Mercedes C class 2000 vs Honda Accord 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 129 HP | 155 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Mercedes C class engine produces 26 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Mercedes C class reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Honda Accord is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes C class consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes C class could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes C class consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Honda Accord) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine: In 2001, Honda introduced the K-series engine lineup, featuring an aluminum block with an open-deck design and cast-iron cylinder liners. It utilizes a port fuel injection system, a 16-valve aluminum cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, individual ignition coils, a VTC cam ... More about Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mercedes C class is smaller. Mercedes C class is 13 cm shorter than the Honda Accord, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes C class is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 459 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes C class is 0.2 metres less than that of the Honda Accord. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mercedes C class has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Honda Accord, so Honda Accord quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes C klase has
|
Honda Accord has
| |