c230pete

If only the C240 only came with a 190hp/192tq engine like the 1.8 supercharged engine, would it even be necessary to have a C230? I mean, I know some people are opting for the C230 over the C240 b/c of power numbers...If MB had decided to have a stronger base 6 engine in the first place they could have saved money by not developing another engine....and yes it seems I have too much time on my hands to think about these things

dmatre

Most likely, a more powerful 2.6 would not change the offering of the 1.8.

The 1.8 is available in 3 different power outputs (C180, C200, C230), and is more economical than the 6-cylinder. This is tremendously important in Europe, where the majority of cars are sold with engines less than 2 liters displacement. In some countries, cars are also taxed according to their displacement - thus a bigger engine = bigger taxes due.

It's hard to understand these international concerns when we simply invade another country in order to ensure enough cheap oil to feed our needs, but in Europe they are selling 4 cylinder versions of the BMW 5-series and the E-Class for just these reasons.

pokerFACE

this may be totally wrong,

but was told that the 2.6L v6 is based off the 3.2 v6, except it has a shorter stroke. it costs MB just as much to build either engine.. so it's really a marketing thing.

therefore, it's not really the 1.8L that is unnecessary, the 2.6 is.

GDawgC220

Yes, the 2.6 and the 3.2 are infact the same engine, just some different parts to reduce the output. Like you said, it's marketing, it's for people who do not want the bigger output and are looking for a more economical choice while still having the engine last.

Guest0001

I think they should have kept the 2.3 and put it in the Sedan. that engine was great. I dont like either the 1.8 or 2.6. The 3.2 needs more hp(C350 is a good start) as well but the the torque is still nice and its powerful imo.

Mike T.

The 2.6 is a highly inefficient engine and another version with even more power would likely be worse unless they go back to 4 valves per cylinder. But even with 24 valves it's be a gas hog.

The 192/197 HP 1.8 L engine is about 30% more fuel efficient than the C 240's 2.6 (EU cycle). The GDI 1.8 is even moreso but our fuel in North America contains too much sulphur to have gasoline direct injection engines sold here.

So the reason to keep the C 230 if a 90 degree V6 with the same power was introduced would be to appeal to those of us who actually are wanting to minimise their use of fuel.

I am considering buying a smart cdi Diesel cabriolet for that very reason: up to 80 MPG US sounds pretty good to me

Frank B

I traded in my 2001 Audi A4 on a 2003 C 4Matic. I wanted all wheel drive so I had to buy the 240 or 320. I have been very pleasantly surprised with the power of the 2.6. It seems to feel much faster (of course, not like my S4) than the 168HP figure would warrant. It is also very smooth. I wouldn't mind though a few more MPGs. Bottom line I am very pleased with this engine.

Silver_Lana

Is that sold in Canada yet?

GDawgC220

This seems to be true with my 2.2 (150hp) as well. Our Audi as 172 HP and when I'm comparing, off the line, it seems mine is faster (I can feel more of a pull than the Audi)...although, could this be due to the quattro vs rear wheel?

jrct9454

I too seem to be one of those rare individuals who find the 2.6 to be just fine, thank you. Nobody ever kicks more hp out of bed, but this car gets up and moves with enough enthusiasm to satisfy my needs, and to be safe on the road. It's also quieter and more refined than the 4.

Another consideration: if the 4 cyl were offered in our market without all of the "sport sedan" baloney, then it might be something I would be interested in. I want a refined touring car, not a sports sedan - thus, the C240's quieter, [yes] softer ride makes this our ideal car for long trips. If the same suspension and interior could be had with the 4 cyl, at a reduced price, I would have been a potential customer. But the C230k is oriented to another set of priorities....just not mine.

Anyway, to each their own. I am another one who would love to have the choice of buying the sedan/wagon with one of the new generation diesels, and still hope that the future might offer us this alternative once the '06 fuel regs make lower sulfur diesel available nationwide. Yes, I know the E is available now, but I'm done with spending $50k on cars.

tifosiv122

I'm the exact opposite. I had the M111 in my SLK and I hated it, I am glad the M271 is in the new sedans and in my coupe.

Erik

Outland

Ive always felt the 2.6 was fine until you drove the supercharged 2.3, the larger 3.2L six, or even the new 1.8. Then you kinda wondered what the F MB was thinking by offering the 2.6. From a seat of the pants standpoint, the difference between the 2.6 and anything else is startling.

And all that BS about refinment, and smoothness...please- even the 2.3, which is well known for its rudeness is by no means an unpleasant engine. The double wieght flywheel quells the vibration, and the only sounds that you hear are the whining of the supercharger- a rather pleasant sound. The 3.2 and 2.6 both make other less pleasant sounds, IMHO, so bring on the rude Kompressor engines!

Verb04

The 2.3K engine is awsome. I can't beleive that MB downgraded to the 1.8K. (I guess to get better gas milage) I have driven both the 2.6, and the 1.8, and neither car drives like the 2.3K. Not to mention the Chip/Pulley upgrade on the 2.3K is amazing. I'm sure all you 2.3K owners can agree.

mctwin2kman

The 2.3 was an amazong little engine. The 1.8 offers far more than just better fuel mileage though. It also adds the variable valve timing on both cams instead of just the intake, and the higher boost. Would be nice if we 1.8'ers could find a $300-500 pulley for the SC to spin her a hair faster. I would be happy with a 15HP gain to get over that 200HP mark as well as add a hair bit more tourque. But I am happy with the 1.8, I drove both and really the diference I see is the sound. But then again I have a 6 speed so I do not get the downshifts that apparantly occur much earlier on the 1.8 auto cars due to the higher tourque band.

Mike T.

No, but it's coming in October 2004.

I was at the Vancouver Auto Show on the weekend and the Mercedes-Benz Canada people there confirmed the date (September, October at the latest).

There were three smarts at the show: an old gas cabriolet owned by the CDN Government (Transport Canada), and two cdi direct injection Diesels. One was a glasstop and one was a cabriolet. I am not exaggerating when I say that they were the hit of the show. Most people thought they were electric though.

The cost of the cabriolet will be something like $19,500 CDN (about 14.5 K US). Fuel economy is in the 80 MPG US range. Puts the Prius and even the Insight to shame