Which W203, a 320 or 240?

[FunkMasterJay]

Dear all.
I am back after a brief hiatus. I used to have a lovelu W202 C200. My heart has always been with Japanese cars, but after a few and baby number 2, I feel a W203 ticks more boxes than my superb Lexus IS300.

My lexus is equipped with a 3.0 Litre straight 6 with semi auto. The car us superb, however the boot space is not great. My wife's Civic is more useful. I'm almost always on my own so this is not the main family car, but for family trips to my mum's or the park, it would be nice to put a baby chair and buggy etc away comfortably.

My mind is made up on the W203, but question is should I go for a 240 or 320. I really want a 320 but there are lots of nice 240s as well. Will I regret it for the lack of power/torque? I assume tax is the same for both. My budget is around £2k - £2.5k.

Many thanks.
Jason.

 

[FunkMasterJay]

Wow. 216 views and no answer?

Much appreciated!

 

[Sp!ke]

I suspect your subject line didnt help getting the right response.

I have had no direct experience of a W203 so cant really comment on your question tbh.

Let me change your thread title to something that might get it noticed by people that know W203's.

 

[FunkMasterJay]

Thank you very much kind sir.

Jason.

 

[whitenemesis]

I didn't think they made a 203 with a 240 engine? The 202 had the 240

 

[Chrishazle]

I looked back to original road tests before I bought my 203, all said the best engine in the 203 range was the C270cdi, so I bought one and did not regret it. Quiet easy cruising but grunt when you needed (or wanted) it, with 45+mpg economy. Then MB Ashford put 204 temptation in my way, and I could not resist the deal - otherwise I'd still have my S203.

 

[DSM10000]

I didn't think they made a 203 with a 240 engine? The 202 had the 240

The 240 (actually 2.6 l itre) is around 50Hp down on the 320 and has lower torque so in real world driving fuel consumption figures are pretty similar but the 320 is a nicer engine to be behind, in my humble opinion of course

 

[whitenemesis]

The 240 (actually 2.6 l itre) is around 50Hp down on the 320 and has lower torque so in real world driving fuel consumption figures are pretty similar but the 320 is a nicer engine to be behind, in my humble opinion of course

But was the 240 offered in the 203?

 

[DSM10000]

But was the 240 offered in the 203?

"The second generation C-Class was introduced in March 2000. The sedan debuted with a range of inline-four and V6 petrol engines and inline-four and -five diesels. Most of the engines were carried over from the W202, but the C 320 was exclusive, offering 160 kW (218 PS). The diesels now featured common rail direct fuel injection and variable geometry turbochargers. Six-speed manual gearboxes were now standard for the entire range, except the C 320. Notably, for the first time, the number designations were no longer equivalent to the engine displacement, more specifically in the C 200 (1.8-litre), C 240 (2.6-litre) and C 200 CDI (2.2-litre)."

 

[Chalpkin]

The 240 (actually 2.6 l itre) is around 50Hp down on the 320 and has lower torque so in real world driving fuel consumption figures are pretty similar but the 320 is a nicer engine to be behind, in my humble opinion of course

+1
I've had my 2001 W203 C320 for over a year now and it's been nothing but a smooth running and powerful cruiser, nothing has fallen off or gone wrong, she waffles along on a whiff of throttle, or plant your right foot and she'll embarace much younger machinery.
20mpg in town and 30+ on a run.
Not regretted buying it for a minute!
Regards,
Chalpkin.

 

[martyp87]

My dad's ML with the 320 feels a lot faster than my CLK240. On that basis, the difference on the w203 will be vast, 320 would be my choice - I just couldn't find a decent one in the timeframe I was on hence why I settled on the 2.6ltr.

 

[krisby]

Agreed, the lack of oomph but near same MPG makes the 240 irrelevant in my opinion. I just bought a 320 on Thursday and love it, once I clear up the rust on the rear wheel arches I will love it even more.

I'd imagine would get better mpg than the lexus too, my wife had an IS200 manual that struggled to get 24mpg, which was shocking for a car with only 158bhp.

 

[FunkMasterJay]

Thanks for the comments guys. Krisby, I used to have an IS200 but I have an IS300 now.

Fantastic. I will hold out for a 320 then.

J.

 

[markjay]

If I understand correctly then your choice will be between 240 Petrol and 320 Diesel?

 

[DSM10000]

If I understand correctly then your choice will be between 240 Petrol and 320 Diesel?

No you misunderstood, the 320 diesel was not offered in the W203 until the facelift in around 2005 when the 3 litre V 6 was offered, the 240 petrol.was dropped by then.

 

[Whitey]

I used to have an IS300.

The E320 I currently have use of has a lot more low down grunt. But the IS300 loved to be revved from what I remember !

 

[ss201]

2005 W203 320 CDI Elegance SE Estate.

Comfortable, practical, very fast when required, 35-40mpg (45-47 on a long run), loads of toys, 7-speed tiptronic auto box, not a spot of rust on any body panel. In 18 months of ownership it's had a B-service, two tyres and a rear number plate bulb. What's not to like?

 

[krisby]

Thanks for the comments guys. Krisby, I used to have an IS200 but I have an IS300 now.

Fantastic. I will hold out for a 320 then.

J.

Yeah I know, point being as a typical lexus, they are thirsty, I was contemplating a GS300 but I know with the lexus the claimed MPG is very generous, I assume the same with your IS300.

 

[robtt]

I had a C320cdi, se trim, for three years and really liked it. Well built, reliable and fast.

 

[DSM10000]

I had a C320cdi, se trim, for three years and really liked it. Well built, reliable and fast.

They are lovely engines but the OP is specifically asking about a 320 petrol