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
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
That's how hatchbacks are generally. The rear glass is usually rather close to the rear seat headrests. My Accent's glass is close to the rear seat and yet it is rated at 16 cubic feet. You cannot deny that's a lot of room as it beats any mid-size sedan and even some full-size sedans. What you aren't taking into account is that the cargo space of a hatchback is a lot taller than is a sedan's and the steeply angled rear windshield stretches over a large area, allowing more space than you would think. I guarantee that the Mercedes will have at least 13 cubic feet if not more. Heck, even the puny Metro had 10 cubic feet. The reliability problems I was referring too was with the twin-turbo RX7 of 92-96. The older non-turbo rotary engines are VERY reliable. I own an 84 and it runs great (except for the carbuerator). However, the newer rotaries were under too much stress from the 2 turbos and tend to blow their apex seals around 80-100K, requiring an entire overhaul. The turbos were also very troublesome. Engineering problems ranged from too much heat under the hood cooking vacuum lines and causing premature cooling system hose failures. There were lots of recalls on this car and they were plagued with electrical problems. They were awesome cars, but not meant for long-term reliability. Read the RX7 forum in the sports car section and you will hear of rebuilds way too early from both those who race their cars and those who just use them daily. The Mini will be lighter than the C230 I'm sure, but it also won't be some little 2000 pound car either. It was engineered to be as safe as a much larger sedan so it has a bulky structure and thick sheetmetal. I expect it to weigh around 2400. The C230 should weigh around 3100. The power to weight ratios of the 2 supercharged cars will be about the same. Thus, they should be about equal performance wise. I think the 8 second guess is a bit high (Edmunds usually quotes slower times than the car magazines); it should be capable of 0-60 sprints in the 7-7.5 area, plenty fast. We will just have to wait until the official test results come out. As for Car & Driver's opinions, I tend to believe them most of the time because all of my experiences and opinions have closely mirrored theirs. Example: the Mazda 626 was considered a very bland family sedan with a soft suspension and average handling. Supposedly Mazda improved that in 2000, but I have driven a 98 626 ES-V6 and agree with C & D's findings. I drove one with the 5-speed and found it utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration. I didn't push the car past 4500 rpms, but up until that point the car had less pep than the 4 cylinder (although it was much smoother and quieter). The car had lots of brake dive, weak brakes, and rolled considerably. My mom's 92 Accord EX handled much better. It's a nice looking competent family car, but sporty it is not. All I gotta say is you have one big preoccupation with acceleration numbers. There is a lot more to a car than its 0-60 number. Lastly, when even Hyundai sells a car nowadays for 24K, you should be happy Mercedes still offers something below 30K. You must still think we are in the 80s when 28K was considered expensive. |
|
|
Maybe to you, 28K was expensive back in the 80s and now its a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, there are still alot of us out here who can't afford that kind of money. Well, I could afford it, I just find it difficult to pay half as much per month for the car I'm driving as the house I'm living in (and lets please not put down my house). I'm absolutely in shock about C&D and your experience with the 626. Mine is a '99 LX-V6 and I (and anyone else who drives with me) am entirely impressed with it as a family sedan. When I can eat up an Accord off the line and then take a sharp offramp at 80 with little tire squealing, then I'm pretty happy. I would be much more inclined to the Mercedes if it was down just around 7 secs. or better. Am I obsessed with acceleration? Somewhat. But, I know that is just part of the package. If that was my only consideration, I'd still have my V8 dodge dakota (and, talk about storage capacity!). But, as I've said before, I bring up acceleration here continuously because if and when I am willing to fork over that half a mortgage payment every month for my commuting/weekend fun machine, I want it to be the best I could have gotten in EVERY area. And, from their preliminary estimates, the Mercedes hatch is going to lack in AT LEAST ONE of those areas. Get it? Thanks for the info. on the turbo RX7s. I'll have to read that board. I was real close to buying a '93 a couple of months ago and am still considering it. Maybe that will change my mind. |
|
|
And, considering that you found the Mazda "utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration," and it has been tested to get to 60 in 7.6 (wish I could find THAT review), then why in the world would you spend $30K on a car that is being estimated at slightly better than 8?? Even if it comes in at 7 1/2, you think that kind of acceleration is "lacking." So, why would you spend that kind of money and think that the car lacks in ANY respect? Oh, right, I forgot, you don't think that's a lot of money. Well, I guess I'll just have to be content in the fact that I spent less than $19K on MY car. |
|
|
From Autoweek review of the car: Mercedes claims that the C230 Sport Coupe hits 60 mph from a stop in 7.5 seconds, measured under the German standard of two occupants, full luggage capacity and a full fuel tank. Top speed exceeds 149 mph-not bad for a three-door hatch. Also in the article they claim MB USA say the price will begin at $26K. Cargo volumn of 10.9 cubic feet with rear seat up. 38.8 cubic feet when the the rear seats are down. |
|
|
good post. That is an impessive top speed. Sounds to me like they could have changed the gearing a bit and gained a little more down low. but, then again, maybe that's an easy job for me to do. Hmmmmmmm...... |
|
|
|
| Stay far far away from the 93 RX7s. They were a nightmare reliability wise! It was the first year for the redesign and they ran into all sorts of problems. A lot of people in the forum suggest getting a low mileage 95 as that was the best year. As for the acceleration of the 626, what I was referring to there was the lack of low-end torque. The 2.5 V-6 only has 161 lb feet at a high 5000 rpm, less than some four bangers (by the way, the V-6 is back down to 165 hp). As such, it is slow to accelerate until you get to around 5000 rpms. In comparison, the 626 four cylinder achieves its max torque at a low 3000. That meaty low-end torque is what made it feel peppier than the V-6 in around town driving even though it is actually much slower overall. If you push the car to the high redline, I'm sure it will have respectable acceleration. But driven how most people drive it, it is lacking. It just doesn't give the impression of having good pull unless you rev the hell out of it. A low-end high torque engine is always more enjoyable than a top-end high horsepower one, and it will outlast a high revving engine as well because you don't have to push it to get the power you need. In the case of the Mercedes, the supercharged four is rated at 200 lb feet from 2500-4800 rpms. That long-lasting meaty low-end torque span will give this car strong off-the-line and mid-range acceleration (I think it will be faster than what Edmunds stated anyway). I guarantee you would not be disappointed. Anyway, don't think I am dissing your car. The 626 is a good family sedan. The leather and wood is nice, the 2000 and newer models look elegant, and the rear seat is spacious and comfortable. They just need to give the car a more powerful V-6 and four cylinder that will allow it to compete better with others in the class. | |
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
