It's OK for the C240 to stay but IMHO I would prefer that it is replaced by a new C230K Sedan along with the sport coupe. It may keep the cost down and give us better selections.

Peace

 

Actually, I have to admit the C230K does resemble the VW Corrado from the pic Socal240/6's sig... Look at the lines of the two cars... almost every single body panel is the same shape, except the VW is just boxier. I really can't think of a Hyundai that resembles the C240.

 

today I picked up my 03 c32. While waiting I was thinking of buying a c230 for rain and walmart days. Spoted one and one only that had a strange black plastic ridge about 6" long just ahead of the sunroof. It also had badges on the front fenders " 1.8 " Does anyone know about this feature. My dealer is brainless!

 

Black piece is extra wind deflector piece. The 1.8 badge should be obvious. It stands for 1.8 liter (the size of the engine).

 

Well, it's also difficult to look intelligent when generalising about 6 cylinder engines being smoother than 4s, unless one specifies the layout of those 6 cylinders.

For a 6, the smoothest arrangement by far is the inline configuration, something abandoned by M-B 5 years ago on the grounds of cost and safety. If you don't know what I'm getting at, bear with me.

The second most smooth 6 cylinder configuration is a V-6 with a 60 degree spacing between cylinder banks. Such engines are even-firing and inherently more vibration free than any other Vee arrangement involving 6 cylinders.

One of the least smooth 6 cylinder configurations is that used in the Mercedes-Benz V-6s, namely 90 degree. The VW VR-6 is probably worse, though.

Why did M-B go to V-6 engines in its smaller cars, instead of the inline 6? One reason: the V-6 engine block is a lot shorter than an IL-6, resulting in far more programmable crush space, at a premium in a small car like the C. But why did M-B go to the sub-optimal 90 degrees for its V-6? Economics. It's simpler and cheaper for them to use the same block boring equipment that they use to make their V-8 engines (which have a 90 degree spacing, that being optimal for a V-8). The Mercedes-Benz V-6 is - in principle - a V-8 with two cylinders lopped off. The economy of scale in producing similar engine internal parts for use in the V-6 and V-8 engines is also compelling.

Mercedes-Benz was aware of the design compromises in creating its 90 degree V-6, and designed into it a counter-rotating balance shaft to counteract its unbalanced architecture. Notwithstanding that, it's relatively easy when driving a C 240 to detect its slight roughness, especially at idle, but at certain other points in the rev range too. Compared to a 60 degree V-6, or especially to an inline 6, it's a rough engine.

The new M271 IL-4 engine has two counter-rotating Lanchester balancers just above its sump. I would not be surprised if the new IL-4 is as smooth as, if not smoother than, the V-6 in the C 240 and C 320. I'll test drive one or two soon to see for myself. Another thing the new engine has going for it over the V-6 engines is the far lower reciprocating mass. Not to mention superior power and way better fuel economy.

Now, to the original purpose of this thread: we considered a C 240 6 speed, which is a nice car. What I did not like about it was the fuel-inefficient V-6 engine. Well, the droopy headlights were a bit of a turn-off too (the bi-xenons are growing on me). The 18 valve V-6 engine is way behind current technology, and will be updated to 24 V and become more fuel-efficient next year. But overall, the C 230 K was far better value - ours cost a tick over $22K US with panorama roof and rain sensor, whereas the Classic C 240 would have cost about $3000 US more. The C 230 K is virtually as roomy as the C 240, and much more practical for us due to the hatch. Despite having the old M111 engine in it, the car is adequately smooth for us. It is also far more powerful and fuel efficient than the V6. Had the C 200 K been sold here, we might have got it instead. I wish M-B would put the M 271 engine in the W 203 body and not just the CL 203. Maybe in Canada they will; we already get the "economy" Classic version of the W203...

 

Actually, its not at all. Generally speaking, a 6 cylinder automotive engine is going to be smoother than a 4 cyl auto engine, regardless of whether the 6 is a V, inline, boxer, etc. Generally speaking, a Porsche 6 is smoother than a Porsche 4, a BMW 6 is smoother than a BMW 4, a Pontiac 6 is smoother than a Pontiac 4, and a MB 6 is smoother than a MB 4. That's a generalization that's not hard to make.

True, an inline 6 is the smoothest configuration. But even the less smooth configurations are still generally smoother than a 4 banger.

I don't think the MB V-6 is a "rough engine" compared to other 6s. We drove the 325/330 when we were shopping . . . those are the ultimate in smooth inline 6s. Yes, they were smoother than the MB - but I'd hardly call the MB 6 a "rough engine" in comparison.

 

You guys can discuss engineering principle all you want...

As for smoothness, I can place a clear glass filled with water on the intake plenum of my 3.2L V6, and with it running at idle, see no ripples in the surface of the water. I've done this with every car I've owned, just for grins. The only car that performed better was the 1.6L I4 in my '77 Honda Accord... That engine was a smooth as a sewing machine.

As for fuel efficiency, I'm currently getting 24mpg with my C320. This is equivalent to my previous daily driver, in spite of the fact that the C320 weighs 340 lbs more, has 700ml more displacement, 53 more HP and an automatic transmission, versus the 2.5L V6/5spd manny in my previous ride.

As for the original question in this thread, obviously I considered a C320, because I wound up buying one. I also seriously considered the C230K SportCoupe. But I never once considered the C240, not even for a second... If I wanted 168 hp, I would have stuck with my previous car and it's 165.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't be posting this, but I am quite tired of reading all of these threads about how the C240 sucks. It is what I drive and I am really enjoying it. Since performance has never been an issue for me, it is the ideal C-Class for me.

A little more about me now: I am 23 years old, Hispanic, and my own personal income (with bonuses received at the end of the year) approaches 92,000 (well, about 10K less). I may be wrong, but all of you 46 year old men driving the C-Coupe *****ing that your car is far better than the C240 are a bunch of losers. A MAN APPROACHING 50 YEARS OF AGE SHOULD BE DRIVING SOMETHING FAR BETTER (and please no petty responses by those of you in your 30's, its just as bad). So stop spending all of your time here trying to make your fragile egos feel better by downing the C240, and try figuring out why there are men half your age out there earning more and driving better.

Sorry, I really did like this forum, but the incessant *****ing is far to much for me.

 

this is just something i cant understand whatsoever. i think its important for an auto company to be diverse in all aspects with models, engine size, options, etc. just for an exaple for US models range of cars roadsters (big and small), sedans (big, medium and small), wagons (big and small), coupes (big and medium), and even a "hatchback" with an "ugly" color. this just gives the buyer more options. using just US spec models as an exaple there is quite a bit to choose from, let alone so many more engine choices and body styles we dont get. i could have bought a C240. i am paying $34k for my C230. For that price I could have bought a C240, and I could have even gotten myself a C320, even an ML320. though I wanted a 4 door. personally I dont care for 4 doors. i have no reason for a 4 door, im single, no kids, i dont like being a taxi for my friends, i prefer to have a coupe. i could have waited for the C320 sports coupe, but waiting this long for my C230 is bad enough. plus opting for the smaller engine i was able to get all the options i wanted, keep my payments lower, get an engine with a ULEV rating, burn less fuel, etc. for the price range i was shopping in, i had alot of different makes and models to choose from. a family of four could be shopping in the same price range im in, with totally different needs. lets say the wife had to have certain options, (whatever sey had to have), with the C240 she could get alot more for her money as far as options go then if she went for a larger engine. maybe they dont need a larger engine. maybe they need a wagon, or maybe a 4MATIC, or whatever. a car compny shouldnt have large price gaps from one model to the next. you need to have a virtual car buying ladder to climb in order to go from one model to the next (one brand or another, whatever suits you) so we can all be individuals and get a car that suits us, even if people say your "Hatchback is a really ugly color". variety is a spice of life, and personally im jealous of eurpope for all the models, engine choices, interior options and electronic goodies we just dont get.

i do agree that the C240 may be similar in perforance, this is something that people who buy the car are dealing with. MB is really just giving more choices. plus do you think that coming out with a small coupe, hatchback, whatever you want to call it, is really something about prestige. no its about variety. prestige is the Maybach, and thats not even really a comparable given all aspedcts of that car. europe has the a-class, and if/when they do bring that over here thats just going to open another can of worms with people saying why.

 

i am not saying they look identical but the front headlights can look similar, and the Hyundai comes standard with projector headlights!

 

Corporate sisters. DCX does own a large chunk of Hyundai.

 

how can someone get a C230 for 22k with options if the base price of the car is 26k?

 

i am very very far from 46 in fact its not even my age doubled, but if u had a c coupe at 46 why is there a problem with that? and a guy approacing 50 should have something better????? ummm, what if you cant afford any more? i am sure he would want better.

 

i hate more than anything to agree with you saying "From a Hatchback owner??? Wow. What a snob!"

now thats out of the way, with an attitude like yours about gas, is why this country keeps consuming natural resources and doesnt conserve let alone worry about it. before you say it, i could buy an electric car, or a hybrid, but didnt. i did get a car which is more economical, rated ULEV, with all the features and options i wanted in a down market green hatchback mercedes-benz.
plus this whole hatchback thing with you keeps me wondering, "what will he say next" and you never fail me. when i think youve said it all and pushed all limits, you keep raising the bar for yourself with your comments and quotes. the C230 being MB's reproduction of the 1990 Corrado is you being "inaccurate and knowingly false". though your never taking into account other peoples opinion or even keeping your mouth shut and doing us all a favor by not responding to a post (hateful), when all you have to say is bull$**t (abusive and profane). apply for head of the passenger car division at DCX, then you can make the changes you see fit (harassing)! then again, maybe you will one day change your attitude (inaccurate and knowingly false).

 

Simple. I live in Canada. We get better deals on Benzes. Come up here and buy a C 32 for under $42 K US. Just don't try to take it back to the USA - they won't let you unless you pay the difference between CDN and USA prices to M-B Canada.

Sure, there's no free services for 4 years up here, but that's worth exactly $1200 CDN at the rate we drive, or $750 US total.

When we bought our C 230 K in May, the base price was under $34,000 CDN, which at the time was the equivalent of $21,100 US. The Panorama roof and wipers together cost $2180 CDN ($1350 US) - total about $22.4K US.

That Hyundai is scary-looking. Rather like a mutant C 240, looking for revenge on the C 230 K

I like the better fuel efficiency of the C 230 K - ours gets over 38 MPG US driven gently at 90 km/h on the highway, and about 35 driven normally. The 4 cylinder engine is acceptably smooth for a car of this type. The new M 271 engine is both smoother and about 10% more fuel efficient than the 2.3. Using fewer resuurces is better for the earth, good for the karma.

Congrats to the young gent that is driving a C 240 and is proud of his high income. Remember though that not all people gauge their success in life and their self-worth by what they own or how conspicuous their consumption is.

Peace and cheers,

 

Ah, change the terms of reference, eh? Not so fast. Back to the point: I'll bet that the M 271 is as smooth as the M112. Both are far from ideal layouts, but the M 271 has a far more sophisticated balance shaft arrangement and has way lower reciprocating masses. And this is what your earlier post was about, speculating that the new M-B 4 was not going to approach the M112 for smoothness. I don't see why that should be the case. Mercedes-Benz claims the M 271 is as smooth as their V-6. I'm going to try a couple for myself to see whether it's true or not. And that is why your generalisation about M-B 4s vs. M-B 6s was ill-informed.

Keep working on that wonderful evolving signature of yours. You're bound to get it right one of these days

 

Being a hispanic, you sure know nothing about discrimination and stereotyping other people.

 

Actually, it is YOU that is changing the terms of reference. I never said that the new 4 was not going to approach the V6 in smoothness. Nope, never said it (go back and point out where I did!).

All I said was that it would be possible for MB to significantly improve the NVH of the 2.3, yet still not be as smooth as the V6. Average reading comprehension skills would reveal that the sentence does NOT say or predict that the 1.8 won't be as smooth as smoother than the V6, but that the point of the sentence is that there is a huge gap between the old 2.3 and the V6.

I don't know if the 1.8 is as smooth as the V6. MB may claim it is, but they claim a lot of things that are not true. But, its possible, with enough balance shafts, carefully engineered engine mounts, sound deadening, etc. a particular 4 can certainly be made to approach or surpass the smoothness of a particular 6. I never said otherwise. Yet, if that were to be the case in this particular instance, MB has made dozens of different 4s and dozens of different 6s over the years and my generalization still stands:

Generally, MB 6s are smoother than MB 4s.

(My other point also stands: No matter how smooth a 1.8 4 can be made to feel, barring a major crisis of epic proportions, a 1.8 liter 4 banger will NEVER power a C sedan in the US. The US market just expects/demands more than that - right or wrong, its just the way it is).

 

I agree SoCal, the US public has been so trained by major automakers to the "6 cylinder good, 4 cylinder bad" attitude that M-B will not go back to a 4 in a sedan anytime soon.

 

The c230k is the only Mercedes that I considered. I was looking for the best hatchback I could get and the c230k was almost perfect for what I wanted. The fact that it was a Mercedes was at first a negative and an embarrassment for me. I was concerned about MB snob effect backlash. But, I have gotten over that and am now happy to be a Mercedes owner. The c230k is a fine car. It meets my requirements: 2 door, hatchback, sporty, fun to drive, not too many on the road, solid feel, good fuel efficiency. Love it.
Deb

ps. I don't know why you all don't just ignore SoCal240/6.

 

Well, if this is the passage that you're referring to, it certainly implies that the new M 271 IL-4 will not be up to the NVH standard of the M 112 V-6. Admittedly, the above quotation is quite unclear writing, but in the context of the debate in this thread (if you can call it that) when this post was made, that was where you were apparently trying to go with this. Or was your "6 cylinder" frame of reference the turbine-smooth IL-6 of the BMW? Really, most of your posts, other than the insults, are sufficiently ambiguous to make the Oracle of Delphi proud

If you think others' comprehension skills are poor when reading your stuff, perhaps instead of complaining, you should strive to achieve some decently clear writing skills. I notice that you throw this accusation around a lot. EVERYONE apparently misunderstands you.

Is it us, or is it you?

What, no update of the signature today? Come on, this one's a day old already.

 

ahhh, ok thanks.

 

Capital idea

 

Perhaps you should try baiting hooks....and you can master that, too.

You already have the attitude down...think about it.

JER <COUGH>

 

I can't really blame SoCal for some of things he says on this board. Some of you guys are just too much. I will never understand why the c240 gets so much criticism from PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EVEN OWN ONE!!!

I think that 230 owners are just trying to give the 240 a bad name because they are upset that the 240 doesn't get pi$$ed on in the media like their "downmarket" hatch does.

And I think 320 owners are just trying to make themselves feel better about spending an extra 10k on 50 more hp. Because really, that is the only fundamental difference btwn a 240 and 320. Oh sorry, digital climate controls are different too. Yeah, that's a big one. How could I forget that?

SoCal, keep up the good fight for us 240 owners. I know how you feel, and I stand behind you!