Wagon: E320 vs. C320?
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 71
Likes: 1
2000 E320W 4Matic
Wagon: E320 vs. C320?
(Cross-posting from the W210 forum...)
I'm looking for a wagon for my wife (she currently has a Ford Focus, and we love my E320 sedan). We want to get a 4Matic if possible, and it appears there's a C320 wagon with 4Matic, as well as the E320 wagon.
Does anyone have some good comparison points on these two vehicles? How do the engines compare? How different are they in size and appointment?
I'm looking for a wagon for my wife (she currently has a Ford Focus, and we love my E320 sedan). We want to get a 4Matic if possible, and it appears there's a C320 wagon with 4Matic, as well as the E320 wagon.
Does anyone have some good comparison points on these two vehicles? How do the engines compare? How different are they in size and appointment?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,848
Likes: 15
From: Orange County
2005 C Wagon (No snickering please!)
The engines are the same. The E class is a bit larger inside and out. The C class is a more attractive wagon. If you need the space, go with the E. If you would like a wagon that goes anywhere a small sedan fits, go with the C. The last year (2005) for the C wagon in the USA only comes in the C240 RWD version. 2005 is also the facelift for the S203 and has an updated interior, nicer wheels, and a little less Hp. The C240 and C320 share a common basic engine, except displacement and Hp.
There are always a few grey market cars in the US, and you might run across a late model C320 or even a C55 wagon. Usually these were imported by foreign Embassies and sold locally.
There are always a few grey market cars in the US, and you might run across a late model C320 or even a C55 wagon. Usually these were imported by foreign Embassies and sold locally.
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 174
Likes: 2
From: Mississauga, Canada
2003 CL203 C320, 2002 W208 CLK320 cabriolet, 2012 A207 E350 cabriolet, 2011 X204 GLK350 4matic
Just to add; if I remember correctly the E-class wagon seats 7, while the C-class seats 5. The extra 2 seats are nifty little rear-facing ones that kids always love.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
From: New Joisey
13 Jeep JKU Sahara w/4" lift Kit & the works,2015 Toyota Sienna XLE,2013 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
my next car will be a E320 wagon with the rear facing seats.......I have 3 boys they will have a blast with that...
Javvy
Javvy
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 71
Likes: 1
2000 E320W 4Matic
Thanks for the input. Kids are not an issue, though I have ideas of removing the seat in the back to turn that into a space for the stuff that usually rolls around in the back of her current wagon. I think that setup (storage, instead of seats) was offered in Europe, but was not in America.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,830
Likes: 595
From: NY & FL
MB’s of all kinds.
(Cross-posting from the W210 forum...)
I'm looking for a wagon for my wife (she currently has a Ford Focus, and we love my E320 sedan). We want to get a 4Matic if possible, and it appears there's a C320 wagon with 4Matic, as well as the E320 wagon.
Does anyone have some good comparison points on these two vehicles? How do the engines compare? How different are they in size and appointment?
I'm looking for a wagon for my wife (she currently has a Ford Focus, and we love my E320 sedan). We want to get a 4Matic if possible, and it appears there's a C320 wagon with 4Matic, as well as the E320 wagon.
Does anyone have some good comparison points on these two vehicles? How do the engines compare? How different are they in size and appointment?
The E has space, ride quality, interior quality, more comfort and the MPG on a E320 is amazing! I have done 30+mpg in my E320. That V6 is solid and easy to upkeep and it comes with more power then the C. The W203 is too small and if you feel like taking people along then the E Wagon is right for you! The only thing the W203 wagon has over the E320 Wagon is the look.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 174
Likes: 2
From: Mississauga, Canada
2003 CL203 C320, 2002 W208 CLK320 cabriolet, 2012 A207 E350 cabriolet, 2011 X204 GLK350 4matic
E320 Wagon > C320 Wagon.
The E has space, ride quality, interior quality, more comfort and the MPG on a E320 is amazing! I have done 30+mpg in my E320. That V6 is solid and easy to upkeep and it comes with more power then the C. The W203 is too small and if you feel like taking people along then the E Wagon is right for you! The only thing the W203 wagon has over the E320 Wagon is the look.
The E has space, ride quality, interior quality, more comfort and the MPG on a E320 is amazing! I have done 30+mpg in my E320. That V6 is solid and easy to upkeep and it comes with more power then the C. The W203 is too small and if you feel like taking people along then the E Wagon is right for you! The only thing the W203 wagon has over the E320 Wagon is the look.
The E does have more space and has better interior quality. Comfort is debatable, IMO the C has more supportive seats.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,830
Likes: 595
From: NY & FL
MB’s of all kinds.
The ride quality in the E-class is technically the same as in the C-class, because the W210/W208/S210 and the W203/CL203/S203 share the same suspension. Also if anything, the MPG on the S203 should be better because it weighs less than the S210. The M112 in the S210/W208/W210 and W203/CL203/S203 is the exact same, airbox aside. Technically the C-class should be quicker because, again, the reduced weight as well as the airbox in the M112 on the W203/CL203/S203 is significantly better than the highly restrictive one in the W210/W208/S210.
The E does have more space and has better interior quality. Comfort is debatable, IMO the C has more supportive seats.
The E does have more space and has better interior quality. Comfort is debatable, IMO the C has more supportive seats.
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 174
Likes: 2
From: Mississauga, Canada
2003 CL203 C320, 2002 W208 CLK320 cabriolet, 2012 A207 E350 cabriolet, 2011 X204 GLK350 4matic
Size is probably why the W203 took bumps a little harder. The body is smaller so there is the same amount of force exerted on a smaller body, which will magnify the force.
Super Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 22
From: VA
THE C350
The c240 has been reported to get worse mileage then the c320 so that may be why and it was a 4matic which obviously would hurt mileage as well. My c320 until recently could get low 30's. I think it needs new oxygen sensors but hey it has 204,000 miles.
The engine is identical but the e class has around 10hp and 10 TQ more the c class.
IMO I like the c class interior way better I always felt that the e class of that generation felt cheaper and very outdated but that is all personal preference. Now on the next generation e class it would be no comparison.
The engine is identical but the e class has around 10hp and 10 TQ more the c class.
IMO I like the c class interior way better I always felt that the e class of that generation felt cheaper and very outdated but that is all personal preference. Now on the next generation e class it would be no comparison.
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 174
Likes: 2
From: Mississauga, Canada
2003 CL203 C320, 2002 W208 CLK320 cabriolet, 2012 A207 E350 cabriolet, 2011 X204 GLK350 4matic
Super Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 22
From: VA
THE C350
Ok so my 2001 c320 window sticker says 215HP 221TQ
The 2002 e320 Owners manual says 221HP 232TQ
Interestingly enough the 2002 c320 owners manual says 221HP 228TQ
So maybe depending on years the power was different but whatever the case the e320 does seem to have a little more TQ at the very least. I would assume that the difference is either intake or exhaust or maybe they are tuned a little different?
The 2002 e320 Owners manual says 221HP 232TQ
Interestingly enough the 2002 c320 owners manual says 221HP 228TQ
So maybe depending on years the power was different but whatever the case the e320 does seem to have a little more TQ at the very least. I would assume that the difference is either intake or exhaust or maybe they are tuned a little different?
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 174
Likes: 2
From: Mississauga, Canada
2003 CL203 C320, 2002 W208 CLK320 cabriolet, 2012 A207 E350 cabriolet, 2011 X204 GLK350 4matic
I'd assume it would have to be exhaust that gives it the extra 4 lb/ft. The intake on the W210/W208/S210 is horribly inefficient compared to the one on the W203/CL203/S203.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,830
Likes: 595
From: NY & FL
MB’s of all kinds.
Super Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,295
Likes: 22
From: VA
THE C350
I think my Tires are at 30 and 34 and I set the cruise at a reasonable speed and go for it. I plan ahead passing of trucks and don't do any aggressive driving. I can easily get 30 going from DC area down to Atlanta or Florida as long as I don't hit stop and go traffic or decide that my leisurely pace is bad and start driving crazy. But even when I do drive crazy I can still get 27-28 doing 75+. Tires can play a factor in this as well I run Hankook ventus v12's in the summer and Dunlop sp Winter performance snow tires in the winter and my mileage stays the same.
I will say that in the last 6 months my mileage has dropped off but I think that could be old oxygen sensors as my car does have 204k on it now.
I will say that in the last 6 months my mileage has dropped off but I think that could be old oxygen sensors as my car does have 204k on it now.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 724
Likes: 31
Car free at the moment
Don't forget the OP is looking at wagons, not sedans. A wagon gets a couple of MPG lower on the highway due to less clean aerodynamics as compared to a sedan.
I liked the little C240 wagon, but the fuel economy was disappointing. I had the car only from spring until fall of 2011, and all my road trips were during the extremely hot Texas summer of 2011. Between our high speed limits (75MPH on most rural highways) and how hard the a/c works above 100 degrees, the car returned slightly less than 25MPG on multi-hundred mile drives. That said, other C240 wagon owners have told me that about 26MPG is the best they see on long highway drives.
The 2.6 liter M112 V6 is a de-stroked version of the 3.2 - they have the same bore and bore spacing. While it's impossible to say, either the higher RPMs at which the 2.6 operates causes it to lose any efficiency advantage over the larger engine, or the short stroke simply captures less energy from the expanding gases on the combustion chamber.
I liked the little C240 wagon, but the fuel economy was disappointing. I had the car only from spring until fall of 2011, and all my road trips were during the extremely hot Texas summer of 2011. Between our high speed limits (75MPH on most rural highways) and how hard the a/c works above 100 degrees, the car returned slightly less than 25MPG on multi-hundred mile drives. That said, other C240 wagon owners have told me that about 26MPG is the best they see on long highway drives.
The 2.6 liter M112 V6 is a de-stroked version of the 3.2 - they have the same bore and bore spacing. While it's impossible to say, either the higher RPMs at which the 2.6 operates causes it to lose any efficiency advantage over the larger engine, or the short stroke simply captures less energy from the expanding gases on the combustion chamber.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,830
Likes: 595
From: NY & FL
MB’s of all kinds.
Driving conditions vary
Don't forget the OP is looking at wagons, not sedans. A wagon gets a couple of MPG lower on the highway due to less clean aerodynamics as compared to a sedan.
I liked the little C240 wagon, but the fuel economy was disappointing. I had the car only from spring until fall of 2011, and all my road trips were during the extremely hot Texas summer of 2011. Between our high speed limits (75MPH on most rural highways) and how hard the a/c works above 100 degrees, the car returned slightly less than 25MPG on multi-hundred mile drives. That said, other C240 wagon owners have told me that about 26MPG is the best they see on long highway drives.
The 2.6 liter M112 V6 is a de-stroked version of the 3.2 - they have the same bore and bore spacing. While it's impossible to say, either the higher RPMs at which the 2.6 operates causes it to lose any efficiency advantage over the larger engine, or the short stroke simply captures less energy from the expanding gases on the combustion chamber.
I liked the little C240 wagon, but the fuel economy was disappointing. I had the car only from spring until fall of 2011, and all my road trips were during the extremely hot Texas summer of 2011. Between our high speed limits (75MPH on most rural highways) and how hard the a/c works above 100 degrees, the car returned slightly less than 25MPG on multi-hundred mile drives. That said, other C240 wagon owners have told me that about 26MPG is the best they see on long highway drives.
The 2.6 liter M112 V6 is a de-stroked version of the 3.2 - they have the same bore and bore spacing. While it's impossible to say, either the higher RPMs at which the 2.6 operates causes it to lose any efficiency advantage over the larger engine, or the short stroke simply captures less energy from the expanding gases on the combustion chamber.
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 18
Likes: 1
1998 S420
Forgive me for waking up an old thread but I don't understand why the c320 wagon gets worse gas mileage than the w210 e320 wagon. The c320 uses the same m112 engine and is 500lbs lighter but returns lower mpg on the EPA estimate, and on fuelly.com c320s are averaging around 19mpg while e320s are averaging 21-23mpg. I would think that this would be the other way around considering the weight difference.
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 3
c320 wagon
the c320 does not have the rear air suspension easy to work on and same as the slk,,, the E320 does have air suspension,,, lots of $$$$ to repair
that was my reason for getting the C320 Oh and a 2002 with 58000 miles on it.
that was my reason for getting the C320 Oh and a 2002 with 58000 miles on it.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,290
Likes: 434
C320
I think these cars compliment each other. The C320 got the full AMG suspension treatment and it's really fun to drive while having a substantial trunk. We even did 1000 road trips in it with the whole family and our junk strapped to the roof. But for long distance comfort and outright hauling ability its hard to beat the the W211 wagon. I'm glad I have both.
Last edited by tjts1; Nov 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM.
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 3
c320 wagon
you may have something there I think i will get an E 320 to go with my c 320,, as we just drove from Ft. Lauderdale to Blairsville Ga. with 400 lbs in the back (wiped out my rear tires,on the round trip, only 100 lbs coming back) and maybe the E320 could handle that weight better . thanks for the info.jim
thinking of a engine swap to a 5.5 supercharged V8
Last toy was a Chrysler Crossfire with a SL55 motor,, turned 10.55 @ 132
thinking of a engine swap to a 5.5 supercharged V8
Last toy was a Chrysler Crossfire with a SL55 motor,, turned 10.55 @ 132
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,290
Likes: 434
C320
Thats true, the rear airbags on the E320 are a potential failure point. Replacement Arnott rear airbags are $214 a side and a coil spring rear conversion kit that does both sides is $209 total. It's not something I would worry about. I'm happy with the airbag rear end, the ride quality is sublime and I load a lot more crap back there than the C320.
I think these cars compliment each other. The C320 got the full AMG suspension treatment and it's really fun to drive while having a substantial trunk. We even did 1000 road trips in it with the whole family and our junk strapped to the roof. But for long distance comfort and outright hauling ability its hard to beat the the W211 wagon. I'm glad I have both.
I think these cars compliment each other. The C320 got the full AMG suspension treatment and it's really fun to drive while having a substantial trunk. We even did 1000 road trips in it with the whole family and our junk strapped to the roof. But for long distance comfort and outright hauling ability its hard to beat the the W211 wagon. I'm glad I have both.
you may have something there I think i will get an E 320 to go with my c 320,, as we just drove from Ft. Lauderdale to Blairsville Ga. with 400 lbs in the back (wiped out my rear tires,on the round trip, only 100 lbs coming back) and maybe the E320 could handle that weight better . thanks for the info.jim
thinking of a engine swap to a 5.5 supercharged V8
Last toy was a Chrysler Crossfire with a SL55 motor,, turned 10.55 @ 132
thinking of a engine swap to a 5.5 supercharged V8
Last toy was a Chrysler Crossfire with a SL55 motor,, turned 10.55 @ 132
Originally I was looking for an E500 wagon. Most of them are about the same price or cheaper than the E320. The problem with the E500 is it has air bags at all four corners and electronically controlled shock absorbers all of which are very expensive to replace. On top of that you can only get the E500 wagon with 4matic in the USA. If I ever decide to put a V8 in this one, I'll just buy a totaled CLK 500 or clk55. They go for less than $2k, and come complete with all the electronics, 722.6 transmission and correct oil pan to swap in. The rwd E500s got the 722.9 which includes it's own special level of stupid.
