Merc1

With a larger size, sharper-edged lines and different grilles reflecting intent, the new baby Benz shows maturity beyond its years.


Its entry-level luxury sedan, Mercedes-Benz's C-Class is one of the company's most popular single models (tying with the E-Class). And you don't mess with success. On the other hand, plenty of styling cues of the top-line S-Class have trickled down to lesser examples carrying the 3-pointed star. So think of the restyled car you see here as the "S-ence" of the C.

In fact, there are dual essences: distinct Luxury and Sport models, here for the first time differentiated visually by more than minor trim. The C300 Sport ($31,975) and C350 Sport ($37,275) share a grille-mounted star as well as AMG body cladding. The C300 Luxury ($33,675) carries its 3-pointed heritage in classic standup hood-mounted fashion, has more traditional grillework and does without the cladding.

Being "younger driving enthusiasts" — albeit, some of us only at heart — we opted for testing the C350 Sport with its 3.5-liter V-6 power. C300s of either ilk get a 3.0-liter V-6. And we respect Mercedes-Benz for its name-to-engine-displacement consistency, something not followed by all.

Other variations are in transmissions. Our C350 Sport and the C300 Luxury have 7-speed automatics. The C300 Sport comes with a 6-speed manual or the automatic as a $1440 option. Also, scheduled for September introduction are 4MATIC all-wheel-drive versions of the C300 Luxury and C300 Sport. I predict that an AMG version will appear at this fall's Frankfurt auto show. And there's even a hint of our getting a diesel C-Class (provided enough Americans clamor for it).

Regardless of variant, the new C-Class evokes its S-Class styling with commendable restraint. Several of us found its fender contours, for example, more pleasing than the overly aggressive bulges of the S-Class. Evidently shared by both designs are wide, rounded surfaces, taut lines and coupe-like profiles. The C-Class Sport's front clip, similar to those of Mercedes CLs, SLs and SUVs, sets it apart from its more formal Luxury sibling.

Compared with its predecessor, the new C-Class is 3.7 in. longer and 1.7 in. wider; at 108.7 in., its wheelbase remains unchanged. Mercedes claims modest upsizing of interior dimensions. We certainly found the front accommodations to be ample, adequate even for long-torso staff members of oversize proportions (we know who we are...). Alas, the selfsame-we found back-seat accommodations distinctly lacking. That rear roof/door line complicates (indeed, flat discourages) any attempts at ingress/egress. And once in (using top-up Morgan contortions, for goodness' sake), there's insufficient clearance for head and feet, and the devil of a time getting out again. It's fine for kids, limber sorts and those 5 ft. 8 in. or less.

Full Article:

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER


M

Deutsch

Yeh, this was one of the two reviews I mentioned in the "truth about cars C300 review" thread. Pretty crappy if you ask me.

PC Valkyrie

OK, I was waiting for Road&Track to test the W204 C350 Sport, as they consistently put their cars through the same battery of tests (more so than Car & Driver).

Overall, I'm dissappointed, as the W204 C350 objectively performs worse than the facelifted and lighter W203 C350 sport sedan, especially in terms of handling. Perhaps the increased weight is to blame, as the W204 is overall a bigger car. The following quote from the article sums it up perfectly.

"Track tester extraordinaire Jonathan Elfalan exploited the car's 258 lb.-ft. of torque in accelerating from standstill to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds. To save you the lookup in Road Test Summary, a - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER with a manual gearbox did 0–60 in 5.0 sec. flat; a couple of semi-comparable Audis took 6.5; and last year's 6-speed manual C350 did it in 5.7. All these are commendably quick numbers, though it's clear the Mercedes — while no slouch — has fallen somewhat off the pace set by its rival from Munich.
However, slalom, skidpad and braking performance suggested that our new C350 Sport is a bit softer than its predecessor (skidpad: 0.81g now, 0.85g then; slalom: 63.8 mph now, 66.4 mph then; braking, 60 mph to a standstill: 135 ft. now, 124 ft. then). Nothing embarrassing, but as one staff member said, "It feels like a larger, softer car; it doesn't feel like a C-Class."

monster

Does the test car have the advance sports suspension? The type of tyres can make a different to the skidpad and braking results ,maybe the tyres on the test car is a bit worn. I am surprised MB will allow the newer model to have a longer stopping distance than the older car.

Deutsch

Dude! Drive the car for yourself! Don't rely on these iffy journalists from an iffy magazine to tell you how good/bad it is. MB did not make this car to be a 3 series, but a Mercedes Benz capable of giving the driver the best of both worlds: comfort and agility.

PC Valkyrie

Sorry Deutsch, but it's the objective numbers I trust, NOT THE opinions of journalists.....that's why I've always been skeptical about how the new W204 has been praised so much compared to the W203, when very few magazines have actually conducted proper objective tests with numbers.

Impressions of journalists and car fans are unreliable, especially when they try to remember how an "older car" like the W203 or E46 felt like compared to the current car they are testing.

Numbers from objective tests don't lie, people can. Having said that, I'm sure the W204 "feels" fantastic, just like how the facelifted W203 felt so much better than the pre-faclifted W203. The difference is that the facelifted W203 has better handling numbers to prove its case, while I'm still waiting for that proof in the W204.

I'm very dissapointed with the W204's performance numbers objectively. Maybe I was expecting so much more given all the subjective praise. 0.81g on a skidpad and a 63.8mph on the R&T slalom test are horrible numbers if you are trying to be a modern "sport" sedan. Maybe the excuse is with the all season tires used on the car.......but it's interesting to note that the 335i generated 0.90g and 68.7mph with the same tests with run flat tires. As other car mags do objective tests, we'll know soon enough whether this test from R&T was an anomoly or not.

Deutsch

Eh, whatever suits you, you're one of those techy types. You're cheating yourself if you're allowing these numbers dictate how good or bad the car is. But hey, whatever suits you. Someone else will enjoy the experience.

PC Valkyrie

Deutsch, don't get me wrong. I would never decide to buy or not buy a car based purely on the objective performance numbers. I agree that the overall impression and driving experience is probably the best gauge.

BUT, I've been eager to evalute the abilities of the W204 C350 Sport Sedan in terms of PERFORMANCE. And that's where the numbers come in. Sure, it may FEEL like it performs better than what the journalists remember from the W203, but that is VERY subjective as a measure, as you know. Numbers are far better in evaluating performance without bias or prejudice.

So far, most of the reviews of the W204 have been very favourable, with almost everyone saying it is superior to the W203 in everyway......quality of build, comfort, handling, style (subjective), etc, etc. But when it comes down to objective performance numbers, it seems it hasn't progressed much, if at all. Straight line acceleration could not have been better because the W204 are using the same petrol engines as the lighter W203. But what dissapointed me from the R&T test is that all the handling numbers are significantly worse than the facelifted W203 C350 Sport Sedan. And this is with the new active damper system (agility control) on the W204. This is a major strike against the W204 "sport sedan", if it can't outperform the W203, no matter how much better it "feels" to drive.

Maybe, the facelifted W203 wasn't so bad of a car after all........ ......I know, now you're going to say I'm biased, because I own one......

Deutsch

Well, first, "Advanced Agility Control" has not been tested on these shores because it is not available on MY08 W204's. Perhaps later, but thats' simply not the case that they tested a W204 C350 w/ "AAC".

PC Valkyrie

All W204 C-class comes with the standard "agility control package" with active damping. The Sport sedans are already tuned more aggressively than the non-sport sedans. I agree that the "advanced agility control package" will likely make it perform much better. But I was still expecting better results, as the facelifted W203, B7 A4, and E90 3 series all don't have any active damping system, and they all posted better numbers.

This is just one test, and I was really surprised by the bad handling numbers. Like I said earlier, we'll get a clearer picture once more mags do their tests on the W204 Sport sedan.