MB-BOB

You have a good point. MB engines typically take 10-15,000 miles to properly bed in... As has been posted several times previously none of these engines achieve their best gas mileage much before 15,000 miles. I know mine didn't.

As for the inexorable march of improvements in engines year over year, I'm not sure I agree. MB is going to the 4-valve engines in part because it makes sense to do so economically for all models, not to necessarily improve one model year over another.

None of these are performance engines, folks. The reason you have I4 supercharged and small bore V6 engines in the US is because these are in big demand in MB's PRIMARY market (Europe, where gas is $6.00+ per gallon). I4's and small V6's get better gas mileage, and 4-valve V6s burn fuel more completely, making fewer emissions... not because MB wants to endow we arrogant Americans with "Sports Cars" that are 1-2/10ths faster than the previous models.

Humbucker87

so which outweighs which the added 10 hp or the extra 200 lbs?

Outland

In an overhead cam motor, most everything you speak of is contained outside the block. Compression can be changed in any motor without having to make a new motor. Many engines have two, four ,and sometimes three valve versions. Toyota's V8, Saturn's inline four, and the Ford Sohc V8 come to mind- all are the same engine, just with variants that have more or less valves.

The variable valve timing system is also contained within each head. Engine management systems, as well, are not something inked into the architecture. I do recall reading early on, and I think it was in one of the trade mags, that the new V6 was based on the old architecture. And frankly, there's no reason why it wouldn't be.

Outland

Quite right Bob. This was long overdue. The tone of these "discussions" is horrible.

Outland

Just about any 6 is going to feel smoother than any four. The six has smaller power pulses, and they come more quickly than in a four. It inherently makes the engine feel smoother. Its just physics, not a "more sophisticated" design.

Interesting that the new 6 doesn't sound as good as the four...at least coming from your perspective.

I personally prefer the sound of the supercharger over the muted woosh just about any modern stock exhaust produces. I think the biggest plus for the new small six is marketing.

delbomber

You two come out of the wordwork only to spew negativity about the 230. I love the term "we" as if your word is bond and you are doing everyone on this board a favor by sharing your blatantly biased views. The "experts" by whom all MB performance should be measured. Hysterical. Maybe the planes that have crashed recently passed QA checks based on your standards of "proof". You didn't prove anything in a completely unresolvable argument. People (at least, I) stopped arguing because it was pointless. Beyond all physics and logic, there was no breaking through to you. But you keep needling...get a life. If you want to compare the 05 c230 to the 06, then why mention ANYTHING about the 240? No, instead we get "hmm, gee, is the slow-*** 240 now faster than the hp-packed 280, because we know the 240 was faster than the 230." SO TRANSPARENT. What is your obsession? What does the 240 have to do with a comparison of 05 and 06 230s???? Lol, when you guys post I'm always reminded of this:

Vinny Gambini: How could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?

Mr. Tipton: Um... I'm a fast cook, I guess.

Vinny Gambini: [across beside the jury] What? I'm sorry I was over there. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth?

Mr. Tipton: I don't know.

Vinny Gambini: Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

delbomber

I disagree concerning the 230. The published specs and simple math seem to support this. The I4 has a pretty flat torque curve that stays near peak torque throughout the rev band, and even at 5250 RPM the I4 is still putting out more HP than the V6 (192 vs 181). It's only in the VERY high revs (and perhaps below 2500) that the V6 overtakes.

Lighter with more power through ~70% of the driveable RPM range translates to quicker acceleration. Of course we're talking low tenths of seconds here...not really worth getting anyone's pantyhose in a bunch. :p

CynCarvin32

the new 2006 C230 has an added 10 hp and an extra 250 or so lbs.

it does have 2 extra gears but the spacing seems a bit off and it does not help the car as you would expect.

Del put it best with the I-4 makes more power over a larger portion of the power band so it would likely be a bit quicker.

In the end the extra two gears might yield a "fender" in race but not really something that any C230k would want to trade their car in for.

The V6 had the chance to move the C230 up a bit against the competition (which seems to be moving ahead) but it really did not.

Those people at Lexus have the idea! 305 hp IS350? Yikes.

CynCarvin32

with this im sorry for the agression. i become "overheated" in the debate.

and yes a test drive on your own is the best way to make a judgement call but there is some fun in a debate. We all have some sort of a MB and why not talk about them?

Thank you for the honorable post.

Mercedes

SHUT UP F U CKING NEWBIES

CynCarvin32

thanks for the post.

very helpful.

regards

Capt Nemo o2

I agree with that. How many commercials and ads do you hear saying "Standard V6 power"? And on top of that, the majority of consumers only look at HP and not torque or weight. So when they compare the '05 to the '06 they say to themselves "Well, it has more power for the same price, I might as well go with the '06." This also applies to comparing to other cars in its class like the Audi. (which by the way, I completely disagree with that 0-60 time. The weight/HP/torque numbers just doesnt add up!)

Mercedes

Welcome anytime

delbomber

Aaah, I cringe everytime I hear someone talk about a car's HP. PEAK HP, damn it!! MB should be ashamed for diminishing performance, especially in today's climate. They should have rocked the world to have the c230 destroy the a4 and 325 and the 350 to blow the doors off the 330...but I guess that's Lexus' and Infiniti's jobs.

The a4 numbers people have mentioned here are off...the 2.0T is mid-high 7's, I believe...easily enough it's listed on the Audi USA website, I'm just too lazy to go look again.

Capt Nemo o2

I personally think that MB should have only had the C280 and 350, but oh well.

The A4 #'s I saw was in C&D at ~6.5 (tested). That cant be possible, my Jeep weighed the same, had a rear axel bias 4WD system and like 15 more HP and 75 lb-ft of torque, (and a flat torque curve) and that and only did 0-60 in best 7.9. Granted the areodynamics are better, which may account for a few tenths at the top end but almost 1.5 seconds is impossible!

Anways, I digress...

I like my I4, it may not have the top end the V6 has, but it doesnt have an extra 250lbs in the nose when I try and go around a turn quicker! Now there is a comparison I would like to see... Test an '04, '05, and an '06 in handeling and see who is better...

CynCarvin32

I wish some rental car agency had all 3 cars. I would love to do a back to back test at my local track and see who had the best lap time!

That is exactly my thought as well...no more power really and more mass in the nose... ill pass on the 2006 C230 and wait for the W204.

I thought MB was only going to make a C280 and a C350 but then this whimp of a V6 showed up. It is not like the 3.0L motor costs any more to produce so why not just offer than in the "sport" version. I bet the thought it would kill the C350's sales. Which brings me to the idea of just offering the sofly sprung C280 luxury sedan and the C350 sports sedan (@ $30k). It is all about extracting every last bit of profit from the customer so they segment everything down to a this.

Dont you think MB needs a few more cars for sale in the USA? To many models, engines, trim levels, packages, and options.

trench

I think I'd prefer the system MB has in Europe, pick an engine then whatever trim level you want.

The current system of combining the engine with the trim level just seems like something derived from the Japanese.

delbomber

Agreed. Wow, did I really just agree with you?

MB is a premium brand and already has a mass-appeal brand called Chrysler. It's all about positioning and brand image. Profits would quickly fall if people no longer felt the relative exclusivity of driving a Benz was worth the added cost. Yeah C350 in the 30s would be amazing, but that would severely hurt the demand and pricing of the everything above it...Whatever they're reasoning, I'm sure their Keynesian consultants are telling them that demand induced by Pricing at X will result in a profit > than higher demand and sales at lower price Y while maintaining overall brand image.

A few years ago my aunt listed her house on the market for months and months without a sale when the realtor suggested lowering the price. I suggested she raise the price by 20%. Sold within two weeks

CynCarvin32

Background in ECON?

agree fully. I dont think they should lower prices so much but I do think there are far to many cars. I mean we have a minivan like wana be SUV with a 507 hp AMG V8 on the way. Who really needs a minivan doing the 1/4 in 12.6 seconds?

But its really funny. You almost NEVER see C320's any more since the C230k came to market. Yet you do see a bunch of 330i's. BMW only offers 2 motors and a good chunk still opt for the big motor but with MB the C320 has been a low volume item. I think the C320 was at an odd price point.... not that quick and too much money. The C230k was just a better value. Maybe the C350 will help sales of the upscale non AMG W203. Troube is the car is in its last year of production so sales will be terrible whichever way we disect this mess.

schwarzwagen

uh oh. did he mention Keynes? this may be some sort of watershed event for the w203 forum where everyone buries their hatchets.

Outland

Its real. Its also probably the V6 model. On motor week it did it in lik 6.7secs.

Do you have the HO 5.9? The 5.2 was kinda a weezbag of a motor, and its hard to compare trucks to cars regardless of wether they wiegh the same and have similar HP'#s.

Your Jeep has one, maybe even two fewer gears than the Audi. And was the Audi stick? The Jeep is auto only. Then there's the issue of squat, traction, and the more severe drive line loss on a heavy duty vehicle. BTW, the second gen GC's were quite a bit quicker(6.8 to 7.2s to 60...Overland HO4.7L V8, and the regular 4.7L V8), with only a few extra ponies...but two more gears, and a much better AWD system.


Aerodynamics doesn't even come into play in the 0-60 dash. Down the 1/4 mile it does.

Outland

Used 2002 Coupes are only about a grand less than the 2002 C320 Sedan and Wagon around here...the resale of the C320 has been worse than the much maligned Coupe.

C320 was way overpriced from day one. Just about every review commented that way, and if it weren't for the even more outrageously priced ES300, the MB would have been the most expensive car in every comparo.

Outland

Enough hugging you two.

Two points...first, the market place is fragmenting so severely that its quite likely that MB would seriously tank in the sales if it were to start dialing back on options and choices. The key is to find a formula to make money in this type of market without the overhead of the different models killing you. After all, its a luxury car, you should be able to get it the way you want it.

Does MB have too many models? Certainly...but IMHO, not where you think. I think the large selection of C classes was advantageous. But crap like Maybach is pissing away millions if not more, and its sales are ****....Its not even in the hundreds hear in the states. Exclusive? Yes, but a money losing sinkhole. Same with Smart. Too much technology, too much expense in design and engineering for what is a bottom feeder market.

Second point...MB isn't going to regain its reputation and appeal by raising prices and making it harder to get...that's not only stupid, its just reinforces the new attitudes of MB being overpriced, unreliable and unapproachable... certainly not in E, C, and ML segments- wich are pretty close to mass market cars anyway. The only way MB will regain its former position is by being a better value, a more reliable car, and a better looking and performing car than the alternatives from Lexus, Infinity and BMW. BMW isn't really MB's competition, its Lexus. We all like to point and laugh at the domestics for the mess they are in, because they ignored a lot of trends and didn't take the competition seriously...well, that same wake up call is about to ring in Germany. Far too many people have grown up calling Japanese metal home, and even if the cars aren't as good, it won't matter, because this is Walmart nation, they will be good enough values to win over the current Asian and even non asian buyers.

As good as the new SLK and CLS are, the new S Class was proof that MB is headed for some rough waters.

Outland

Well, those consumers should have some shock when looking a Japanese car this year...many, many asian cars were pinched when SAE closed the loopholes in the HP calculation procedure. Some models dropped 20HP or more. Many domestic cars were already posting conservative numbers, and mostly got a boost out of the new procedures. Toyota Camry salesmen will have a hard time explaining why its flagship model now makes a rather average or below average 190HP from its V6- especially when the Hyundai Sonata is packing 238HP for a lot less money, and it has better styling and that 10 year warranty.

PC Valkyrie

For those of you who still think the Audi A4 2.0T is not MUCH faster than the C230 Kompressor or C230 V6, there have already been two mainstream car mags which have tested North American spec cars with quattro and 6 speed manual transmission. I think MotorTrend also tested the A4 as well in the Sept. issue, but I don't have that and it's not on-line yet.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=2482

Here are some acceleration numbers from these 2 car mags:
Car and Driver:
0-60 mph: 7.2 sec
1/4 mile: 15.5 sec @ 92 mph

Road & Track:
0-60 mph: 6.4 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 @ 94.2 mph

Sure, the Road & Track numbers were suprisingly fast, but even Car and Driver managed to get the A4 2.0T to 60mph in the low 7's. Still impressive, IMO. A high 6 to low 7 second car to 60mph means it's pretty damn quick in its class. Speed isn't everything, but the C230 (either the new or old one) probably can't keep up with this A4 2.0T.