=( 2002 C230 Performance SUCKS!
04-02-2003, 09:12 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally posted by cliffybabe
I know its boring but speed kills, I know I have a turbo c220 cdi coupe, but I do know that I didn't buy it to be fast I bought it because it's a merc and it's a nice car.
I know its boring but speed kills, I know I have a turbo c220 cdi coupe, but I do know that I didn't buy it to be fast I bought it because it's a merc and it's a nice car.
Sure, your government punishes you by charging obscene amounts of tax on your fuel. But in America we like all the power we can get, fuel economy and safety be dammed.
04-02-2003, 09:16 PM
#28
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C230K
Originally posted by Robbie
Anyone owned both the older 2.3 liter and the newer 1.8 liter C230 yet? I've driven both and must say that they seemed quite similar in performance, with the newer motor being nicer all round.
Anyone owned both the older 2.3 liter and the newer 1.8 liter C230 yet? I've driven both and must say that they seemed quite similar in performance, with the newer motor being nicer all round.
04-02-2003, 10:04 PM
#29
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Originally posted by zimmer26
Cars you can step to IMO:
GTI, JETTA any trim pretty much
Cars you can step to IMO:
GTI, JETTA any trim pretty much
04-02-2003, 10:37 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Big Sheesh
TPLiquid:
Is the girl making phone congee in your avatar the notorious Michelle Kwan?
TPLiquid:
Is the girl making phone congee in your avatar the notorious Michelle Kwan?
I think that was his GF?
04-03-2003, 08:49 AM
#32
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C230 K's performance does not suck. It can compete relatively well w/ most sub-$40 K cars (Cdn, about $26.5 K US).
Among the cars it can beat: Jaguar X-Type 2.5, Lexus ES300, Audi A4 1.8T.
Cars it's very close to: Mitsubishi Eclipse GT, Toyota Celica GT-S
0-60 can be very deceiving, you are reaching a RATE of speed, not a distance. I will use acceleration times & distances from Road & Track to illustrate this point:
RSX Type-S Oct-01
0-60 mph, 6.7 s
0-100 ft, 3.3 s
0-500 ft, 8.4 s
C230 Jan-02
0-60 mph, 7.6 s
0-100 ft, 3.3 s
0-500 ft, 8.6 s
Notice that while the Type-S was almost a full second faster to a RATE of speed of 60 mph, it was not really faster to distances of 100 & 500 ft. In a race, it does not matter if the other driver reached a RATE of speed of 0-60 mph faster if they did not actually reach a distance faster.
It took 8.4 s to reach 500 ft, so the almost 1 second 0-60 advantage was part of the time. Basically, from the time the "race" started, the C230 stayed w/ the Type-S neck & neck through the first 500 ft & 8.X s, despite the Type-S reaching the Rate of speed of 60 mph almost a full second faster.
1/4 mile times & trap speed are more indicative of a car's acceleration than 0-60 mph, which is simply reaching a RATE of speed faster & not a distance, & can be quite deceiving as illustrated above. However, 1/4 miles may not accurately reflect short & low speed races.
Among the cars it can beat: Jaguar X-Type 2.5, Lexus ES300, Audi A4 1.8T.
Cars it's very close to: Mitsubishi Eclipse GT, Toyota Celica GT-S
0-60 can be very deceiving, you are reaching a RATE of speed, not a distance. I will use acceleration times & distances from Road & Track to illustrate this point:
RSX Type-S Oct-01
0-60 mph, 6.7 s
0-100 ft, 3.3 s
0-500 ft, 8.4 s
C230 Jan-02
0-60 mph, 7.6 s
0-100 ft, 3.3 s
0-500 ft, 8.6 s
Notice that while the Type-S was almost a full second faster to a RATE of speed of 60 mph, it was not really faster to distances of 100 & 500 ft. In a race, it does not matter if the other driver reached a RATE of speed of 0-60 mph faster if they did not actually reach a distance faster.
It took 8.4 s to reach 500 ft, so the almost 1 second 0-60 advantage was part of the time. Basically, from the time the "race" started, the C230 stayed w/ the Type-S neck & neck through the first 500 ft & 8.X s, despite the Type-S reaching the Rate of speed of 60 mph almost a full second faster.
1/4 mile times & trap speed are more indicative of a car's acceleration than 0-60 mph, which is simply reaching a RATE of speed faster & not a distance, & can be quite deceiving as illustrated above. However, 1/4 miles may not accurately reflect short & low speed races.
Last edited by J P; 04-03-2003 at 08:51 AM.
04-03-2003, 12:59 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Croton, NY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 mr2 turbo, 2002 coupe
No, it wasn't.
0-60: 7.5
1/4: 15.5
These for the 180hp GTI 1.8T per SCC's latest comp test. OK maybe the new 24v 200hp 6cyls will take it, but not by too much. I drove the 174hp GTI VR6 several times, almost bought one actually and trust me your coupe not only handles better, its a bit quicker too. GTI owners like to think they're mid 6ers, but they're really not. Maybe the w/the new engine, I haven't seen that tested yet.
0-60: 7.5
1/4: 15.5
These for the 180hp GTI 1.8T per SCC's latest comp test. OK maybe the new 24v 200hp 6cyls will take it, but not by too much. I drove the 174hp GTI VR6 several times, almost bought one actually and trust me your coupe not only handles better, its a bit quicker too. GTI owners like to think they're mid 6ers, but they're really not. Maybe the w/the new engine, I haven't seen that tested yet.
Originally posted by BlackC230Coupe
Is that a joke? or do u mean a golf? i know many people with stock GTI's and they all run high 14's. the coupe will not beat one stock. Unless the driver sucks.
Is that a joke? or do u mean a golf? i know many people with stock GTI's and they all run high 14's. the coupe will not beat one stock. Unless the driver sucks.
04-03-2003, 01:06 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Croton, NY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 mr2 turbo, 2002 coupe
And btw, I didn't mean that these were sure kills, simply cars that there is no need to be scared of, and I ain't scared of any stock VW esp. in my MR2T which CAN run legit high, even mid 14s.
04-03-2003, 03:28 PM
#37
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 Yin
I've driven both before. The 2.3 engine is much smoother and power comes out earlier than the 1.8. The 1.8 felt weird maybe because power comes out later than the 2.3 engine. However, the 1.8 felt more stable during cornering.
I've driven both before. The 2.3 engine is much smoother and power comes out earlier than the 1.8. The 1.8 felt weird maybe because power comes out later than the 2.3 engine. However, the 1.8 felt more stable during cornering.
04-03-2003, 03:38 PM
#38
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C230 Coupe Black/Charcoal C5 C7 Auto
Originally posted by zimmer26
And btw, I didn't mean that these were sure kills, simply cars that there is no need to be scared of, and I ain't scared of any stock VW esp. in my MR2T which CAN run legit high, even mid 14s.
And btw, I didn't mean that these were sure kills, simply cars that there is no need to be scared of, and I ain't scared of any stock VW esp. in my MR2T which CAN run legit high, even mid 14s.
04-03-2003, 03:39 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by mctwin2kman
Felt just as good as the 2000 C230 K Sedan I drove for a weekend, actually faster.
Felt just as good as the 2000 C230 K Sedan I drove for a weekend, actually faster.
- BT
04-03-2003, 04:47 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by zimmer26
And btw, I didn't mean that these were sure kills, simply cars that there is no need to be scared of, and I ain't scared of any stock VW esp. in my MR2T which CAN run legit high, even mid 14s.
And btw, I didn't mean that these were sure kills, simply cars that there is no need to be scared of, and I ain't scared of any stock VW esp. in my MR2T which CAN run legit high, even mid 14s.
04-03-2003, 06:43 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Croton, NY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 mr2 turbo, 2002 coupe
Yeah, that car does rock- ahead of its time in 1991 I think. I'll have to include it in my sig- don't know why I haven't yet actually.
