pulled 0.86g on their skid pad and did their slalom at 65.5mph.
Compared to the 2005 or 2006 C230, the "base" A4 clearly is much faster, despite being "heavy" and with AWD. From a driving dynamics point of view the A4 clearly is the winner. Of course, other things like MB brand image and personal taste about styling/looks may still draw customers to the C230.
0-60 in 6.4 seconds and 1/4 mile in 14.9 seconds
It pulled 0.86g on their skid pad and did their slalom at 65.5mph.
Compared to the 2005 or 2006 C230, the "base" A4 clearly is much faster, despite being "heavy" and with AWD. From a driving dynamics point of view the A4 clearly is the winner. Of course, other things like MB brand image and personal taste about styling/looks may still draw customers to the C230.
07-22-2005, 11:13 AM
#24
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 mbny
weighs more than the A4 2.0T but just a touch less than the 3.2 quattro. but i hear what your saying. car does feel abit heavy and you can really feel it around the turns. only thing i like about the C320 when i test drove it, was the little extra torque. but after comparing specs and test driving a manual C320, i couldn't pass down the C230. only 26 less hp (figured one or two grand could close that gap on minor engine mods), 200 pounds lighter and almost $9,000 less. i wasn't impressed with the 320's performance (probably cause i was still driving my 330) and couldn't justify $9k for 26 more hp and half a second 0-60 difference.
