Hi JohnS - isn't it totally paradoxocal that you have just sold your supercharged Calais and procured the C-Class, yet we are buying a similar aged Statesman to replace the silver 6.9. Strange script - hope you're as pleased with the C-Class as we are with the Statesman - mind you though, you must miss that effortless power. How do the two cars compare side by side - love to know. Regards Styria
Styria is right, I did miss the effortless power initially. We decided to drop down to two cars from 3, so I sold the supercharged Calais and purchased an E240. The Calais (with options) cost a bit over $50,000 in 1999, and a new Calais is selling for not that much more now - Holden really has kept their prices down. Like Styria I was very tempted to buy a V8 Statesman but I needed one Mercedes for Club use.
I purchased the E240 with 30,000K's on the speedo. In almost two years I have put on another 30,000K's so it now reads 60,000K's, but I expect to only put about 10,000 K's a year on from now on.
What do I notice about the difference between the Calais and the Mercedes?
Believe it or not, despite the Mercedes being more than twice the price of the Calais, the Calais had convenience details that the Mercedes doesn't, making the Mercedes seem bare or basic by comparison.
Both cars have the sports suspension option, but the Calais felt crude in comparison to the Mercedes on rough roads. Holden seemed to have stiffened the springs and lowered the car but reduced the compliance, so (in comparison) it rode a little rough once you were on broken country roads. The E240 feels stiffer in roll, taught on winding roads and around roundabouts but does not convey the same degree of harshness as the Calais did.
The Calais steering was automatically speed-sensitive, being very light at parking speeds but firmer as the speed increased. The E240 feels similar throughout the speed range, never heavy but not light either.
Controls, the Calais had a number of controls on the steering wheel, such as variable speed intermittent windscreen wipers, only single speed on the E. The Calais had radio volume and station selection fingertip controls, the E240 has volume only unless the station option is selected, which is not as convenient. The Calais had automatic climate control, dial in the temperature you want and forget about it. The E240 has temperature select wheels, not as precise. For the seats the E240 has some power controls, but not all, while on the Calais all movements were powered.
The major difference between the two cars (similar in size) is in noise and torque. In acceleration the figures are similar, they are both V6's but 3.8 supercharged litres gives a totally different feel to 2.4 litres when you put your foot down on the road. Turning right off the M2 up Old Windsor Road, heading up towards the Seven Hills Road lights is where I first noticed the difference. The Calais would surge up with seemingly no effort, I have to put my foot down a little more with the E240 and let reves do the work, not torque. Cruising on the expressway at 110k’s the Calais was doing about 1800 RPM, the E240 about 3000! However the E240 is quieter, especially at idle when you would not know the motor is actually working. Top speed in both is similar, the E240 being listed as 233 K's (144.8 mph) and the 0-100 time is 9.1 seconds. I think that the Calais is a fraction slower in top speed but faster 0 – 100, so the Mercedes shape has a lower CD.
One of the big differences is in their gearboxes, the Calais had a 4 speed auto with standard control, the E240 is a 5 speed auto with lower or higher gears selectable by a tap on the gear lever. The Mercedes is also programmed to hold onto the lower gears at slow speed, which is great driving through 50 k zones or 40 k zones, which helps enormously if the road is sloping down as you can feel the car being held back from over speeding, so no chance of being booked. In cruise control the Mercedes system is also better, actually changing down a gear or two to keep within a few K’s of the set speed whereas the Calais would allow the speed to increase by up to 15k’s on steep declines.
The other difference is the brakes. Both have antilock and antislip, ESP etc, but only the Mercedes has Brake Assist. If you hit the brakes quickly / hard the car senses an emergency stop situation and applies the brakes much quicker than I would have thought possible. I tried it once on a vacant road and I seemed to stop at the point I applied the brakes! It was astounding! However I am glad that there was no one behind me, because I’m sure they would have hit me before they could react!
Then there is the fuel consumption. Driving to and from a club meeting on a Wednesday night the E240 comes in at between 9.5 and 8.9 L/100 – the Calais was generally around 15 L/100, and around the peak traffic hours consumption would be up to 17L/100. On a trip (say to Canberra and back sitting on 110 K’s) the Calais would be lucky to get down to 9.8 L/100, but I once actually got better than that when I cruised at 140. On the same Canberra trip at 110 K’s the E240 comes in around 8.5 L/100.
Am I happy with it? Well the more I drive it the more I enjoy it, but I am now automatically using the revs a bit more and, surprise, the fuel consumption actually seems to be reducing when driven this way. On one Club run to the Central Coast, driving smartly through winding and hilly back roads, starting and stopping on a regular basis, I was surprised to see the readout showing 8.3L/100K’s. Would I recommend an E Class to anyone? Yes I would, they are a great car; but for a 6.9 owner I would suggest that the 320 or the 430 should be tried before deciding what model as you would probably notice the difference in torque of a 240 more than I did. From what I have heard the 3.2 litre engine is a great match to the E Class body, not only giving a 10mph higher top speed but similar fuel consumption to the E240.
