merve_extreme

so in your opinion the 3er is the best looking entry sport saloon.



exactly,when doing professional and unbiased reviews,especially where everything is ranked, there is no place for personal opinions,you just tell the facts.Facts are a distant dream in this comparo.

The weak engine is the C's undoing,but i dont think they will put much effort in this engine,i see one further bump in power through direct injection and that will be it.Mercedes is concentrating on newer tech like Diesotto and in the future will reap the benefits of jumping to this technology,comparisons can wait for now.

Poverty

Mercedes' engines let them down again.

Just_me

I driven C350 and I cant say the engine is underpowered but compare to 335i then there are differences. Also C350 is a nice car to drive but so is 3-series and probably Infinti too. I think its down to small details what you buy in the end cause none are crappy cars.

Oh yeah, the new A4 is probably going to kill the competition

cawimmer430

Again, the C350 isn't "weak" per se, but the engine simply has the lowest horsepower output in this class, and the car possibly also has a poor power-to-weight ratio compared to the competition. I'm surprised it managed to be faster than the Cadillac CTS, which is more powerful!

Mercedes has a 292-horsepower direct-injection version of this engine in Europe, but it's only available for the CLS350 CGI for some reason.

I'm wondering why the C350 didn't get a power boost, or why Mercedes didn't make a model above the C350 and below the C63 AMG to at least offer a 300-horsepower+ vehicle for this class.

merve_extreme

Yes sure,relatively weak compared to its peers.

Centurion

Indeed. The C-class has always had weaker engines and been slower than the 3er and put up against American cars which tend to come packed with power it can look a little over priced. MB needs to step up their game with new C-class engines.

Merc1

Whoa.....Mercedes takes on the absolute chin.

M

Beemer B773ER

I don't see what the big deal is here Christian. You just said yourself that design is a subjective matter, and these testers liked some designs, and didn't like others. What they write is not gospel truth, not should it even be taken so seriously to the point where you need to speak out against what they say. If they don't like the design of the new C, then okay, that's their taste. Don't gotta cry foul just coz their taste in car design doesn't match yours.

And also, so what if rating design affects the outcome of the test results. If there's a person who is actually going to base their purchase decision based on one of these comparo's (especially in terms of design), then they're either dead-stupid, or they have the mind of a 14 year old fanboy.
If the journo's don't like the design of a car which you love.. then big deal. No need to criticise them just coz their tastes differ to yours.




Well to me they made it quite clear that the new C was underpowered compared to the other cars in the comparo -- therefore, making their statement a relative statement, not an absolute statement. Ofcourse 268hp in general terms is not underpowered, but compared to the other cars here it is.
As for the issue of fuel economy. I have to give a BIG thumbs up to this comparo for keeping their focus. This comparo was all about performance and driver enjoyment. They didn't give pricing a huge weight, nor did they for fuel consumption... this is performance we are talking about. Al Gore's cause doesn't fit in with the theme of this comparison, hence not much attention or merit was given to the C's fuel efficiency. Ofcourse that's a great selling point to the normal buyer, but when selling to someone who is more performance-orientated, fuel efficiency is less of a determining factor.



Errr.. of course driving-enjoyment (aka: driving dynamics, driving fun-factor, driver involvement, handling dynamics, and so on) is a subjective criteria. There's no objective or quantitative means to rate this aspect. What do you want these journo's to do? Simply show accelerations figures, slalom times and speeds, braking times, and engine output figures... and that's it.. leave it at that? There has to be some form of subjectivity in these comparos, especially when it comes to the topic of driver fun-factor. If you used only objective and quantitative measures, the ML63 would beat your ex-Mitsu Pajero in terms of fun-factor, but as you stated, your Mitsu seemed more fun to drive than a new ML63.

If you want an objective comparo, then be prepared for magazines to have only 1 page for each comparo, mostly trashed with technical data and performance figures, with the noticeable omission of sentences.. simply data upon data. ... unless ofcourse you're demanding that at the end of each subjective sentence the journo's put "IMO".

As I said, if a person is naive enough to take one comparo with such seriousness, then they have got some issues. So what if the C came last... the comparo explained very well why they put it in last place, and why its competitors ranked above it. This was not a general comparo, but one focused mainly on performance and driving dynamics. It seems Edmunds found the C lacking in those departments... which simply means if you want a car that offers the best performance and handling, then the new C isn't for you (according to Edmunds ONLY). Other comparos have said the new C's driver-involvement is right up there with the 3er. Simple. Don't gotta cry about it...

cawimmer430

I agree that most people won't let Edmunds tell them which car is beautiful and which isn't, they have their opinions and Edmunds has theirs.

I still think it's a stupid and pointless criteria to include in this test. They should perhaps mention in their review ("We didn't like the design of the ______ but adored the styling of the ______."), but not in a criteria by itself, because it has literally absolutely nothing to do with the qualities of the cars tested.



That's what I've been saying all along. It's not underpowered, only underpowered compared to the cars there (and is still faster than the more powerful Cadillac!).


Yes, point taken. Obviously performance was the criteria here, no doubt about it. However they did give pricing a second glance, because if they didn't, the BMW would have won, they even mentioned this. The Infiniti won because it's just as good as the BMW overall but offers more bang for the Buck.



What I am saying is that different people perceive fun in a different form. A lot of guys I know claim that cars with an automatic transmission are "boring to drive", yet I don't feel that. When I drive an automatic S-Class for example, I find the car to be loads of fun because of the way it drives: the way it glides over the street, the comfort, the responsive yet light steering...the luxury sedan feel is the fun factor here.

Regarding my ex-Mitsubishi, it was a slow and unrefined car. The 2.5-l 99-horsepower turbodiesel engine was a modified version of the 2.4-l diesel in the 1986 Mitsubishi Pajero. They simply bored it out to 2.5-l and did a few minor adjustments. Like I said, it was unrefined and slow. But it had character. I can't describe it, but the sound of that loud diesel, the slow acceleration, the extremely vague steering, the high seating position, the overall feel and the push of the turbo all made this car special to me.

I'm sure the ML63 AMG is a fun car, but that fun stops (for me) when I need to pull over into the next gas station and fill her up. I know that the people who buy such cars don't care about the poor fuel economy, so they might consider the ML63 AMG to be a very enjoyable car to own and drive because of the performance.


Nobody wants that.

At the end of the day I was just expressing my opinion too. I've driven the C-Class Sport twice and I thought it was a very fun car to drive in its own way. Having driven a ton of W202 and W203 C-Classes, I think I am qualified to make that statement regarding the Mercedes C-Class. If I had driven the BMW, Infinit etc., I'd be able to given an even better opinion.

Still, I thought the W204 is a fun car, as it's both comfortable and has become very sporty. Sporty enough to please most buyers looking for a sporty C-Class...



I'm not crying about it, and like I said I generally don't get upset with placements.

This segment has traditionally always been the stronghold of the BMW 3-Series, and now Infiniti has just made life harder for BMW. The C-Class is still a Mercedes at heart, which means more emphasis on luxury (but now with more sport and improved dynamics) and comfort. I'd say that the W204 has become very competitive against the competition. The handling and dynamics seem to be just fine. Right now what it really needs is more powerful engines, that's all IMO.

Just_me

In the end all the aggression is mainly due of the last place for C-class Its amazing how "ranking" affect people if the Benze won it would be thumbs up and praising I dont wanna know how the fuzz would be if 3er got the last place