Benz Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can someone please explain to me the differences between these two cars. From what I can tell, the 230 has the better engine, the sports tuneds suspension, and the 17" wheels, yet it costs roughly $2000 less. Why is this?

I test drove them yesterday and the only differences I was able to ascertain was the wood trim in the 240 seemed to be an upgrade from the standard aluminum trim in the 230.

Also, the 230's handling - to me - felt heavy (heavy wheel/slight understeer). Is this a product of the larger wheels and the sports suspension?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Traditionally, V6’s (therefore the premium) are preferred over four bangers because of the motor’s quietness and smoothness (even though the 1.8 liter supercharged motor has balanced shafts [derived from Mitsubishi] and variable intake and exhaust valve timing for power and fuel efficiency [derived from Honda’s VTEC motors]. I would not think that the smaller motor (1.8 liter) gives too much stress and heat (supercharger) but the lifespan of the smaller motor would probably be shorter. I picked the C240 for those reasons. Yes, the suspension is softer and can still use it to my advantage. I can still predictably make it oversteer (tested it first when I test-drove the car). I love the luxurious handling but can still be driven sportily. If I wanted a sportier car, I’d just drive my SCCA spec Street Touring prepped Prelude Type SH (2.2 liters with 200hp stock motor.). After going autocrossing and club SCCA Club Racing since ’89, I just want to hop in a nice comfortable, luxurious, yet peppy car (hey, a good number of Formula 1 drivers drive “S” classes—unfortunately I can’t afford one at this time).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I picked the 240 as I wanted 4Matic and liked the ride better. Also, I will never buy a car again with 17inch low profile tires. I don't lik,e the ride and they are prone to bubbles.

Coming from the S4 I wanted good handling AND a really good ride. The S4 handled beautifully but the ride was too firm for me. The C240 has superb handling and rides smoother than the C230. If the C230 has a handling edge I think it would be at the track. I also agree that the supercharged four is not likely to last as long as the V6.

If you want sportier looks and increased acceleration and fuel economy with two wheel drive than the C230 is the better car. If you want a smoother ride, a smoother engine and the luxury touch of wood than the C240 is better. Of course, if you want 4Matic you have to buy the C240 or C320.

Frank B


redsox421 said:
Can someone please explain to me the differences between these two cars. From what I can tell, the 230 has the better engine, the sports tuneds suspension, and the 17" wheels, yet it costs roughly $2000 less. Why is this?

I test drove them yesterday and the only differences I was able to ascertain was the wood trim in the 240 seemed to be an upgrade from the standard aluminum trim in the 230.

Also, the 230's handling - to me - felt heavy (heavy wheel/slight understeer). Is this a product of the larger wheels and the sports suspension?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Benz2 said:
This link will give you insight into the C230K Sports Sedan. Its is a much better balanced car than the C240. It's actually quicker and a better handling than the C240.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0307_30k/
FYI The review does not specifically compare the C240 vs the C230K nor does it mention the C240 in the article anywhere. It's a matter of preference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
lateapexer said:
Benz2 said:
This link will give you insight into the C230K Sports Sedan. Its is a much better balanced car than the C240. It's actually quicker and a better handling than the C240.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0307_30k/
FYI The review does not specifically compare the C240 vs the C230K nor does it mention the C240 in the article anywhere. It's a matter of preference.
Lighter engine, sports suspension w/17" wheels, more HP 189 vs 168.....you do the math....Mercedes tells you the same thing go to their website and do a comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
Motor Trend. :roll: The new engine does not have more torque in the low rpms than the 2.3. Mercedes own dyno charts show that. There is no new transmission. It is the same one they didn't like last year. I guess the short throw shifter is the difference, even though they claim it is vague. Wood trim in the interior? What car were they driving?

Despite what Mercedes advertises and many people believe, there is no sport suspension for the C class in the US, at least. The only difference may be in the shock absorber calibration. The springs and sway bars are the same. The major difference in ride and handling are the 225/45-17 tires. The stiffer sidewalls make the ride a little firmer and improve the handling a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Does that mean that Mercedes Benz is lying in their US C-Class Brochure? Under specifications-Chassis for the C-230 it says "Sport-tuned shock absorbers, thicker front and rear stabilizer bars".

Frank B

Lynn said:
Motor Trend. :roll: The new engine does not have more torque in the low rpms than the 2.3. Mercedes own dyno charts show that. There is no new transmission. It is the same one they didn't like last year. I guess the short throw shifter is the difference, even though they claim it is vague. Wood trim in the interior? What car were they driving?

Despite what Mercedes advertises and many people believe, there is no sport suspension for the C class in the US, at least. The only difference may be in the shock absorber calibration. The springs and sway bars are the same. The major difference in ride and handling are the 225/45-17 tires. The stiffer sidewalls make the ride a little firmer and improve the handling a lot.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top