The new 1.8L is actually a lot smoother than the 230, although the 240 probably still beats it. It's been a while since I drove a 6-spd C240, but yeah there is definitely a difference. The only problem with the pickup on the auto is the first few seconds when it lacks enough torque. After that it picks up well. The 6-spd makes it much better off the line. Although this is not important for a car like this. The C240 grows on me more and more, but I still like the sound of my supercharger, especially with the pulley.

 

I think I have actually spoken before about the smoothness of the 230. IMO, the exhaust of the 230 makes it seem a lot rougher than it actually is. With the pulley on there, you can really hear the engine wind out over the sound of the exhaust. And it's not really all that bad. Just my opinion.

 

Its necessary because M-B is losing sales in the "sports sedan" subcategory to the A4 1.8T and 325i which offer better performance at a lower price. M-B needs a model to compete directly with these cars (which means putting in a 180+ hp engine, stiffer suspension, and decent rims for around $30k)

 

Its not bad, but if it sits at idle for more than a few seconds there is this annoying low-frequency vibration that you can feel in the seats. But yeah, some of the "tractor" effect is the exhaust.

 

exactly. Boy this is fun.

 

I don't believe the C is losing sales to the A4 or the 325i. To the contrary, the C240 and C320 have gained on the A4 and 325i, and has been very successful for MB.

In fact, I believe that the new C sales have been so high, that for the first time in MB history, the C has outsold the E.

Also, I believe that if MB wanted the C240 to have 180 hp, they could just tune it to do that. It's not hard at all to get 180 hp from a 2.6 liter V6. I don't think they WANT to do that because they have to have a certain level of hp differentiation between the C240 and the more expensive C320.

 

True, it would make an interesting dilemma, much like in 1999-00 when the C230K could outrun a C280.

 

I always did like the C230 more than the C280. Which of your 230's do you like more? I still love the old 230 sedans, especially sports. You don't have the special edition one, do you?

 

Now I am beginning to believe that this model will be built and sold in N America. I was skeptical when the guy in Montréal first mentioned it. My main concern is that they should make a version of this car available without the boy-racer "sport" (Avantgarde in EU) body kit and aluminium trim. Still, it would be a formidable package if the price is right. On the other hand, if it's maybe 4K US (6500 CDN) more expensive than the C 230 K Sportcoupé, would the extra two doors really be worth the extra jack? Not to me, no contest in fact...

I've driven four C 240s (one a manual) and while the engine is quite smooth overall, thanks mainly to its balance shaft, it has its moments of roughness. After all, it is a 90 degree design, which is inherently unbalanced - hence the shaft. I haven't driven a 1.8 yet but, with its twin balance shafts and smaller reciprocating masses (than the V6), I doubt that it's appreciably different from the 90 degree V6 in smoothness. The character is undoubtedly different, which is just as well. Then there is the small matter of torque and HP, not to mention fuel economy.

I can't see why some people are so down on "four-bangers", when a 90 degree V6 is just as compromised a fundamental design. The pot calling the kettle black I suppose. If you were coming from a BMW 2.5 IL six (or better still, their 2.2 six, which is even smoother) that might be another matter.

G35? Probably a reliable, fast car. But its derivative and blobular design does not make my thing swing. So I'd never even test drive one, never mind considering a purchase.

And surely MacPhisto is somehow related to the dearly departed SoCal240?

 

check motortrend in their car of the year article. Even though G35 is their car of the year, they admit that the interior is too cheap for the car even I and motortrend must admit that the engine and the chasis is extravaganza. Not the interior nor the exterior.

 

As far as I know the 230K engine is for the SportsCoupe only. They will not put that engine in the sedan. At least thats the situtation in Europe and I doubt they will do any exceptions for Canada.

In Europe we have 180K and 200K for sedans, and 180K,200k,230K for SportsCoupe. If you are getting a 4-cylinder to Canada Im quite sure its a 180K or 200K. And to those wondering why they would put in a model between C240 sedan and C320 sedan, the 180K has only 143HP and 200k 163HP...

 

For the life of me I just CAN'T picture a 4-door C230. The back will look ridiculous on a sedan.

 

A 230/1.8 sport sedan seems like a natural slot in the MB line up. It is for the people who really liked the coupe, but needed a sedan for family/business reasons, so they had to opt for a 325i. Here in Atlanta, it is actually quite hard to find new 325i sedans on the dealers lots. They sell as fast as they are delivered to the dealers. Not so with the 240's or the coupes at a MB dealership. Mercedes has said on many occasions that they know they need to lower the average age demographic of their buyers since it is now in the mid 50's. The only way to do that is to offer reasonably priced sporty cars that a young family or even yonger singles can afford. The 240 is not an attractive alternative to the 325i or Audi to a younger buyer. My friends just bought a G35 sedan totally loaded including dvd Nav for approx 33,000.00 US. They looked at the BMW, but never even set foot in a MB dealership. It is a really nice car, and if you are not into the name/prestige game, it is a much better deal than a MB or BMW.

I test drove a G35 coupe and it totally kills the c-coupe in every category except ride and quietness. It is noticeably louder, and has a firmer ride, but it is MUCH better than a 350Z due to the longer wheelbase, and re-tuned suspension. I've driven both side by side with my coupe, so I could really compare them. I was going to trade my coupe for the G35 coupe but I could not swallow the 7000.00 depreciation hit in less than a year. All in all, though, the c-coupe is a better everyday car to me due to the better ride and quietness. I suspect that by the time you mod a c-coupe to handle in the same league with a G35 (.90G skidpad) it will probably ride worse than the G35. Interior-wise, you can already get wood, carbon fiber and aluminum trim to replace the cheap plastic on the dash and console, so that is not such a big issue. But Infiniti should have done it from the beginning. Also it has some other cheap stuff like a prop rod for the hood instead of struts, and stuff like that.
All in all though, I think MB needs the 230 sport sedan for their line up. Maybe my friends would have looked at one if it were available at that time.

 

what do you mean the back? you mean the badges?

the C200k is sold through out Europe and Asia, i don't see what's wrong with the C230k. After all the C200 has the kompressor badge on the back.

MacPhisto, you are right about for the first time the C-class out sold the E-class. The reason is simple though. It's the sales figure between the outgoing E-class which is 7-8 years old and the NEW for 2001/02 C-class. If you are a buyer in the market for a new car, which would interest you more? A 02 E320 or a 02 C320?

now that the NEW 211 E-class is out. It will definitely soon sell more than the C-class in yearly figure.

oh yeah, the C-class's sales figure is between the 3 and the A4 last and this year.

 

I think oggle means the coupe's rear figure on a sedan body which is not goint to happen since a C230K sedan would probly look like a C240 with different engine.

 

Here is my prediction:

The C230 Sport Sedan will be priced HIGHER than the C240, or about the same, not lower. This will prevent the cannibalization that has some of you waving your arms. A base price of $1000-$2000 over the C240 is a good guess, which they will justify with the exta hp and the sport stuff.

Like at least a couple of others here, I think my C240 is just fine, thanks, in every important performance category that I pay attention to. Of course, I'm one of those "old people" that the 20-somethings here think should be driving Buicks...one of the advantages of having 30+ years on some of you is that I bought my first MB at age 23 in 1968, and there are been 13 others since then. Only our '98 E320 was quicker than the current C - I can outrun 99.9% of the bad stuff I encounter on the road, and am simply unwilling to pay more to close that last gap. For those of you who think you need more, hey, knock yourselves out. Just don't assume that extra hp is necessary for either driving enjoyment or safety.

I've had 55 cars since 1962, and before I buy anything, I try all of the competition. I keep coming back to MB because they have a unique feel [the COMBINATION of safety, solidity, handling, braking, quiet, comfort] that no one else can quite match - including BMW and Audi [I've had plenty of both over the years]. Pure power is never at the top of my list.

And finally, I personally believe that the new 1.8 is a great engine, and not to be compared to the rough-and-grumbly 2.3. Only in the US would such an engine be derided as inadequate or not worthy of being in a "luxury sedan".

I've been saying for years that there is nothing wrong with the car market here that wouldn't be fixed by $4 a gallon gasoline...

 

Wait till iraq gets mad at us and raise the oil price. That's going to be a disaster for those who have huge displacement engines.

 

Your post makes a lot of sense, but, of course we *are* talking about the US market, complete with its peculiarities and sub-$2 fuel.

And, as you point out, the 1.8 WOULD be derided as inadequate and unworthy of the C sedan. MB knows that, which is why my guess is they are smart enough not to do it, in the US.

 

Just because the 1.8 WOULD be inadequate for YOU does not mean that it would be for everyone. And I don't think MB agrees with you, and you will find this out when the car is released.

Some people are just fine with a four cylinder, especially when you tell them that is supercharged and they realize it is quicker than most four cylinders they drove in the past. The SLK230 does pretty well, and there are many people who do not choose to pay the extra money to get the V6.

 

Like John Robison, I am not saying what is adequate or inadequate for ME.

I am just agreeing with Mr. Robison's observation of the US market.

 

VW and Audi own the entry level European sport sedan market. VW's 1.8Turbo is the volume engine...people love it...and its got lots of tuning potential...something that MB needs to realize that people WANT. Saab's coming off of having the same old stale product for years. The new Epsilon based 9-3 is a good car, and very competitive in terms of performance and price.

.[/B][/QUOTE]
What the C240 really lacks is a decent sport suspension and factory 17" wheels. Of course, the old ladies would not buy it, but more enthusiasts would. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why would you want 17" wheels and a sport suspension without the go power to back it up? The makings of just another poser. The C240 IS not holding its ground. Either give it the C320 motor(and move the C320 up in power) or let the 1.8SC model come in with its extra 21 HP and make a quicker entry level sedan. The 1.8 is more powerful, and just as smooth to the end user. Given the likely lower cost, its going to be the better deal. There isn't any reason to go for the lower performing V6, there's no easy upgrade path for the 6 besides a blower.

 

Why do you say that?

The C240 is the most successful model in the most successful C Class line in MB history.

Most Mfrs don't like to mess with their own success.

 

have you think about why is the C240 successful and why is the C-class introduced in 2001 is successful over the W210 E-class.

the main reason for the C240 to be successful is because of it's price. It's affordable compare to many other cars, standard features, and so on. It's the most affordable MB model in the US other than the C230k (which although is more affordable than the C240, but it lack of the praticality for some). The C-class success over the E-class in recent year because it is a NEW model compare to the 7-8 years old W210 E-class. Less people bought E-class because they know the new model is coming out.

If a 1.8 liter four cyclinder engine can perform as good or even better than the V6, why not. I'm sure a lot of people who bought the C240 will gladly trade their cars in IF there is a C230k sedan out there right now for similar price and more power.

You have to know that not a lot of people modify their cars to make more power. Choosing a car with more power to begin with is much more sensible to those who don't mod their cars.

 

Except the product cycle was the same when the last version of the C class came out - it also was competing against the "old" version of the E class, yet did not outsell that version. Just as is now, the C was the most affordable MB in the lineup, yet it did not outsell the E.

A lot of you seem to think there is some problem with C class sales or C240 sales, but you just say that, with no basis for that statement at all.

If anyone has anything that would even suggest that MB is concerned about C class sales (and is in fact not absolutely delighted with it's sales), or with C240 sales, I'd like to see it.

Otherwise, just making things up isn't very useful.

 

you are thinking about the TOTAL sales figure over the years. I was talking about 2001 and 2002.

No one said there is a problem with the C-class sales or the C240 sales. We are only talking about the lack of power from the 2.6 V6 and with the 1.8 s/c I-4 making more hp and torque. The C240 sales figure will likely to decline if the C230k is coming to the states.

btw, if the 1.8/2.3 WOULD be derided as inadequate and unworthy of the C sedan, then why was the W202 C230K (when it was introduced in 99) out selling the C280.

if MB agree with you, why did they put the 2.3K engine in their C-class. TWO years ago.