C220 CDi Or C250 CDI - Advice please

[Dellboi]

I have the option of 2 cars a 220 & 250 C Class, same spec

63 2013 Plate C220 CDi with just delivery miles on the clock 53 Mls

62 2013 Plate C250 CDi with 12500 mls

Cars are AMG Sport and similar price, really struggling with which one to go for. I only do around 5000 a year and currently run a C180 CGi Petrol.

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Dell

 

[kam05]

I only do around 5000 a year and currently run a C180 CGi Petrol.

You drive 5k a year and you considering a diesel? Why? Stick with your C180 CGI or go for a petrol.

 

[stevehg]

To complicate things even further, when I looked to buy a new eClass in June of this year it was much cheaper to order a new car from an MB dealer via www.drivethedeal.com than buy a used one with delivery miles. This way I got a car ordered exactly to my spec, colours etc and wait was only 7 weeks for a factory order. Not sure if this would be the case for you, but probably worth the 5 min look.

If deciding from the two above, personally I'd go for newer 220. There is not much difference between the two performance wise in everyday driving and in 3 years time your 15k miles 220 will be worth more than the year older 27K miles 250.

cheers, Steve

 

[Chrishazle]

If either has satnav, remember that you only get free updates for the first 3 years of the car's life - then it costs about £150 for a map update!

I'd agree with Steve - I have an 08 C220 and it's quite quick enough when I want it to, do not see any benefit in a C250 - and I do about 7k miles pa, normally showing 45mpg on the display for short trips and up to 50+ on long runs.

 

[geraldrobins]

The latter C220cdi have a considerale mpg and emission advantage over the C250cdi. Although this wont be a significant saving with low mileage anticipated. Also how can an 18 month old car have only 53 miles. Generally I'd tend to go for the newer car with the lower mileage unless the additional performance was an issue.

 

[bpsorrel]

I've had both a 220 and 250 and the 250 is streets ahead on performance. A lot of mid range shove and to me it seems more refined although that might be subjective.

Nothing basically wrong with the 220, just not as fun to drive due to the slightly more lethargic performance. Just my opinion. I'd try both and see which you prefer.

 

[Jonobigblind]

I've had both a 220 and 250 and the 250 is streets ahead on performance. A lot of mid range shove and to me it seems more refined although that might be subjective. Nothing basically wrong with the 220, just not as fun to drive due to the slightly more lethargic performance. Just my opinion. I'd try both and see which you prefer.

I'd second that having had both although I am comparing the W204 220 to the W205 250 so there is also a weight difference to take into account.

Still think with 5,000 miles per year a petrol would be a better option as mentioned before.

Happy driving whatever you decide

 

[HollowPoint]

If I was doing 5k miles per year, I'd have bought the C63 that was parked next to what is now my W204 C220 lol Hope that answers your question.

 

[edstrom76]

I'd go for the C220 and stick a remap on it - you'll get the same performance figures as a C250. But as already said, there's no economic sense in buying a diesel based on your annual mileage.

 

[stevehg]

Also how can an 18 month old car have only 53 miles. Generally I'd tend to go for the newer car with the lower mileage unless the additional performance was an issue.

Being a 63 it could still be less than 10 months old.

 

[geraldrobins]

True, sorry got my sums wrong, but 53 miles !!!!!

 

[HollowPoint]

Showroom model that went back and forth from the showroom to somewhere else maybe?

 

[55NF]

Why go for the lesser car? I've had both.

I had a C250 BlueTEC AMG Line yesterday as my E Class W212 was in for updates.

Have to say the C250 surprised me, very fast in comparison to my E350 CDI, not as refined obviously but very impressive. Quite a step up from the C220.
The 7G-DCT 7-speed auto transmission is excellent.

Negatives for me on both the 220 & 250 are the hard ride due to the run flats, as well as too much road noise. Road noise must be a Mercedes issue as I feel my E350 CDI transmits too much road noise. My previous E70 X5 with 325's on the rear didn't give off so much road noise as the Mercs.

Regardless of 5K miles per year I would opt for the 250 over the petrol also, it's a dream to live with.

 

[HollowPoint]

Gotta say, I've got a W204 220 and get next to no road noise at all, other than on particularly noisy surfaces, nor do I find it a hard ride at all, mine is silky and very comfortable. That said, my car appears to be running ordinary tyres, as opposed to run-flats. I also have the 7G-DCT auto transmission and agree, it's fantastic.

 

[55NF]

Gotta say, I've got a W204 220 and get next to no road noise at all, other than on particularly noisy surfaces, nor do I find it a hard ride at all, mine is silky and very comfortable. That said, my car appears to be running ordinary tyres, as opposed to run-flats. I also have the 7G-DCT auto transmission and agree, it's fantastic.

It must be the RFT tyres on the 250 I was loaned, I hate them. My E has non RFT & the ride is excellent, but noticeable road noise.

 

[MBDevotee]

Do NOT contemplate a diesel at that mileage....

5k a year, you'll be blocking up DPF's EGR's and everything else....

Also, as you won't get the car hot lots of the time - (don't forget diesels take a lot longer to warm up than petrols) you won't even get the economy benefit.

Go for a petrol.

If you DO do the daft thing and buy the diesel, I'd go for the older better car, it will have already done it's worst depreciating whereas the newer car has yet to take that hit.

Saying that, I would expect the older car to be cheaper than the newer car unless much better spec.

 

[Hillbillybenz]

It must be the RFT tyres on the 250 I was loaned, I hate them. My E has non RFT & the ride is excellent, but noticeable road noise.

How does it compare with your black ed Audi? They, in my experience have insane amounts of road noise. Especially A4

 

[55NF]

How does it compare with your black ed Audi? They, in my experience have insane amounts of road noise. Especially A4

Its a 177 A4 Avant Black Edition. The C250 blows the Audi away, there's no comparison in a straight line. To be honest the Audi is very poor performance wise. Stylish I suppose but the FWD is awful. Massive amounts of wheel spin. The Quattro is the only one to have. I would opt for the C250 over the. Road noise is non existent on the Audi, although it doesn't have runflats.

 

[Hillbillybenz]

Its a 177 A4 Avant Black Edition. The C250 blows the Audi away, there's no comparison in a straight line. To be honest the Audi is very poor performance wise. Stylish I suppose but the FWD is awful. Massive amounts of wheel spin. The Quattro is the only one to have. I would opt for the C250 over the. Road noise is non existent on the Audi, although it doesn't have runflats.

Interesting! The only model I've driven much was a brand new (64) 177 FWD black ed, I though it was pretty quick, at least a very smooth power curve almost petrol like, but torque steer was bad and whatever tyres it had were shockingly intrusive! Like you say, must be the tyres!
Anyway off topic. Sorry

 

[bensales]

Interesting to see the other comments about the 220/250.

I test drove the new W205 220 and 250 back to back over the same 20 mile route of mixed town and motorway and decided there was so little in it between them, that it wasn't worth the extra money for the 250. Both cars in AMG spec. The one with the optional 19in AMG wheels was noticeably noisier though.

Perhaps it was because I am coming from a car more powerful than both of them (3l 275bhp Jag XF) that I didn't perceive the differences as being as great.