2002 Mercedes C230 Kompressor Review-thing

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

I've had the chance to do some driving in my sisters new-used C class and figured the next logical step was a review post.

First, the specs:
2.3 liter supercharged 4-cylinder. Output: 189hp, 200 ft-lb @ 2500rpm. 3200lb curb weight. Tiny.
It has power windows and manual everything else.

The car looks like this:
Image
Image
It has a MASSIVE a**.

It seats 2 and two halves. I would fit in the back seat if I didn't have a head.
Boot space is pretty impressive behind the seats even with the tonneau in place. The rear seats fold level with the rearward-angled cargo floor. The hatch opens WAY up. It also has split-glass (really plastic down low) which is neat but not particularly helpful due to the heavy color distortion present in the curved lower plastic.

The 2.3 is quite coarse and there's a lot of engine noise (not exhaust noise). Torque off the line is reasonable but it comes into its own above 2000rpm where it's not fast but certainly not slow. The supercharger's whine is pleasant and not invasive.

The 5-speed automatic is smooth but in absolutely no hurry. The manumatic design is worse than terrible. The transmission still does whatever it wants. You slap the shifter left for downshifts and right for upshifts. There's no separate manual-mode gate, just tilt in "D", which means there's no way to get back to full auto without dropping into neutral and back. Amazingly, astoundingly, frustratingly stupid. Shifts are slow and smooth, and dropping the hammer brings about shifts a couple months later, making spirited driving in the twisties unrewarding unless you use manual mode. Gearing seems excellent, with a fair amount of torque available at 75 without having to drop from 5th. There's a "Wet/Standard" mode switch which toggles 1st- and 2nd-gear starts--necessary because manumatic mode sucks and starts off in first regardless of the gear you've "selected."

I was able to break the back end loose with a little tossery even with ESP enabled and encountered no drama. An odd mix with the ABS, which seems WAY overaggressive...though that may be partially the tires' fault. But then again, perhaps not: there's actually a 30% vehicle safety discount on insurance for the car being a Mercedes-Benz, so that's not terribly surprising, and MB along with Chrysler is notorious for electronic nannies that are determined to get in the way.

The instrument cluster is terrible-awful-bad. A small tach and overlarge fuel gauge flank the MONSTROUS speedometer which, despite having a radius that's about half as big as one of Mars' moons, only has 5mph demarcations. It's empty and unhelpful. In the center of the that's-no-moon-it's-a-space-station-sized speedo is a medium-resolution amber LCD display which offers up quite a lot of useful info--and a lot of useless crap. It'll even report the oil level but only if the car's not running. Unfortunately, the steering wheel is laden with face-buttons to operate the thing. At least the steering wheel never blocks the gauges even a little, not even at the lowest height with a 6'+ eyeline.
The rear-view mirror needs to be a little taller. It's a hatchback, tall and narrow. The mirror shows too much c-pillar and not enough vertical glass.

European cruise control is stupid. It's on a stalk located above the signal stalk and I kept activating cruise when I wanted to signal right. The signal stalk itself is WAY too low on the wheel at about 8 o'clock and I had to constantly reposition my hand to signal. There's nothing natural about using either control stalk. It's not something I'd likely ever adjust to; it's something I'd end up having to tolerate.

And while we're on about stupid controls, what psychopath designed those seat controls? There's a knob on the INSIDE of the seatback to adjust recline, while you pump a lever to adjust cushion height and turn another lever for cushion pitch. Seems like a backward approach compared to the more common separate front/rear cushion height adjust. The MB way you need to adjust two things to make a small change in seat cushion adjustment. The seats themselves are comfortable, but not as comfortable as the LS8. The headrests suck fairly badly. The rear headrests fold down to allow seat folding or improved rearward visibility. Might as well leave them that way since only Gimli would ever have a head low enough to use one.
The seats do return to their original position after being folded forward for rear-seat access, though, which is nice.

The driving position is nice, and this car seems to be pre-bathtub-era, with window sills low enough to rest an elbow on. The doors are a little too close to the seats for my taste though. And the lack of telescope in the steering wheel adjust sucks, especially since it's basically resting against the gauges anyway. If you need legroom like me you're going to be reaching for the wheel a little awkwardly. The armrest is well positioned (something I've never experienced before outside my LS8's adjustable unit which blocks one cupholder in order to sit where I need it). Unfortunately the shift knob is too far rearward for anyone with proportional forearms to naturally rest a hand on.

Suspension is weird. It manages to be both floatier AND harsher than my LS8. It manages everything more poorly. Body roll is more significant, bumps large and small alike are felt more strongly, and there's a lot more oscillation than I'd like (though that may just be dying shocks). It doesn't really do luxury OR sport very well. It just sort of fails at both at some useless middle ground.

Steering's surprisingly quick and not as numb as I expected. The brakes stop really well (safety stuff again) and easily outperform my LS8's stockers. I just wish ABS would trust me a little more. Fighting ABS pulse in the inside front tire isn't particularly helpful. Turning radius is excellent.

I found it weird driving such a tiny car. The minimal length behind the driver seat threw me off most. But the whole car feels tiny and I'm just not used to that.

A neat little touch (perhaps to make up for the stupid seat controls) is that when you release the hood from the cabin, a small plastic tap pops out below the hood. No hunting for a lever in the hood seam. Grab the tab and lift the hood. I don't like that the main forward surface of the hood, where you'd naturally want to lift, is a plastic piece of the upper grille that feels like it isn't really up to repeated hood-heftings. I'd have extended the hood around the grille, or cut into the hood with the upper grille. Or just run a strip of steel under the upper piece.

I can't figure out why the rear side windows neither vent nor roll down. There seems to be plenty of room for them to drop into the sides and even if there isn't that for some reason there's still no reason they shouldn't hinge at the b-pillar.
The panoramic sunroof is inoperative on this car so I can only comment on the neat design of the wind deflector (wish my LS8 had that instead of the halfass springbar setup which is not likely to break but also not likely to help with turbulence at highway speeds. Oh, and why are the rolling sunshades (inside the cabin below the roof glass) black when the upholstery is all tan? Weird.

Anyway, that's my long-winded review of a decade-old Mercedes. I'll keep my LS8. But my sister loves it. I just hope I don't end up spending too much time under the hood.


User avatar
skydragoness
Posts: 9394
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:49 am
Car: 03' 350z Touring 6spd
92' 240sx 60k survivor :)
Location: North DFW, TEJAS
Contact:

Post

Didn't they offer these in a manual? Not surprised about the controls and ride being what they are though.
Also: is there an AMG version? Can't remember.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

Power to weight is very similar to my '91 Saab, but the Saab was engineered in 1978. :| Of course, thanks to just three wide gears, the Saab turbo takes almost 9 seconds to hit 60. The C230 Komp takes 7.5 seconds to hit 60, which is respectable for an entry-luxury car from 2002.

A lot of your other complaints echo what I've said in the past about my old Crossfire, except the Crossfire had enough thrust to make you giggle.

I hope it provides her with reasonably dependable transportation.

Image
Is that a Star Trek TNG font?

driverdriver
Posts: 3397
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:36 am
Car: NICO's longtime resident Canuck!!!
Contact:

Post

Judging from the one pic, the car looks to be in nice shape.

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

Its a badge car, plain and simple. Do not want.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

skydragoness wrote:Didn't they offer these in a manual? Not surprised about the controls and ride being what they are though.
Also: is there an AMG version? Can't remember.
They were offered with a 6 speed manual. My sister would have gone with that, too, but this car happened to be auto.
There was a C55 AMG with a V8. But that was sedan only.
Jesda wrote:Image
Is that a Star Trek TNG font?
That's another one of the "wacky german" things about the car. The fuel gauge does not read "Full" at the top. It reads 1/1. And the bottom reads "0". Weird choices.
The info display on my sister's car has a dead lamp on the left side which comes on sometimes but not most of the time, EXACTLY like my Q45 had. I suspect the C230's lamp will be much harder to replace than the Q's.
driverdriver wrote:Judging from the one pic, the car looks to be in nice shape.
Those are just random internet pics. It looks nearly that good, though. The hood has minor chipping and the bumper fitment is a little off, but otherwise the body's excellent.
FlatBlackIan wrote:Its a badge car, plain and simple. Do not want.
This has pretty much always been my view of the C-class in general. Where the 3-series has its own merits AND feels on par with the 5 series in most areas and the A4 is a small A6 with different engine options, the C-class has always felt distinctly cheap to me. Simply put: you buy a 3 series, G37, or A4 to DRIVE, you buy a C-class to be seen in. I don't know why people buy ISs.

Oh, and I hate mirror signal repeaters. Hate hate hate. Stupid.

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote: This has pretty much always been my view of the C-class in general. Where the 3-series has its own merits AND feels on par with the 5 series in most areas and the A4 is a small A6 with different engine options, the C-class has always felt distinctly cheap to me. Simply put: you buy a 3 series, G37, or A4 to DRIVE, you buy a C-class to be seen in. I don't know why people buy ISs.

Oh, and I hate mirror signal repeaters. Hate hate hate. Stupid.
Audi's have always felt cheap to me, at least for their price point, they are just overpriced Volkswagens that have even more electronic tomfoolery to fail repeatedly. An A4 is just a Jetta with AWD. They all smell like crayons inside anyway.

You are correct, the whole C class lineup is under par with the with the rest of Merc"s. I see them all the time, and the majority of them are driven by a certain demographic. They want to be seen as having money. The chips fall when they realize that the price to get in was a lot cheaper, but the maintenance is similar to any other Mercedes. This means very expensive. Im sick of seeing them with bald mismatched tires, dirty filters, unchanged fluids, missing lights and a general lack of safety. It sickens me. Its something I also see with Cadillacs. People dont take normal wear into the cost of owning a vehicle. They seem to think they can make their payment, put gas in, and it will run forever.
Every time someone crys when I hand them an estimate for $4000 I find it harder and harder to feel any kind of sympathy. Rarely do all these things fail at once. America needs to stop collectively turning up the stereo.

\\end rant/digression.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

FlatBlackIan wrote:[An A4 is just a Jetta with AWD
It's actually the A3 that's a Golf rebadge. The A4 was once based on the Passat but hasn't been for a while now. A6 and up are not VW-related. Even the A8 and Phaeton are not related.
Ten years ago I would have agreed with you on the Audi point, but these days they're a different brand. I'm still not fond of AWD, but they're not gussied-up VWs anymore. They're a separate brand.

User avatar
Mr1der
Posts: 36020
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:35 am
Car: It's still not a Nissan...
Location: Lebanon TN

Post

Jesda wrote:Power to weight is very similar to my '91 Saab, but the Saab was engineered in 1978. :| Of course, thanks to just three wide gears, the Saab turbo takes almost 9 seconds to hit 60. The C230 Komp takes 7.5 seconds to hit 60, which is respectable for an entry-luxury car from 2002.
The RSX-S laughs at your 7.5 0-60! LAUGHS!

User avatar
AZ89two4Tsx
Posts: 13634
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:02 am

Post

FlatBlackIan wrote:Its a badge car, plain and simple. Do not want.
:werd:

Only recently has the C-Class become anything besides mediocre imo.

The sedan version of those look really nice from the outside, but that motor is a dog. The interior is sub par as well, especially for something as prestigious as a Mercedes Benz.

I'll gladly take one of these though.

Image

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

The latest C-class took quite a step down in interior quality. Only in the last year or so did it become respectable again.

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
FlatBlackIan wrote:[An A4 is just a Jetta with AWD
It's actually the A3 that's a Golf rebadge. The A4 was once based on the Passat but hasn't been for a while now. A6 and up are not VW-related. Even the A8 and Phaeton are not related.
Ten years ago I would have agreed with you on the Audi point, but these days they're a different brand. I'm still not fond of AWD, but they're not gussied-up VWs anymore. They're a separate brand.
I meant more metaphorically then technically. The A4 and Passat may have shared platforms, but the A4 is closer in useable size to the Jetta of that era, while the A6 Matched the Passat.

I will agree that newer Audi's have made great strides in initial quality, but I have already seen some of the late 2000s models showing signs of similar age failings that turned the older platform A4s and A6s into crap boxes. If I spent that much money on a car, I would be appalled if interior finish wore off like a cheap chevy radio, or all the lights on the HVAC controls worked when they wanted to after less then 5 years.

Anybody can build a car that looks good now. Build a car that retains that quality after 10 years and 100,000 miles, and you will have earned my trust. That kind of longevity has not been seen from VAG in 15 years. Sadly, I fear Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, and Honda, may be following in those footsteps. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been manning that sinking ship since the 80s.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 16082
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
FlatBlackIan wrote:[An A4 is just a Jetta with AWD
It's actually the A3 that's a Golf rebadge. The A4 was once based on the Passat but hasn't been for a while now. A6 and up are not VW-related. Even the A8 and Phaeton are not related.
Ten years ago I would have agreed with you on the Audi point, but these days they're a different brand. I'm still not fond of AWD, but they're not gussied-up VWs anymore. They're a separate brand.
Correct, and the Audi interiors have gotten much nicer in recent years (as well as higher pricing. You should sit in an S5. Extremely nice. A cool thing I discovered in the last newer Audi I was in. I was in the north paddock at VIR and turned on the sat-nav to see how it worked. the VIR full course layout actually came up!! I didn't try it out on the track but it would have been fun trying it out on the main straight....(in a female computerized voice) " stay left on front straight, turn right in 1000 feet..." :)

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

Bubba1 wrote:
Correct, and the Audi interiors have gotten much nicer in recent years (as well as higher pricing. You should sit in an S5. Extremely nice. A cool thing I discovered in the last newer Audi I was in. I was in the north paddock at VIR and turned on the sat-nav to see how it worked. the VIR full course layout actually came up!! I didn't try it out on the track but it would have been fun trying it out on the main straight....(in a female computerized voice) " stay left on front straight, turn right in 1000 feet..." :)
I have sat in a newer S5. It was a very nice car. The initial quality was very high, but initial quality is only a part of what makes a car nice over time. Hopefully the higher price tag will keep these cars out of the hands of those who would treat them like garbage. This could lead to the cars quality lasting longer then its predecessor.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 16082
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

FlatBlackIan wrote: I have sat in a newer S5. It was a very nice car. The initial quality was very high, but initial quality is only a part of what makes a car nice over time. Hopefully the higher price tag will keep these cars out of the hands of those who would treat them like garbage. This could lead to the cars quality lasting longer then its predecessor.

IMHO, Audi's are no different than other high end new German cars. Much more complex than they should be. Even if the car is treated well over time, all of those technological terror stuff will inevitably encounter problems. While Audi's depreciate relatively quickly to become affordable to less affluent people or those less likely to perform all of the required maintenance, the cost to repair them over time does not go down. It goes up as there are far more things to go wrong and they're no longer under warranty. That normally leads to people griping about them every time they get a big repair bill.

I think the last "well built" Audi's were the 1995.5 5 cyl A6/S6. Those big boxy sedans without the big mouth bass grills. They were well built, fast, not overly complex, comfortable, roomy, luxurious, handled well and reliable. I think Audi took a significant step back after that model. Right now, the R8 is probably the only Audi that I would consider owning.

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

:mad:
Bubba1 wrote:

IMHO, Audi's are no different than other high end new German cars. Much more complex than they should be. Even if the car is treated well over time, all of those technological terror stuff will inevitably encounter problems. While Audi's depreciate relatively quickly to become affordable to less affluent people or those less likely to perform all of the required maintenance, the cost to repair them over time does not go down. It goes up as there are far more things to go wrong and they're no longer under warranty. That normally leads to people griping about them every time they get a big repair bill.

I think the last "well built" Audi's were the 1995.5 5 cyl A6/S6. Those big boxy sedans without the big mouth bass grills. They were well built, fast, not overly complex, comfortable, roomy, luxurious, handled well and reliable. I think Audi took a significant step back after that model. Right now, the R8 is probably the only Audi that I would consider owning.
Well said.


Return to “General Chat”