Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi

I am considering the new C220 CDI. I however drove the automatic and found it to be very "dead" on take off. It is only after 1800 revs that the turbo kicks in and then the torque is unbelievable. I'd like to know if anyone experienced the same thing with a manual? or is it better on the takeoff?

[:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Re: I've driven them both.

Chunck, great to see you here.

we will be in the market for another car in 7-8 months. c240/auto is on the top of our list. i wonder if you have driven the c240? and how would you compare it with ml320 in take off.

thanks.
 

·
Registered
2015 ML250 BTC
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
Having the 320 is very nice . . .

The 320 is the same engine as found in the 1,000 pound heavier ML320 which also tows 5,000 lbs in the SUV. Needless to say, in the "C," the 320 is a oppulence, but you pay only a small price in lower fuel economy-- maybe almost no sacrifice--we get about 25-26 mpg whereas I've heard of 240 owners getting less (although city driving kills the mileage).

You will be amazed at the C320 in mountain driving, e.g., hardly needing to ever change gears and easily powering up steep grades noislessly and at low rpms.

In the usual driving situations, where you know and appreciate a car's power, there's no question: like when you begin a climb from nearly zero, up an inclined on-ramp, and can safely merge within a short distance with helter-skelter, maniac freeway traffic at any speed necessary, depending on the circumstances. You also do not feel the weight of a "C" full of adults on a steep hill.

The C320 has abundant power over one of the broadest torque curves available on any car. I have heard but cannot confirm that the 3.7L engine will be introduced into the ML for 2003, replacing the 320 that powered the ML since '98, not to mention E-class MBs, which are only a little heavier than the C-class. I've also seen older S320s and they're a lot heavier.

If the 3.7L ever shows up in the "C" as has at least been a rumor, the 320 would probably hold its value better compared to the 240. I can only imagine how much extra power the 3.7L engine would provide and while it probably would be fun to drive, it isn't needed for the "C" except as probably is necessary to maintain hegemony over other brands in what is about the most competitive segment in the auto industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Re: There both about the same.

Neither the C240 or the ML320 are exactly overpowered. If you are looking for pickup, spend the extra money and go for the C320. My C230 Coupe is very good.
in terms of acceleration, i am pretty happy with my ml320. if the c240 gives me the same 'feel' as the ml, then c240 is good enough for me. i don't need to be the one who gets to the traffic light first. [:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Re: Having the 320 is very nice . . .

The 320 is the same engine as found in the 1,000 pound heavier ML320 which also tows 5,000 lbs in the SUV. Needless to say, in the "C," the 320 is a oppulence, but you pay only a small price in lower fuel economy-- maybe almost no sacrifice--we get about 25-26 mpg whereas I've heard of 240 owners getting less (although city driving kills the mileage).

You will be amazed at the C320 in mountain driving, e.g., hardly needing to ever change gears and easily powering up steep grades noislessly and at low rpms.

In the usual driving situations, where you know and appreciate a car's power, there's no question: like when you begin a climb from nearly zero, up an inclined on-ramp, and can safely merge within a short distance with helter-skelter, maniac freeway traffic at any speed necessary, depending on the circumstances. You also do not feel the weight of a "C" full of adults on a steep hill.

The C320 has abundant power over one of the broadest torque curves available on any car. I have heard but cannot confirm that the 3.7L engine will be introduced into the ML for 2003, replacing the 320 that powered the ML since '98, not to mention E-class MBs, which are only a little heavier than the C-class. I've also seen older S320s and they're a lot heavier.

If the 3.7L ever shows up in the "C" as has at least been a rumor, the 320 would probably hold its value better compared to the 240. I can only imagine how much extra power the 3.7L engine would provide and while it probably would be fun to drive, it isn't needed for the "C" except as probably is necessary to maintain hegemony over other brands in what is about the most competitive segment in the auto industry.
i am sure the c320 is great, unfortunately, it is out of my price ragne.[:(]

i thought the 3.5L engine just replaced the 3.2L ML for 2003. the 3.7L probably won't be available for the ML in the near future.

if the 3.5L/3.7L ever introduce to C, not sure what kind of impacts it has to C240.

well, i am at the market for a C yet, we'll C [:)]

thanks.
 

·
Registered
2015 ML250 BTC
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
The '03 ML350 is to have a 3.7L engine

There is no 3.5L engine. The 320 is the 6 cyl component part of MB's 430 engine whereas the 3.7L will be based on the 500 engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
thanks...i didn't know that.

by the way, it seems there is some good deal for c320 in west coast. i am at the east coast, and if i can get a deal like Oggle did, i probably go with 320 instead of 240.[:)]
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top