Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Mercedes-Benz CLK (2005 and earlier)
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Are the rear wells lined with the different material for sound deadening?
Any thoughts?
Tarik
HH is right about the C7 pkg - the exhaust setup is slightly different; it's not just the tip, as mbusa would have you believe.
Xenons aren't available yet for the '03s; should be Nov/Dec.
I do agree about the sound level - if you want a silent car, I'd pass on the ccoupe.
Thank you!
Snow tires mounted on extra rims are the way to go with any car. You very seldom ever have too much traction on winter roads.
Thanks again!
I've driven both front and rear-drive cars, and owned a baker's dozen of MBs. Going uphill in snow will be just as easy in a C with the right tires and traction control as it will in a fwd car similarly equipped, maybe even easier. If you want absolute security in crappy weather, it's hard to imagine a better car than any modern Mercedes. OTOH, some people like the feel of fwd, especially in snow, and I wouldn't try to talk such a person out of such a car.
Try the new Accord EX V6 when it comes out next month, or a TL. Then jump into a C or a BMW 3er, and see for yourself how things feel from behind the wheel. The kind of weather you get in New England is not a huge challenge for any of these cars, especially with the right tires, which I would want to have no matter which set of wheels is providing the power. I think a better question is what car you want to be driving all 12 months out of the year, not just the 3 worst.
In most of continental Europe, the prime market for the Germans, conditions tend to average far worse in terms of both wet and snow than you will every see in New England, but rear drive cars still sell like mad. Are they better drivers? Yes, but that's another discussion...
Well stated.
I've driven both front and rear-drive cars, and owned a baker's dozen of MBs.
I've driven FWD winter cars for the past ~20 years or so; its been a long time since I've driven a RWD in the winter, but it was what I learned & grew up on (which I'll be applying to my C230K this winter).
Generally speaking, the big factors are tires and the car's weight distribution. Its easy to change tires.
[it seems that I'm being told] ...that no matter what tire I put on I will be in trouble in the rain since the weighting of the car is different.
Sort of. If the car is RWD and has a nose-heavy weight distribution, you may still have poor winter traction performance, even with snow tires.
Specific to the C230K, I've done some limited driving of it in the rain with the Traction Control (TC) turned off, and I've found that the TC does contribute more than I expected in keeping the rear end planted: I'd say that the car has some tendencies of being "light" in the rear end, which might mean trouble in winter snow (with or without snow tires).
But... I do need to mention that the amount of power you're putting to the ground does influence things. You can have an otherwise "good" weight distribution, but because you have a ton of torque/power, it can act "badly". Its easier to keep a grossly underpowered car planted :-)
In any event, one fix to this is simple and its why our parents put boxes of sand in the trunk: all you're doing is biasing the existing weight distribution by putting more weight on the drive wheels. The problem is that this "fix" is pretty limited - adding 200lbs to the trunk increases the total vehicle's weight (longer braking distances, etc), and may only have a a net effect of 5% on the weight distribution. But sometimes this is enough.
The ancient VW Beetle was a good snow car because it had a rearward weight bias and it was RWD. Its Front-Rear weight distribution was probably somewhere around 35%-65%. Many FWD cars are biased 65%-35%, which again is putting weight on the drive wheels and thus, why they tend to be good in snow.
The general challenge with RWD is because the engine is up front, figuring out what mass you can shift backwards (so as to achieve a good weight distribution) is a challenge. Many older US RWD cars were particularly bad at this, so RWD got a bad rap for winter driving. For example, I had an old 1968 Chevy Caprice, and it probably had a 65%-35% weight distribution similar to FWD cars, but because it was RWD, it was pretty bad in snow (at least, with an empty trunk). On the sports cars side of things, you'll sometimes see designs where the engine is in the front and the transmission is in the rear, just to improve weight distribution. IIRC, Porsche did this on the 928.
I have no problem paying for the extra tires, if they really will make winter driving possible. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!
I'm going to pick up a set of dedicated snows and see how I do.
FWIW, the other things I generally always carry in the winter in any car I own is a (small) box of sand, a grain shovel, a blanket, a spare pair of gloves, a cellphone, and some power bars & water, but the one item that's the most important is a big dose of common sense & good judgement.
-hh
It felt like it had a 50/50 weight distribution, and could even get through packed snow clilmbing a significant (though not steep) grade.
On the other hand, my 1991 Ford Ranger pickup could not climb hills in the snow. On a similar grade even with 200 lbs. of sand in the bed, that made little difference. It could literally "not make the grade" in the snow. I remember having to take a 5 mile detour to get home once because I could not climb the 1/4 mile hill in front of my house.
- Paul
How are you all doing with your gas milage? I seem to be averaging about 21-25 with mixed driving, mostly city.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD
Their wheels are light for the size that they are (I think they might have been 19's, but not sure). But, at over $800 each, they should be.
The pulley debate has been ongoing at mbworld, if you're interested in learning more.
FWD with minimum HP (typical econo cars) are ok and that is what FWD is best suited for, but any vehicle with more than adequate power can be a hand full if you're not careful. It's funny that the world got along real well with RWD cars for a looong time in all types of weather.....
And how much of this is because many RWD vehicles were designed so poorly? I can recall driving some very poorly balanced American Iron; those big motors up front made them very nose-heavy (and thus, tail-light).
...fwd can be dangerous during wet/ponding conditions on a high speed interstates. If a fwd hydroplanes the added impetus of the drive system can prevent the wheels from regaining traction and/or allow them to gain it when not pointed in the correct direction. This leads to UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES.
True. The limitation of FWD (particularly with respect to racing, etc) is that you're asking one axle to do two functions: apply power and turn/steer. Since the amount of friction is finite, the sum of the work performed by these two tasks can never exceed 100%, something has to give.
FWD with minimum HP (typical econo cars) are ok and that is what FWD is best suited for, but any vehicle with more than adequate power can be a hand full if you're not careful.
Precisely. If for example you're using 75% of your tire's friction potential in acceleration, this only leaves 25% for turning. Or vice versa.
In any event, I do like driving a FWD in winter conditions, because its very easy to do "thrust vectoring" with it in really slippery conditions. But this does take driver skill.
It's funny that the world got along real well with RWD cars for a looong time in all types of weather.....
Or 4WD/AWD. I laugh at this one too. Of course, our parents had several advantages that most people today lack:
#1: dedicated snow tires
#2: actual driving skills
#3: a box of sand in the trunk & other self-help tools
#4: a set of chains, if it got really bad
#5: the ability to plan ahead
and most importantly:
#6: the common sense to not even go out when its bad
-hh
Talk again later....
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
Mine is about a year old w/15k miles.
Obviously, you can't recreate it when it's warm because there's no noise when it's warm. What you could do is park it at the dealer overnight, and start it up in front of them to hear them say, "Ah, yes. THAT noise. It's normal, now leave."
Don't worry about it. If you want to worry about anything, focus on: the fuel sensor, the oil level sensor, and the panorama roof blinds. These are real problems that are fairly common. Oh, and soon we'll be hearing "where's my torque?" posted by '03 owners.
Just a thought about the 2003 C230K, I also noticed that the engine size is down to 1.8L but is still called the C230. Another irregularity is the C240 which has a 2.6L engine, not a 2.4L. What ever happened to MB's naming convention? As in C230= 2.3L, C320= 3.2L, SL500= 5.0L, SL55= 5.5L, CL600= 5.8L (close enough to 6.0L?) and so on.
There are so many examples, it is hard to know where to start, but for MB there is the 2.6 V6 called a C240 because there once actually WAS a 2.4 in the EU lineup that slotted in this spot in the heirarchy. BMW did the same thing with the E46 3er when the 2.5 engine was introduced as the "323i" for the first couple of model years, then magically became the "325i" for the last couple, without any change in actual displacement. This is because the car replaced a model [which we never saw here] in the EU lineup that actually HAD a 2.3 liter 6 cyl engine.
The Coupe now represents an extreme case of this syndrome: it is sold with the same 1.8 liter displacement SC engine in at least three states of tune and hp levels, and badged 180Komp, 200Komp, and 230Komp, depending on hp and the model being replaced. The displacement in all three cases is the same, but the engine is producing three different levels of hp and torque.
Only in the twisted minds of the marketing divisions...
Is there a bulletin board for the C230 (or M-B) in general? Something like saabnet, or vvspy, would be very helpful.
Websites:
www.benzsport.com - more for modding, but people there have very good technical knowledge
www.mercedesshop.com - very detailed stuff for D-I-Yers
www.mbnz.org - mostly dead unless you have an slk
forums.mbworld.org/forums - very good all-around fourm ccoupe is W203 gen, btw (except for sometimes it's CL203, which is more specific for the ccoupe only, not all c class cars - for example, Brabus lists the CL203 as a seperate gen on its parts listings)
www.edmunds.com - to hear Hugh's rants on fwd vs. rwd
HTH
Right now, the 02s are ~$2k less than the '03s, some of which I could reduce by not getting a sunroof on the '03 (but I'd probably spend $2k on COMAND which I would almost never use), but otherwise seems to tip the edge over to the older model.
Note: carsdirect has the '02s going for $3500 below MSRP, and the '03s alread $1500 off. Seems very surprising for a just-introduced model year.
I just bought an '02 C240 at the Sacramento CA dealer for $4500 off MSRP on an automatic with C2. Resulting price before tax/lic was just a hair over $30k.
Dealers in SoCal are already selling '03 C240s for $600 over invoice or less, and the Coupes are on the same level.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Congrats on your C240 purchase! I hope it turns out to be one of the best cars that you have owned. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and perspective on owning it after you have spent some time with the car.
FYI my y2k C230 is fine with no problems, at 6k. The '93 Toyota truck is also fine, at 162k. I just drove it from Boston to Atlanta over the weekend, it wears *me* out. :-)
Take care,
- Paul
Either thats because:
1-There is no new interest in the C230 (used or new).
2-Everyone is completely satisfied and the are NO Problems.
3-C230 owners are just busy with their lives and posting here is - way down on the list.
We love our 230, zero problems, runs strong. One thing I did notice recently; while cruising in and out of some early morning fog on the way to Monterey, I was observing the miles per gallon readout. I switched off the lights and noticed the MPG jump up a tenth. So, yeah, running the lights pulls more fuel from the tank - which proves, all energy has to come from somewhere. I was cool though, to see a noticable change in fuel economy.
We have been averaging 25.7 MPG with combined city and highway driving over the past 4 months.
I only have a 2000 C230, and therefore no MPG readout. Could you please do the same thing with your A/C sometime, and post your results? I'm curious to find out how much difference there is using A/C versus the "Economy" setting.
Thanks in advance,
- Paul
One real life factor that may persuade me to lean towards the MB is storage capacity. Does anyone know if a bike(mountain bike) can fit comfortably in the rear with the seats collapsed?
I understand that I might have to remove the front wheel if necessary, but if the bike still doesn't fit in the C230K with the front wheel removed then I might as well go with the infiniti.
It would probably be close. I recently carried a 6' stepladder, and it required me to flop the front passenger seat forward. As such, I'd say that something up to around 5'6" could be accomodated.
FWIW, even if the I35 has fold-down rear seats, that doesn't always mean that you can easily pass under its clearance limit various bulky objects.
-hh
Have I missed anything?
Add too if you so feel inclined...
Have I missed anything?
Add too if you so feel inclined...
I'll add the joy of a manual transmission :-)
BTW, my snow tires & rims are on order. If your new C230 is going to need winter shodding, recommend that you get around to it soon, rather than procrastinate: we've already had light snow squalls twice in NJ already, I have a feeling that the Eastern Seaboard is going to get hit hard this year...we're due.
-hh
"I'll add the joy of a manual transmission :-)"
The C230-C is the first car I have ever bought with the automatic. Have rowed a stick in ever car I have owned since 69. But now, with the shiftomatic feature in the benz, it was time to give my left knee a rest and let the tranny do the shifting, or, a flick of the hand to down and up shift. Now, I am enjoying the lazy mode of driving or leaving it in one gear and rolling in and out of the sweet spot in the curve. Best of both worlds! Whenever I feel the need to remember what its like to manually run through the gears, I hop into my 93 G20 or my 99 Ford Ranger. Meanwhile, the wife isn't burning up clutches anymore! ;^)
jj
My wife is interested in this color, but she wants to see it in person before we commit to ordering the car in this color.
Please e-mail me at greenc230@mundar.com.
Thanks,
Tom
My dealer has one 2002 (Bordeaux, Auto, C2, C4) that he seems to be offering me a good deal on. His price is 26875, almost $1000 below invoice.
Is it strange that he should still have an '02 at this date?
Is there wiggle room on the price considering it is the older model?
Is there any reason that I should pay a bit more and get a 2003?
Also, I love music and it does not have the Bose. Is there a huge difference?
Any answers would be welcome.
Thanks,
Bob
The dealer may go even lower on the '02 if you start inquiring heavily on the '03, so go for it and see where that takes you.
I noticed at the link for the C30 CDI AMG that the coupe is available with the n/a 3.2 V6 in Europe. Does anyone think not having this engine here is really a loss? Do you prefer the flat torque curve of the supercharged 4? Would the car be more popular over here if it had a V6?
Mike
In our market [Sacramento, CA], the local guy still has over 15 '02 Coupes in stock. So no, it is not unusual for these cars to still be around. There is [or was - I think the program is still in effect] a $1000 cash incentive to the dealer on the '02 Coupes. So, even at $1000 under nominal invoice, they are still making money on the holdback. Most dealers are loathe to invade holdback, but that's what they would have to do to sweeten the deal further. Holdback is approx 3%.
The incentive on sedans was/is $1500; this allowed us to buy an '02 C240 sedan in September for a price of $30k even on a car with an MSRP of $34.5k. Here too, they had to dig a bit into holdback to find a profit, but they readily agreed to the deal to move the car at the time.
Summary: there is nothing crazy or out of line about the deal or the availability of the car. As noted above, if you would rather get an '03 with the smaller [but smoother, quieter, and more economical with fuel] engine, good deals are to be had there, too - as long as you live in a competitive market. In SoCal, these cars are already going for only slightly above invoice. That still makes the '02 less expensive, of course...up to you...
I will tell you straight....Mercedes-Benz is always the last manufacturer to offer incentivised leasing or financing...this blew me out of my chair when I heard it.