Ask the Car People.SM


Mercedes-Benz C230 Vs Acura RSX - READ ONLY

96 messages,  Last post on Aug 04, 2003 at 6:59 PM

You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Acura RSX, Coupe, Hatchback

Messages Page 7 of 10

#57 of 96 "Honda-haters" by diploid

Oct 03, 2001 (8:42 pm)

If you want to see "Honda-haters," visit the "Why are American cars unappealing" (in News & Views).
 
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we are merely expressing our opinions of either cars.

#58 of 96 mistaman opinion by rockribbed

Oct 04, 2001 (5:20 am)

They are both fine cars in their own way. The basic difference is FWD vs RWD. If you don't mind/like FWD, get the Honda (oops) Acura ( IMnotsoHO that much power and wide tires pretty much negates the advantage some people think FWD has in the snow). If you like the handling and control RWD give you then get the Benz.
 
I voted with my pocketbook and am happily driving a silver C230 that consistantly turns in 25 MPG on spirited short runs over twisty roads.

#59 of 96 mistaman by himiler

Oct 05, 2001 (4:59 am)

"Drivers dream for under 25K"--??
I'd drive right by the Acura shop on my way to the WRX store.
The RSX is just a marketing agency's dream.
 
Neither one of these cars (C-hatch or RSX) really appeals to me. The C-hatch has a wheezy motor, and the RSX drives and looks like a Civic on juice.

#60 of 96 WRX by rockribbed

Oct 05, 2001 (5:21 am)

Drive the WRX extensively b4 you plunk your money down. It is a fantastic car at half to full throttle, but tooling around town the turbo is a non-factor, and may be dangerous. The turbo lag is really bad. Pulling out into traffic is a real adventure: first there is nothing and you're sure that you will be run over, then all hello breaks loose. That all or nothing feature is really disconcerting.
 
I was really hot for the car until I drove it. Its really just a boy-racer; horsepower looks good on the spec sheet, but more importantly is the torque figures and even more critical is when in the rev range the torque is there. Great gobs of torque at 3500 RPM is not a lot of help when you're going to use the 1500 to 3000 part of the rev range more often.

#61 of 96 other stuff about WRX by tommyp13

Oct 05, 2001 (7:34 am)

Sedan's backseat doesn't fold down; sunroof isn't available; no leather; cheap interior treatment.
They do have some really cool accessories that you can add on (factory short shift kit amongst them).
 
All three cars have their benefits, but once you look at them and figure out what you want, I really think that each has its own separate audience. If anyone can't decide amongst them, they should use more seat time.

#62 of 96 Turbo Lag by jjpeter

Oct 05, 2001 (9:26 am)

My friend has an Audi TT with 225HP of turbo muscle, and like the WRX, its all or nothing. It is a powerful dose of neck snapping fury when it comes on, but better hope for clear sailing before you dip into it. The 230K on the other hand has usable power from idle on up, no lag, no guided missle experience. Much more useful for everyday cruising and if you need to dip into it, the back gets pressed into the back of the seat nicely thank you.

#63 of 96 Non-Turbo Lag by diploid

Oct 05, 2001 (1:29 pm)

Doesn't the Honda S2000 suffer something similar to this? It's either all or nothing. I really like this passive-aggressive setup, especially the neck snapping feature.

#64 of 96 That turbo Rush of power -You get used to it by rickrover

Oct 07, 2001 (12:04 pm)

I have a modified 1.8T Passat - I've tweaked it to 225 HP, it's essentially the same engine as the 225 HP TT . All I did was put an APR chip in it and install a low restriction intake (K&N) and cat back exhaust (Neuspeed) and a couple of other minor tweaks. I wouldn't decribe it as turbo lag necissarily, the engine delivers linear power, it's just that once it hits about 3000 RPM it hits the sweet spot of the torque and HP curve. From 3000 to 5500 RPM it takes off - you get used to it. I am totally used to the way this car delivers power, it can be disconcerting until you get used to it though. A lot of normally aspirated sports cars are like this, BMW M cars and non-turbo Porsche 911's have similar power delivery hit that sweet spot and hang on.
 
Classic turbo lag is when you give it gas and nothing happens (at all) then all hell breaks loose literally like an on/ off switch. Early Saab and Porsche turbos were like that, newer turbos like the VW/ Audi and Subaru's have tuned out a lot of the classic turbo lag, very easy to drive smoothly IMO. About the only new generation turbo I've driven lately that has what I would call turbo lag are the new Saabs, nothing like the old ones though.
 
I like the power delivery of the Benz, even it has that sweet spot where it develops most of it's torque and HP too. I'll bet we'll see some inexpensive upgrades will give the C230 some excellent HP gains. Low restriction intake and an underpully for the supercharger and an ECU upgrade and possibly a low restriction exhaust would probably add 50+ HP to the C230 for around $1k. These late generation force fed engines are easy to extract a lot of extra HP from and still keep dependability intact.

#65 of 96 re: post 53 by gotenks243

Jan 28, 2002 (6:48 pm)

"I give the nod to the RSX for power, features, 6 speed, future aftermarket, resale value, and overall price"
 
The RSX may on paper have more horsepower, but you don't have to rev the C-230 to the ceiling to get the power out like you do in the RSX. 140-something lb.-ft. of torque in that RSX? Ouch.
 
Features-wise, I highly doubt the RSX would win on that, depending on how you define features of course. I'd say the C-230 wins with the fancy on-board computer and oodles of airbags though.
 
6-speed is on both cars of course.
 
Future aftermarket the RSX actually does come ahead in. If you do like to modify cars, this can be a huge factor in any purchasing decision.
 
As for resale value, you may be unaware but Mercedes-Benz cars hold their value very well.
 
Just answering those points, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Mike

#66 of 96 Hmmmm by himiler

Jan 28, 2002 (8:03 pm)

The RSX likes to rev, the Benz doesn't. It isn't too difficult to figure out that one of these cars appeals to a driver who likes to keep their engine on full boil, with the other for those who are interested primarily in loafing along at speed. Think "driver involvement" and you'll have the general idea.
 
Once you get rolling, torque output doesn't count for much, and forced induction requires lots of moving parts and a tolerance for noise.
 
If AMG were to breathe on the C, it would certainly be something to behold (and drive).
 
As far as resale goes, there will always be a strong market for a used RSX (which appeals to a fairly broad market), wheras a "value Mercedes" with substandard kit levels (unless you drop ~$4000 for your favorite options) might need a more specific buyer type.
 
The Benz is a fine little car, but let's face it: when a car bases at $25K and has another $7K in options available, there's something rotten in Denmark (or Germany, as the case may be).
 
Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of the RSX (it completely lacks the character my '98 GS-R had), but based upon my own driving preferences, it's a better fit for me than the Benz.

Messages Page 7 of 10

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement