Last post on Dec 04, 2010 at 4:10 AM
You are in the Mercedes-Benz CLK
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class, Coupe, Convertible
Mar 15, 2001 (12:15 am)
That's how hatchbacks are generally. The rear glass is usually rather close to the rear seat headrests. My Accent's glass is close to the rear seat and yet it is rated at 16 cubic feet. You cannot deny that's a lot of room as it beats any mid-size sedan and even some full-size sedans. What you aren't taking into account is that the cargo space of a hatchback is a lot taller than is a sedan's and the steeply angled rear windshield stretches over a large area, allowing more space than you would think. I guarantee that the Mercedes will have at least 13 cubic feet if not more. Heck, even the puny Metro had 10 cubic feet.
The reliability problems I was referring too was with the twin-turbo RX7 of 92-96. The older non-turbo rotary engines are VERY reliable. I own an 84 and it runs great (except for the carbuerator). However, the newer rotaries were under too much stress from the 2 turbos and tend to blow their apex seals around 80-100K, requiring an entire overhaul. The turbos were also very troublesome. Engineering problems ranged from too much heat under the hood cooking vacuum lines and causing premature cooling system hose failures. There were lots of recalls on this car and they were plagued with electrical problems. They were awesome cars, but not meant for long-term reliability. Read the RX7 forum in the sports car section and you will hear of rebuilds way too early from both those who race their cars and those who just use them daily.
The Mini will be lighter than the C230 I'm sure, but it also won't be some little 2000 pound car either. It was engineered to be as safe as a much larger sedan so it has a bulky structure and thick sheetmetal. I expect it to weigh around 2400. The C230 should weigh around 3100. The power to weight ratios of the 2 supercharged cars will be about the same. Thus, they should be about equal performance wise. I think the 8 second guess is a bit high (Edmunds usually quotes slower times than the car magazines); it should be capable of 0-60 sprints in the 7-7.5 area, plenty fast. We will just have to wait until the official test results come out.
As for Car & Driver's opinions, I tend to believe them most of the time because all of my experiences and opinions have closely mirrored theirs. Example: the Mazda 626 was considered a very bland family sedan with a soft suspension and average handling. Supposedly Mazda improved that in 2000, but I have driven a 98 626 ES-V6 and agree with C & D's findings. I drove one with the 5-speed and found it utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration. I didn't push the car past 4500 rpms, but up until that point the car had less pep than the 4 cylinder (although it was much smoother and quieter). The car had lots of brake dive, weak brakes, and rolled considerably. My mom's 92 Accord EX handled much better. It's a nice looking competent family car, but sporty it is not. All I gotta say is you have one big preoccupation with acceleration numbers. There is a lot more to a car than its 0-60 number. Lastly, when even Hyundai sells a car nowadays for 24K, you should be happy Mercedes still offers something below 30K. You must still think we are in the 80s when 28K was considered expensive.
#13 of 1636 my car and my money
Mar 15, 2001 (5:08 am)
Maybe to you, 28K was expensive back in the 80s and now its a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, there are still alot of us out here who can't afford that kind of money. Well, I could afford it, I just find it difficult to pay half as much per month for the car I'm driving as the house I'm living in (and lets please not put down my house).
I'm absolutely in shock about C&D and your experience with the 626. Mine is a '99 LX-V6 and I (and anyone else who drives with me) am entirely impressed with it as a family sedan. When I can eat up an Accord off the line and then take a sharp offramp at 80 with little tire squealing, then I'm pretty happy.
I would be much more inclined to the Mercedes if it was down just around 7 secs. or better. Am I obsessed with acceleration? Somewhat. But, I know that is just part of the package. If that was my only consideration, I'd still have my V8 dodge dakota (and, talk about storage capacity!). But, as I've said before, I bring up acceleration here continuously because if and when I am willing to fork over that half a mortgage payment every month for my commuting/weekend fun machine, I want it to be the best I could have gotten in EVERY area. And, from their preliminary estimates, the Mercedes hatch is going to lack in AT LEAST ONE of those areas. Get it?
Thanks for the info. on the turbo RX7s. I'll have to read that board. I was real close to buying a '93 a couple of months ago and am still considering it. Maybe that will change my mind.
Mar 15, 2001 (6:46 am)
And, considering that you found the Mazda "utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration," and it has been tested to get to 60 in 7.6 (wish I could find THAT review), then why in the world would you spend $30K on a car that is being estimated at slightly better than 8?? Even if it comes in at 7 1/2, you think that kind of acceleration is "lacking." So, why would you spend that kind of money and think that the car lacks in ANY respect? Oh, right, I forgot, you don't think that's a lot of money.
Well, I guess I'll just have to be content in the fact that I spent less than $19K on MY car.
Mar 15, 2001 (10:49 am)
From Autoweek review of the car:
Mercedes claims that the C230 Sport Coupe hits 60 mph from a stop in 7.5 seconds, measured under the German standard of two occupants, full luggage capacity and a full fuel tank. Top speed exceeds 149 mph-not bad for a three-door hatch.
Also in the article they claim MB USA say the price will begin at $26K. Cargo volumn of 10.9 cubic feet with rear seat up. 38.8 cubic feet when the the rear seats are down.
#16 of 1636 thanks for the specs
Mar 15, 2001 (11:00 am)
That is an impessive top speed. Sounds to me like they could have changed the gearing a bit and gained a little more down low. but, then again, maybe that's an easy job for me to do. Hmmmmmmm......
Mar 15, 2001 (8:33 pm)
Stay far far away from the 93 RX7s. They were a nightmare reliability wise! It was the first year for the redesign and they ran into all sorts of problems. A lot of people in the forum suggest getting a low mileage 95 as that was the best year. As for the acceleration of the 626, what I was referring to there was the lack of low-end torque. The 2.5 V-6 only has 161 lb feet at a high 5000 rpm, less than some four bangers (by the way, the V-6 is back down to 165 hp). As such, it is slow to accelerate until you get to around 5000 rpms. In comparison, the 626 four cylinder achieves its max torque at a low 3000. That meaty low-end torque is what made it feel peppier than the V-6 in around town driving even though it is actually much slower overall. If you push the car to the high redline, I'm sure it will have respectable acceleration. But driven how most people drive it, it is lacking. It just doesn't give the impression of having good pull unless you rev the hell out of it. A low-end high torque engine is always more enjoyable than a top-end high horsepower one, and it will outlast a high revving engine as well because you don't have to push it to get the power you need. In the case of the Mercedes, the supercharged four is rated at 200 lb feet from 2500-4800 rpms. That long-lasting meaty low-end torque span will give this car strong off-the-line and mid-range acceleration (I think it will be faster than what Edmunds stated anyway). I guarantee you would not be disappointed. Anyway, don't think I am dissing your car. The 626 is a good family sedan. The leather and wood is nice, the 2000 and newer models look elegant, and the rear seat is spacious and comfortable. They just need to give the car a more powerful V-6 and four cylinder that will allow it to compete better with others in the class.
#18 of 1636 Hi everyone- Some great info here!
Mar 15, 2001 (8:46 pm)
Just one small suggestion: if you have a long message, it will be easier for people to read if you break it up into smaller paragraphs.
Participants will be more likely to read your entire post if it's easy on the eyes. And now back to the subject of the 2002 Mercedes-Benz C230. Talk later.
Hatchbacks Message Board
#19 of 1636 supercharger
Mar 16, 2001 (6:48 am)
The supercharger is definitely a nice addition to any car. The readiness of the power is apparent. Pretty much the reason I've always been skeptical of turbos (the main reason I didn't buy the Rx7 and why I'm hesitant about the WRX). I've often thought that I would be much happier with the supercharged 2.2 from the Millenia, but that's a different story.
The supercharger is why I'm looking forward to the Mini as well. I hope both of these vehicles turn out with higher numbers than advertised at this point. I don't see why they shouldn't.
By the way, I definitely do rev the hell out of my 626. Its does well from around 3500 to redline (a respectable 7000). Probably explains your lack of enjoyment when not taking it past 4500. But, I do want something sportier. Probably if I had gotten the leather power seat, I'd be keeping the 626 and adding a lot of mods to it (not that there are many available).
#20 of 1636 supercharger
Mar 16, 2001 (6:42 pm)
I been trying to pull up some numbers for SLK230, since C230 will use the same engine. The SLK230 weight 3055 lb and C230 weight 3300 lb. I can't find any tested 0-60 numbers for SLK230. I think Mercedes said 7.2 secs for the manual.
I like the number on the low end of torque of this engine. The WRX is 217 4000 RPM. But that just the torque, the WRX has more hp and it's 4WD. I can't wait to test drive both cars. BTW, the WRX weights 3085 lb and gets 0-60 around 6 secs area.
I think I will check up on the reliability of the supercharged engines of SLK230 and the late model C230 Kompressor.
#21 of 1636 my only problem
Mar 17, 2001 (6:25 am)
The WRX is definitely a nice car and I was considering it, but after reading more and more about Turbos, I think I'd rather get a car without one.