C-Class (W204) The Toronto Star - 2008 C-Class

[nikels]

Thought I'd make a contribution to a fine forum.. I don't think this has been posted yet, from a Canadian perspective. Generally positive review:

TheStar.com - Wheels - New C-Class shows athletic side

 

[GermanFoamy]

I found some things in the article to be very interesting:

1) The W203 engine specs for the C350 are:
268hp / 258lb-ft
The W204 engine specs for the C350 are:
272hp / 350lb-ft - this may be a typo in the article tho

2) Equipment levels are higher, yet prices will be about the same

3) The sport coupe hatchback will not return (we already knew this)

4) No Pre-Safe system offered in Canada initially . Very strange. I wonder if the US W204 is getting the Pre-Safe.

5) Driving on the Spanish motorways showed off the new C's uncanny silence

 

[Merc1]

The 350lb-ft of torque is surely a typo. The difference between hp ratings, 272hp vs 268hp is just the conversion from SAE Net to DIN, not an actual power difference. The U.S. figures are 268hp, elsewhere (DIN) they are 272hp.

M

 

[GermanFoamy]

The 350lb-ft of torque is surely a typo. The difference between hp ratings, 272hp vs 268hp is just the conversion from SAE Net to DIN, not an actual power difference. The U.S. figures are 268hp, elsewhere (DIN) they are 272hp.

M

I've sent the author of the article an E-mail asking him to verify his engine numbers. We'll see what he says.

 

[nikels]

The 350lb-ft of torque is surely a typo. The difference between hp ratings, 272hp vs 268hp is just the conversion from SAE Net to DIN, not an actual power difference. The U.S. figures are 268hp, elsewhere (DIN) they are 272hp.

M

maybe it's a favourable US - CDN exchange rate

 

[bmer]

I've sent the author of the article an E-mail asking him to verify his engine numbers. We'll see what he says.

Merc1 is right. It is very unlikely that the C-Classes for the Canadian market get a different form of the 350-engine than Europe and US. The correct figures are 200 kW (either 268 hp or 272 hp depending on the used standard) and 350 Nm (268 lb-ft). Source: http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content...IA.download.tmp/c-klasse_limousine_070319.pdf

 

[Merc1]

I've sent the author of the article an E-mail asking him to verify his engine numbers. We'll see what he says.

As the above post indicates, it is just a conversion issue. The 350lb-ft of torque is a typo and clearly not possible with the current naturally aspirated V6.

M

 

[GermanFoamy]

OK, here's something just as strange. I just read another "review" of the W204 in a local rag and it had the exact same torque numbers as the Toronto Star article. Weird. Here's the link.

Wheels

Also, it has the torque rating for the 3.0 litre base engine at 300lb-ft.

Do these jounalists have the wrong numbers? or are we in for a surprise?

I think that the jounalists are wrong. Wishful thinking tho

Also, I haven't heard from the Toronto Star journalist yet, but I will say that he's been in the car business for over 20 years and is a respected automobile journalist.

 

[NTT]

OK, here's something just as strange. I just read another "review" of the W204 in a local rag and it had the exact same torque numbers as the Toronto Star article. Weird. Here's the link.

These are the figures as quoted in the UK ITERIM BROCHURE I HAVE:

C230 (2.5) RATED TORQUE - 245Nm @ 2900 - 5500 RPM

C280 (3.0) --DO-- 300Nm @ 2500 - 5000 RPM

C350 (3.5) --DO-- 350Nm @ 2400 - 5000 RPM

 

[GermanFoamy]

These are the figures as quoted in the UK ITERIM BROCHURE I HAVE:

C230 (2.5) RATED TORQUE - 245Nm @ 2900 - 5500 RPM

C280 (3.0) --DO-- 300Nm @ 2500 - 5000 RPM

C350 (3.5) --DO-- 350Nm @ 2400 - 5000 RPM

These idiots used the hp numbers and then used the Nm numbers and called them lb-ft instead of doing there homework and converting them.

I can't believe how dumb they are.