> could someone with a C320/Autobox humour me on a question please?
Sure...I prefer an auto now after spending years with sticks. Especially with the MB auto, it allows you choose what gear you want if you want to feel more in control.
>So say if you're at rest, then the transmission must be pre-selected to >1st gear, right?
Unless you tap '+' at rest and want to start out in second.
>How can I hold shifts in each gear in turn whilst accelerating?
Hold the shift lever to the '-'.
> If you're stationary (say at a light), do you select '-' to engage >"manual" mode, then each time you want to upshift do you select >'+'?
Yes
> And will the gear hold in the selected slot irrespective of RPM?
Yes, up until the rev limiter is reached.
>Next situation: in town traffic, going 35-45 or so, say in 4th gear, >and want to overtake smartly. What happens if you select '-'? >Will it downshift to 3rd, or just engage "manual" mode such that >the NEXT time you select '-' it will downshift? Or does the downshift >occur right away?
Downshifts to third. The usual sequence is tap twice to get to third in the situation you describe because it will probably be in 5th. Or just put the pedal to the metal and it goes to third (my choice, I'm lazy...but it's also quicker than you can reach down and do it manually).
>Ok, last situation: approaching a bend in 5th, can you just >tap '-' twice and will transmission downshift to 4th and to 3rd >allowing you to engine brake, negotiate turn,
Yes
>and then can you then tap '+' twice on exit from the corner >into 5th, delaying as long as you like in order to allow more > RPM to build?
Yes, if you hold the lever to the '-'. If you just tap and release it downshifts then reverts to auto mode. However, remember the upshift is a function of speed and throttle position. The more throttle the higher the upshift. So as long as you have your foot into it if will rev higher before updshifting.
>When does the transmission "revert" back to automatic mode >such that it shifts itself? When I pull up to a light and stop?
Or reduce throttle opening, or release the lever from '-' .
> I'm trying to make a case for which suits my driving style, the >6 speed or the auto. My current car (99 C280) can only shift >via the J gate. I'm wondering if the '-' and '+' are in fact just the >same thing via sw controls or something fundamentally different...
Different. I'm surprised at how many people poo-poo the new manumatics. You definitely need to relearn your driving style if you want the 'stick' feel though. You can generally select what gear you want, or want to stay in, by just controlling the throttle position. The five speed auto gives you more gear choices and enhances that sporty feel.
One of the MB dealers in Toronto, Canada area would not discount on 2003 C240 4matic, and charges $1600CAD for delivery charge. Does anyone know what is a usual discount on a car like that ?
Thanks a bunch for the info re: auto operation. Gave me a lot to think about.
One last thing I ought to have mentioned earlier -- In addition to the J-gate in the 99 C280, about the only other thing that bothers me about the car is the delay in throttle response (or tip in, or whatever you want to call it.)
Couple situations serve to illustrate the point...sitting in neutral, rev engine slightly. On my car there is a distinct hesitation in pickup of the throttle between the pedal reaching 1/3 travel and the RPM. On other cars in our household (67 Mini Cooper S and, ahem, 00 Honda Odyssey) the throttle pickup is MUCH quicker.
Second situation is the 35-45 overtaking situation; with current 99 C there is a really irritating combination of slow throttle response and hesitant transmission kickdown that results in the car hesitating, hesitating, hesitating, and FINALLY getting enough combination of the throttle and gear change to build torque to appreciably change the car's rate of speed. I find currently I just about have to downshift on the J gate manually, let the engine spool up then mash the throttle....
Am just wondering then with the new C320 is there any difference in 1) the throttle response in Park -- does it have a delay? and 2) the kickdown overtaking in this speed range -- with the increased HP/Torque of the 3.2L engine is there any delay?
>Am just wondering then with the new C320 is there any difference in 1) the >throttle response in Park -- does it have a delay?
I believe there is an inherent delay in 'drive by wire' throttle response for all cars using it . The mind is quicker than the touch. It is so minute that I don't call it a problem...but it bothers some people.
>and 2) the kickdown overtaking in this speed range -- with the increased >HP/Torque of the 3.2L engine is there any delay?
Yes again, but again on the average I believe it happens quicker than if you did it with a manual.
I'm having the same questions about the new hydraulically/microprocessor actuated auto/sticks. I'm getting ready to test drive a Maserati Coupe Cambio Corsa and I want to make sure the transmission is ready for prime time. Some of the press says it's jerky/slow and some says it's smooth/fast. I think you need to learn to drive these new systems like anything else but the technology is there to do it better than you can with a manual clutch.... or the F1 drivers would still be using them.
We have a '99 C280 too and I have experienced everythign that you referred to in your post. I do not care for the hesitation either. The C280 has plenty of power, but it never seems to be available when you want it. I really hope that Mercedes has solved this problem in the new C320.
You know, a simple test drive answers all of these queries. The C320 can speak for itself, such as taking the steepest hills quietly and easily without having to peck around for gears and at a quiet and low rpm, and acceleration under all conditions due to the broad torque curve.
The engine has the cubes and plenty of torque at low rpms so I cannot imagine that you wouldn't be impressed. The 320 is the same engine that is in the 1,000 pound heavier ML that also tows 5,000 lbs. In the E-Class that now is base priced at over $50K with the usual options, the 320 powers what probably is the best sedan ever built. The power and the tip-in shifting makes for a great mountain driving experience.
And, MB's trans is pretty smart: I don't know what part comes natural and what part is learned from my driving preferences, but in both the ML and the C, the trans shifts down on its own when going down hill to help slowing using some engine braking.
I believe it was MAC230 who said the mystery noise may have something to do with the key. I don't believe I understand exactly what you are suggesting, but I'm certainly game to try. It's the only thing that keeps us from loving the car.
It's the the other keys on your key chain ... my suggestion was to try driving with only the MB key and that will let you know if it's the same "problem" we had which was exactly like you described earlier.
Funny thing was, in our car, we each heard the sound coming from different locations, completely unrelated to the location of the keys. And, it's a problem a dealer cannot diagnose because you probably would only give them your MB key if you wanted them to troubleshoot the noise; but, there would be no noise. Good luck.
I'm considering the C320 4 Matic and would like to know if anyone on this board has this car. If so, does it handle better that the standard model? I can understand the benfits of 4wd in snow, rain, etc, but just wondering how the dry handling would compare. Thanks.
I looked at the sport package, both on my car (99 C280) and in '01 when the new C came out. In both cases I came to the conclusion that the interior combined with the gauge changes was a little 'boy racer' for me. If they had had the meaningful changes (wheels/tyres, lowered suspension, stiffer shocks, seats etc) with the normal interior I would have purchased it.
Its interesting you say that; I was comparing the '01 brochure with the '03 brochure the other day and indeed noticed the Sport package was defunct...
My guess is simple lack of sales, together with the intro of the 2-door C (which has the faux carbon fibre interior) for the (ahem) "younger set"...
Will there be a C350 for 2004? I haven't seen anything about this engine for the C Class. Seems there will be an ML350, E350, S350, maybe an SL350, but I never hear about a C350. What's the general consensus?
There will be a C350 for 2004. The C-Class gets its mid-life facelift for 2004 also. It's the C240 that I'm curious about, it needs a 3.0L V6 with at least 195 hp after the 245hp C350 arrives.
The E-Class cars make the change this spring, as the 04' models are arriving early.
was way overpriced and it included that awful fake kevlar interior trim. Between the cost, the ugly trim, and the fact that most of the C sedan buyers aren't in the market for a BMW, it's no wonder that it didn't sell. If MB lowered the price to something reasonable (say $600) for bigger tires and wheels, slightly stiffened suspension, and left out the fake kevlar, then they'd likely sell that option.
My wife's '99 C280 has the sport package. We previously had '95 C280 before that without the sport package, so there is a basis for comparision.
The sport package is awful. Ot comes with the teenager-inspired interior that everyone else has mentioned. Ours does have a stiffer suspension and low-profile tires.
The C-class sport package gives you all of the disadvantages of a performance car (i.e. stiff ride) without any of the advantages (tight handling, responsive steering, lots of torque).
In sum, the sport suspension manages to combine a bone-shaking ride with sofa-like handling. Not a good combination. And the interior, with its carbon-fiber accents, its totally unsuitable for a Mercedes. The seats are great, though.
This comment should not be taken as a criticsism of Mercedes in general or our C280 in particular. I like them both much. When my wife replaces this car, the next one will NOT have a sports package, that's for sure.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the C320 with the sports pacakage will give you the best of both worlds- i.e. luxury of a Mercedes C320 with the performance and spirited driving of a BMW 330. It won't. Test drive both and you'll see. A BMW is a sports car with luxury features, and a Mercedes is a luxury car with sports features. These cars should do what they do best, without attempting to imitate the other.
That being said, I hope she decides to get a C320 when it comes time to replace the current C280. It is the best-looking Mercedes to come around in quite some time, and I understand that the C-class now has rack-and-pinion steering. I can't wait to try it out.
Always thought the sports pack merely messed with a nearly perfect ride to no good purpose. These things are always a matter of personal taste, of course, but as suggested somewhere above, you can do all of the things to the car in the aftermarket on your own to make it "sportier", and save money to boot.
And I agree about the BMW vs MB historic mission-in-life; I've owned many examples of both, and prefer the "touring sedan" [MB] over the "sports sedan" [BMW] as I've gotten older and [I hope] wiser about what I really need in a car. To each their own, of course...
The '02 C320's sport tires were 225\50\16s whereas the stock tires are 205\55\16s. I found out recently when playing around with a tire calculater that the diameter and sidewall height of these two tires are identical--about the only difference is 0.1" in circum.
The wider tire option shouldn't result in a harsher ride if the sidewall height is the same. And, the bigger contact area would deliver better braking (probably a mpg decrease tho).
The wider tires would fit on the stock 7" rims so they could offer a possible low cost "sport" option when the time comes for new tires, especially if you already like the looks of the C's stock rims.
The sports package was what got me into MBs in the first place - I still remember it was an article in car and driver.
The 99 sports package when I got it was only about $970 and was a good deal for the money.
It did have mean meaningful changes - 1)larger wheels/tyres 2)lowered suspension (about 2cm) 3)stiffer shocks 4)leather seats with the normal interior - the only difference being the white guages.
Leather seats as an option was itself $1K, and as anyone who prices wheels knows, it's as much as $2000 to get a set of larger wheels. There were other upgrades which I can't remember now.
I've come to love the plastic trim - as something which is more unconventional than the regular wood trim, and a better match to the grey interior I have.
I find the steering to be numb on the regular MB sedans and the ride sofa-like, almost like an American sedan. The sport suspension is much tighter.
I have a herniated disc in my low back and the sports suspension is better for me because there is no bounce back on bumpy roads. In a softer ride, the suspension bounces a little after a bump, that same bounce is echoed by your intervertebral discs because it is in the same plane as the bounce - ouch. But the sports suspension damps the bounce so your disc doesn't go like a trampoline.
However, like one of the posters said, it's always a matter of personal taste. The sports pack is the perfect ride.
Funny enough, I've never found anything special about the BMWs. The BMW528 was in the same price range as my C in the year that I got it. But it felt smaller inside and the ride was indifferent.
After much ado, and with the help of jrct9454's detailed saga, I was able to convince my dealer that the "in-spec" alignment was not sufficient. They adjusted the caster and toe-in on the third visit and all was well until I replaced the wheels and tires with dedicated snows. The car now pulls to the right exactly as it did before the adjustments. I can't imagine that I will have to go through this process every time I change tires. Any suggestions? Why is the car doing this? Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
"...There will be a C350 for 2004. The C-Class gets its mid-life facelift for 2004 also. It's the C240 that I'm curious about, it needs a 3.0L V6 with at least 195 hp after the 245hp C350 arrives.
The E-Class cars make the change this spring, as the 04' models are arriving early. "
I did a google search on 2004 C350 and only came up with a couple vague references from a German discussion board dated from last year and another reference (also in German) on a '04 facelift for the C...Could you post additional info or references as to how you know the changes are coming for the C?
I was curious about this a while ago; it seemed to me the new C would possibly get a mid-life upgrade in '04, but had not heard about the bigger engine. A C class 6 Speed with a 3.7l engine might be just the car I'm looking for:)
Yeah, this means you need to fiddle with the tires to see which combination of the four snows works best on the front without the pulling.
Radials can have small belt imperfections that have the effect of making the car want to pull. The fact that it had been corrected before installing the snows is all the clue you need that the tires are very likely the problem. Try switching the existing fronts from side to side, and/or moving the rears to the front. All you need is one combination of two tires in the front that are neutral. This is not an uncommon problem when going to new tires, snows or any other kind.
I guess it makes sense to offer the C350, to try and limit the number of engines in the lineup, will the C coupe get this engine also? So the 3.2 will be totally gone from the MB lineup starting with 2004?
I also read someplace that the 2004 C will get the in dash CD changer that the current E class has. I almost bought the C in 2002, was going to make a move in the spring of 2003, now I may have to wait for the 2004 model!
Have a 03 C240....anyone out there experiment with driving in W (winter) mode (car starts with 2nd gear) vs. S (summer) (starts in 1st) and getting better or less gas mileage? Bought car in mid-August and am heading for 5,000. Only problem was outside temp. probe loose and gave incorrect reading and once couldn't unlock car with remote (had to use key to open driver door and finally learned to de-activate alarm by inserting key in ignition.) Anyone else experience this problem......didn't bother to take in to check out.
...made in Jan '02 and put into service new in September, has so far experienced only one problem [beyond the predelivery wheel alignment issue, which I was aware of when we took delivery and which was corrected within a couple of weeks] - on the first day, the sunroof stuck in the vent position, and I had to use the manual crank and re-synch procedure to get it working again. It has not repeated this problem since, incidentally.
Our fuel consumption has been consistently between 20 and 26 mpg depending on how the car is used, trip length, etc. We still have less than 2500 miles on it, so it is not yet broken in - I wouldn't be surprised at a small improvement in fuel use going forward.
Personally, I'd advise against using the second-gear-start unless nasty road conditions make it necessary. The trans just has to work that much harder to get this 3400 lbs under way if you start in second gear, and I would be surprised at any real fuel use benefit.
It has used about a quart of oil in the first 2500 miles, but that's about what I would expect for a new engine. All of that use occurred before 1500 miles, and none since...a good sign.
Silverfox6, I had a similar key problem. It happened two-three times in a two week period and I took it in after seeing some prior posts saying MB has had some non-battery related problems with the Smartkey. This was confirmed by the dealer and they replaced all keys (in order to re-code). This was done under warranty six months ago and no problems since.
I was at the MB dealership on Sunday looking at their enormous inventory and noticed the ML350. Maybe the C350 is not far behind. My guess is they will bring out a sport version in order to compete against Audi and the benchmark BMW 330I. I understand some opinions about sport packages but it really becomes subjective. I'm looking for a good handling car without the harshness associated with some sports sedans. On the other hand, the C320 has been critisized by the magazines for being too soft and mushy. That's why I was curious about the 4matic 320, but no one responded to my post about that version.
MB has to dance a fine line with the C. Does the C320 really need 20-25 more HP in C350 trim? If the C240 becomes a near-200HP car, will people pay the premium for the C350?
I don't find the C320 ride "too soft and mushy". It corners faster than I want to and is fun to drive in the mountains. Slight body roll at high g's. I prefer the ride over the equivalent BMW. Especially on longer trips. It doesn't have the 'gocart' like cornering feel but then again it doesn't rattle your teeth at every bump.
According to Auto Bild, the German auto mag., in their latest six cylinder comparisons, the C320 outscored Audi's A4 (2nd), BMW's 530iA (3rd), and Jaguar's x-type (4th). There wasn't much of a point spread separating the contenders: out of 7 categories, each with 100 max points, or 700 total points possible, the high-scoring "C" put up 518 while the Jag didn't exactly get the kraut kicked out of it at 493. The C320's top score in the security category with the absolute best braking performance is pretty neat. The C320's 0-to-100 km in 8 sec was the slowest of the German trio but it had more cubes than the lot and apparently does more with less (3 valves per cylinder without variable valve timing) in many other measures of acceleration that were not detailed, e.g., I remember the C320 was under 7 sec. at 0-to-60 mph, according to the specification page in the catalog, and from my experience, the C's torque easily and quietly handles hills and midrange passing duties. Another area where the C320 nearly outdid all the competition was in the entry price-- the Jag as tested was the most expensive and the Audi was the least expensive.
Personally, I find my wife's C240 to be a bit underdamped for my taste. It has a bit too much roll and dive. It's a bit too floaty when going over large bump. Also, the tires give up way to quickly. So I would prefer a somewhat tighter handling car. The difference would be lost on my wife, however.
But it would not cost MB much at all to offer the suspension, wheels, and tires alone. The car already has shocks, springs, and anti-sway bars. A sports suspension would simply have slighter stiffer versions of the same. Net cost for stiffer suspension to MB? Not much more at all. How much more could a shorter, stiffer spring cost than a larger, softer one?
Larger and better tires would increase their marginal cost, but not a whole lot. Larger wheels WOULD NOT cost MB $2000 extra. It wouldn't cost them much more at all. After all, the base car already has alloy wheels. The only difference would be maybe 1" larger diameter wheels. The marginal cost couldn't be more than an extra hundred bucks or so to MB.
The fake kevlar trim? Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Full leather? We specifically excluded that option on cost.
In my experience, it's hard for people not in the business to understand costs. I make "widgets". Many times people ask me why don't I make the widget thinner/bigger/shorter/lighter, etc? The cost of the material itself might be 2 cents. But the cost of reseaching/designing/tooling the different widget might be substantial - especially if I only end up selling it to 2 people.
So: "How much more could a shorter, stiffer spring cost than a larger, softer one?"
Maybe nothing, or even less per spring. But if you're selling 400,000 larger softer ones, and you only sell 20,000 shorter stiffer ones, the latter is going to cost the consumer more.
"Does the C320 really need 20-25 more HP in C350 trim?"
Yes!
"If the C240 becomes a near-200HP car, will people pay the premium for the C350?"
Yes! Sign me up!
Seriously, obviously there is an ongoing HP war going on in the market place. Ever looking for a way to distinguish themselves by the car "suit" they wear, aging baby boomers (and there are a lot of them) find themselves with the wherewithall to afford ever more power. MBZ has got to be seen to offer a competitive product; since the C32 will remain out of reach for the entry level luxo market its pretty clear what the target market for the C350 is going to be. (I count myself in that market.)
On a technical level, I still wonder if MB has changed the software on the drive by wire throttle to decrease the time between depression and throttle body (or whatever else is in the gizzards of what passes for a carburettor these days:) opening...I doubt very seriously if David Coulthard would stand for any delay, and HE drives a drive by wire throttle (admittedly one with 800 HP)...Even with 194 HP in my C280 this one change would generate a significant increase in driving enjoyment...
The 320 should be all the power a C-Class needs to provide most anyone with a great driving experience, but if the 3.7L motor is now required to power entry level MLs for that class to stay competitive, and considering it also could be used across the line, even in "S" and "CL" models that are only available now with V8s in the U.S., it doesn't seem like a problem to offer it also for the C-Class, even at a small volumes, and let the market decide, or simply detune it to run on regular (code name "little ethyl"), and eliminate the 320 option altogether.
I'm not questioning those who have posted that thisC350 model is coming for 2004, it seems apparent that indeed it is, along with the ML350 and E350. They should also do an S350 for the US, I think it would expand total S class sales, since many people buy other competing cars simply based on price, and a lower priced S350 would be attractive.
I test drove the C240 and C320 in RWD and 4matic versions. My original intent was to buy a 240 4matic. After test drives I found the following: (1) 240 RWD: a little sluggish in acceleration, but good overall; (2) 240 4matic: slower acceleration than 240 RWD and noticeably heavier steering, not very responsive; (3) 320 RWD: very peppy, quick acceleration, light steering, this car is a natural; (4) 320 4matic - peppy, but heavier steering. In my opinion, the biggest drawback of the 4matic on the C-class is the significant intrusion into the passenger footwell by the transfer case. Most MB salespeople don't even know about this. About 1/3 of the close-in foot space is gone. Long-legged passengers won't notice, but short-legged ones (i.e. women) definitely will. Same thing on the E-class, but it's not as bad because the E-class is a bigger car. I bought the 320 RWD and absolutely love it! (Way better than the BMWs I test drove, too.)
Anyone seriously consider a C-class 4matic will be interested in this. I live in Seattle (lots of hills, snow occasionally) and 4WD/AWD vehicles are everywhere. I like to go into the mounatins, too. The German car magazine "Auto Motor und Sport" tested a C320 4matic and did a double comparison of C320 RWD vs. 4matic and an Audi A4 FWD vs. Quattro on wet streets and snow. (The Audi FWD is not available in the US.) First on the 320 4matic alone. They had high praise for the system because of its simplicity and effectiveness. Only real tricky situation for the 4matic would be extended driving in deep snow. Because the torque transfer occurs through applying the brakes (ESP), a long period of deep snow driving (like 1 minute) could lead to overheating of the brakes, in which case the 4matic system would disable itself. This is not an off-road vehicle, however, so this problem should not be a big one. Other drawbacks are the added weight up front (80 kg or about 180 lb) which significantly alters front/rear weight distribution and leads to more understeer in snow. Finally, there's the permanent cut in gas mileage, which is important in Germany because of the higher fuel costs.
In the double comparison article, they conclude that the 4matic definitely improves traction in the snow, but the RWD version with snow tires did everything they wanted it to do, just a little slower than the 4matic. Far more important than the 4matic they noted was ESP. Without ESP the RWD is seriously handicapped on wet roads. They also say that driving in snow is easier with ESP switched off. They give only a lukewarm recommendation for the 4matic, saying there will be very few times when you'll ever need it and you pay permanent penalties in cost, fuel consumption, and handling for it. By the way, the two Audis were much closer in handling/traction, but again their conclusions were the same. This article largely parallels similar findings by Car and Driver in a 1997 or 98 article. If you get the RWD version, get a good set of snow tires and drive carefully in the winter. You'll have a lot more fun in the summer!
I agree. This HP war is stupid, plain and simple. Gas guzzlers, all, bad karma. Whatever happened to finesse? Does no-one know how to have fun in sub-100 HP cars any more? Pathetic!
My daily driver has only 110 HP (or it least she did when she was new - there are 280,000+ km under her belt today) and that is plenty. No it's not a Benz....
I want to buy a smart roadster, maybe the one with 61 HP, but perhaps I'll get the steroid-enhanced version with 82 HP. That'll be a really fun sports car, and get nearly 50 MPG US overall to boot. We need more cars like this.
Your C 240 is fine, 168 HP is plenty, I agree totally.
Hard to believe, but true. The EPA numbers for RWD, automatic versions of the C240 are 19/25 and for the C320 they are 20/26. The 240 and 320 are the same engines, just with different strokes. (Actually, the 240 has a 2.6 liter engine, but is badged as 240 so as not to compete with the 320.) Thus, the two engines have nearly the same weight. The 320 develops a lot more torque and is geared lower, resulting in quieter operation and better fuel consumption. So, if you can invest a few more kilobucks in a car, go for the 320, have more fun, and do the environment a favor! (By the way, both engines have plenty of power. MB sells a C180 in Germany which is a good deal slower than our US versions. They also have three diesels which get almost twice the mileage of their gasoline counterparts.)
I just spoke to my local MB dealer and these cars are "sport sedan" versions of the C320. I unlocked the mystery of the no sport package option for the C320! I may just have to get my name on this one.
Rich, the dealer told me that the cars are built and at the dock in Germany. No price or details but he will call me on Monday with info. It appears to have the normal sport package items, such as 17" wheels, suspension, different interior etc. I'll post as soon as the details become available.
Guess if the sport pacakage is not being offered it is a moot point.
Having owned a '95 C220 with the regular interior (zebrano trim, MB-Tex), it took a while to get used to the sport package (carbon-fiber, 2-tone leather) in my '00 C230. But I found it to be such a unique combination that I really enjoy it now. How often do you find a touring car with "racer boy" accents? This fits my style well, as I refuse to mature quietly! When I was 11 in 1973, I saw a gray-haired man driving a Corvette, and said "someday that will be me!" Well, OK so it didn't work out exactly since I'm driving a Mercedes. But it's close enough, even better actually!! :-)
The sport offering marketing strategy seems similar to Buick's - re: the GS models of the late '60s and '70s, which were revived recently I believe. What's the market? For 40-somethings like me for whom a BMW 3-series is just a bit too sporty, the C-Class Sport provides an alternative as a powerful mini-touring car with sporty accents. As was mentioned in previous posts, it's a matter of personal taste.
Another reason for choosing the package was offered as a option in the culmination of the vintage W202 C-Class era - perhaps it will be considered a classic car someday. Also as ctic alluded too, the "component-to-dollar" value for the larger wheels, leather interior, suspension mods, etc. was excellent. All this was too good to pass up.
Comments
Sure...I prefer an auto now after spending years with sticks. Especially
with the MB auto, it allows you choose what gear you want if you want to
feel more in control.
>So say if you're at rest, then the transmission must be pre-selected to
>1st gear, right?
Unless you tap '+' at rest and want to start out in second.
>How can I hold shifts in each gear in turn whilst accelerating?
Hold the shift lever to the '-'.
> If you're stationary (say at a light), do you select '-' to engage
>"manual" mode, then each time you want to upshift do you select
>'+'?
Yes
> And will the gear hold in the selected slot irrespective of RPM?
Yes, up until the rev limiter is reached.
>Next situation: in town traffic, going 35-45 or so, say in 4th gear,
>and want to overtake smartly. What happens if you select '-'?
>Will it downshift to 3rd, or just engage "manual" mode such that
>the NEXT time you select '-' it will downshift? Or does the downshift
>occur right away?
Downshifts to third. The usual sequence is tap twice to get to third
in the situation you describe because it will probably be in 5th. Or
just put the pedal to the metal and it goes to third (my choice, I'm
lazy...but it's also quicker than you can reach down and do it
manually).
>Ok, last situation: approaching a bend in 5th, can you just
>tap '-' twice and will transmission downshift to 4th and to 3rd
>allowing you to engine brake, negotiate turn,
Yes
>and then can you then tap '+' twice on exit from the corner
>into 5th, delaying as long as you like in order to allow more
> RPM to build?
Yes, if you hold the lever to the '-'. If you just tap and release
it downshifts then reverts to auto mode. However, remember
the upshift is a function of speed and throttle position. The
more throttle the higher the upshift. So as long as you have
your foot into it if will rev higher before updshifting.
>When does the transmission "revert" back to automatic mode
>such that it shifts itself? When I pull up to a light and stop?
Or reduce throttle opening, or release the lever from '-' .
> I'm trying to make a case for which suits my driving style, the
>6 speed or the auto. My current car (99 C280) can only shift
>via the J gate. I'm wondering if the '-' and '+' are in fact just the
>same thing via sw controls or something fundamentally different...
Different. I'm surprised at how many people poo-poo the new
manumatics. You definitely need to relearn your driving style
if you want the 'stick' feel though. You can generally select what
gear you want, or want to stay in, by just controlling the throttle
position. The five speed auto gives you more gear choices and
enhances that sporty feel.
One last thing I ought to have mentioned earlier -- In addition to the J-gate in the 99 C280, about the only other thing that bothers me about the car is the delay in throttle response (or tip in, or whatever you want to call it.)
Couple situations serve to illustrate the point...sitting in neutral, rev engine slightly. On my car there is a distinct hesitation in pickup of the throttle between the pedal reaching 1/3 travel and the RPM. On other cars in our household (67 Mini Cooper S and, ahem, 00 Honda Odyssey) the throttle pickup is MUCH quicker.
Second situation is the 35-45 overtaking situation; with current 99 C there is a really irritating combination of slow throttle response and hesitant transmission kickdown that results in the car hesitating, hesitating, hesitating, and FINALLY getting enough combination of the throttle and gear change to build torque to appreciably change the car's rate of speed. I find currently I just about have to downshift on the J gate manually, let the engine spool up then mash the throttle....
Am just wondering then with the new C320 is there any difference in 1) the throttle response in Park -- does it have a delay? and 2) the kickdown overtaking in this speed range -- with the increased HP/Torque of the 3.2L engine is there any delay?
Much appreciate the discussion...rich
>throttle response in Park -- does it have a delay?
I believe there is an inherent delay in 'drive by wire' throttle response for all
cars using it . The mind is quicker than the touch. It is so minute that I don't
call it a problem...but it bothers some people.
>and 2) the kickdown overtaking in this speed range -- with the increased
>HP/Torque of the 3.2L engine is there any delay?
Yes again, but again on the average I believe it happens quicker than if you
did it with a manual.
I'm having the same questions about the new hydraulically/microprocessor
actuated auto/sticks. I'm getting ready to test drive a Maserati Coupe Cambio
Corsa and I want to make sure the transmission is ready for prime time.
Some of the press says it's jerky/slow and some says it's smooth/fast. I
think you need to learn to drive these new systems like anything else but
the technology is there to do it better than you can with a manual clutch....
or the F1 drivers would still be using them.
The engine has the cubes and plenty of torque at low rpms so I cannot imagine that you wouldn't be impressed. The 320 is the same engine that is in the 1,000 pound heavier ML that also tows 5,000 lbs. In the E-Class that now is base priced at over $50K with the usual options, the 320 powers what probably is the best sedan ever built. The power and the tip-in shifting makes for a great mountain driving experience.
And, MB's trans is pretty smart: I don't know what part comes natural and what part is learned from my driving preferences, but in both the ML and the C, the trans shifts down on its own when going down hill to help slowing using some engine braking.
Funny thing was, in our car, we each heard the sound coming from different locations, completely unrelated to the location of the keys. And, it's a problem a dealer cannot diagnose because you probably would only give them your MB key if you wanted them to troubleshoot the noise; but, there would be no noise. Good luck.
Its interesting you say that; I was comparing the '01 brochure with the '03 brochure the other day and indeed noticed the Sport package was defunct...
My guess is simple lack of sales, together with the intro of the 2-door C (which has the faux carbon fibre interior) for the (ahem) "younger set"...
Off for a cup of cocoa...
rj
The E-Class cars make the change this spring, as the 04' models are arriving early.
The SL350 and S350 are not going to happen here.
M
The sport package is awful. Ot comes with the teenager-inspired interior that everyone else has mentioned. Ours does have a stiffer suspension and low-profile tires.
The C-class sport package gives you all of the disadvantages of a performance car (i.e. stiff ride) without any of the advantages (tight handling, responsive steering, lots of torque).
In sum, the sport suspension manages to combine a bone-shaking ride with sofa-like handling. Not a good combination. And the interior, with its carbon-fiber accents, its totally unsuitable for a Mercedes. The seats are great, though.
This comment should not be taken as a criticsism of Mercedes in general or our C280 in particular. I like them both much. When my wife replaces this car, the next one will NOT have a sports package, that's for sure.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the C320 with the sports pacakage will give you the best of both worlds- i.e. luxury of a Mercedes C320 with the performance and spirited driving of a BMW 330. It won't. Test drive both and you'll see. A BMW is a sports car with luxury features, and a Mercedes is a luxury car with sports features. These cars should do what they do best, without attempting to imitate the other.
That being said, I hope she decides to get a C320 when it comes time to replace the current C280. It is the best-looking Mercedes to come around in quite some time, and I understand that the C-class now has rack-and-pinion steering. I can't wait to try it out.
And I agree about the BMW vs MB historic mission-in-life; I've owned many examples of both, and prefer the "touring sedan" [MB] over the "sports sedan" [BMW] as I've gotten older and [I hope] wiser about what I really need in a car. To each their own, of course...
The wider tire option shouldn't result in a harsher ride if the sidewall height is the same. And, the bigger contact area would deliver better braking (probably a mpg decrease tho).
The wider tires would fit on the stock 7" rims so they could offer a possible low cost "sport" option when the time comes for new tires, especially if you already like the looks of the C's stock rims.
The 99 sports package when I got it was only about $970 and was a good deal for the money.
It did have mean meaningful changes -
1)larger wheels/tyres
2)lowered suspension (about 2cm)
3)stiffer shocks
4)leather seats
with the normal interior - the only difference being the white guages.
Leather seats as an option was itself $1K, and as anyone who prices wheels knows, it's as much as $2000 to get a set of larger wheels. There were other upgrades which I can't remember now.
I've come to love the plastic trim - as something which is more unconventional than the regular wood trim, and a better match to the grey interior I have.
I find the steering to be numb on the regular MB sedans and the ride sofa-like, almost like an American sedan. The sport suspension is much tighter.
I have a herniated disc in my low back and the sports suspension is better for me because there is no bounce back on bumpy roads. In a softer ride, the suspension bounces a little after a bump, that same bounce is echoed by your intervertebral discs because it is in the same plane as the bounce - ouch. But the sports suspension damps the bounce so your disc doesn't go like a trampoline.
However, like one of the posters said, it's always a matter of personal taste. The sports pack is the perfect ride.
Funny enough, I've never found anything special about the BMWs. The BMW528 was in the same price range as my C in the year that I got it. But it felt smaller inside and the ride was indifferent.
"...There will be a C350 for 2004. The C-Class gets its mid-life facelift for 2004 also. It's the C240 that I'm curious about, it needs a 3.0L V6 with at least 195 hp after the 245hp C350 arrives.
The E-Class cars make the change this spring, as the 04' models are arriving early. "
I did a google search on 2004 C350 and only came up with a couple vague references from a German discussion board dated from last year and another reference (also in German) on a '04 facelift for the C...Could you post additional info or references as to how you know the changes are coming for the C?
I was curious about this a while ago; it seemed to me the new C would possibly get a mid-life upgrade in '04, but had not heard about the bigger engine. A C class 6 Speed with a 3.7l engine might be just the car I'm looking for:)
Radials can have small belt imperfections that have the effect of making the car want to pull. The fact that it had been corrected before installing the snows is all the clue you need that the tires are very likely the problem. Try switching the existing fronts from side to side, and/or moving the rears to the front. All you need is one combination of two tires in the front that are neutral. This is not an uncommon problem when going to new tires, snows or any other kind.
http: //www.mercedes-wallpaper.de/html/roadmap.htm
http: //www.motor-talk.de/t25409/f20/s/thread.html
Honored Host: If I broke any rules by citing these web sites, I am very, very sorry...Please let me know if so and I will transgress no more...
I guess it makes sense to offer the C350, to try and limit the number of engines in the lineup, will the C coupe get this engine also? So the 3.2 will be totally gone from the MB lineup starting with 2004?
I also read someplace that the 2004 C will get the in dash CD changer that the current E class has. I almost bought the C in 2002, was going to make a move in the spring of 2003, now I may have to wait for the 2004 model!
Our fuel consumption has been consistently between 20 and 26 mpg depending on how the car is used, trip length, etc. We still have less than 2500 miles on it, so it is not yet broken in - I wouldn't be surprised at a small improvement in fuel use going forward.
Personally, I'd advise against using the second-gear-start unless nasty road conditions make it necessary. The trans just has to work that much harder to get this 3400 lbs under way if you start in second gear, and I would be surprised at any real fuel use benefit.
It has used about a quart of oil in the first 2500 miles, but that's about what I would expect for a new engine. All of that use occurred before 1500 miles, and none since...a good sign.
So far, so good...
MB has to dance a fine line with the C. Does the C320 really need 20-25 more HP in C350 trim? If the C240 becomes a near-200HP car, will people pay the premium for the C350?
Personally, I find my wife's C240 to be a bit underdamped for my taste. It has a bit too much roll and dive. It's a bit too floaty when going over large bump. Also, the tires give up way to quickly. So I would prefer a somewhat tighter handling car. The difference would be lost on my wife, however.
But it would not cost MB much at all to offer the suspension, wheels, and tires alone. The car already has shocks, springs, and anti-sway bars. A sports suspension would simply have slighter stiffer versions of the same. Net cost for stiffer suspension to MB? Not much more at all. How much more could a shorter, stiffer spring cost than a larger, softer one?
Larger and better tires would increase their marginal cost, but not a whole lot. Larger wheels WOULD NOT cost MB $2000 extra. It wouldn't cost them much more at all. After all, the base car already has alloy wheels. The only difference would be maybe 1" larger diameter wheels. The marginal cost couldn't be more than an extra hundred bucks or so to MB.
The fake kevlar trim? Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Full leather? We specifically excluded that option on cost.
So:
"How much more could a shorter, stiffer spring cost than a larger, softer one?"
Maybe nothing, or even less per spring. But if you're selling 400,000 larger softer ones, and you only sell 20,000 shorter stiffer ones, the latter is going to cost the consumer more.
Yes!
"If the C240 becomes a near-200HP car, will people pay the premium for the C350?"
Yes! Sign me up!
Seriously, obviously there is an ongoing HP war going on in the market place. Ever looking for a way to distinguish themselves by the car "suit" they wear, aging baby boomers (and there are a lot of them) find themselves with the wherewithall to afford ever more power. MBZ has got to be seen to offer a competitive product; since the C32 will remain out of reach for the entry level luxo market its pretty clear what the target market for the C350 is going to be. (I count myself in that market.)
On a technical level, I still wonder if MB has changed the software on the drive by wire throttle to decrease the time between depression and throttle body (or whatever else is in the gizzards of what passes for a carburettor these days:) opening...I doubt very seriously if David Coulthard would stand for any delay, and HE drives a drive by wire throttle (admittedly one with 800 HP)...Even with 194 HP in my C280 this one change would generate a significant increase in driving enjoyment...
cheers all...rich
In the double comparison article, they conclude that the 4matic definitely improves traction in the snow, but the RWD version with snow tires did everything they wanted it to do, just a little slower than the 4matic. Far more important than the 4matic they noted was ESP. Without ESP the RWD is seriously handicapped on wet roads. They also say that driving in snow is easier with ESP switched off. They give only a lukewarm recommendation for the 4matic, saying there will be very few times when you'll ever need it and you pay permanent penalties in cost, fuel consumption, and handling for it. By the way, the two Audis were much closer in handling/traction, but again their conclusions were the same. This article largely parallels similar findings by Car and Driver in a 1997 or 98 article. If you get the RWD version, get a good set of snow tires and drive carefully in the winter. You'll have a lot more fun in the summer!
My daily driver has only 110 HP (or it least she did when she was new - there are 280,000+ km under her belt today) and that is plenty. No it's not a Benz....
I want to buy a smart roadster, maybe the one with 61 HP, but perhaps I'll get the steroid-enhanced version with 82 HP. That'll be a really fun sports car, and get nearly 50 MPG US overall to boot. We need more cars like this.
Your C 240 is fine, 168 HP is plenty, I agree totally.
Do tell, what did the dealer say?
Price? Details of equipment?
Curious no mention of this on the MB web site or in the brochure for '03...
More info please!!!
rich
Having owned a '95 C220 with the regular interior (zebrano trim, MB-Tex), it took a while to get used to the sport package (carbon-fiber, 2-tone leather) in my '00 C230. But I found it to be such a unique combination that I really enjoy it now. How often do you find a touring car with "racer boy" accents? This fits my style well, as I refuse to mature quietly! When I was 11 in 1973, I saw a gray-haired man driving a Corvette, and said "someday that will be me!" Well, OK so it didn't work out exactly since I'm driving a Mercedes. But it's close enough, even better actually!! :-)
The sport offering marketing strategy seems similar to Buick's - re: the GS models of the late '60s and '70s, which were revived recently I believe. What's the market? For 40-somethings like me for whom a BMW 3-series is just a bit too sporty, the C-Class Sport provides an alternative as a powerful mini-touring car with sporty accents. As was mentioned in previous posts, it's a matter of personal taste.
Another reason for choosing the package was offered as a option in the culmination of the vintage W202 C-Class era - perhaps it will be considered a classic car someday. Also as ctic alluded too, the "component-to-dollar" value for the larger wheels, leather interior, suspension mods, etc. was excellent. All this was too good to pass up.
- Paul