KA8

W203's are best looking c classes so far especially sport sedans. Never liked the altima-tail like rear end of w204's. Front is very nice but something is not right with the rear end. I want to replace my z with C55 as a dd. Of course z will be kept as a project/toy car

LILBENZ230

Where do these numbers come from? They disagree with MB's own official figures. The C230K in 5AT form should be 1/2 second quicker to 60 than a C230 V6 6MT. I've said it a million times before.. the C230 V6 is too slow and too inefficient (overall) for it to have even appeared on my radar as a possible purchase. An 05 C320 Sport would've been my first pick, even though the M112 3.2L is nothing fantastic.

W203E35

Looks like some type of brochure. The 230k does have almost 10 more torque but it also has 10 less hp. The 230 does weight more than the 230k but honestly doubt all this will make the 230k AT faster by half a second against the 230 6MT don't get me wrong i'm not calling you out. Just seems a 6MT m272 is unstoppable against the 230k AT. Once the m272 revs no stopping it.

timmynabenz

if you really research, you'll notice MB's factory numbers tend to be off. stock to stock, auto vs. auto and manual vs. manual, the 2.5 V6 is actually faster than the I4K, yet according to MB the I4K is faster.

sucks you didnt consider a C230 V6, you would have ended up with a faster car!

nrg_mike

No love for 320s?

timmynabenz

C320's are gaaayy!!!!


*Secretly jealous because 05 C320 sports are frickin siiiicccck *

Glyn M Ruck

The V6 is indeed faster - It's not an issue of absolute horsepower, torque, weight etc. It's an issue of how the engines produce their power, how they rev & the torque multiplication effects of gearing. A topic already competently covered by e1000.

The only time the K engine has marginal advantage is at pull away due to it's blown torque curve. It is a reluctant revver.

LILBENZ230

Having driven both, my 230K is undoubtedly faster than the 230 V6 7G. I have no experience with a V6 6MT. My dream 203 is a C350 Sport 6MT. Even over the AMG cars.

mystery905

I agree that the w203 look is more classic than the w204 and will age better.

You can always easilly mod the front of the w203 if you want.

I do prefer the non-sport look of the w204 which you can get, but there's nothing to be done about the not so nice looking rear end and sharp creases.

carbonfiberwhor

Im not gonna lie, I enjoyed being in the loaners. Only for a few days though. Afterwards I was DYING to get back into mine!

LILBENZ230

I like the 2005-2007 W203 better than the 204 in terms of exterior styling. I find the 2001-2004.5 exterior styling to be undesirable and the 204 to be much better. I think the 204 interior is a step up all around, regardless of the amount of "plastic" it has.

But can someone find me a newer-than-2005 C-class that does this?



The first ~100 enroute to the mountains.



Arrival at destination. How cute that it's all 3s lol. Just over 1/4 tank remaining.



The mountains did take a toll on overall economy, still not bad for just 1 tank.

The facelift-AMG body cladding was the reason I went with the facelifted cars. The above is the reason I have no regrets about passing up the thirsty and utterly pointless 2.5L V6 model.

W203E35

Well if we all drove like the grandma you are we would be getting 40+ MPG on our m272 j/k

That is pretty impressive, I get 17 - 19. Best I ever did was 22 but the people that know me know my driving habits.

Norwichdelta06

clearly he only drives downhills

nrg_mike

The Z as a project car is a HUGE money pit. There isn't much that can be done to them and A/M support is far and few between. Believe me, I've sponsored a couple in my day (see the High Intensity Z) and all the work done to them was custom fabb'ed.

SeaCoupe

I know, I'm mixing this up too much. There should also be a category for a 2002 C230 Coupe with Pulley. Night and day car. I think our car moves down to a low-mid 6 second car with auto. Better with the manual.

Price wisw, the Coupe is the only car that came with a cloth interior. I beleive they were trying to reach to a younger audience and make the Coupe more affordable. As i recall, my car with leather, power seats, and some other odds and ends stickered at 29,500 (I think).

I drove a W204 for a few days recently. I found the car quite tail happy on hard braking. Understeer on the stock 17's was soo bad. It was as if they took the sport out of the car. I'd like to see a comparions of lateral Grip numbers. I did like how wide the car was. Felt roomy to me. At then end of the day, I felt like I was in an Accord.

Ed

nrg_mike

Build quality is far better than the Accord and interior feel still feels similar to the 203. I remember going for a ride in my friend's C63 and thinking "wow this feels like my C320 Sport Sedan". While the C300/350 sport suspension does feel softer than the 203's, it still drives like a great car. It has more of a luxurious feel.
As for the Accord, I hated it. There's just something about a door frame that flexes when you roll the windows up and down that is a HUGE turn off.

To reply to the comment about the Coupe attracting younger drivers, it's true. It was targeting the market of 318ti buyers and worked quite well. From what I've noticed in the past few years, hatches (in general) became more popular. With this, the coupes seemed to come out of nowhere. Sadly, without the CLC, this void is now being filled by Audi A3's, Mazda3's, and WRX wagons, and GTi's.

On a side note, to compare a few things... My 05 C320 Sport Sedan was purchased in 05 for about $42,500 (cash) and was fully loaded with the exception of the heated seats, phone and BiX. I even have leather and Comand. My C300 Sport is similarly equipped (mbTex, no leather, and without a homelink mirror) and I only paid $37,500 (cash, including the nicer lojack package). It's interesting to see that the price would have stayed the same for 5 years.

FrankW

do not care for either!!!!!!!!!!!

oh wait......

LILBENZ230

No, that "Let's see what kind of mileage I can get if I drive reasonably" phase only lasted about 2 weeks. This was recently. My car does this without much effort. But see, don't misunderstand me - I'd trade-off some of my fuel economy for the C350. But not for the C240s or 230 V6s.

samaritrey

I can't drive reasonably. My dad taught me to drive and he had all sports cars 95 911 6 speed is the first car i drove on the road after getting my permit lol i had no chance. also the first car i got pulled over in that same day lol. On the highways i can get 32mpg but around city i can't get above like 14 because of my gunning it after ever stop light. lol

LILBENZ230

So which is your favorite? How many miles does the C320 have? I had the choice of a 2004 C320 or my 2005 C230K SS. Same price, same dealer, similar mileage. I do not regret my decision. The facelift was when Benz really got the 203 right, IMO. I could not warm to the pre-facelift cars. The devil is in the details and those cars have it all wrong with the wheels/tires that look too small and the buttons inside and the frosty headlights and the fugly gauges.

I just wish that I could have had a 2005 C320SS 6MT. The specs aren't anything special on the M112, there's something to be said for V6 muscularity (with the exception of less-than-3.0L ones).

nrg_mike

Well my 05 has about 36800 miles on it. I'm the original owner and have always taken care of it greatly. It served as a weekend/casual car while I drove my coupe until Jan of this year (in Jan it had 30k).
My W204 only has less than 2k on it and will prob do less than 5k this year.

Honestly though, I love the feel of the W203 more. It also is a little skewed because I've lightly modded it to suit my needs a little more. The M112 is surely a muscular engine and it helps that the build quality and suspension feel much tighter and more solid as a whole. The best way I can describe it is to say that the C320 Sport feels like more solid mass. It's tighter in the corners, more crisp when I accelerate and has more confidence in motion. Also the little added amenities really help. I have the sport seats w/ driver memory so when I exit the vehicle, the seat resets and pulls all the way back making it easier to exit (the C300 doesn't).
The C300 is very similar in power (virtually identical in hp and torque) but the M271 feels light and more suited for comfort. There's less of a sense of urgency when the gas is applied. The sport suspension is not as low as the W203 and the electronically assisted steering in the W204 surely takes a little away from a sporty feel. IMO, the electronic steering in newer cars takes a lot away from the driving experience. To me, it makes things seem like they're floating too much. With that said, the options list is similar to the 05 C320. The main thing is that the new Comand and in car electronics beat the W203 to death over and over and over again. Sound quality is right up there compared to the Harmon Logic7 system in my C320 too.

All in all, I must say that I love to "drive" the 05 C320 much more. The tighter, more muscular and responsive feel are what really tip the scale in the C320's favor. The C300 is still a wonderful car and I drive it when I'm in the mood for a more comfy ride, but deep down inside, it reminds me that I wasn't able to find a C350 Sport w/ the same options (they don't package them like that anymore. You have to pre-order. Basically once you get to 40k in a C class, they try to sell you an E Class. Sadly the E Class won't fit in my garage...)

FrankW

hmm...my 08 C350 ride is very stiff and firm. definitely less comfortable than the C230/230k sport w203s I've driven. maybe they had changed the damper rate in the 2010' model.

as for steering feel. they're about the same except the weight is different. not liking the lighter feel much either, but makes it easier to drive.

since we still have a CLK320 in the family I do know the M112 feels like it has more grunt on the low end, but it would run a little out of breath up top even tho it does have a variable speed intake manifold. the M272 is smooth and deliver its power in the middle and up high and far more willing to rev imo.

I think most of the ppl that feels the 203 feels sportier is because of the sitting position. The 204 seats are alot higher than the 203's.

timmynabenz

the 203 imo is MUCH MUCH more stable at higher speeds, plus the braking is a lot more precise, the 204 seems to want to to wobble out of place more than the 203.

i also agree with the 203 being a sportier ride.
i think the best way to sum it up is by a post i once saw, cant remember verbatum, but:
the 203 was designed to be a SPORT SEDAN, it was made for its purpose. With the 204, they built a car, then tweeked it a little to make a a sport version and a little to make a luxury version.

and im sorry but the new steering system sucks

johnand

Matt, I really like your posts and respect you. But your completely undeserved (IMO) hatred for the 2.5L M272 7G W203 is getting old. So, I suggest we meet up at a drag strip and end this debate once and for all After I beat you in the quarter mile, I will gladly reset your mirror memory positions and do any coding you want via STAR.

PS: W203 > W204

W203E35

Here is my car but this is because I reset the Adaptations (Electronics) and I was training her to be a beast. I haven't driven the 230k or 230 so I don't know who will win but on paper (not MB) it says the 230 will win