czachari

From the way it feels, I guarantee you I'll do it in less than 7.3 this weekend. My car finally reached 1000 miles!!!! Woo hoo.


p.s. I was watching Motorweek yesterday and they ran the Acura TSX 0-60 in 7.6 and I thought that was slow since a lot of people thought that car will be in the 6s.

LiquidSmile

Sure! Come on up to NC


We'll go to Deals Gap. 318 Curves in 11 Miles!

Buellwinkle

Just wait for a nice hot day, the C230 will choke on that road, the IC will get heat soaked quickly from all the slow turns and full accelleration out of the corners. Ten minutes on that road on a hot day and I'll be impressed if the C230 sedan can eak out 8.5 seconds 0-60. Expect 13-15HP loses under these conditions for the C230.

So I'll bet on the C320, the hands down winner, even with 16" wheels.

c230 sport

Yes, we are talking about the sedan.

LiquidSmile

I was being facetious. I just forgot to put the little in there!

Sheit, If I had the Extra 5K at hand I would have bought a 320.

Buellwinkle

It's just funny that people would think the C230 would outperform the C320 but I don't think anyone with an '03 C230K sedan has gone through a summer yet so we'll see if the enthusiasm continues. Yes, my C230 coupe could win but that's modified but even then, on a hot day on a winding road were I'm doing a lot of back to back accelleration my HP drops to below that of a C320s, even with my performance mods. With cold engines, on a cool day on a 1/4 mile track I think I would win, hands down. On your road I would have a chance since I have sway bar and springs and 17" wheels and most importantly a 6-spd, but it would really come down to who's the better driver.

As for what car I would buy if I wanted a C sedan, the C230 of course. To me it's not worth the huge price difference. On the coupe it is because the price difference is a lot less. Don't know why MB decided to penalize sedan owners here. As for gas mileage, I've driven several C320 loaners and I get the same gas mileage on both, maybe slightly better on the C320 or about 22 mpg of commuter type driving. Surprising because of the additional weight, auto trans and poorer aerodynamics of the sedan.

LiquidSmile

Hey Buellwinkle,
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but......

I might be mistaken, didn't you try out a bigger intercooler at one point? I thought Renntech made it.. Did you like it? Notice a difference? I wonder if one is in the works for the 230K Sedans. Also, what made you choose the Eibach springs over the Cup Kit? I am interested in putting new swaybars in and a Spring/Shock Combo (Way too much body roll for my liking). I wanted to see what your opinion was.

TIA.

Lynn

The sedan has a lower coefficient of drag. 0.27 vs. 0.29

Buellwinkle

Hijacker,

The Renntech IC and in all fairness the Racetec IC I had both lost power on the dyno in comparison to the stock IC when the IC's where cool. At best, they caught up and were equal to the factory IC when the factory IC got heat soaked. Don't know why this happens but it did. That's why at this time Racetec decided not to pursue it, don't know what Renntech is doing but at $1K it will cost you about $100 per HP lost Currently I have an IC mister setup that uses a dash pus button. This showed about a 5 HP lower power loss on the 3rd of 3 back to back runs on a dyno. Good for track day but not really practical for day to day use.

As for Eibach springs, I chose them because they impacted ride the least, no other reason. Their purpose is lowering, not body roll control. The AMG sway bar or Eibach sway bar is what you need to control body roll. I got the AMG for ride comfort, the Eibachs would be better for body roll control.

Lynn, had no idea that the sedan can possibly have a lower coeffecient of drag. Afterall the grill and headlights are more upright. Maybe that's why I get better fuel mileage on the C320 loaners.

czachari

First 1K Miles got cumulative 24mpg.
Usual commute (12miles) I've been getting 29-31 recently.
Today, bumper to bumper traffic all the way, I got 24mpg.


CZ

czachari

What happened?

CZ

Outland

You'd get killed in the twisties.

Love your avatar.

Guest0001

what and you drive a porsche lol

if i have low performance tires and sport suspension then will see

MB-BOB

According to MB-USA, the 320 Sport Sedan weighs 255lbs more than the 230 Sport Sedan (6spd) and 220 lbs (auto). Since the engine comprises just 50 lbs of the difference, the rest must be in the deletion of several items, many of which contribute to the soundness of the car.

I find it alarming that the 230K Sedan is quoted at 65lbs LESS than the 230K Coupe (50lbs less in auto trim). The complaints on this forum concerning build quality, rattles, and squeeks on the Coupe are already legend.

I suggest that you add a fifth line to your ratings above, called build quality and solidness, and report back in a few months. I have a suspicion that the complaints about rattles, etc. will be just as loud over the 230K Sport Sedan.

(Taking moderator hat off for a second) I very much like not having to check the dashboard ambient thermometer to compute my HP calculations every time I feel like being naughty. I recently took a ride with Pocholin around Texas Motor Speedway in his E55 AMG. Proof positive for me on how nonsensical low-displacement, forced-induction cars can be. It was said decades ago and it's still true today, "there's no substitute for displacement."

Oh, and BTW, I was first away from several stoplights on my way to work this morning, and the MFD in my C320 still said 25.4 mpg on my 17 mile commute...:p

To each his own.

jpb5151

Hey, are you trying to scare us or something?

MB-BOB

Not at all. Just pointing out that cars are always a compromise between performance and creature comforts. Back in the day when performance meant more to me, muscle cars came to the showroom floor...

without Air Conditioning...
without heaters in some cases...
with rudimentary radios (if any radio at all)
without power steering, or power brakes
certainly without power windows, cruise control, etc.

But it ran deeper beyond these obvious adornments...

without sound deadening insulation...
without hood or trunk support springs, or locks
with lighter grade materials and fasteners everywhere...
cheaper springs in the seats, etc... you get the picture.

One of the fellows who showed up at our recent meet at TMS remarked that as he climbed the 28 degree banking in his C230K (Coupe), his ESP/TC/ABS systems went completely haywire, blinking lights everywhere in protest. No such complaints from my C320, or Pocholin's E55. Could it be that there are fewer sensors in the Coupe compared to the sedans? I don't know the answer here... I'm only suggesting my opinion that one C-Sedan that weighs 250 lbs less than it's identical sister is probably missing a few things beyond the obvious weight savings of a 4-cylinder engine, and that some of those items might be critical for long-term enjoyment of the car.

I'm not suggesting that any C-Class is as lightly-made as a KIA or Hyundai, or Yugo. Just that shedding weight for performance implies compromises somewhere else.

Buellwinkle

That was just an opinion but when we put it on the dyno it proved otherwise. It just didn't lose as much as the other IC but a loss none the less.

MB-Bob, are you saying you get what you pay for? Is there a weight difference between the regular C320 and the cheaper C320 sport sedan?

czachari

Someone said that on the C320 2 brake sensors were hooked up but on the C230 only 1 and that the jack where the 2ns sensor was supposed to plug in was open to the elements which could lead to long-term problems ( like the DAS going nuts ). The control unit where the sensors plug in is somewhere behind the fender. So, we should inquire to MBZ and see what else they stripped off the car for the weight/cost benefits. Do you think they'll tell us?


CZ

MB-BOB

Um, no they won't. But they might paraphrase Buellwinkle's remark...

MB-USA quotes the standard C320 and the C320 Sport Sedan at exactly the same base price: $35,920. The Automatic transmission cars carry the exact same weight, while the 6spd Sport sedan is 10 lbs more than the regular C320...

10-20 lbs here and there doesn't mean much to me, but a 255lb diet for the C230K Sport Sedan begs the questions I posed earlier, especially since the 230K 4-DR sedan is apparently 50-65 lbs lighter than the 2DR coupe, and the C320 Sport Sedan wasn't put on a similar diet. What gives?

And yes... As with most things on this planet, you get what you pay for.

Elendil

I was pondering the weight difference myself the other night. Everything 'feels' the similiar... hmm. Maybe I'll start considering the 320 Sport.

One would think that an 8% differential would result in something obvious... any techs out there find something missing while under the 230?

What percent can be attributed to mechanical versus structural differences?

trench

I'm pretty sure that MBUSA screwed up the weight of the C230K sedan. On the European pages, for each engine the sedan version always weighs more than the coupe version (and always by 10 kg for M271 motors).

Weights (for manuals, except the C30/32s - the auto adds 20kg):
C180K coupe 1465 kg - sedan 1475 kg
C200K coupe 1465 kg - sedan 1475 kg
C200 CGI 1475 kg - sedan 1485

C320 coupe 1525 kg - sedan 1535 kg
C32 coupe 1550 kg - sedan 1635 kg

C220 CDI 1505 kg - sedan 1520 kg
C30 coupe 1640 kg - sedan 1655 kg

However, at this time there are no C230K sedans on the European pages because at this time they only sell this car in North America. So my guess, extrapolating from the C230K coupe (1475 kg), is that the C230K sedan is 1485 kg. This is ~3267 pounds or 110 lbs lighter than a Euro C320 (~3377 lbs), which is the same difference between the C230K coupe and C320 Coupe. Therefore, the V6 and associated changes to the exhaust, cooling systems, etc. adds 50 kg.

This still leaves room for some of the differences about which MB-BOB has been talking. MBUSA lists the weight of the American C320 is 3430, so we have to determine what constitutes the extra 53 pounds of weight (that isn't in the Euro version). The only major option that is standard on US C320s but an option in Europe is the digital Climatronic, the second fan, associated ducting and activated charcoal filter probably weights around 10-15 lbs. My guess for a fair amount of fat in the American C320 is addtitional sound deadening materials, as Americans associate Mercedes with quiet luxury. I doubt there are any structural or major mechanical changes with which to be concerned.

Cheers, BT

Elendil

Could it be they strip-down the 230K for U.S. market? Maybe printed the materials before actual factory run?

Funny, my brochure shows:

Manual weights for 230s: Coupe - 1475 kg Sedan 1445 kg (Dif of 30 kg)
Auto weights for C230s: Coupe - 1490 kg Sedan 1465 kg (Dif of 25 kg)

Also, the C240 Sedan is 5 kg heavier than the 230 Sedan when going from manual to auto.

The auto trannsmission is lighter on the 230 sport sedan than the coupe and the other sedans.

The 320 Sport Sedan and the 320 Sedan stay the same weight when changing tranny.

=O

calvol

!
Buellwinkel::

Just FYI, the Sedan is more aerodynamic than the Coupe ....

Drag coefficient per specs:
Coupe: .29
Sedan: .27

I think it has to do with the chopped off butt of the Coupe causing turbulence versus the smoother roofline to trunk transition of the Sedan. I'm surprised the MPG would be the same for both-- I would expect the 230K to get around 26 mixed, and the 320 about 23-24.

Anyone seen the new Audi A3 2.0L FSI petrol engine? Supposed to get 40mpg! Pretty good for a fat little pig w/ AWD

trench

Elendil, if you look at the weights of the various Mercs on the European websites you'll see much more consistency than in any material produced by MBUSA (website or printed materials - at least when MBUSA make an error they're consistent about it ). Maybe we could get one of the C230K owners to look in their manual and tell us what it gives for the weight in there (as this document is usually produced independently of MBUSA by Mercedes).

calvol you are correct, the sedan is more aerodynamic than the coupe becasue the squared tail of the coupe imparts more drag. (People up north have even commented on how much they like to watch falling snow swirl behind the coupe - turbulence caused by the excess drag in action.) This was done on purpose by Mercedes to provide a slight amount of rear downforce to keep the lighter (apparently by 10kg ) rear end more firmly planted to the road.

Cheers, BT

Outland

Extra pounds don't automatically mean more solid construction...just heavier components. So unless the C230 sedans are filled with porosity riddled castings and carbon fibre bodypanels, I can't see where the big difference is coming from. Doesn't the 50lbs difference that you quoted apply only to the M271 vs. M111, not the V6?

Until someone puts a C230K Coupe, Sedan and a C320 Coupe and Sedan on the same scale back to back, I won't take those figures as believable. The numbers you have above don't even jive.

A few years ago Saturn quoted a later model G3 SC2 3 door coupe as having added 'only 40lbs more' than the G1 SC (to add the third door) a car that only wieghed 2340lbs- making for decent performance from its meager 1.9 DOHC engine. Printed curb wieght was something like 2480, still light, but not jiving with the '40lbs' quote. Nor did it explain the fully 1 second difference in the zero to 60 times between the G1 and G3 cars(G1 7.6 vs G3 8.6) . During its run, the HP of the engine stayed the same for the G1, G2, and G3 cars. Driving the two cars, it was very obvious that the G1 would kick the G3 cars *** in a hurry despite the identical quoted HP. When someone finally weighed a G3, it was over 2700lbs!

So, the moral of my slightly off topic story is *just because that's the number at the website, doesn't mean its correct*.

Quote:

It was said decades ago and it's still true today, "there's no substitute for displacement."

I think you meant "there's no replacement for displacement" or conversely, there's no substitute for cubic inches....

I disagree somewhat, but that's another discussion