Kain

I was just wondering why would anyone want to buy the C240 over the C230 Kompressor? I mean you get more power for less money. Am I missing something here?

codex57

Similar reason as to why people buy the VR6 Volkswagen engine instead of the 1.8T, the status of a V6. There's a stigma w/ 4 cylinder engines in America. It's exascerbated in the luxury brands. Most luxury car buyers are concerned w/ status and especially women, they don't care all that much about hp numbers and 0-60 times. Rather, they care whether others are impressed. They wouldn't know the difference btw a 2.4 liter V-6 and some of those monster 3.5 liter ones. They don't even understand what forced induction is. They just know 6 is bigger than 4 and that 240 is bigger than 230.

tifosiv122

Some don't like the sound of the S/C 4, or the fact that it comes with metal trim instead of cheap looking wood...

Erik

nevide

You're not missing anything. But for sure you're not missing brains.

CarlssonPower

230k seden wasn't available untill the '03 models. Otherwise I would definitly got it.

oggle

The metal trim to me looks cheaper.

Buellwinkle

Don't be fooled by the sticker price, that's just there to make the C240 owners happy. The truth is the C240 is about $2k cheaper than the C230K sedan. MB has huge incentives on the C240 because most dealers are flooded with them. So you'll be lucky to get about a grand off on the hot C230K but you'll likely get $4-5K off on the C240 and non-sport C320.

As for which one is better it's up to you. The C230K will have nicer wheels, get better fuel mileage and be more than 1 full second zero to 60 faster, the C240's V6 engine is smoother and more refined. and some people prefer the wood over the metal trim but that can be added to the C230K. If you ask which would I buy, the cheapest one and that would be the C240. Why, because I'm cheap. Check www.CarsDirect.com for an idea of what prices are, you can even order the car online and have it delivered, my kinda shopping.

FrankW

what same reason? the VR6 always had more power than the 1.8T 170hp vs 150hp. The VR6 is now rated at 200hp while the 1.8T at 180hp.

btw, C240 has a 2.6 V6. Not a 2.4. You should know this if you argue that other people don't know the difference between engine displacements.

back to the topic, some people buys C240 over C230k because they like smoothness of the V6 even tho the new 1.8s/c 4 is just as good, and some people just don't need that much sportiness in their life.

both the textured aluminum and the standard wood trim looks cheap, but you learn to live with'em. At least I think that the aluminum trim looks better overall.

Guest0001

what are you talking about

do you even have a mercedes benz?

codex57

I should have been more clear. I said "SIMILAR" to the Volkswagen example. By that I meant the 0-60 numbers. Yes, I'm aware of the greater hp difference of the VR6, but the 0-60 time is actually faster in the 1.8T. Similarly, the 0-60 time is faster in the 230K vs. the 240. That's why I said SIMILAR, not EXACTLY.

And yeah, I didn't bother checking how big the C240's engine is, but that doesn't change my argument. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd have noticed that I said some people don't know and don't care about all those technical details, they just care what the badge on the trunk of a car says. I don't care too much about the size of an engine much either. There are lots of cars with small engines that are much more efficient and powerful than cars w/ bigger engines. Not everyone's an enthusiast and compares all the technical details. They buy luxury cars for the status. That's why salespeople don't know all the technical stats b/c most of the customers don't know and don't care.

Next time, pull that giant stick out of your bum and read before going off on someone.

codex57

Actually, my family does. 2003 E320. No navi, but least it has the sport package. What's your point? Never realized lots of people buy MB's for the name and not for the performance?

FrankW

didn't bother to check??...haha If you didn't bother to check, don't post like you know the stuff. I guess you must've think that the 190E had a 1.9 liter engine.

oh yeah, btw, I did read your post. Why do you think that I pointed out it's 2.6 instead of 2.4. I've said nothing else other than the fact that you don't know the displacement of the C240.

vadim

These ratings feature the PEAK power output of the engines, but say absolutely nothing about their dynamics. The beauty of a turbo engine (or any forced-induction engine, for that matter) is its low end torque - and this is exactly the reason why the 1.8T is quicker than a higher-HP-rated VR6 (of higher displacement, too!). Not to mention that it is lighter and provides for a better axle weight distriburtion. Plus - it's affordably tunable. I'd take the 1.8T over the VR6 any day - just as I would take the 2.3L S/C M111 over the 3.2L V6.

FrankW

hmm...oooook. where did you see I talked about dynamics? I was only talking about the hp rating because he talked about the status of the V6 in the C240 even tho it has less power. The 1.8T with 180hp is indeed quicker because it has it's peak torque available from 1950-5000 rpm. Would I want to spend more $ and gets less hp/tq, heck no, but if that engine is more powerful I could care less if it's only .2 second slower like the VR6 compare to the 1.8T.

btw, one question, you would take the M111 over the 3.2 v6 because of m111 is quicker than the 3.2? (it's not) or because it has lower torque peak? just wondering.

vadim

Because I knew even before I bought it that it can be made quicker - and, with a bigger crankshaft pulley, it is now Plus, there were no 3.2L models with a manual tranny available back then, and there was no indication that there would be any.

vadim

That was one of my points - very few actually pay attention at that - even fewer of those who don't know much about cars know what the term "torque" means.
Because I knew even before I bought it that it can be made quicker - and, with a bigger crankshaft pulley, it is now Plus, there were no 3.2L models with a manual tranny available back then, and there was no indication that there would be any.

FrankW

ok...that makes perfect sense. But you can always supercharge the 3.2 v6 if you want more performance it cost a lot tho... if you want the helical twin-screw.

vadim

...or, you can send it to Brabus and get it back with a V8

http://www.supercars.net/Pic?s=1&id=...%20Sportscoupe

As for supercharging the V6 - I still may trade mine and do it - very tempting, but would wait till the 204 comes out

FrankW

Brabus is even more expensive than the AMGs if you get the complete pkg. The E-class V8 they had at the LA auto show early this year was priced at $90-100k or some place near there.

Septimus Prime

To my knowledge, naturally aspirated engines tend to last longer than their force induction counterparts. It's not going to be a huge difference, but I think that, 10 years down the line, my stepdad's C240 will outlast my C230K.

nevide

Boy, in 10 years your C240 will not even exist in people's mind. At least the 230K has the fancy kompressor technology that people like. 240? None special. Zip. Nanda.

Septimus Prime

I actually have a C230K coupe...

But "Kompressor technology"? Come on... it's just a supercharger!

nevide

Hey, V-tec is a biggie among ricers and it's not even anything.

Septimus Prime

Ah, Vtec... the same thing that Mercedes, BMW, Nissan, Toyota, and a lot of other car manufacturers have—except just not called Vtec.

CarlssonPower

Didn't this topic been discussed several times before?? Some people like the supercharger and better performance of 230k, some people like the smoothness of V6 (or just the word "V6") and wood trim of 240

Just buy which ever car that makes you happy.