You have saved this page | See all saved pages
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.- Your Host is PFFlyer@Edmunds
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
#67 of 96 Forget about the numbers by kennygogo
Jan 30, 2002 (4:56 pm)
Especially in this type of debate, it's entirely subjective. Personally, I prefer the German feel over the Japanese feel, and that was a key in my purchase of the 230 after great Japanese cars ('91 Integra GS, '95 Maxima SE). Also, at 6'3" my head and knees contacted the RSX interior, so I never even drove it. My only Acura option was CL, which was only a slightly better fit and far different in character. I have more room in the 230 than in any car I've ever driven. And it suits my driving style perfectly.
#68 of 96 Agreed by himiler
Jan 30, 2002 (7:05 pm)
The RWD in the Benz does give the car a more balanced feel, but its reflexes are a bit on the relaxed side when compared to the still semi-manic RSX.Is Mercedes offering free scheduled service on the Coupe? If so, that's a big bonus.
#69 of 96 Couple of points to himiler by tommyp13
Jan 31, 2002 (6:40 am)
Yes, free service for the duration of warrantee (4 yrs).I don't agree about the sound of the cars; while the ccoupe isn't the quietest car out there, the rsx needs to be used in the high end of the powerband, which means more noise. I personally don't want the quietest thing out there; I could buy a Camry if I wanted that.
I don't really understand your point about $7 in options being available. To me, that says that there are just a bunch of options that you can add (most of them admittedly way overpriced). The rsx has how many options on it? I think that they are mostly accessories, and adding stock foglights is a real PITA (they're standard on c230) to use one example. I think it's a plus for the Benz. No one is making these people spend $2000 on a cellphone (though they are idiots for doing so).
As far as the used car market, look at the 318ti as an example of a "value luxury car". Now, that never got good reviews, but it has held its value exceptionally well. There will be a very good market for the ccoupe, especially for people who want access to MB at a decent price. To be fair, I think the rsx will hold its value also, though some people may be scared off by the assumption that the previous owner thrashed the car, or might be more willing to pick up a used type r instead.
The rest of your comments I agree with; these cars are designed for different driving styles, and if you can't decide between the two, you either haven't had enough seat time, or don't know what you want.
#70 of 96 Other factors by huntzinger
Mar 14, 2002 (6:34 am)
I've suffered enough in the back seats of coworkers Acura Integra's, as well as inflicting them in the back of my old VW Scirocco, so when I went shopping, I was looking for factors beyond the shallow HP ratings and so forth.From Edmunds, and confirmed in the field:
C230:
Rear Leg Room: 33 in.
Rear Head Room: 36.3 in.
Acura RSX:
Rear Leg Room: 29.2 in
Rear Head Room: 30.1 in.
These differences are substantial and makes the back seat in the C230 usable by teenagers and adults, where'as RSX's back seat is essentially useless.
If I really wanted to buy a 2 seater, I'd buy a real 2 seater. The RSX isn't any better than the back seat in my 911, so for me, this was when it got crossed off my list.
The rest of the comparisons of HP, torque, traction control, turning radius, etc, is down in the weeds of personal preferences; YMMV. For example, the C230 lacks a rear windshield wiper, which is a disappointment that I miss already.
But I do have to say that from a sportiness standpoint, the C230 w/cloth with the optional 17" wheels has been a surprisingly taut configuration. Its almost TOO firm for my liking for 'Bahn burning business trip runs (due to rough local Interstate roads), although the VW GTI VR6 was even firmer IMO, and less suited for extended duration highway runs due to likely levels of NVH.
-hh
#71 of 96 Wow! by himiler
Mar 16, 2002 (8:02 am)
That's the first time I've ever heard anyone complain the the GTI was too "firm." It's widely accepted that, without significant aftermarket upgrades, the GTI tends to be pretty soft 'n' squishy.If you're that concerned about rear-passenger room, consider a sedan.
#72 of 96 Everything is a trade-off by huntzinger
Mar 26, 2002 (8:37 am)
That's the first time I've ever heard anyone complain the the GTI was too "firm." It's widely accepted that, without significant aftermarket upgrades, the GTI tends to be pretty soft 'n' squishy.How much dampening is appropriate really depends on your driving needs.
A high level of firmness that is otherwise fine for squirting around town will invariably become a liability on a long distance highway haul, due to its higher levels of NVH.
Keep in mind is that the driver is always over 50% of the performance potential of a system, and it does you absolutely no good if the ride is so severe that the driver is fried after an hour (or 3) behind the wheel. Its all about NVH and how much you (the driver) can tolerate for how long.
For most people most of the time, we're not going to be behind the wheel for more than an hour at a shot, so its not that great of a problem. But for those who want both, it is a trade-off of contradictory requirements.
For example, what I've found within the past month is that for a 400 mile one day business trip, my C230 has higher NVH than my Saab 900S had on the exact same trip. Part of it is almost certainly due to the respective wheels/tires: 17" Continental "Somethings", vs. 16" Dunlop SP9000's.
If you're that concerned about rear-passenger room, consider a sedan.
Yes, but a sedan's shortcoming is the lack of the same hauling utility of a hatchback. What you probably meant to say was "consider a wagon", which I did. This is just another trade-off.
-hh
#73 of 96 Drove 'em both, and it was not close. by audiofle
May 13, 2002 (11:46 am)
My old Toyota blew-up, so I had to buy a new car asap. I had decided to get the RSX Type-S... great reviews, reputation, etc, but had never driven one. On the way to test drive I stopped by the MB dealer and drove a C230. It was solid, reasonably quiet, and not slow. Then I went to the Acura dealer and drove the Type-S. Cheap interior, noisy, but OOOHH those ponies! It was a blast to drive.I was almost ready to buy the RSX. The MB dealer wouldn't deal, in fact he ADDED $300 to the list price. The day before I went to pick up the RSX, I called an MB dealer in Tulsa. His price was $1700 lower than my local dealer!
Bottom line -- if the MB dealer won't deal, tell him/her to shove it and buy the RSX, but if you can get a deal on the C230... it's quieter, smoother, more solid, slower, and better looking. The Acura is fun to blast around in, but the MB is a much better cruiser.
I got mine with leather and the six speed (no other options), I'm adding a cd-changer for another $400 (original equipment MB player available from Performance Products).
#74 of 96 MB vs Acura? how about RSX vs 316ti? by rk922
May 22, 2002 (9:31 am)
I went to check out the MB C230 (2.3L?) and thought that it was an interesting car. I like the front and also because it's one of the few MBs that have the emblem flush on the hood instead of sticking out. I don't like the look of the back though. In any event, the MB is like US$18k more than the RSX in Hong Kong for some crazy reason, so no comparison for me.My dilemma is choosing between the RSX and BMW 316ti. Please go to rk922 "160hp RSX vs 115hp BMW 316ti" May 22, 2002 1:48am and give me your opinions. Thanks in advance!
#76 of 96 You have to drive them back to back by drmp
Jan 17, 2003 (6:11 pm)
between c230 and RSX (haven't considered BMW). The specs in Acura are superior in paper but is not necessarily true when you are in the stop-and-go city driving and in usual highway speeds. Road noise, engine noise and bumps are also more apparent in RSX . The c230 is better in those aspects.The only time I expect the RSX to beat c230 is when racing it past 6000 RPM and drive it like a maniac trying to escapes from patrol cars.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement