PC Valkyrie

Objectively by the numbers the C300 "Sport" is pathetic compared to the competition, as tested by C&D. I'm very disappointed as the previous facelifted W203 C-class had significantly better handling numbers on the skidpad and lane change.

The new W204 C-class was supposed to bring a new challenge to the BMW 3 series. Instead, it has the most underpowed engines, and the standard agility control system on the "Sport" models has CONSISTENTLY produced inferior handling numbers to the previous facelifted W203 C-class Sport (in more than one US magazine).

Even if a newer "advanced agility" control system comes later on, the damage has been done. The W204 C-class is again losing a lot of comparison tests. Even if they improve things considerably in the future, it will be hard to change people's impressions (much like how the much improved facelifted W203 didn't really change many people's impression of the W203 C-class overall).

I had hoped MB would come out with their best stuff with the W204, but they haven't yet in this very competitive compact Sport Sedan segment.

Just_me

but C63 AMG seem to be one hell of a car.

PC Valkyrie

Totally different market to the cars listed here in this comparison test.

And yes, it will be interesting to see if the C63 will BEAT the M3 at its own game, although the early comparison tests suggest automotive journalists still find the M3's subjective personality to be superior.

coolraoul

Well keep in mind that the C is not a sporty car.

It does FEEL much sportier than the FL W203 to drive, according to the reviews, mainly thanks to a much improved steering feel. But it is comfort-biased.

The motors are outdated however, this is true.
I think one of the main mission of the W204 was also to be reliable and well built.

This is a Mercedes after all. It has to be comfortable and reliable after all. Not sporty.

Merc1

The chassis is likely better than before, but the W204 "Sport" versions are wearing all-season tires this time around. This is why the handling numbers are off from the previous car. The engines need to go and they will for 2009.

M

cawimmer430

dr Dunkel

Maybe that is the problem; to some people the interior of a 3-series is quite understated and dicreete and the materias might have a feel that are great in that context. The team might feel that even if the materials objectively have the same quality as in the BMW the look of the Mercedes makes them expect more.

Let's all remember that quality feel and actual quality are two very different things.

Tycoon

Well said, dunkel.

Guibo

Actually, if you look at many of the comparos in C&D, you'd see that there are quite a few tests where BMW's do not win. Several, in reality, where they place in the bottom half or even dead last. So, not a fact.

The comment about the interior should come as no surprise. Similar sentiments have been echoed in comparisons done by WhatCar, AutoExpress (not exactly BMW-friendly), and edmunds.com. Some of these slammed the C-Class interior quite badly. Surely, all of these publications (and now C&D with this review) are biased...or is it perhaps possible that the 3-Series does deserve its place as the benchmark?
It used to be that you could rely on Mercedes to offer the more luxurious, higher quality interior and a more comfortable ride, even if it meant a sacrifice in outright handling and agility. And they've had about 2 years to well and truly put the 3 Series behind them. But here (as in the edmunds test), the BMW not only retains its handling edge, but offers the apparently higher-quality interior and no penalty in ride despite the runflats. Now, is it bias on the part of journalists that have made this possible? Or is it constant tweaking of the formula, like ongoing chassis development, weight-saving measures of the aluminum/magnesium block (remember the M in BMW), a will to design an interior that doesn't look "like a piece of military hardware", as TopGear said of the C-Class? I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

Poverty

wanker is not a swear word on the forum