Deception of 0-60 mph
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
WRONG
How is the S2000 $10k more than a C230k? The S2000 is about $32k, and from what I've seen there is no more price padding. Most C230k's range from $27k - $33k.
Sheesh, I hate people who write things they know absolutely nothing about.
Sheesh, I hate people who write things they know absolutely nothing about.
Originally posted by C36AMGBENZ
I would have to agree on the s200 deal. But just to remind everyone that the only reason that the s2000 has to dump the clutch so high in the range is one for him to launch with vtec activated and also because his redline is o about 9600 just about 3grand more than us. Plus the s2000 is about 10k more than any c coupe and the horsepower range is quite more than the kompressor. I find it hard to see why you would compare a coupe to an s2000 its not even in the same range. I dont think MB made the coupe to compare to all these jap imports in the street racing scene. Well as I see it thats where AMG comes along the only thing that AMG needs is to come up with a 6speed for the rest of the family. If my c36 wouldve had a manual tranny that wouldve been a killer combo. Well thats just my 2 cents.
I would have to agree on the s200 deal. But just to remind everyone that the only reason that the s2000 has to dump the clutch so high in the range is one for him to launch with vtec activated and also because his redline is o about 9600 just about 3grand more than us. Plus the s2000 is about 10k more than any c coupe and the horsepower range is quite more than the kompressor. I find it hard to see why you would compare a coupe to an s2000 its not even in the same range. I dont think MB made the coupe to compare to all these jap imports in the street racing scene. Well as I see it thats where AMG comes along the only thing that AMG needs is to come up with a 6speed for the rest of the family. If my c36 wouldve had a manual tranny that wouldve been a killer combo. Well thats just my 2 cents.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
C230 coupe 6sp
Why would you compare a S2000 to a C coupe anyway? Does anyone think that the MB engineers used a 2 seat conv sports car in any way to model a 4 seat hatchback after? Let's compare apples and pineapples because they both say "apple". The C coupe is extremely good at what it was designed for. So is the S2000. They were designed for different purposes. If you have the mentality that you have to race everything that pulls up next to you, you bought the wrong car. You should have bought a Mustang GT and modded the crap out of it for cheap. But a C coupe is an entirely different type of car. It is quick, but not fast. It is very refined for it's price range. It is quiet, and smooth riding but still has some (not much) sporting pretensions, and it gets excellent gas mileage. All in all, a great car for the money. MB does have some serious reliability and service issues to resolve, but that is for a different thread.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
I agree
I completely agree with you on the bad comparison. You can't compare the 2 cars. But this was in response to someone who said that a C230k is comparable 0-60 to an S2000 (only if the driver doesn't aggressively launch the S2000). A stupid argument in the first place. That's like saying a C230k can beat a Z06 if the Z06 driver weights 500 pounds and has the handbrake engaged, launching from 3rd gear. You get the idea. Others shouldn't make comparisons by manipulating the variables.
The C230k does many things very well, but I think people should stop exaggerating performance comparisons.
The C230k does many things very well, but I think people should stop exaggerating performance comparisons.
Originally posted by speedfrk
Why would you compare a S2000 to a C coupe anyway? Does anyone think that the MB engineers used a 2 seat conv sports car in any way to model a 4 seat hatchback after? Let's compare apples and pineapples because they both say "apple". The C coupe is extremely good at what it was designed for. So is the S2000. They were designed for different purposes. If you have the mentality that you have to race everything that pulls up next to you, you bought the wrong car. You should have bought a Mustang GT and modded the crap out of it for cheap. But a C coupe is an entirely different type of car. It is quick, but not fast. It is very refined for it's price range. It is quiet, and smooth riding but still has some (not much) sporting pretensions, and it gets excellent gas mileage. All in all, a great car for the money. MB does have some serious reliability and service issues to resolve, but that is for a different thread.
Why would you compare a S2000 to a C coupe anyway? Does anyone think that the MB engineers used a 2 seat conv sports car in any way to model a 4 seat hatchback after? Let's compare apples and pineapples because they both say "apple". The C coupe is extremely good at what it was designed for. So is the S2000. They were designed for different purposes. If you have the mentality that you have to race everything that pulls up next to you, you bought the wrong car. You should have bought a Mustang GT and modded the crap out of it for cheap. But a C coupe is an entirely different type of car. It is quick, but not fast. It is very refined for it's price range. It is quiet, and smooth riding but still has some (not much) sporting pretensions, and it gets excellent gas mileage. All in all, a great car for the money. MB does have some serious reliability and service issues to resolve, but that is for a different thread.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: MIAMI
C36 AMG
Re: WRONG
Originally posted by autobarn
How is the S2000 $10k more than a C230k? The S2000 is about $32k, and from what I've seen there is no more price padding. Most C230k's range from $27k - $33k.
Sheesh, I hate people who write things they know absolutely nothing about.
How is the S2000 $10k more than a C230k? The S2000 is about $32k, and from what I've seen there is no more price padding. Most C230k's range from $27k - $33k.
Sheesh, I hate people who write things they know absolutely nothing about.
Hey first of all my bad i messed up with the price range. Its just that I remember seeing them at 40k. But for one thing I know my **** just because I messed up with the pricing that doesnt mean ****. All I ment to say was that the s2000 and the c230 arent in the same comparison group. Just cause they may be in the same price range doesnt mean anything. I mean most cars are in the 20 to 30k range, so does that mean that all of those cars are comparable??
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 957
Likes: 1
was '03 E320 - now - '04 S4
The level of ignorance displayed by some of you guys astounds me. I have an '03 E320 and an '02 S2000 so I have a little better perspective than most of you about the Honda.
If any of you feel that the C230K is a match for the S2000 - go ahead and race a few. I could probably arrange for a local S2000 owner in your respective cities to gladly whip your asses - street race - auto-x or road course. Anyone here in Seattle with a C230K feel that way? Just PM me and we'll go have some friendly fun.
I love my Benz - it's a great daily driver. It's certainly no speed machine. It is true that folks treat you differently when you roll up in a Benz. I would love to have an E55 for speed, but I don't have the $$$
I love my S2000 - it's the perfect weekend car. It handles superbly. It'll go fast if you wind it up. It's made to be revved. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't spread misinformation.
Some of you seem to think that you are better than other people because you drive an entry level Mercedes? That's just sad. Get over yourselves.
My wife's Lexus has 146k on the clock and is still very tight. The doors shut with a solid "thump" The car has been so trouble free that she doesn't even want a new car. I love not having three car payments.
Bottom line:
Just enjoy your cars. No need to denigrate other vehicles in order to make yourselves feel better.
oh yeah... my S2000 will smoke a C32 if the C32 driver leaves the parking brake on, has severely underinflated tires and can only go in reverse. :p
If any of you feel that the C230K is a match for the S2000 - go ahead and race a few. I could probably arrange for a local S2000 owner in your respective cities to gladly whip your asses - street race - auto-x or road course. Anyone here in Seattle with a C230K feel that way? Just PM me and we'll go have some friendly fun.
I love my Benz - it's a great daily driver. It's certainly no speed machine. It is true that folks treat you differently when you roll up in a Benz. I would love to have an E55 for speed, but I don't have the $$$
I love my S2000 - it's the perfect weekend car. It handles superbly. It'll go fast if you wind it up. It's made to be revved. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't spread misinformation.
Some of you seem to think that you are better than other people because you drive an entry level Mercedes? That's just sad. Get over yourselves.
My wife's Lexus has 146k on the clock and is still very tight. The doors shut with a solid "thump" The car has been so trouble free that she doesn't even want a new car. I love not having three car payments.
Bottom line:
Just enjoy your cars. No need to denigrate other vehicles in order to make yourselves feel better.
oh yeah... my S2000 will smoke a C32 if the C32 driver leaves the parking brake on, has severely underinflated tires and can only go in reverse. :p
Almost a Member!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: southern california
1972 280SE 4.5
i just have to say that from those 0-60 times and 0-100m times 'n' such, you HAVE to give the benz props for pulling that off with so much weight. the MB weighs much more than the acura and the acura has more horsepower. lighten the benz to match the acura and it'll be somethin' else.
also, you guys make the RSX sound fun!!! an FF car that readily oversteers? i want one...
the car isn't for people who can't handle themselves. maybe they should have training classes before you take them home... in the UK honda offers a complimentary course when you get a civic type-r and etc. those civic type-r's are proper hatchs. now, as for the MB, i'd rather get the mercedes... and i'm super biased. i'm not making any points but uh... ok. hehe
and btw, i think the guy who compared the C-coupe to the S2000, i think he just meant the C-coupe was much more practical, even for drag-racing, because it doesn't require such a tortureous clutch dump.
also, you guys make the RSX sound fun!!! an FF car that readily oversteers? i want one...
the car isn't for people who can't handle themselves. maybe they should have training classes before you take them home... in the UK honda offers a complimentary course when you get a civic type-r and etc. those civic type-r's are proper hatchs. now, as for the MB, i'd rather get the mercedes... and i'm super biased. i'm not making any points but uh... ok. hehe
and btw, i think the guy who compared the C-coupe to the S2000, i think he just meant the C-coupe was much more practical, even for drag-racing, because it doesn't require such a tortureous clutch dump.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 1
From: The blue white rock, third out.
2002 C230 Coupe(M111)
Originally posted by lig
. I could probably arrange for a local S2000 owner in your respective cities to gladly whip your asses - street race - auto-x or road course. Anyone here in Seattle with a C230K feel that way? Just PM me and we'll go have some friendly fun.
. I could probably arrange for a local S2000 owner in your respective cities to gladly whip your asses - street race - auto-x or road course. Anyone here in Seattle with a C230K feel that way? Just PM me and we'll go have some friendly fun.
I didn't notice anyone saying an S2000 was slower than a C-Coupe...did I miss something?
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,145
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
2010 C300 4matic
Originally posted by Outland
I didn't notice anyone saying an S2000 was slower than a C-Coupe...did I miss something?
I didn't notice anyone saying an S2000 was slower than a C-Coupe...did I miss something?
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 957
Likes: 1
was '03 E320 - now - '04 S4
I can tell you from firsthand experience that two nubile young (they swore they were 18) females will fit in the passenger seat of an S2000. :p
Considering that they weighed a combined 200lbs or so... I'd still be willing to race! :p
I am glad that I have my Mercedes ('03 E320) as my daily driver though... The S2k is a handful in the rain. And three passengers is pretty much out of the question - no matter how willing.
Considering that they weighed a combined 200lbs or so... I'd still be willing to race! :p
I am glad that I have my Mercedes ('03 E320) as my daily driver though... The S2k is a handful in the rain. And three passengers is pretty much out of the question - no matter how willing.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
From: Mid West
1997 C36 AMG
Originally Posted by J P
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.
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.
This is very simple,
I think gearing play important role.
I've seen some comparison lets say Car A and Car B
Car A 0-60mph 5.4 0-30 3.3
Car B 0-60mph 5.3 0-30 3.5
I could probably guess 100ft is about 30-40mph..
so what if at this rate the 230 and RSX have the same timing. It still not a good measure of performance.
Granted the 0-60 mph is the most common using to get a performance benchmarck these days.
Also the 1/4 mile times would depend on how these car is geared and the power band as well..
Just my $0.02
Regardz,
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 1
2005 C320wz
i think if a car can accelerate from zero to 60 mph one second faster than another car, the other car has no chance.
today, I passed a new model audi a4 1.8T (I drove a bmw 328i). As I accelerated from behind, the guy tried accelerated but his car didn't have the horsepower to stay ahead.
we weren't going from zero to 60 mph, more like from 20 mph to 60 mph but it really was no contest.
today, I passed a new model audi a4 1.8T (I drove a bmw 328i). As I accelerated from behind, the guy tried accelerated but his car didn't have the horsepower to stay ahead.
we weren't going from zero to 60 mph, more like from 20 mph to 60 mph but it really was no contest.
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Eastern Ontario
2001 ML320 E, 2003 C230K Sport Sedan
Originally Posted by J Irwan
This is very simple,
I think gearing play important role.
I've seen some comparison lets say Car A and Car B
Car A 0-60mph 5.4 0-30 3.3
Car B 0-60mph 5.3 0-30 3.5
I could probably guess 100ft is about 30-40mph..
so what if at this rate the 230 and RSX have the same timing. It still not a good measure of performance.
Granted the 0-60 mph is the most common using to get a performance benchmarck these days.
Also the 1/4 mile times would depend on how these car is geared and the power band as well..
Just my $0.02
Regardz,
I think gearing play important role.
I've seen some comparison lets say Car A and Car B
Car A 0-60mph 5.4 0-30 3.3
Car B 0-60mph 5.3 0-30 3.5
I could probably guess 100ft is about 30-40mph..
so what if at this rate the 230 and RSX have the same timing. It still not a good measure of performance.
Granted the 0-60 mph is the most common using to get a performance benchmarck these days.
Also the 1/4 mile times would depend on how these car is geared and the power band as well..
Just my $0.02
Regardz,
I tend to agree...not a good measure.
Furthermore this nonsence with reving a car to 6000 rpm and slipping the clutch for the first 150ft is also nonsence.
What kind of measure of a car's performance is that....it's just not practical - cars should be heavily penalized for that. Do that once every day and see how long your car lasts.
Manual cars should be measured from 5 mph in first gear...no slippin the clutch.
Ed.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: The Red Planet
09' BMW M3 E90
Was at the track last month at Race City Speed Way. Had 2 runs at the 1/4 mile track for fun of it. I use to race my 12 sec. stang there every summer. Anyways with allmost 4000 rpm launches and power shifting i got 15.1 sec @ 92mph on a stock C230 with just an ITG air filter. Lowered the tire pressure and shifted around 5800rpm. The guy's in the magazines must let their wives drive at the track. Just my 02 cents.
P.S I don't drive like this ever day. Just once in a while at the track i turn into a Speed Demon. :p
P.S I don't drive like this ever day. Just once in a while at the track i turn into a Speed Demon. :p
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 1
2005 C320wz
WHOA. 2005 corvette C6
0 - 60 mph in 4.2 seconds !
and that's only the base model.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06232757
0 - 60 mph in 4.2 seconds !
and that's only the base model.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06232757
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
ARRR
Originally Posted by mick1
i think if a car can accelerate from zero to 60 mph one second faster than another car, the other car has no chance.
today, I passed a new model audi a4 1.8T (I drove a bmw 328i). As I accelerated from behind, the guy tried accelerated but his car didn't have the horsepower to stay ahead.
we weren't going from zero to 60 mph, more like from 20 mph to 60 mph but it really was no contest.
today, I passed a new model audi a4 1.8T (I drove a bmw 328i). As I accelerated from behind, the guy tried accelerated but his car didn't have the horsepower to stay ahead.
we weren't going from zero to 60 mph, more like from 20 mph to 60 mph but it really was no contest.
The point of this thread is that not necessarily every race is from 0-60MPH... Most the "racing" I do would be about quarter mile where the trap speed is about 90MPH for the stock C230. It doesn't really matter if you get ahead while on the way there, but who crosses the finish line first wins... Isn't that how all races work? Who's in the front is the winner. Therefore, as we can see from the numbers, RSX-S reaches 60MPH faster than C230, but by the time we're at 500 ft, the time's getting real close. quarter mile is 1320 feet and the C230 just might (I don't know...) crosses the finish line before the RSX-S.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 1
2005 C320wz
Originally Posted by Yang1815
ha okay.
did the other car do a ricer fly by?
did the other car do a ricer fly by?
but one time a guy in honda accord did that to me. it was a 50 mph zone and the guy flown by at about 90+ mph. me, I had de-accelerated at 60 mph after passing him
