test drive C280
03-23-2006, 08:18 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 7,424
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
C55 ///AMG, 535xi
final decision, a c280 (not sure if he wants 4mat) in most possibly black or white, bi-x, heated seats, splitfold rear, and i hope he gets hk sound or command, gonna head over to the dealers when he comes back for summer
but by the way, any news on the release of the W204s? maybe he can wait? or buy the "discounted" models
but by the way, any news on the release of the W204s? maybe he can wait? or buy the "discounted" models
04-12-2006, 10:53 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 7,424
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
C55 ///AMG, 535xi
yeah theres an update, since my father hates the dealer, lol my brothers luck of getting a C280 is pushed back, since my dads paying for 1/2 his car
04-16-2006, 08:25 PM
#29
Senior Member
Originally Posted by advans
yeah theres an update, since my father hates the dealer, lol my brothers luck of getting a C280 is pushed back, since my dads paying for 1/2 his car
04-16-2006, 09:36 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: asdfasdf
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One with 4 wheels
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
It's hard to find actual independent road tests of the lower end C-class models like the C230K, C230, and C280. Most magazines tend to test the higher models like the C320, C350, C32, and C55. Motortrend did test the 2003 C230K sports sedan, but the Motortrend website doesn't list test numbers.
According to MB-USA's website, these are the 0-60mph times for the sedan(all with automatic transmission so you can compare fairly)
2005 C230K 7.5 seconds
2006 C230 8.5 seconds
2006 C280 6.9 seconds
2006 C350 6.1 seconds
Therefore, I think it is likely that a stock 2006 C280 can out accelerate a stock 2005 C230K, unless MB is deliberately trying to mislead us.
According to MB-USA's website, these are the 0-60mph times for the sedan(all with automatic transmission so you can compare fairly)
2005 C230K 7.5 seconds
2006 C230 8.5 seconds
2006 C280 6.9 seconds
2006 C350 6.1 seconds
Therefore, I think it is likely that a stock 2006 C280 can out accelerate a stock 2005 C230K, unless MB is deliberately trying to mislead us.
05-20-2006, 11:09 AM
#31
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 C280 4Matic
Originally Posted by TA-9FF
It seems like very backwards thinking for MB to stick the more powerful engine in the 280 than in the 230????
05-21-2006, 05:17 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by alboogiee
the 7G transmition...
it is constantly searching for a gear and is rather slow in doing so, i did not find the car more "fun" or "powerful" compared to my 230, i had the 280 for almost a week while my 230 was in for maitenance and yes the 280 has more power on paper but because of the tranny cannot put it on the pavement, even in tiptronic.
i say stick with the c230 or get a c32...
it is constantly searching for a gear and is rather slow in doing so, i did not find the car more "fun" or "powerful" compared to my 230, i had the 280 for almost a week while my 230 was in for maitenance and yes the 280 has more power on paper but because of the tranny cannot put it on the pavement, even in tiptronic.
i say stick with the c230 or get a c32...
The C350 I imagine will be a bit better but even on that car, I'd expect it to have to downshift for passing on the highway. There just isn't that much torque on low RPMs for passing.
Personally, I don't imagine the C280's handling to be that bad, although I do expect the C230's to be slightly better than the C280. Handling to me is of exuberant importance, moreso than power.
The C280 seems like a good car overall, I just wished that they made a sport version of it.
05-21-2006, 06:06 PM
#33
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
Originally Posted by patrick_y
Yes, totally agree with you here. The thing keeps on changing gears. Very confounded transmission. And don't expect any good highway passing in top gear (as you can with the 5 gear AT). The thing always has to shift down one or two gears.
The C350 I imagine will be a bit better but even on that car, I'd expect it to have to downshift for passing on the highway. There just isn't that much torque on low RPMs for passing.
Personally, I don't imagine the C280's handling to be that bad, although I do expect the C230's to be slightly better than the C280. Handling to me is of exuberant importance, moreso than power.
The C280 seems like a good car overall, I just wished that they made a sport version of it.
The C350 I imagine will be a bit better but even on that car, I'd expect it to have to downshift for passing on the highway. There just isn't that much torque on low RPMs for passing.
Personally, I don't imagine the C280's handling to be that bad, although I do expect the C230's to be slightly better than the C280. Handling to me is of exuberant importance, moreso than power.
The C280 seems like a good car overall, I just wished that they made a sport version of it.
The C280/C350 luxury does not handle anything like the sport versions IMO. The 2005/6 Sport Sedans are much, much lower and the wider wheels and tires give it better traction.
05-22-2006, 11:08 AM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: York, PA
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
The tranny is annoying for those who have driven a 5 speed. But it is designed to be in the optimum gear for what you want. SO yes it does hunt and irritate but also is in the right gear for passing or acceleration in general.
05-22-2006, 02:44 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dia Blk '06 C230 w/3 pedals
Originally Posted by seahunter
Why?? 230 Should have a 2.3 and the 280 should be a 2.8. IMO it would be backwards thinking if the 230 had the more powerful engine.
280 has a 3.0 litre engine
The model designation should reflect the engine displacement but I guess that would make too much sense
05-22-2006, 04:10 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: York, PA
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
Originally Posted by anonymouse
230 has a 2.5 litre engine
280 has a 3.0 litre engine
The model designation should reflect the engine displacement but I guess that would make too much sense
280 has a 3.0 litre engine
The model designation should reflect the engine displacement but I guess that would make too much sense
Also note that the current BMW 325 and 330 share a 3.0 liter straight six. Only diference between the two is tuning, via diferent intake setup. So should they both be named 330?
05-22-2006, 04:43 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dia Blk '06 C230 w/3 pedals
Originally Posted by mctwin2kman
That would be too confusing in the long run when engine changes are made. People get used to certain names and become stupid when it comes to that sort of thing. Just makes the marketing easier when people are already familiar with certain designations.
Also note that the current BMW 325 and 330 share a 3.0 liter straight six. Only diference between the two is tuning, via diferent intake setup. So should they both be named 330?
Also note that the current BMW 325 and 330 share a 3.0 liter straight six. Only diference between the two is tuning, via diferent intake setup. So should they both be named 330?
BMW used to do it til the 323 came along:
325 had a 2.5 litre engine;
328 had a 2.8 litre engine;
330 had a 3.0 litre engine;
yet the 323 also had a 2.5 litre engine.
In the case of the new 3 series, they should have dropped the 325 moniker and had a a 330 & and a 330 sport or some *****e like that
Besides - Mercedes just changed model number designations this past year so that would have been the perfect time to make the change
05-22-2006, 07:51 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 7,424
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
C55 ///AMG, 535xi
Originally Posted by rlee02135
Advans,
you should trade in both cars and share a c55!
you should trade in both cars and share a c55!
hahah rlee I wish! I bought the ML500 first, then I wanted more of a "sporty, school car" so i got the CL203, and my dad took hold of my ML, then he ended up loving the E500 and he got that, and we share the ML500, or he uses the ML500 more than the E, the E is his weekend car. As of my brother, he got rid of his C230k, sold it to this guy at pitts ( i didnt even know till sunday) and hes currently taking hold of the E or the ML.
as of the C55 part, I wish i can sell all 3 and get a E55 lol, kuz my cousin is so ****y about his E500 Sport, hes an idiot
05-23-2006, 04:36 AM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by e1000
the 7G is quirky but i wouldn't call it "confounded". almost always, I can have it drop down a gear or two before I even make an actual pass. If I'm in a hurry, i can always use the shift lever and drop down to the lowest possible gear. I have driven a C280 4-Matic with the older tranny and while the torque is always there, it dosen't seem efficient to me to rev so high at speed. My car can cruise at a little over 2k rpm at 80, or I can have it drop down. One thing the 5G cannot do is get 30+mpg (yes I have achieved this in real life) on long highway runs at 70+mph on average.
The C280/C350 luxury does not handle anything like the sport versions IMO. The 2005/6 Sport Sedans are much, much lower and the wider wheels and tires give it better traction.
The C280/C350 luxury does not handle anything like the sport versions IMO. The 2005/6 Sport Sedans are much, much lower and the wider wheels and tires give it better traction.
I also like lower RPMs myself. I think the C230 Kompressor Sport Sedan's rpms are too high in top gear. That's one thing I don't like about it. That's one thing I really like about the 06 C230, low RPMs, since I usually set the cruise control on the highway. Besides, the C230K SS isn't very fuel efficient when you're driving at high speeds. For isntance, if you were driving the C350 at 80 mph in top gear vs the C230K SS at the same speed in top gear, the C350 might achieve better fuel economy since at 80 mph the C230K SS's RPMS are at the 3250 level. I estimate that the C350's rpms to be a modest 2500 RPMs. Obviously the most efficient RPM range is in the low to mid 2000s in top gear.
