What is the difference between C180K and C180 CGI

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

sparer

New Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
13
Car
C200 Kompressor CL203
Hi,
I test drove a C180 CGI Auto today and was surprised how quick it felt. I think it was probably a 1.6l engine (it was a 60 plate) although it may have been a 1.8l. I'm coming from an 323Ci E46 BMW with 170HP so it was a bit of a surprise. In any case, it looks like I may have to get a C180K as my budget won't stretch to a C180 CGI. What difference am I likely to notice with the K compared to the CGI in terms of power and drivability?

Thanks
 
AFAIK:

'K' is for Kompressor i.e. supercharger.

CGI has the newer turbocharger after MB abandoned the supercharger on some of the smaller petrol engines in order to achieve more power from less capacity and thus reduced emissions.

I have not driven the CGI, but I would expect a turbocharger to provide more power at higher rev at the expense of low rev power, while the supercharger provides more power at the lower rev with no noticeable penalty elsewhere.

The turbocharger lower-rev power loss will be the result of the lower compression ratio that forced induction engines have, causing the engine to be less powerful at low rev before the turbo kicks in, compared to other similar naturally-aspirated engines who benefit from high compression even at low rev. The supercharger on the other hand is mechanical and works at all engine speeds, so the lower compression ratio is never a hindrance. Having said that, the writing is on the wall - the small-car future belongs to low-emission turbocharged engines.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK:

'K' is for Kompressor i.e. supercharger.

CGI has the newer turbocharger after MB abandoned the supercharger on some of the smaller petrol engines in order to achieve more power from less capacity and thus reduced emissions.

I have not driven the CGI, but I would expect a turbocharger to provide more power at higher rev at the expense of low rev power, while the supercharger provides more power at the lower rev with no noticeable penalty elsewhere.

The turbocharger lower-rev power loss will be the result of the lower compression ratio that forced induction engines have, causing the engine to be less powerful at low rev before the turbo kicks in, compared to other similar naturally-aspirated engines who benefit from high compression even at low rev. The supercharger on the other hand is mechanical and works at all engine speeds, so the lower compression ratio is never a hindrance. Having said that, the writing is on the wall - the small-car future belongs to low-emission turbocharged engines.
^As above,i had a c180cgi loan car whilst my cls was being serviced last year & it felt adequate enough & averaged 35mpg the day i had it,i previously owned a c180k which averaged 32mpg but the kompressor was noisier than the tubo charged c180cgi.
 
Good point, yes the 180K and 200K can be a bit 'boomy' inside the cabin, not excessively so, but definitely nowhere near as quiet as say an S-Class... and if you drive with the windows winded down, you will on occasion here the muted high-pitched squeal (especially when it bounces-off a barrier or parked cars) which presumably comes from the charger.
 
Thanks guys. That helps a lot. I guess I should go drive a C180K to see if those differences bother me too much.
 
As above but the cars do have totally different driving characteristics, the 180k has more low end torque and feels a quicker drive than the 180 CGI. As already pointed out the difference is supercharger Vs Turbo.

To me the 180k is the better drivers car with a better power delivery band, the 180 CGI is fit but drives just like any other turbo Eurobox. The 180k has character and while it is not as refined as the CGI it feels more like an MB in terms of quality, handling and solidness.

Turbo + small engine means you can really get low CO2 emissions which manufacturers now have to comply to thanks to misguided government environmental legislation, but IMHO this compromises the driveability of some cars and is heading in the direction where all of the major premium manufacturers small cars drive the same, so the buying choice is what ever switches you on and how good the manufacturer is in different areas of differentiation.

IMHO the 180k is the better car
 
Thanks guys. That helps a lot. I guess I should go drive a C180K to see if those differences bother me too much.

Yep-your best bet is to drive both as everyone likes something different in a car,good luck as whichever you choose you won't be dassapointed:)
 
I had a C180 CGI loaner today. I was geniunely impressed with it.

It was a 60 plate, so a prefacelift and with the 5G box. I'm on the fence about which gearbox I prefer, 5G or 7G, but I would say the 5 has some advantage in that it doesn't result in a double downchange quite as much as the 7G.

It rode better than my C250 CDI Sport, was considerably quieter and overall much more refined. The handling wasn't really any worse and the steering had a bit less feel than my sport but that was the only negative.

I didn't even find the prefacelift interior too low rent or offensive in any way.

It wasn't quite as quick but felt quite spritely considering the 156hp rating and felt a fair bit lighter and nimble than my diesel estate. I would say a it is little more than "just adequate" although certainly a good 10-15 mpg heavier on fuel.

I handed it back with the distinct feeling that I had missed a trick not trying the 4 cylinder petrol (180 and 250) when making my choice.

It felt much more like a Mercedes should than my grumbly and somewhat peaky 250CDI!
 
I'm not on the fence at all re gearboxes. 5g all day long unless you spend most of your time on motorways
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom