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 10 of 10

#90 of 96 Scoring criteria by huntzinger

Jan 27, 2003 (12:11 pm)

I also live in NJ...Unfortunately...after making a couple extra trips there (after being told that they have a MT in stock), they lied to me. So I said screw the C230. Their loss.
 
True, and FWIW, I went with Intercar in Newton, NJ because MB of Morristown, NJ and Globe both fell short in the showroom's "salesman quality".
 
In any event, you've included - but not listed - a very important item on your checklist, namely the overall product support from the Dealership.
 
In hindsight, my checklist looks roughly like the following:
 
Vehicle:
- Driver Ergonomics/Comfort & NVH: 20%
- Utility & Features (incl. Styling): 10%
- System Reliability: 10%
- Chassis Performance: 10%
- Engine Performance: 5%
- Resale: 0%
 
Manufacturer Support:
- Service (Quality/Reliability/Availability): 15%
- Overall Reputation: 10%
- Buying Experience: 10%
- Warranty/Included Maintenance: 5%
- Value ("TMV" Price): 5%
 
While I've made the above sum to 100%, I've nudged stuff to the nearest 5%, plus the truth is that a lot of these requirements are more "go/no-go gates" than percentages, and as gates, they narrow and eliminate products from contention: a good example is that Utility/Features includes the "no trunks" (=hatchback) criteria.
 
I've also aggregated "handing/braking/steering" into a category I like to call "chassis".
 
My personal philosophy is that I do not want a product whose performance is chasis-limited: I want it to be engine-limited (as you can see above, Chassis has a higher % than Engine).
 
The basis of this philosophy is that the engine is what gets you into trouble, whereas its the chassis that will get you out of trouble, but only if the chassis capability exceeds the horsepower. Because of this philosophy, I'm quite willing to sacrifice some power in deference to better handling.
 
And of course, the common trend in the USA is to be over-engined which thusly leads to chassis-limited products. Its only when the chips are down that people find out that the design can't deliver what its engine (& styling) promises.
 
-hh

#91 of 96 huntzinger by beowulf7

Jan 27, 2003 (10:56 pm)

I have to hand it to you that you know exactly what you want, and it seems like you got it!
 
You're right about the dealership experience, but I didn't want to include that for a specific car. After all, brand X's car could have 2 dealerships that give me opposite vibes, as would brand Y's car. So that could be a wash. In fact, the car I got (RSX-S), I got treated poorly by 1 dealership (in Turnersville Acura), but got a very professional treatment by the place where I bought my car (Sussman Acura).
 
While I see what you mean that you rather the engine limit your performance than the chassis, I think for my car, the 2 are on par with each other, as I would say would be the case for your C230 coupe.

#92 of 96 Chassis-vs-Engine ...limited by huntzinger

Jan 28, 2003 (8:05 am)

While I see what you mean that you rather the engine limit your performance than the chassis, I think for my car, the 2 are on par with each other, as I would say would be the case for your C230 coupe.
 
Because of its inadequate back seat, the RSX was eliminated early from my list.
 
However, I did also recall a thorough test drive I had had in an Integra a few years earlier. I had found the Integra to be (noisy, harsh, etc) and most definitely chassis-limited. I found that it couldn't cut the mustard on "my personal test drive road" by the way that it was clearly outclassed by the underpowered 318ti that I had driven on that same road the same morning as the Integra test-drive.
 
Granted, the RSX isn't the Integra, but is there any particular rationale for why its handling performance should have substantially improved? Between a bumped engine and reports that it lost the previous double-wishbone front end suspension, I'd be inclined to say that they've made the disparity greater instead of eliminating it, but that's just my opinion.
 
-hh

#93 of 96 huntzinger - Yes there is a rationale for the RSX's handling by kevin111

Jan 28, 2003 (5:27 pm)

I believe the RSX's chasis was stiffened something like 140% over the Integras, thus allowing for better handling, more road feel, and less creaking. It also comes with bigger tires (16-55-205s) and more precise steering than the integra. I remember reading (Consumers Reports) that the basic Integras were known for sloppy handling and feel. The RSX is not like this.
 
The RSX is definitely more noisy and bumpy on the freeway than the C230, but it handles great, as many magazines have indicated (C&D, Road and Track, Motor Trend).

#94 of 96 Test Drives and C4 package by rickrover

Jan 29, 2003 (8:32 am)

I've driven 4 C230 sports sedans to date 6 speed manual and automatic. In fact I've driven every version of the C class except the 320 coupe (either transmission) and a 320 sedan with a six speed manual. I didn't think the 17" wheels made the ride much firmer at all. The C230k Sport Sedan has a firmer suspension which has more to do with the firmer ride than wheel diameter. Bottom line is you need to drive both the C240 with 16" wheels and a C230k sedan with sport suspension and 17" wheels - I much prefer the ride of the C230k to the softer setup in the C240/ 320. The suspension in the C230k sport sedan isn't harsh at all, I think it's near perfect.
 
I tested a C32 AMG yesterday - - I'm seriously considering selling my 01 X5 now and ordering a C32 - my other option is keep the X and get a C230k sport sedan with a 6 speed. The C32 AMG is one of the most amazing cars I've ever driven. The only options I'd get are the C4 package and a 6 disk CD changer.
 
As far as installing the C4 package (Xenon lights) on a car that doesn't have them - I'm sure it's possible, but it would be really expensive- way more than the $750 that MB charges for the option. I bet you're looking at at least a couple thousand dollars to convert a C class to factory Xenon's. I get factory Xenons on every car I get - it was only $500 on my X5 - worth every penny IMO.
 

#95 of 96 re: rickrover by phaedrys

Feb 03, 2003 (6:30 pm)

Does this mean you are getting rid of the GTI?!?

#96 of 96 Last call. by revka

Aug 04, 2003 (6:59 pm)

If there are not more thoughts to share on this subject, this discussion will soon be closed and archived.
 
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards

Messages Page 10 of 10

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement