C220 CDi Or C250 CDI - Advice please

[HollowPoint]

I would have thought that would make any differences between them, far more pronounced to be honest. Although I guess that depends if you drove the 220 first, or second.

 

[bensales]

Drove the 250 first. Granted it did the 'thrash it on the motorway slip road' slightly quicker, but not much more than 220 that I'd care. Anyway, it's the 220 that's arriving next week so if I'm going to worry about it, I'll worry in two years when the lease is up!

What was nice, was that neither car felt particularly slower than the Jaguar, even though on paper they are.

 

[stevehg]

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.

You are not alone, I felt the same when I drove them, I decided to go for the 220 and fit a tuning box. I don't know MB's that well. Do the w204 220 and 250 engines differ from the w205 and latest w212 eClass engines. If so, that's maybe why there are differing opinions.

What's the torque output of you XF and over what Rev range? The twin turbo MB engines put out quite a bit of torque at low revs through a good band of the Rev range. This coupled with the MB 7G auto may be why you felt there wasn't much difference in normal road driving.

Interestingly, I drove a e350 and although it was a lot more refined at lower revs it turns quite rough over ~3300 rpm. Keeping mine for 3 years, I felt it wasn't worth the extra £4,000 over the e220 with remap. I had much better things to spend my money on. I suspect I'm in the minority here though.

cheers, Steve

 

[55NF]

You are not alone, I felt the same when I drove them, I decided to go for the 220 and fit a tuning box. I don't know MB's that well. Do the w204 220 and 250 engines differ from the w205 and latest w212 eClass engines. If so, that's maybe why there are differing opinions. What's the torque output of you XF and over what Rev range? The twin turbo MB engines put out quite a bit of torque at low revs through a good band of the Rev range. This coupled with the MB 7G auto may be why you felt there wasn't much difference in normal road driving. Interestingly, I drove a e350 and although it was a lot more refined at lower revs it turns quite rough over ~3300 rpm. Keeping mine for 3 years, I felt it wasn't worth the extra £4,000 over the e220 with remap. I had much better things to spend my money on. I suspect I'm in the minority here though. cheers, Steve

I just couldn't face going back to a four pot which is why I opted for the 350 & stuck a tuning box on it! Very impressive. When I get into my Audi it reminds me of the reason I wanted that V6

 

[TomMusa]

I've had my C250 CDI for 6 months now, had a few drag races with bmw 325d, and it will have them, put it in sport mode if you're only doing 5k miles, it is an amazing drive you will not regret it.

 

[Jonesy161]

What a nice problem to have, I chose the 220 and am very impressed, guess it depends on wether your decision is going to be based on performance or economy. As already stated, you can take the 220 up to 250 bhp for relatively little dosh, you will also get high average mpg if that matters.

Good luck.