Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Mercedes-Benz CLK Mercedes-Benz CLK (2005 and earlier)
1627 messages, Last post on Jan 10, 2009 at 4:20 AM
You are in the Mercedes-Benz CLK Forum. Your Host is claires
|
A hatchback with class! I like the looks all around. Mary |
|
| 8 seconds 0-60?? I would expect much more to compete with the 3-series or even all the upcoming pocket rockets. Unless they can bring that number down to less than 6.5, then my money can be better spent elsewhere. | |
|
|
| I can't help but thinking that this will end up being a "girl car." | |
|
|
| Absolutely LOVE the looks of this car!! It's so perfectly flowing and the rear is sporty. They need to do something about the cloth pattern though. The big yellow ovals everywhere is very unattractive. Kudos to Mercedes for finally offering us a European flavored hatch unlike anything else on the market. I'm also glad they decided to keep the supercharged four hooked up to a 6 speed manual instead of offering the weak 2.6 liter six with an automatic. The panoramic sunroof is an innovative idea as well. One this is for certain: I expect to seriously consider this car as soon as I graduate from college. Can't wait to see it in person. | |
|
There doesn't seem to be many comments flying around this particular board. But, I have to ask anyway, what is appealing about this car? I can see from those couple of people that have posted positive comments that they like the looks of it. Do the looks and the badge really justify that $30K pricetag? I gotta admit, I loved it when I saw it as well, but once I read about it, I was thoroughly disappointed. For that much money, I'd rather sign up for the Mazda RX-8 (for instance). |
|
|
|
| I keep hearing all these comments about disappointment. What is there to be disappointed about? You either like the uniqueness of a sporty luxury hatchback or you don't. The appeal is that there is nothing else currently on the market like it. The star on the hood is just an added benefit. For hatchback lovers, it's an awesome car. The C230 is not trying to be a Mazda sports car, so its pointless to compare them (I currently own a Mazda RX-7 so am well aware of its appeal). Comparison on price alone is always a stupid idea. A better comparison would be between the Acura CL and the C230. They both are in the same price class and are both coupes that offer a compromise between pure sportiness and luxury. In that comparison, I would be willing to trade the smoother V-6 power and utter blandness of the Acura for a sportier and more uniquely-styled hatchback that offers superior cargo flexibility. I would prefer that Mercedes offer the car in the 20K price range, but realize that's a tall order for a luxury marque that doesn't want to tarnish the image of its more expensive cars. And when you consider that the coupe has the same exact engineering put into it as does the C-class sedan, than it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be priced 10K less than the sedan. If you suggest that the coupe isn't worth the 30K price, than you should also be ready to suggest that the sedan is not worth it either. They are the same exact car! I think it all boils down to American's perception of the hatchback as nothing but a cheap economy car. I'm hoping that will change, but only time will tell. Thankfully, Mercedes has decided to take the plunge with a worthwhile entry. | |
|
Why wouldn't you compare on price alone? Don't you want the most for your money? Maybe you have a wad of cash to throw around, but most people don't. If I'm paying $30K for a car, I want the best car that the money is going to buy. I would look to compare a compact 2-door with a hatch at the rear. The CL doesn't really fit that description. The RX7 (for instance) has incredible performance, but it also has leather interior and power everything. I consider that on the edge of luxurious. But, I mentioned it mainly for its performance. OK. Let's compare the Acura CL then. I'll take that in a heartbeat. This Mercedes isn't even close to the sportiness of the CL. For $30K, you can get yourself the CL S-type. 0-60 in 6.4 and a manumatic tranny. Not to mention a fairly roomy backseat and a large trunk. Better yet, how about the Mini Cooper S that's on its way. All leather 2-door hatchback distributed by BMW. I think this is most likely the same target audience as this Mercedes. The Mini Cooper will most likely be a bit smaller, but, for the superior performance to be had, the classic heritage that goes along with the model, and the $8,000 price break over the Mercedes, I'd sign up for the Mini first. If you look back, you'll see that my disappointment comes only from the performance of the Mercedes. For that much money, I want something with leather, a good name with good reliability, and performance that will rival the other $30K luxury coupes out there. |
|
|
Do I think the sedan is overpriced? Definitely. By the way, looking at those pictures again, yes, the Mercedes has "superior cargo flexibility", but the Acura has more actual cargo space. With the back seats in the upright position in the Mercedes, there appears to be but a couple of cubic feet left in the rear. the Acura's trunk is much larger than that. |
|
|
|
|
You made a good effort at your comparisons, but it was lacking in the finer details. I would also like to point out that what you consider is worth spending your money on is not necessarily what other people consider is worth their money. Different people want different things. You obviously want the fastest accelerating car money can buy. I, however, want an all around good performing car. Having fast acceleration numbers doesn't make a car sporty. The CL Type-S was recorded at 6.8 seconds from 0-60, respectable, but that doesn't make it sporty. The manumatic tranny is far from sporty; it's simply an automatic with a lever you slap forward or backward. BORING! Anyway, the CL is considered to be a competent but far from sporty car to drive. It's not considered a "fun" car to drive due to the fact its handling is hampered by a 63% front weight bias. As Car & Driver states, "It lacks the necessary balance and fluidity that we want from a sporting car". I think that sums up the Acura. The shorter length of the Mercedes ought to make it more nimble than the long Acura, not to mention its rear-drive characteristics. Nimbleness and good handling qualities combined with good performance is what makes a car sporty. Handling is purely a guess at this point, but considering the C320 sedan with the sport package was considered to have just as good handling as the BMW 3-series, than it is likely the coupe will be just as good. As for your suggestion that the Mercedes has little cargo room with the back seats up, you obviously have never owned a hatchback. You clearly cannot state what you did by just looking at a picture. When you consider that my small Hyundai Accent hatchback is rated at 16 cu ft with the rear seats up (which trounces the Acura's 13.6 cu ft), than it only makes sense to assume the larger Mercedes will have just as much room. In other words, you were VERY wrong. The Mercedes also has a roomy rear seat as Edmunds stated. As for your comparison of the Mini and the C230, it was off as well. The Mini is more than just a little smaller than the C230. Do you realize the Mini is smaller in length than the Chevy Metro hatch?? It is about 2 feet smaller than the C230!! No comparison size wise there. The Mini literally has no space behind the rear seats. And what superior performance are you speaking of? Initially, the Mini will have only about 115 hp with a supercharged 160 hp version a bit later on. The C230 in comparison has 190 hp. The Mini may be small but it will not be light. Expect them to be equal performance wise when comparing the supercharged engines. If you think you can get a Mini in the first year for 21K, I think you will be sadly disappointed. Expect dealers to gouge heavily and bring the price right up to the C230. At that price, the Mini is not worth it at all for what you get. You do realize that the C230 has power everything standard and leather is optional right (29K without leather, 30K with)? That price is rather common for a compact car from a luxury division. Anyway, lastly, the RX-7 had fantastic performance but was also troublesome and very expensive (engines rarely last more than 80K before needing a rebuild and the turbos failed often; not exactly cheap maintenance for the performance gains). Prices in 95 were 36-42K, well north of the C230's price. Even if there is an RX-8, it will cost around 35-40K because the Miata is already up to 26K. In conclusion, this new Mercedes hatch may not offer top-notch acceleration, but it won't leave you embarrassed either. It offers a good combination of style, substance, safety, and competent performance. Overall, I feel it offers plenty for the dollar. Others may not agree, but that's my personal opinion. |
|
|
I drove the Acura. I thought it handled VERY well. I was impressed with how little body roll I encountered when cornering. I try not to take magazine reviews all too seriously unless I find that I always agree with them (and I don't)(not to mention that Motor Trend claimed it had "rear-wheel handling in a front-wheel car"). We, obviously, don't have weight figures on these, but if 190 hp is taking the Mercedes to 60 in 8 seconds, I have to assume that it is significantly heavier than my 626 which can hit 60 in under 8 with its 170 hp. But, that's a very generalized statement because we also have to consider gear ratios and torque. In any case, when my $20K 4-door sedan can out-accelerate a $30K Mercedes, I've gotta think that's pretty humbling for the Mercedes driver. And, if you've ever driven a newer 626, you'll also know that it handles very well. The Mini is also supposed to come fully loaded with leather and power everything. "New levels in subcompact safety and luxury" is what BMW states. If you're saying it is so incredibly small, then why wouldn't it be a great deal lighter? If its not lighter, then its obviously of a more solid construction (and I doubt that for the price). Mazda is claiming that the RX8 will come in under $30K. As far as the cargo room, do you think there is a possibility that the "roomy" back seat of the Mercedes is taking up that seat-up cargo space? Neither of us have seen it in person, so neither of us can claim anything. The reason I said "there APPEARS to be but a couple of cubic feet left in the rear" is due to the photo of the back seat. The tops of the seats look like they are a few inches away from the glass of the rear hatch. If any trouble was had with the RX-7, I have to attribute that to owner issues, not engineering. We've owned an RX-7 in the past, and I've worked on my share that have had 140K and over. Not to mention, just look on Ebay, you'll find plenty with high mileage. The Rotary engine is proven to be very reliable. Obviously, we're not going to convince each other that the other one is wrong. And, neither of us is. We're both of different opinions. I was simply looking for an answer why this car is going to be so expensive. I don't think there is an answer. Its just an accepted fact that anything with a Mercedes badge is going to cost more than a similar vehicle without one. I've never owned a Mercedes, so I really can't claim that its worse or better than anything else. I've merely ridden in them and thought nothing special of them compared to a cheaper car (well, nothing that nice aftermarket leather seats could change, anyway). |
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Mercedes-Benz CLK Mercedes-Benz CLK (2005 and earlier)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
