I currently have a '96 C220 that I love, but came across a '97 C280 for a steal. Just how much of a performance boost will the 280 give over the 220?
Though I admit the 220 is sluggish due to its weight, highway passing at 3500rpm is very quick.

The C220 does 0-60 mph in 9.0 seconds and the 1/4 mile 16.9 seconds.

The C280 does 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16.0 seconds.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

C220 engine is a much easier car to work on, and the 4 cyl engine is a durable trouble free unit.

some of those C280 six cylinder engines are leaky

top speed difference is in the range of 12mph

The 280 is a quick car. Not as quick as a W124 E320, but quick nonetheless. As far as highway passing power. Its got it, but nothing exemplary(of course I'm spoiled).

I drove a C220 once. It was alright, but IMHO it didn't feel all too different in acceleration from a 190E 2.3.

The C280 is MUCH peppier, and will definitely get you out of tight spots if you need it. MPG in a 280 M104 is about 25 city driving. C280 has about as much pull to it as a 420SEL. At least that's what it felt like. Guess acceleration 0-60 must be in the 8's.

Mercedes should've recalled the headgasket issue. It IS a known defect in design yet they never issued a campaign. That's the only thing that could go wrong, I believe, with a 202 M104.

The six is a much smoother engine and will idle like a clock. It has an excellentl gutteral Germanic sound that accompanies full throttle acceleration.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

I owned a '95 C280 from '95 to '01. During that time I drove several C220s and C230s plus a C230K sedan and several coupes. As far as I'm concerned, the four cylinder is a noisy gruff shaky engine that spoils the car. The M104 six in contrast is much quieter and very smooth (quieter than the V-6 in my C320, as a matter of fact) and makes the car much more civilized. It's true that the M104 engines had some oil leaks early in the game but all of them should have been repaired under warranty so shouldn't be an issue any more. My mileage was about 21mpg around town and I once achieved 28mpg highway. BTW, I owned two W201s previously and they were crap, not to put too fine a point on it.

Matter of fact, my '85 190E was the worst car I ever owned. About fifty warranty visits to the dealer.

__________________
Roger E.

It really depends on what's important to you. I believe it is unfair to compare the four in the W202 (C-Class) to that in the W201 (190E) as they are different animals. The W201 got the M102 whereas the W202 got the newer M111. We have lots of them in Australia and they are very reliable and economical engines. A bit "buzzy" (mechanically noisy) but I would not consider them rough. My parents have one in a W210 E230 and my wife's parents have one in a W202 C200 and both are absolutely reliable (I can't say the same for my father's E320 coupe with its M104). The older M102 in the W201 was not as reliable suffering similar head gasket problems to the M103 and M104 sixes. The C280 with its M104 generally won't offer the reliability of the M111 due to head gasket and oil leak problems. It is also more difficult to work on and will be more costly to service. In return for this you get better performance (at the expense of fuel economy) and the smoothness of the six. Whilst the late M104 is not as quiet as the old M103 due to induction noise on an open throttle, it is not mechanically noisy as the M111 four tends to be. Comparing the old M102 four to the M103 six was really an easy choice (as the M103 is just superb despite its problems). With an M111 versus M104 choice it is not so clear cut. Go for the C280 for performance and smoothness. Go for the C220 for reliability and economy.

__________________
107.023: 350SLC, 3-speed auto, icon gold, parchment MBtex (sold 2012 after 29 years ownership).
107.026: 500SLC, 4-speed auto, thistle green, green velour.
124.090: 300TE, 4-speed auto, arctic white, cream-beige MBtex.
201.028: 190E 2.3 Sportline, 5-speed manual, arctic white, blue leather.
201.028: 190E 2.3, 4-speed auto, blue-black, grey MBtex.
201.034: 190E 2.3-16, 5-speed manual, blue-black, black leather.

I just threw in the comments about my 201's as a non-sequitor since it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Most of the W202 4 cylinder cars I have driven were service rentals or loaners from my dealer so I would be leaping out of my W202 C280 or W203 C320 right into them so could see the differences in civility right away. The last three rentals (free) were C230K coupes which were not exactly flying out of the showrooms. Of course, the normally aspirated engines were pretty slow and called for lots of throttle at times which contributes to the racket.

Road testers of the fours in the British and American magazines usually commented on the gruff noisy un-Mercedes like powerplants. I think it's significant that those engines have been replaced by the new 1.8 balance shaft four which is now quite pleasant with adequate performance.

__________________
Roger E.

I never drove a W202 that didnt sound like a tractor.


My C240 W203 is like a little Maybach

__________________
99 C43
98 S420
99 C230K
01 C240

Mark says:

<>

You must be referring to the fours. As to the Maybach comparison, I'm grateful that my C320 does not have the electronic faults of the Maybach. A friend who is the "service director" at a local big dealer told me that the Maybach has four times the electronic trouble that the W211 has. That would not deter me from ordering an E500 tomorrow if I had the funds.

They had a Maybach 57 that was to be the owner's car and it sat for more than a month waiting for parts (from Pluto, one assumes) because it couldn't pass the pre-delivery inspection.