September Road & Track has finally done a pretty complete hands-on review of the 2008 C350 Sport. And since they did the same style review and data gathering last October for the 2006 C350, I got a chance to look at the numbers side-by-side. The only real difference between their test mules is the '06 is a 6M and the '08 is a 7A but, since the manual is no longer available on the C350 Sport model (the 6M is only available on the C300), it's about as apples-to-apples a comparison as you can get. Here are the numbers.

2008 C350 Sport2006 C350 SportBy the way, the Car & Driver numbers are a good bit worse in their review this month. They got 0-60 in 6.0 flat, 1/4 mile in 14.6 @ 97 and .82 latteral g's. What a mess. A couple of numbers really jump out here. 2 or 3 mph less in the 1/4? That's a big difference. And almost 1/2 a g less latteral acceleration. It's a Sport right? And look at the stopping distances, the new C-Class needs 23 more feet to stop from 80. But the most telling difference is likely in the slalom, 3 mph slower. Basically it costs the same and gets the same fuel economy but it's slower and it doesn't handle or brake as well. It better be damn comfortable!

Just imagine if M-B did the opposite, made the ride on the Sport models a little more performance oriented and upped the numbers. Imagine it looked like this.

2008 Hypothetical C350 SportNow that's a Sport Sedan! Call it a C430 if you like. And it would be a lot closer to the pinnacle 335i. Maybe not the raw torque of the biturbo 3.0L I6 but close enough to make a worthy comparison. Right now, as Car & Driver points out, they are worlds apart in performance. And the gap has widened not narrowed this year.

Ok, so the car may be better in a myriad of refinements but they left one important improvement off their To Do list this year: performance. And for me, a Sport Sedan is about the perfect blend of performance (sport) and comfort (sedan). Personally I think the BMWs lean a little too far to the performance side but now M-B seems to be leaning too far to the comfort side. I thought the '06 C-Class sports were on the right track, they just needed 50 more hp, to sit 1/2" lower and have tires about 2 or 3 sized wider. But this year's refinement did nothing to improve the performance. In fact it did the opposite. That's my beef.

 

My guess that perhaps the powertrain in the new 08 is a transitional one and in the next year or two, the engines will be upgraded as they are certainly falling victim to the horsepower war.

Cars that are cheaper than a C300 but have more HP and torque (and we are not talking exotic makes)
Honda Accord V6
Toyota Camry V6
Nissan Altima V6
Mazdaspeed 6
Mazdaspeed 3
VW Passat V6
Saab 9-3
Chrysler 300 V6
Nissan Maxima

Cars that are the same price league as a C350 also have more power
BMW 335
Lexus IS 350
Acura TL
Infiniti G35

 

Exactly. And it gets worse when you put the Audi's in there. The new car should fall in between the IS350 and the 335i, right about where the new G37S is coming in. And you're probably right about the transitional nature, they didn't do anything to the engine since late 2005. But we won't see anything until 2010 I bet. Then it'll be 300hp and the competition will be in the over-350-hp game.

 

Thats not 1/2 g, its .04 g. 1/2 g = .5 g



And thats my beef with your math.



P.S.
What tires where used in either case?

 

Right, sorry. Math was never my strong point. That's a .04g difference as you point out. Four hundredths of a g difference. But still that's a pretty big difference when you consider the range of the competition is from .84 (Lexus IS350, 66 mph slalom) to .90 (335i, 68 slalom). The W203 C350 falls right in there with an .85 and a 66 slalom yet here we see the W204 C350 doing .82 and 63 mph in the slalom which moves it from the middle of the pack to dead last of the competitive crowd.

As for tires, the W204 had a big advantage. The new car was run on Continental Conti Pro Contacts which have a dry traction rating of 8.7 and a cornering stability of 8.4 on TireRack. The W203 was run on Michelin Pilot Primacy tires which have a TireRack dry traction rating of 8.1 and a cornering stability of 7.1. I wonder how bad they would be with the Primacy's on?

 

Both of those are horrible tires for a sports sedan.

The BMW comes equipped with Pilot Sport 2's. Slap those on either car and you'll see much higher numbers in the corners, and better acceleration times.

We'll have to wait a while to do anything to beat the damn thing in all aspects. That will take an engine swap in '09 or '10.

 

I think mercedes should drop the "sport" moniker unless they go fullout on performance in the engine, braking, suspension. If you think about it, was agility control made for 'sporty' people who want a comfy ride, or 'luxury' people who want a sport ride? I'd really like to know what their mission is now....we know what bmw is up to.

 

True, true. I have been drooling over a set of those PS2 on the 19" Bremmas with 265/35 in the back. Talk about hooking up. But a buddy told me about the Toyo Proxes he put on his M5 and I am thinking seriously about them as well.That's a really good point.

 

So BMW are more performance oriented while Mercedes is more comfort oriented? No way! That is shocking. Mercedes is trying to better their quality/reliability.

 

Drop-A-Daimler:
What say you actually drive the new car before getting so caught up with this magazine racing stuff? MB has the c-driving experience for you to do just such a thing. It's just a suggestion.

 

yes, please go drive it for yourself...

then move this thread to the W204 forum.

 

Yeah, I know that's their plan and all and I don't begrudge M-B that. It's a good plan to differentiate themselves from BMW. I'm fine that it's a more luxurious ride on purpose and that's exactly why I got one. My beef is that its acceleration and cornering abilities are moving backwards--not forwards.I plan on just that when my dealership gets one in. Right now they only have a C300 Sport for demo's and I had that motor in my last car. But if the new C350 is not faster and it doesn't corner as hard as last year like all the reviews say, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying. I want to like it though!I thought a lot about where to put this thread and ultimately I decided this thread was more about why I am likely sticking with my W203 than about the W204 in general.

PS: I knew this line of discussion would rumple some feathers. I was kind of waiting for someone to change my mind and give me a good reason to put some money down. I wouldn't mind that new Infotainment center, hard drive, bluetooth and puck controller at all!

 

+1 on the transition
remember when the new w211's came out and it was e320 also? and now its e350?

but then again, any larger and its going to need to be a v8 and if the entry evel sedans are sporting v8s...what are we going to do with the e class? V10? and the S class? V12s for all base models? we're dying in our own horsepower war

 

Yeah, we've been through displacement wars in the past too. Sport Sedans were OK with 1.8 and 2.0L 4s, then the S/Cs and the turbos came, then it was 6s and twin turbos, then bigger 6s like the Infiniti 3.7L jump. Then the small block 8s hit around 4.0L, then the jump to 6.2L. Then the S/Cs come again. Then it gets crazy with 10s and 12s and blown big displacement stuff. The show to watch is the BMW E92 M3 vs. the Mercedes C63 vs. the Lexus IS-F vs. the Audi RS4. All V8s ranging from 4.0L to 6.2L (or 6.3L if you are rounding up).All in the 400s. It keeps on spiraling upwards with each new model release until some big industry or social trend blows the whistle. Last time it was gas shortages that killed it. This time it might be alternate fuels. Then watch, I'll be out there picketing Stuttgart for more amperage.




PS: I just know somebody is going to post a correction about how it's voltage that's important to the torque of a car motor, not amperage.

 

If Nissan can spool out over 300hp from a normally aspirated 3.5L V6 or Honda getting 244hp from a SOHC 3L V6. Why is MB V6's so anemic?

Remember the C240 could only muster 168HP from 2.6L, talk about a lazy V6!!!

I personally like small 4's or 6's with a turbo or SC, due to the instant throttle response and able to pass in any gear. You get the best of both worlds, power when needed but also fuel economy over the long haul.

My 1.8 kompresser with a 6sp has spirited acceleration and able to pass without downshifting on the highway. I just finished a 1000mile 3 day trek and the car averaged 39mpg (CDN gallon) or 7.2L/100km cruising at 120km/hr (75mph). With gas prices getting higher and higher, not sure how one affords to feed a 3.5L++ engine let alone a 6.3L which has impressive power but not really an engine for today (on many accounts)


Here is a lengthy press release, perhaps something coming down the road seems that my little 1.8L is not dead yet?


OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

Mercedes-Benz presents the future of the gasoline engine: DiesOtto – Gasoline engine with diesel genes

Stuttgart, Jul 24, 2007
The performance of a gasoline engine, the high torque and fuel economy of a state-of-the-art diesel together with extremely clean emissions: Mercedes-Benz has combined all the advantages of both engine types in its DiesOtto powertrain. The new technology package, which stands for the future of the gasoline engine, includes features such as direct gasoline injection, turbocharging and a variable compression. At the core of this innovation lies the controlled auto ignition, a highly efficient combustion process similar to that of a diesel. By way of another advantage, and in contrast to comparable developments, the Mercedes system requires no synthetic fuels but can be operated using conventional gasoline.

"Our next goal will now be to make the gasoline engine as economical as a diesel. All the preconditions for this are provided by our DiesOtto concept, which incorporates the foremost strengths of both the gasoline engine and diesel engine," says Prof. Dr. Herbert Kohler, Head of Group Research & Advanced Engineering Vehicle and Powertrain; Chief Environmental Officer of DaimlerChrysler.

The result of this " marriage " is a four-cylinder unit with a displacement of just 1.8 litres (based on the M271), which combines the strengths of the low-emission gasoline engine with the fuel economy of a diesel. Despite its considerably reduced displacement – downsizing is one of the major factors for achieving a lower fuel consumption – this compact power unit delivers superior performance together with refinement at the level of the luxury class. An output of 175 kW/ (238 hp) and a maximum torque of 400 newton metres (295 lb-ft) are achieved together with the hybridisation a fuel consumption of less than six litres of gasoline per 100 kilometres. This figure by no means relates to a small or compact car, but to a vehicle the size of the current S-Class, with the level of comfort and safety that is typical of a Mercedes.

Mercedes-Benz DiesOtto – a further development of the spark-ignition engine

"In line with the worldwide success of today's diesel engine, vehicles equipped with gasoline engines will continue to have a long-term attraction for many customers and in many markets. Accordingly we are giving our attention to both engine types – including a full hybrid option for diesel and gasoline vehicles, " says Prof. Kohler. Mercedes-Benz is working on its DiesOtto concept with corresponding emphasis. Its key technological features are as follows:

Downsizing with fewer cylinders and a smaller displacement

Turbocharging for superior performance

Direct gasoline injection as a further fuel economy measure

Controlled auto ignition, a combustion process similar to that of a diesel

Variable valve control

A variable compression ratio leading to even better fuel economy and, depending on customer needs and the type of operation,

A hybrid module with an integrated starter/generator, which makes the drive unit even more economical.
When starting and under full load, the fuel/air mixture is ignited by a spark plug, as in a conventional spark-ignition engine (homogeneous combustion). The controlled auto ignition to which the DiesOtto automatically reverts within its working cycle occurs under partial load conditions, i.e. at low and medium engine speeds.

The result is the very low nitrogen oxide emissions of homogeneous combustion at reduced reaction temperatures. All further emissions control in the DiesOtto engine is by means of a standard three-way catalytic converter. A highly efficient engine management and control system has also been realised to combine the individual sub-systems into a drive concept.

The current prospects for the future of the internal combustion engine reveal its great potential, and show that the new drive concept is a feasible proposition in the mid-term. Some of the intermediate solutions incorporated, e.g. direct gasoline injection, are already in series production at Mercedes-Benz. Others will be gradually integrated into series-production engines until the overall solution has been realised.

 

To that I'd add DSG, these are our future.

 

I get what your trying to say but your stuck in peak power mode. Look at the placement of the powerbands. I would much rather have lower peak with more usable power than higher peak and power where it won't normally be used.

FI does not always mean an instant throttle. NA vs FI will always have its pros and cons. And fuel economy depends on your driving style and how heavy your foot is. If you ever had experience with them you would understand what I am saying. Off boost.

 

With a turbo engine, you get max torque at quite a low RPM and the torque curve is quite flat. eg. Audi's turbo engine develops max torque at under 2000rpm (Some Volvo's are 1500rpm) which is where most of our daily driving is. Contrast that with Honda/Acura engines are and max torque is above 4500rpm

Of course fuel economy depends on how heavy your foot is, but keeping things equal, you will get better economy from a turbo engine using the extra power when needed than having a larger displacement engine yielding a similar output. The old school measurement was that a turbo engine was equivilent to a normally aspirated engine somewhere betweem 50-100% larger, today with all the advances such as varible valve timing and multiple valves it is more like 40-50%

 

it seems like the new Sport sedans aren't as low to the ground as the W203's were either. Although the brakes feel ok, they are smaller and used floating calipers now.

Another thing to remember is that the 2006+ C350 Sport has just about everything the C55 has except the engine.

I wonder if the 5.5L V8 from the 550's will fit into the C-Class engine bay.

 

Turbo sizing plays a role, with a smaller/quick spooling turbo that can reach max boost it sacrifices top end whereas the larger displacement engine shines. Torque curve on say a NA RX-8 is also flat, Honda/Acuras have excellent fuel efficiency as well as power when its needed. They make power by higher RPMs (which I'm sure you know). Technology also helps larger displacement engine get better fuel efficiency and thats by turning off cylinders at cruising speeds. I'm trying to think of a car with a NA engine as well as a FI engine but drawing a blank now. Got any ideas?

 

And the number of turbos is now an important factor. Look at the 3.0L straight 6 in the 335i. That aluminum block and cylinder head 3.0L DOHC 24-valve inline 6-cylinder engine with Double VANOS steplessly variable intake and exhaust valve timing is in the 330i making 225 naturally aspirated hp. And to me, it's nothing to get excited about. But slap twin turbos and some aggressive fuel/spark curves and you get the king of the sport sedan world 335i. And other turbo situations are now using two turbos where one is small for quick spool-up and no turbo lag while the second is large for big displacement like power at higher RPMs. But for me, I generally prefer a larger displacement V8 for the instant gratification torque curve where 90% of the torque is available just off idle. You know what they say at the track, "there's no replacement for displacement." But kudos to BMW for the 335i engine since every reviewer says it feels like a V8 with no lag. Look at the peak torque of the I6 and you'll see a curve that looks like a small block V8.

 

VW will soon introduce a compound engine, supercharged and turbo'd, taking the advantages of both, instant throttle and power from idle to mid rpms from the supercharger, and top end power from the turbo which builds as the rpm's grow.


There is a cost penalty for bigger the engine, that is space contraints and weight not to mention less parts. A smaller lighter engine helps in driving dynamics and weight distribution. Having a big V8 can make a car nose heavy.

While a 8.4L V10 of the Viper produces good numbers, look at the SLR which achieves better numbers from a smaller and lighter engine. Or how about the 911 turbo that produces similar numbers to the Viper but will turn quicker lap times than that sledge hammer

 

All true but the intangible is a bigger part of the equation for me than most probably. There is something about the thumping, bass-heavy engine note and instant whack in the gut that a big dispacment motor gives you. While I haven't driven a Viper I have spent a lot of time behind the wheel of a 911 and a Z06 Vette. I think if the Chevy had the build quality of a German car and the American made price tag I would have given it a lot more thought. But if my wallet allowed, I would pick a C55 over a C32. Granted I'm driving a small V6 right now but in the past I had a few 5.0L+ V8s that I loved. But I also love a challeneg and an underdog/sleeper situation too. So trying to squeeze the most VE out of my 3.5L is fun right now. I would LOVE to find a decent, sub-$5000 supercharger for my M272 motor. If the the AMG built blown 3.2L can make 349hp I would hope my lower compression but slightly larger displacment motor could make something similar. Just imagine 350 to 360 hp out of a 3400 lb. C-Class! Hey, wait a minute, that's the C32/C55!

 

I think the engine (internals) were changed with stronger parts for the forced induction. Bi-turbos have been used for a while, one of them being in the 93+ RX-7 which I have. Its old technology and laggy but fun to drive

Yea, I heard about that. There are a few twin charged setup currently completed. One of them on a STi and another on a Civic. I'm sure there are plenty more but tuning and the electronics would be the major concern. When comparing the SLR and the Viper engines, one engine is technological equipped with the latest tech while the other is using old technology and all about raw power from a large displacement engine.

 

are you done magazine racing yet?

FYI, E90 330i had 255hp, E90 325 had 215hp, and the current 328i that has the 230hp 3.0L motor. E46 330i is the one that had 225hp and 235hp for it's performance packaged cars. Also FYI, the 3.0L turbo in the 335/535 uses twin-turbo design which is 3 cyclinder per turbo. twin turbo design generally uses small turbos that have little to almost no lags when you have enough displacement.

the 350's engine 10.7:1 ratio is not lower than the C32 or w211 E55's 9:1 ratio.

3495lb of unladen weight is without any options. in reality the auto C350 is 3550+ before you add the driver.