C230 or 240 For Sale? MPG? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

stephenson · #1 12-27-2006, 09:40 PM

Looking to buy recent college graduated son a C class (automatic) - he is very concerned about fuel mileage - pretty responsible - and, he has a job already!

I am looking in the $10k range ... recommendations or comments?

Thanks!!!!

mpolli · #2 12-28-2006, 12:57 PM

Hi,

I used to live in Fairfax long long ago..

Well it seems the 98 C230 are as reliable as any. Maybe 99's and 00 also. And mine has side air bags but not side curtain. I don't know what year they started the side curtain but that might worth getting. You should be able to get a 98 for 8 or 9K I think. 99 maybe 9 or 10K?

Just my .02

Mike

Will_w202 · #3 12-28-2006, 06:21 PM

See if you can find a 2000 CPO. Might be able to. FYI, if you want to drive to Winston Salem, there is an awesome 2000 C230K with 53k miles, with Sport package. Asking $16,900, but I have a good feeling you could get it around $13,000 if you are a hard-nosed buyer. That's what I did with mien 3 years ago

blackmercedes · #4 12-28-2006, 10:23 PM

If you want the most economical to operate C-Class, buy the aspro 1998 C230. It's not a HP beast (148) but the fuel eonomy is oustanding and the operating costs are super-low for a Mercedes. Yeah, they're nine years old now, but they hold up well and are bargains in the used market. The M111 engine is durable to a fault. Make sure the PO had the trans updated, and the car is pretty much bulletproofin terms of major mechanicals.

My next choice would be a 2000 C280. It's got the six, no the blown four from the 99-00 C230K. The C280 performs pretty much identical to the C230K, but the six is much more refined and the cr has some nice goodies. In the used market, the C280 sells for little or no premium to the C230K, unlike when new, so they're even bigger bargains when you consider the MSRP.

If you want a 2001- W203, buy the newest one possible and don't skimp. Early W203's are headache cars with all kinds of problems. The newer the better.

stephenson · #5 12-31-2006, 07:09 PM

Thanks for great advice ... still trying to get smart on the models and years ... while I love the smoothness of the straight 6, it would seem the mileage is better on the 4, with or without the charger, right? And, with exception of the charger, simpler?

Since we live in a metro area with bad traffic - auto is only consideration ... will this shift balance more towards the six vice the 4 cylinder?

blackmercedes · #6 12-31-2006, 07:28 PM

The M112 C280 (1998-2000) is a very nice car and gets about the same mileage as the 1999-2000 C230K. The reason the C230K sold so well compared to the C280 was purely price. The supercharged four cylinder is a nice combo (torquey!) but some people find it a little unrefined.

The 1997-1998 C230 models make less power, but offer much better fuel economy than either the C230K or C280. The downside of course is the relative age of those cars now, but I bet really nice examples can be found, and prices are low for that much car. Beware of ALL 722.6 transmissions in the W202 (1997-2000) chassis. Once updated, the early models (97-98) are durable, but if all original, you're taking a bit of a chance.

The nice thing about all W202 C-Class cars is their realatively simple construction, especially compared to the W203 C-Class. The M111.974 engine (97-98 C230) is exceptionally durable and maintenace is simple and DIY friendly. I do 99% of the work on my car without any special tools.

Personally, my order of W202 preference would be... (all good finds)

1. 2000 C280. Newest of the W202, lots of nice examples still around. Well sorted out, best of the 722.6 versions, ACC system, super-refined V-6.
2. 1998 C230. Side bags (not in 97) and slightly updated body (98-00 all the same) and excellent economy and easy of service. Only potential flaw is early 722.6 trans.
3. 1999-2000 C230K. Rougher engine, but lots of fun. Uses gas like the C280, not the previous C230.
4. 1997 C230 and 1996 C220. The 97 C230 has the 722.6, which is nicer driving, but the 1996 C220 driveline is pretty much bulletproof.

For the W203, I'd skip ANY 2001 models. I bet there are many satisfied owners, but there are lots of angry ones too. I think the C240 4-matic is the one that I would personally try to find, as our climate is well suited to AWD (We have Scoobs in the family and love em!) and the MB 4-matic is a great system. The 2005 models have a much improved dash/cluster, but prices might be too high for a new-grad.

Personally, the last of the W202's are relatively painless cars to own, super-safe, and won't break the bank price-wise. I was a new grad and got ANY car, I'd be freakin' happy! I got a pen.

mpolli · #7 01-01-2007, 12:30 AM

That is the best summary of the C series models I have seen.

FYI, as far as MPG, my 98 C230 gets around 24 city and 30 highway. I think under certain conditions you can do better than that on the highway like maybe 31 or 32. I don't drive on the highway too much.

Mike

stephenson · #8 01-02-2007, 05:08 PM

Anyone else with MPG numbers that you could share relative to your Cs?

Thanks - this has been very, very useful!!!!

blackmercedes · #9 01-02-2007, 05:30 PM

My aspro 98 C230 gets 9.5L/100km in all city driving and 6.5L/100km in speed-limit highwy driving (avg say 100-105km/h) and 7.5-8.0L/100km when doing 115-125km/h.

I never figure out miles per gallon (since it's completely irrelevant to me) but you could convert if you wish...
1USgal = 3.87L
1mi = 1.621km

TimFreeh · #10 01-02-2007, 06:43 PM

My 2000 C230 Kompressor returns a steady 30 MPG on the highway (speeds 65-70) and averages 25-27 in a suburban environment.

Johns observations about the recent C-class offering are spot-on, when Mercedes comes up with a new chassis its prudent to avoid the first few years and the 1998-2000 W202 chassis is very well sorted out.

The C230 Kompressor is a more than a bit unrefined but the torque and throttle response is amazing. I also love the sound of the supercharger whistle as the engine spools up.

stephenson · #11 01-03-2007, 05:16 PM

To continue beating a somewhat dead horse, I was reviewing MPG numbers from government and it appears the E320s do as well as the C class cars with smaller engines ... does this make sense?