Let the flames begin. C320 vs C230K impressions
#51
Administrator
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/MB/mbwambassador2.gif)
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.
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C230 K
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
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
Last edited by trench; 05-15-2003 at 06:42 PM.
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2016 E63s AMG
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
c240 sedan
c230 coupe
c320 coupe
c230 sedan
c320 sedan
c230 ss
c320 ss
is this how they should be ranked
#57
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 E55, Black on Black
Originally Posted by FrankW
we ARE talking about the sedan, right? if so, the C230k does 60 in 7.6/7.8 (manual/auto) and C320 does 60 mph in 6.8/6.9 seconds (MBusa info). .8 second might not seen like a lot on paper, but it's a very big difference. I'm sure that auto mags can do better than what MBusa has posted. Handling wise, the C230k will perform better and it is infact better balanced since it's lighter up front with the 4 cyclinder.
#58
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.
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2003 Citron Green C230KMT
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#60
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 E55, Black on Black
Originally Posted by 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.
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!)
#61
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 ML320 E, 2003 C230K Sport Sedan
Originally Posted by Inline6
Mercedes needs to make a good inline 6 again kind of like BMW still does...
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.
#62
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 ML320 E, 2003 C230K Sport Sedan
Originally Posted by 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.
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
#63
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 E55, Black on Black
[\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.
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.
#64
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: From Oxnard; living in Ocean View Hills, San Diego, CA
Posts: 526
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'01 C320 SS
![Thumbs up](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif)
Originally Posted by vlix
i agree, the c320 sedan is very slow... its kinda disappointing to know many new and cheaper cars are faster than w203 (except for c32 of course). i drive the c320 sedan btw.
Would I buy one today? No...the best deal going in the C-Class is the C230k Sedan @ $31k. Looks great, inside and out
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by CHATMANR; 07-23-2004 at 09:11 AM.
#65
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 ML320 E, 2003 C230K Sport Sedan
Originally Posted by r_liebo
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.
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.
#66
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 E55, Black on Black
Originally Posted by 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.
Ed.
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.
![Mad](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif)
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA/Naples, FL
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C320 Coupe
Originally Posted by r_liebo
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. ![Mad](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif)
![Mad](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif)
#69
Originally Posted by r_liebo
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."
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#70
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Originally Posted by 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 ![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#72
Originally Posted by FrankW
I thought you can already do that for 2003-04 models.
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by C230K
My C320 Coupe does not "handled like a pig in the mud" or are you just talking the sedan? If you think the Coupe is a pig, see you at the next auto-x.