hey guys quick question well the title says it all

 

well the c320 seems to have a better 0-60 time. the c320 has 215hp 221Tq the c280 is 228hp and 221Tq.

 

Is this a race or a purchase?

I usually only see C280s as 4Matic cars so the C320 would have the edge. If you're trying to pick one to purchase definitely go with the C280. Newer powertrain.

 

I have seen a C300 beat a C320. I'm going to say "yes".

 

i think it is up to who had the better start really the 0-60 times are so close .4 or something like that. so my c320 should be able to beat a c280 but in real world conditions who knows.

 

lmao. no way

 

i say stock for stock the c280 should win. modded vs modded the c320 would probalby have the edge since it has greater displacement.

 

The C320 has 215bhp as where the C280 has the 228bhp. I know the C320 0-60 time is like 6.9-7.0 sec. The 280 must be right around there.

 

With the 3 litre DOHC 4 valve per cylinder M272 & 7G gearbox at coast the C300 will just edge out the C320 if you rev the 3 litre engine to the red line in all gears but it's mighty close. It high altitude the C300 is a clear winner because it has superior volumetric efficiency - i.e it breathes better.

 

when i looked it up it said that the c280 0-60 was around 7.4 so the c320 is faster at least to 60 like i said i bet it really depends on how well you start.

 

I've read tests, not to mag race or whatever, where they were able to get 0-60 out of the C300 at 6.9. But did they make a RWD W203 C280? I've never personally seen one. I still think the C280 will have the edge even if it's only slightly - especially against an older, higher mileage 320.

 

I say the C280 will win over the C320, but just barely.

Simply put it, C280 has a smaller (lighter) engine with more output.

But if i can remember, the 320 reaches peak torque 500rpm sooner. About an engine having more miles being slower? thats bs. The more mileage an (MB) engine has, the more efficient its suppose to run; parts are losen, mpg is better, and the break in period has been far gone. In endurace tests, its actually proven that higher mileage engines run as good, if not better than when new.

 

4wd launch!

 

Crucial man! Because that that 320 is gonna struggle with traction on takeoff. Lots of horses!

 

Yes, there have been two of them sold through my work and I worked on both of them (one was bought at auction and one was traded in). I made a thread a while back about the 2.5L vs. the 3.0L after I drove one of the 280s around for a day. The 3.0L works MUCH better with the 7G transmission than the 2.5L in the C230. The transmission is probably why the C320 shows a better 0-60 time.

 

lmao. I think my NA C320 was one of the fastest on board.

EvoSport UDPS
Secondary Cat+res delete+remus muffler
Mercedes Benz STAR 93 octane change
Renntech Carbon Fiber airbox with carbon kevlar intake snorkles
NGK Iridium Plugs

I ran a C320 4matic. and I pulled on that car hard.

 

Ive never tried the 7G in any application. Is it slow through the gear changes? or is it the gearing?

 

I guess the fact that Edmunds.com often finds their long term cars are a tick or two slower after a year and 20,000 miles is just BS, then. After all, it isn't like they standardize those tests or anything...

A car with 100,000+ miles is not going to be like a car with 25,000 miles. Plain and simple.

91RS, thanks for the clarification. Must be a pretty rare combo.. every C280 I've seen has been 4Matic for the W203. Agree with you that the C230's 2.5L V6 and 7G combo can be quite frustrating.

 

C'mon everyone..we all know the mighty 2.6 liter - C240 will beat them both. )

 

Yep. Especially the C240 4Matic. Traction advantage!

 

The problem is the 2.5L doesn't have that much power and with so many gears it has to downshift 3 gears to go up a decent hill and if you have to make a quick acceleration passing manuever while already moving it just takes way to long to downshift to a gear where you can actually go. The C280 with the 3.0L just works much better even with only the modest power increase. The C300 with the 3.0L works even better. The W203 and W204 3.0Ls rated at the same power, but the W204 must be tuned very different because it feels much faster than the W203. The W204 just doesn't look and feel as nice as the W203 in my opinon, thankfully they made a C55 so I'm very happy with my car now in every way!

 

We'll the C300 (on paper) does 0-60 7.1 and the c320 (on paper) does 6.9.

Not much of a difference, but I saw the C300 have the car by 2 cars which is a good amount.

But again like most people mentioned it's all on who gets a good start. Start matters big time.

Did you have the coupe or sedan?

 

Yes!!!!! - down a mineshaft with bags of cement in the trunk

BTW the C280 RWD was a popular car in SA

 

Even on paper - those results are not repeatable. Slightly higher air density on day of test can make that difference. If you take manual control of the 7G & make sure it only changes at the red line it will be very marginally quicker. The extra horsepower does not evapourate. I grant how it develops the power is meaningful.

 

its a 4matic sedan
thanks guys its stock any suggestions on what to improve or modify