amdeutsch

With all that weight comparisson I will put in my $0.02. Comparing the C230 against the C320 only makes sense if both weights listed are for the same equipped car. As we all know the C320 has equipment std that is opt on the C230. Now if we compare the C240 against the C230 we will find that the weight difference drops. I do this because the equipment level is mostly the same. Therefore now we only have to deal with the V6 versus the SC I4 issue. The weight difference between these two sedans is approximately 125 - 130 lbs. If we now say that 50 - 75 lbs is due to the engine difference it should be easier to find where the rest might be hidden.

trench

Going from the 4-cylinder to the V6 adds 110 lbs.

This value is from the Mercedes European webpages. In Europe, the engine can be changed while remaining at the same trim level (so any weight difference is due to the engine). Both the C240 and C320 sedans have the same base weight, 1535 kg.

- BT

Inline6

Mercedes needs to make a good inline 6 again kind of like BMW still does...

ernster

so after all this is everyone saying that the 320 ss is the way to go out of all the models excluding the c55 and c32?
c240 sedan
c230 coupe
c320 coupe
c230 sedan
c320 sedan
c230 ss
c320 ss

is this how they should be ranked

amdeutsch

There is no regular 230 sedan in the US, only the SS is available here.

Guest0001

Another old thread revival. Record 5 in 1 week.

r_liebo

Exactly. .8 seconds is HUGE when you are talking 0-60 times. 0-60 in 7.8 is really very slow in todays market. VERY slow. Open up any car magazine and check out how many vehicles can match that -- the list is long, and includes many cars with no sporting intentions. C230 isn't the car the C320 is (not even mentioning the clattering, unrefined nature of the C230 engine, or total lack of low end torque, which is the big factor in day to day driving). I can buy the argument that the C230 is a better value for the cost. That is subjective, and I probably agree. But even proposing the C230 is a better car is a bit silly, like saying a C320 is better than a C32 because my insurance is lower and my gas mileage better.

mick1

yeah but in real life, people don't really accelerate their cars from 0-60 mph by stepping down on the gas pedals. In order to get to 60 mph in 7.8 sec, a C230 driver would have to run to the max rpm before changing gears, and people don't drive like that, well at least not all the time. Me, I'd change gears at 2,500 ~ 3,000 rpm, so the fact that a car can accelerate from 0-60 mph ins 7.8 sec or 6.9 sec is inconsequential to me.

CitronC230K_03

nice to see some old ones coming back.

couldnt a comparison between a C230 coupe and C320 coupe be done. those two are more compatible equipmentwise (excluding engine/trans) than a C230/C320 sedan.

r_liebo

It really goes beyond 0-60 (that is just a barometer for what a car CAN do). Taking the sweet exhaust sound and gratifying instantaneous thrust the C320 provides, what matters is what kind of immediate accel. you get when merging on a freeway, taking off at a light to get in front of the guy next to you for a lane change, etc. Here is where you need to be able to stomp the pedal, and get that immediate surge of power. C320 has the gobs of torque needed to do that -- C230 doesn't. To come close, you would have to always be driving at your engines power curve, which requires a manual, constant vigiligance, and a tolerance for a loud, revving engine.
Again -- no slams on anybody. C230 is a great value, it just doesn't offer what a C320 does. As the cliche' goes "there's no replacement for displacement." (Can't wait to have enough saved for the C55!)

fasteddie

The sacrafice in interior room for a little more advantage in weight distribution is not worth it. Besides tyically a V6 will always be lighter than an in-line 6 of the same size and construction. The crankshaft is shorter, and the counterweights are generally smaller.

Ed.

fasteddie

Actually, it's the 320 that has the unrefined engine. This is why Merc wants to phase it out in favour for a new 350, that is supposed to be a 4 valve, and use much of the technology of the 230, with VVT on intake and exhaust, and the better Seimens control system.

Thing about the 230 is it is actually a very high tech engine, much more so than the 320:

1) 4 Valve Head
2) Variable Valve timing on both intake & Exhaust
3) Cylinder by cylinder control of Fuel & Timing
4) Dual Ballance shafts
5) Supercharged, Intercooled

As for low end torque - 230 pulls a hell of a lot better on the bottom end than my VR6 did. I have no idea what you are talking about. from about 2200 RPM on up, it's ready to go.

Ed

r_liebo

[\QUOTE]As for low end torque - 230 pulls a hell of a lot better on the bottom end than my VR6 did. I have no idea what you are talking about. from about 2200 RPM on up, it's ready to go.

Ed[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your VR6 has to do with anything but if you can't feel the difference low end between a c320 and c230 I've been discussing , perhaps others can better explain it better -- I'm no techie, and there have been plenty of discussions on this board about torque. I tried to find the HP/torque maps through the RPM range to demonstrate this, but couldn't find one on the Net.

CHATMANR

I don't feel that my C320 is slow at all...actually, due to the torque of the V6, I can hold my own against alot of supposedly "faster" cars. I love the torque!

Would I buy one today? No...the best deal going in the C-Class is the C230k Sedan @ $31k. Looks great, inside and out

fasteddie

Not saying the 320 doesn't have more torque than the 230. But I am saying that the 230 is by no means weak. Furthermore, you mentioned the "unrefined nature" of the 230, when in fact, it's 320 that is in need of a technology insertion and further refinement not the 230.

Ed.

r_liebo

You are right -- C320 needs a technology insertion. I'm just speaking from a practical standpoint as to what is pleasing to the ear. To me, the C230 sounds like a lawnmower at startup despite the vast improvement over the last generation engine -- that is what I meant by unrefined nature. The V-6 in the C320 is archaic (gas mileage is horrible for the engine's output), but it sounds a lot sweeter to me under full throttle.
Weakness is relative, I guess. 5 years ago I wouldn't have thought c230 performance weak. Today, however, you can get that kind of performance from Accords, Altimas, Minis, and I bet some minivans in the near future.
So for me the C320 is enough power to keep me slightly ahead of the average sedan out there. Then again, compared to cars like the TL, G35, WRX, etc., my C320 doesn't look so fast either, and it certainly feels like a slug compared to the Boxster S I drove before the wife and kid came along.

prodigy1387

yeah, i know what you mean on that one. that's why i'm pleasantly waiting for the next generation c-class to debut with the much more powerful engine and significantly increased technology, gas mileage, and performance.

Jon200

The C350 should be a blast

mick1

yep. I've just been informed that they could build me a C320 with a 6-speed, so I'm no longer interested in the C230

FrankW

I thought you can already do that for 2003-04 models.

amdeutsch

You can. On the 05s its the SS only per MBUSA and not the luxury.

mick1

don't know. the sales rep. told me before they could not order a C320 sedan with a 6-speed manual in Calif. They could order the 6-speed on the C320 coupe but it was very rare. last year, only the C240 sedan could be bought with a manual trans. here according to him.

Guest0001

What are you talking about you can build a 6 speed C320 Sedan or coupe since 2004.

tyro

I think he meant that you should be "handled like a pig in the mud", not your car. :v

S_kLaSse

I like the sound of "C320" better than "C230", just like some people prefer the sound of "S500" than "S430". *peace*