FrankW

it's actually the other way around...sorry.

with every new C-class generation they want them to be more sporty and drives better than the last.

the W203 however came in marketed as a baby S-class that didn't emphasis on it being a sport sedan as a selling point, but a entry level luxury sedan. It was only after the facelift MBUSA decided to import them with the AMG sport pkg as a standard feature and market them as a sport sedan after seeing how well the 2003-2004 C230k sport sold as a fun entry level sedan.

the 204 was designed from ground up to be a sport sedan in order to compete with 3 and A4 by using a lot of what they learn from the 05-07 203 into the 204.

timmynabenz

i would like to participate too, but it still wont shut him up lol

as ive explained to him, me and my best friend who has a 2005 C230K in mint condition raced, numerous runs and the V6 is indeed faster

W203E35

When I had the rental w204 it stopped better, the steering was much better and it was much forgiving on bumps but still pretty stiff.

The suspension award goes to the w204 for sure.

I kind of like the w203 body (looks) better than the w204 but the navi and sleek looking COMAND makes the w204 a winner.

timmynabenz

i almost thought of adding that inn to avoid confusion, but i meant the facelifted 203's, obviously the pre 2005's were not built to be sport sedans lol

Arn560

When I drove a C280 4-Matic, it was as close to the most comfotable, smoothest & quietest car ever. I was greatly impressed especially after I had just climbed out the sport seats of a kompresser with its stiffened springs etc. The C300 did not impress me much but the torque of the C350 did a lot to put me back in the Sport frame of mind.

PC Valkyrie

I think the W204 C-class is a better built, more solid car than the W203 C-class, including the facelifted W203 models. Even though there was a lot of hype about the W204 and the "agility control" upgrades (alluding to the suspension system with passive adjustable dampers), it clearly has fallen behind the competition (namely the 3 series and A4) when it comes to handling dynamics.

Here are the instrumented tests that Road &Track conducted on various C-class cars of interest through the years. It's not clear at all how the W204 is superior to the W203 dynamically in any way. It may feel like a more solid and better built car, but it certainly does not blow away the W203 Sport Sedans.

2002 C320 Sport Sedan (pre-facelifted W203)
skidpad: 0.84g
slalom: 64.0mph

2006 C350 Sport Sedan (facelifted W203 with Direct Control upgrades)
skidpad: 0.85g
slalom: 66.4mph

2008 C350 Sport Sedan (W204 with Agility Control)
skidpad: 0.81g
slalom: 63.8mph

By the way, R&T is the only car mag which also publishes what a "significant difference" is in all of their objective performance tests. A 0.02 g difference in skidpad grip and a 1 mph difference in slalom speed is considered a "significant difference" for their testing procedure. That's why I like R&T most for comparing objective performance numbers between cars.

And don't even try to compare to the E90 3 series or B8 A4......the W204 C-class just gets blown away when it comes to these type of test numbers. Relative to the competition, the W203 C-class was actually far closer to the rivals of its time (E46 3 series and B6/7 A4) when it comes to performance stats.

LILBENZ230

I would love the opportunity to race a 230 V6 7G. I've driven them back to back a few times and maybe it's not the engine I hate so much as the transmission. I've heard others say it, the 7G seems an ill match to the small V6 even though it works fine in the 350s. The engine is refined and yeah all that stuff, but the driving experience sucks - again, my experience, not shared by everyone. Maybe if I had never driven a C350 or a C230K I'd not notice it so bad. The quickest C230K was the first, with the M111 - the M271 was slower, but more refined - then the M272 V6 which was slower still but more refined. C230s took steps backwards until they ceased to exist in the USA at all

The biggest problem I have with it is that not only is it slower (granted, not by a huge amount) but it's also much more thirsty in the mix of driving I've done in both. If it were a tenth of a second quicker (it isn't, of that I am certain) that wouldn't be worth the 25-30% worse fuel economy anyway. I have no problem admitting that my C230K is slow (albeit not as slow as your C230 ) but at least I can also say it's extremely efficient. With sensible driving, mid-30s are no problem on the highway and high-20s no problem even with some city thrown in.

As for the 204, I agree with what Frank has said. Timmy posting the 204 is less stable, more wobbly, that the 203 was designed to be a Sport sedan, all that was typical nonsense. The 203 wasn't redesigned for 2005, it was freshened up. It looks much better, I'll agree. But the 204 is a better car. I've driven numerous W204s and they feel better than the 203. You can mod to your heart's desire, but there's something to be said for the feel of a new car. I like the chassis rigidity in the 204 along with the higher level of refinement over the 203. Aside from design subjectivity, I see no area where the 204 was a step back.

PC Valkyrie

Given the test data, I would predict that a facelifted W203 C350 Sport Sedan will outrun a W204 C350 Sport Sedan on any type of track configuration, assuming equal drivers. The W203 can probably out-handle, and accelerate faster than the equivalent W204.

Like I've said before, the W204 C350 is probably a better built, more solid car, but the facelifted W203 C350 will outperform it in all situations, stock vs stock.

AdidasC230

I think the thing between a W203 and W204 is def metarials and feel. While yes the W203 has platic in it, its not hard plastic with a fake grain, the dash on the W204 has a hollow hard sound and feel, the W203 is soft and solid sounding. W204 seats are a cheaper fake leather, and the texture is cheaper and feels much like the dash and door panels. The W204 is a molded hard plastic like a dodge caliber, where the W203 is a skinned door with a soft vynal covering over the plastic. So its much softer to the touch in every aspect in a W203.

Also the W204 has a stiffer ride that doesnt quite float, like the W203. Every one always says they love how they feel like my car floats along the road, and how comfy it is. In the W204 the suspension is stiffer and it doesnt feel like your trying to tow a boat behind it when you start off, but problem is, now it just drives like any other car, it does "ride like a magic carpet" or have a very mercedes feel, its like getting in a nicer subaru outback then a MB which is supposed to look feel and be amazing, esp for the money.

johnand

Matt, I too have driven both back to back several times. and I personally have observed the opposite of you when it comes to the performance of the 2005 C230K and my own 2007 C230. I have found that across the board the 2.5L is faster, except the nod goes to the C230K for off the line grunt, but from there the 2.5L performs better. It revs more freely(which I LOVE an engine that revs freely), is more refined, quieter, and smoother. I personally think the 7G is a much better transmission than the 5sp in the C230K. I do absolutely agree that the 7G is much better mated to the 3.5L engine than the 2.5L. But, the 7G still works very well on the 2.5L engine, IMO, especially with all the latest ECM and TCM flashes.

The only thing I don't dispute you on, and agree 100%, is the efficiency of the C230K beats the C230 2.5L hands down. Though, I have shown that the 2.5L can achieve respectable MPG figures on the highway. It is the in town where the efficiency drops of rapidly vs. the C230K. I regularly get high 20's low 30's on the highway. But, town drops into the high teens.

As for your assessment of the 203 vs. the 204, I agree completely. The W204 is a better built car than the W203, no doubt. But, IMO, it is a HUGE step backwards in overall exterior and interior design. That is why my opinion is the W203 > W204. I had the chance to have either one, and I chose the W203 based on looks, even though the W204 drove better.

W203E35

I raced a buddy's 204 C350 on the freeway and we are dead even. He had stock wheels and I had my wheels. He has X-Pipe and I had Remus. We tried to do off the line but there were too many cars.

I also want to comment on the 335i VS the C350. I did have the opportunity to race one and I believe if the C350 is in the right RPM (3k) it will put up a good fight against the 335i.

FraKctured

+1 Overall, the 204 loaner I had felt stiffer, bouncier, which I read as an attempt to make it feel "sportier." FAIL.

It also didn't feel faster than my 203, so I returned it scratching my head wondering what they were thinking with this new version.

splinter

Driven the W204 350 and 63.
They’re pleasant enough from behind the wheel, but still can’t quite come to grips with their tinwork.

Not ragging on you, Karo, but are you claiming your M272 has run straight up with BMW’s delightfully turbocharged N54?

LILBENZ230

It won't. Sorry Karo, you're my bud and all but it absolutely has no chance. Of course there are variable with drivers that can't be accounted for with this kind of thing, but assuming equal drivers the C350 will get absolutely destroyed. I've not driven a 203 C350, but you yourself just said that your race with a 204 C350 turned out pretty evenly. I HAVE spent a week with a 204 C350 and it is much, much slower than a 35i car. But you don't have to take my word for it if you don't wish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEf4WGc_No

That's a good "equal drivers" standard. If you get a bad driver in a manual 335i or some other variant, maybe.. individual results will vary. But anyone who reads your post and assumes they have a shot with a 335i is very likely, very mistaken. 1.2 seconds to 60 and 7mph in the quarter are HUGE.

W203E35

It did take me but not killed me like the 335 owners claim. I think if I was maybe in mid 3k I would have been able to be maybe stay behind 1/2 car length (he had me I wanna say 1 1/2 - 2 cars). Off the line when I raced a 335i it took me by a lot. I have never driven a 335 so I don't know how they are in mid range but off the line they are very fast.

LILBENZ230

Insane. The pull is fierce from idle to redline and the noise is symphonic. Don't get me wrong, the C350 wasn't slow. But it's just not even fair to compare them. The power difference is pretty massive. Would you say that the C300 will give the C350 a close run? Because the power difference between those two is fairly close to representing the power difference between the 350 and 335i.

And as for higher speeds, there's a 32hp peak power difference. But that's peak. The area under the curve as the engines rev matters more and I'd be willing to bet that there's a bigger difference there than at peak.

All things equal, a 335i will run OVER a C350. But if you race one, in the real world, as I said - your results may vary.

W203E35

Check these out I guess you can really tell if it was driver error or not. Not the number but the powerband.


http://images.paultan.org/uploads/20...dyno_large.jpg


http://www.dragtimes.com/2008-Merced...phs-18370.html

LILBENZ230

Where I come from we call that Adios C350. But there's something wrong with the 335's graphing. It's showing the power much higher than the readouts, though the readouts themselves are probably accurate.

Performance wise, BMW just has it. Mercedes is always a step behind, albeit probably deliberately. They do stupid stuff like put huge heavy V8s with automatics only into the C-class and call that sporty. Sorry, that's only "sporty" in the way American muscle is "sporty".

W203E35

I don't think so when it comes to AMG but then again I like Benz a little more than BMW so that may be a bias comment. Actually I like Audi more than BMW as well

Actually you're right about the C class, that uncontrollable beast

LILBENZ230

I love forced induction. As such, I was a big fan of the V8 Kompressor models of AMG. I still drool over a used E55, though the 63 does nothing for me. I like the C32 a lot better than the C55 (powertrain wise). The C63 is sheer stupidity and probably one of my least favorite Benz cars ever. I'm excited at the prospect of FI being brought back into Benz, though I really love the sound of a supercharger and they're gonna use turbos.

W203E35

Hey but you have to give Benz some credit. I'm sure once these new Turbo engines come out it'll give BMW a run for their money. I'm sure BMW is already panicking

Ohh BTW you're right about your C350 and 335i comment. You cant really base which car is faster on street because like you said Driver Error.

There is a huge difference in me gunning it on the freeway on auto and me gunning it on the freeway already in gear. You guys are right. I hope you guys don't think I am saying all this because I own a C350. I'm sure most have seen my love hate relationship with my car. One day I complain the next day I praise her. Temjin knows I told him NO Turbo that if I want a fast car I will sell her and get a 335 and yet i'm here contradicting myself and saying it might have a chance (by that I meant put up a good fight) against the 335i.

Matt how many cars do you think the 335i will leave the C350 (both good drivers)

timmynabenz

I would say that engine and suspension are pretty crucial when designing a performance vehicle, and guess what got changed when they did the facelift?

And i have driven 204's out the yang, i have probably done 4k miles all together in various 204's (C300 & C350) and i can say IMO the 204 is much less stable feeling at higher spees, and feels alot more wobbly when braking at high speeds.

As far as Kompressor's being faster, the I4K's are GREAT, GREAT, FUN engines, but they are slower. how do you test this? you race them. i have and you are mistaken, the 7G 2.5L C230 is faster than the 5-speed Auto I4 C230
Sometimes Matt, you need to suck it up, and take a loss. You can think your car is faster in your world, but here in the real world, the m272 is faster.
O, but you are right on one thing, i only acheive 18/30-31mpg, so CONGRATS!! I'm glad to know an extra 16-48 miles per tank pumps up your ego this much!

LILBENZ230

you should do stand up. It's definitely your calling. "real world" As for W203 VS W204, I'd think FrankW is a bit more qualified seeing that he owns a W203 (AMG, the real sport ones) and a W204. He corrected you just like I did - the 204 is better. You can have any opinion you wish but that doesn't make it right.


Karo,

I didn't see that question.. car lengths? I've heard that a tenth of a second equals a car-length.. can anyone verify? I'd say while the papers might indicate 10-12 car lengths - realistically - 4-5 maybe. It would be a CLEAR victory for a 335 against a 350 no matter how you slice it. If you're thinking about ditching your car for a 335, I only have one thing to say: DO IT!

W203E35

No joke off Digg a 335i Sedan left me 5 cars maybe even 6. I think I told everyone this story. This was when a 335i pulled next to me. I didn't see the rear so I assumed it was a 328i (white color). Light hit green and seriously I thought something happened to my car. I hesitated and was shocked till I saw the 335i badge . It was pulling on me insanely fast and estimated I always said 6 cars but to be generous to the C350 guys i'm going to say 5 cars .

The 335i is insanely fast. I honestly think it'll go pretty good heads up against the C55.

Edit:

I heard 1 second = 8 cars

W203E35

Ohh and I forgot to mention. The w204 has much better suspension. I was flying down with the w204 C350 on the 405 freeway and that thing handled much better. No way the w203 suspension is better than the w204 suspension.