rs389

Guys,

Could you please help me in deciding between C320 or C240, I don't really care about the horsepower but I need at least V6 engine. C230K sounds too rough.

My questions are:

1. Which one is more reliable?

2. Which one has better gas consumption? Is it big difference or just a little?

3. Which one is better buy? Please state the reasons.

Thank you

FrankW

1. same

2. c240, little

3. you have to make that judgement your self. $4-5k differences.

amdeutsch

1. Same

2. Believe it or not. The EPA sticker on the C320 shows 1 mpg better than the C240. When I bought my C320 is showed 20 and 26 wheras the C240 showed 20 and 25. Real world experience is probably better. Take a look at the MPG sticky thread.

3. If you load up the C240 to the same equipment level as the C320 you will find that in later resell you % is slightly lower than the C320.

MB-BOB

I spent 3 days with a C240 loaner while my C320 was in for service last week..

1. same
2. slightly better mpg with C240 (stands to reason) but the smaller engine doesn't encourage planting your foot in it, either. I found the engine fine, but not as athletic as the C320, by any means. You should test drive both. The C320 has a completely different character, livelier...
3. You're choice entirely. I found I needed the power memory seats because my other driver is much shorter than me, and we wanted that feature. If you want that feature on the C240, and the Bose Stereo upgrade, you can buy both standard on the C320 and get the other features, too.

The manual forward/aft seat adjustment really protrudes from under the seat... doesn't get in the way, but does look funny, and is awkward to use, when some of the controls are manual while seat rake, etc is power. If you have only one driver, it's no problem, but with two, different story, maybe.

The non-electronic climate control on the C240 looks out of place with the radio display (IMO) and I missed the ease of the electronic unit in the C320.

Bottom line, while the seem to be worlds apart price-wise, if you load up a C240 with most features of the C320, they really aren't far apart, and the extra horsepower of the 3.2L is only a couple grand away.

If you really think you might miss the extra HPs, go for the C320. I've bought too many "lesser" variants of cars in the past only to regret it later. Anymore, I stretch as far as I can afford, maybe a little over sometimes, just to avoid the second-guessing later. I sleep better...

Lynn

Before dismissing the 1.8 liter, you should drive one. A four with balance shafts can be as smooth as that goofy 90 degree V6 which requires a split pin crank and balance shafts to keep from shaking like an out of balance washing machine.

Guest0001

if you dont get care for hp the c240 is perfect for you

sidenote- what is the difference between a I6 and a V6, which one is a better engine and why did mb stop using the I6?

Matt230K

An I6 is an inline six, and has all six cylinders in a straight line just like a 4 cylinder. A V6 is built in the shape of a V with 3 cylinders on each side and connecting to the crankshaft at the bottom of the V. It can be built at many different angles, even 180 degrees, at which point all the cylinders are laying flat and this is called a flat 6 or boxer engine. Porsche's and Subaru's use flat 6's.

I'm not sure which one is really better, although an I6 is usually smoother and quieter. I believe MB stopped using it because of space under the hood. The E-class diesel was an inline engine and one of the reasons they got rid of it in 2000 was because the facelift involved lowering the hood and the engine would no longer fit.

FrankW

Lynn is correct. the 1.8 s/c four is absolutely smooth.

moomeh

i believed in the same thing. i regret that i didn't get a c320 because sometimes you just need that extra boost.

shtatc

I got my C240 because it was the only C-Class sedan offered with the 6-speed manual for 2001. If the C320 was offered with the manual tranny that year, I would have gotten it instead. As mentioned before, I think the 2.6L motor is a bit under powered. If this is not a concern, then drive both and choose. My avg MPG is about 25mpg per tank - combined city/highway driving. My drive to work is 25 miles - one way - mostly city streets. But, I leave for work at 4am, so most of the lights are green and dont have to stop. On the way home, it is a different story - more stop and go.

jpb5151

Our c230k's 1.8 is very smooth and nice, but at high rpms it starts to sound like a blender chewing through a brick.

TXTiger

I bought a C240 because at the time it was the only sedan with a 6 spd. I would highly recommend the 6 spd over the automatic (unless you spend your entire commute in bumper to bumper traffic). I average 25 mpg combined city/highway driving, but have averaged almost 31 mpg on long highway cruises. The 6 spd isn't bad (not as nice as a Honda or BMW stick), but allows you to push harder. You're not going to win any races in a C240, but you won't be last with the Yugo's either......

If I could do it again today, I would get a C230K sedan. It has the best fuel economy and a good amount of power.

jim628

I bought C240 mainly for the price. I don't think a car that small needs a 3.2L engine unless you are looking for a performance. I also don't think mpg differs much between C320 and C240 since both of them are 6 cylinders anyway.

MB-BOB

for comparison with the C240 notes above on fuel mileage, my C320 gets 23mpg in daily 17 mile commutes to work, evenly divided between city and hwy driving). It gets 28-29mpg on long stints on the interstates. More than sufficient for my needs, and the primary reason I did NOT consider a C32 AMG.

As for the manual vs automatic transmision debate, it's entirely a matter of personal taste. I've driven sticks for more than 25 years, but the automatic in my C320 is wonderful and I do not miss stirring the pot at all. It does not hunt for gears (the C240 does not hunt in normal driving, but does hunt when pressed) and it is nearly as quick as a manual. Don't take my word for it, read the literature. The gap between manual and automatic acceleration times is far less within the MB lineup (tenths of a second), than with other makes (2-3 seconds).

MB's forte is automatic trannies, and if I demanded a manual I would buy another car brand that has a better perceived track record with manuals than MB (ie, BMW, Audi). The manual helps compensate for the C240's power deficiencies, but you will take it in the shorts on resale value... very few people (in the US) will consider buying a used MB SEDAN with a manual transmission. (Used Bimmers/mannies, sure, MB's NO.) No need to flame me on this, just stating the statistical truth. If you intend to keep it until the wheels fall-off, then it doesn't matter, of course.

Anyway, rs389 didn't say whether transmission type was important to him, so all this debate is moot, as usual.

pokerFACE

also, won't the insurance on the C230 1.8 be lower than the C240 by virtue of smaller displacement, less cyl??

MB-BOB

Not necessarily. The sedan gets the benefit of it's buyer demographic... older, more settled drivers (as a group). The Coupe attracts a younger, more aggressive crowd (more accident prone, statistically).

I pay less that $1,000 per year in insurance for my sedan, and I haven't even shopped around, lately.

rs389

Thanks guys! Much appreciated.

RS389

Lynn

In my area, State Farm quotes the sedans and coupes at exactly the same rates.

Vader13

Same here, I went to go look at the manual C320 and then saw a C32 in the lot. Test drove the C32 and traded in the C240 for the C32..Could'nt help myself..
The C240 is SLOOOOWWWWWW, The C320 Manual should be pretty nice..

tifosiv122

I agree. I would get a 230K sedan or 320, but not the 240...

Erik

pokerFACE

I meant C230K sedan vs C240 sedan.. sorry I didnt specify.