Lite Mercedes C-Class Facelift

[ifcar]

Not if the competition is significantly faster. These cars aren't sold in a vacuum you know. They have to be compared to the competition and the C350 falls short in the performance aspect (and others as well). The C350 is slower than the 328i and closer to the A4 2.0T than the S4.

The question is whether a 5.5-second 0-60 actually makes a car appreciably faster on the street than a 6.0-second zero to 60. I'm inclined to say that both of those two cars would already have more power than you can use anywhere near legally.

[TBR]

The question is whether a 5.5-second 0-60 actually makes a car appreciably faster on the street than a 6.0-second zero to 60. I'm inclined to say that both of those two cars would already have more power than you can use anywhere near legally.

Then why buy the S4 over the A4 2.0T? The 335i over the 328i? The C350 over the C300? Obviously it does matter to people, otherwise they wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for the bigger, faster engine.

[CALL_911]

The question is whether a 5.5-second 0-60 actually makes a car appreciably faster on the street than a 6.0-second zero to 60. I'm inclined to say that both of those two cars would already have more power than you can use anywhere near legally.

Does anyone actually drive at legal speeds?

As TBR said, it does matter to some people.

[TBR]

I don't necessarily disagree that the difference is mostly statistical, but to pretend like it doesn't matter than the C350 is slower than its competition is ridiculous. People buy luxury cars for the excess, and the C350 isn't as excessive as like-priced competition.

Mercedes recognizes this. Why else would they have gotten involved in the power war with BMW and Audi? Why would the E550 be as fast as it is? It isn't even a performance model!

[cawimmer430]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The C350 has been clocked lower than the 6 second claim you provide. And in any case 6 seconds is fast. Jesus, this reminds me of the time on the "BMW and Driver" forums when my family had just received the E320. Everyone literally was telling me how "slow and underpowered" this car is and that my dad should have gotten an M5 or an E500 or E55 AMG. How retarded is that?   

Why is the quickest 0-60 time so important? Why? Is it because you need to race the Toyota Supra or V6 Camry or riced-out Honda Civic DX at the stop light with your C350?  I really don't get it. I can't even remember the last time I did a kickdown in the 118i or E320. In my life I don't use 0-100 km/h times. They're irrelevant to me. Oh wait, I live in Europe! That's right! Merging unto an Autobahn isn't as life-threatening here as it is in the US where every car needs to do 0-60 in at least under 6 seconds in order to merge safely unto a freeway. I seriously don't buy that argument.   

And if it is true, that aspect can be so easily solved with PROPER DRIVER TRAINING beginning in your driving schools. It's called "making way for those entering the road".


It would be nice if there was a survey on the market today that was answered by typical luxury buyers instead of the usual "0-60" bullshit we hear from the famous "BMW and Driver" magazine. I'm willing to bet that aspects such as comfort, luxury, design, brand image, safety etc. are going to dominate the list. Of course, performance is going to receive high marks too. And guess what? The performance of the C350 will most likely be labeled as "more than adequate".

We have a bunch of American C350 owners on Germancarzone. None of them feel that their car is slow and they've made it clear that they saw something in the C-Class that no other car in its class offers. That's how the market works. People see different things in different cars all the time.

With time the C350 will receive upgrades. But for now its performance is completely adequate. Just because some of your power-crazy friends would pick the S4, 335i or IS350 over a C350 doesn't mean others won't.

[ifcar]

Does anyone actually drive at legal speeds?

As TBR said, it does matter to some people.

I didn't say "legally." I said "anywhere near legally."

[Xer0]

You guys really are splitting hairs on this one, honestly.

[TBR]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The C350 has been clocked lower than the 6 second claim you provide. And in any case 6 seconds is fast. Jesus, this reminds me of the time on the "BMW and Driver" forums when my family had just received the E320. Everyone literally was telling me how "slow and underpowered" this car is and that my dad should have gotten an M5 or an E500 or E55 AMG. How retarded is that?   

Why is the quickest 0-60 time so important? Why? Is it because you need to race the Toyota Supra or V6 Camry or riced-out Honda Civic DX at the stop light with your C350?  I really don't get it. I can't even remember the last time I did a kickdown in the 118i or E320. In my life I don't use 0-100 km/h times. They're irrelevant to me. Oh wait, I live in Europe! That's right! Merging unto an Autobahn isn't as life-threatening here as it is in the US where every car needs to do 0-60 in at least under 6 seconds in order to merge safely unto a freeway. I seriously don't buy that argument.   

And if it is true, that aspect can be so easily solved with PROPER DRIVER TRAINING beginning in your driving schools. It's called "making way for those entering the road".


It would be nice if there was a survey on the market today that was answered by typical luxury buyers instead of the usual "0-60" bullshit we hear from the famous "BMW and Driver" magazine. I'm willing to bet that aspects such as comfort, luxury, design, brand image, safety etc. are going to dominate the list. Of course, performance is going to receive high marks too. And guess what? The performance of the C350 will most likely be labeled as "more than adequate".

We have a bunch of American C350 owners on Germancarzone. None of them feel that their car is slow and they've made it clear that they saw something in the C-Class that no other car in its class offers. That's how the market works. People see different things in different cars all the time.

With time the C350 will receive upgrades. But for now its performance is completely adequate. Just because some of your power-crazy friends would pick the S4, 335i or IS350 over a C350 doesn't mean others won't.

The whole point of a luxury car is to be more than adequate. That's what I have been trying to explain to you, but you simply can't seem to understand that.

[Tave]

The question remains whether the average buyer who doesn't even read C&D, or any other rag, be able to feel the difference in power during his test drive.

[CALL_911]

The question remains whether the average buyer who doesn't even read C&D, or any other rag, be able to feel the difference in power during his test drive.

I'd have a hard time believing that the average buyer WOULDN'T be able to pick up the difference between the N54 and N54.

On the other hand, I don't think he would be able to pick up the difference between the C300 and the C350.

As TBR said before, these cars aren't sold in a vacuum. While the C350 is by no means slow, it's definitely slower than its competition.

[Colonel Cadillac]

I'd have a hard time believing that the average buyer WOULDN'T be able to pick up the difference between the N54 and N54.

On the other hand, I don't think he would be able to pick up the difference between the C300 and the C350.

As TBR said before, these cars aren't sold in a vacuum. While the C350 is by no means slow, it's definitely slower than its competition.

I think it's fairly simple to pick up the difference between fast and not as fast.

[Pommes-T]

Seriously, guys: This discussion has been brought up many times too often and it's really getting old. This is seriously starting to piss me off. I know it's not the point of a forum to not discuss things, but this discussion is so lame, old, boring and useless, that you maybe should just stop it. Shit, almost every new thread ends with "you might think it's underpowered, but it's not - haha, funny americans allways want a dragster - why not, what's your point - who needs 0-60 times of a Porsche in such a car - my Accord rapes your mama - it's a damn luxury car it, and luxury cars should be fast - not they don't - my Accord rapes your mama anyways and she likes it - blablabla". Seriously. Stop it.

[cawimmer430]

The whole point of a luxury car is to be more than adequate. That's what I have been trying to explain to you, but you simply can't seem to understand that.

Have you ever wondered who buys the C-Class in the first place? It's mostly people who care about comfort and driving in a relaxed manor. Basically people who don't give a damn about razor sharp handling or quick 0-60 times. For them the performance of the C350 is more than adequate. It satisfies them (they probably don't even use it most of the time anyway). And if they want a C-Class so badly with more power then they can almost certainly afford a C63 AMG or even chip-tuning if they're crazy enough.


In Europe the complains about the performance of the C350 are practically non-existent. I've never seen a magazine complain about the 0-100 km/h time. It seems to be purely an American thing. 

I'm surprised your trucks don't do 0-60 in 5 seconds. 

[Tave]

I'd have a hard time believing that the average buyer WOULDN'T be able to pick up the difference between the N54 and N54.

On the other hand, I don't think he would be able to pick up the difference between the C300 and the C350.

As TBR said before, these cars aren't sold in a vacuum. While the C350 is by no means slow, it's definitely slower than its competition.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was talking about comparing acceleration between a model and its competitors, not between different engine options of the same model.

If there is a huge discrepency in power between a C-class and a 3-series, then buyers might pick up on it and choose the vehicle with more power if all else is equal.

If the difference is academic, no one will notice it. Can the seat of your pants tell the difference between a 5.7 and 6 second 0-60? I know mine can't.

[Hachee]

Pommes is right - the whole argument is old and boring already. 

As for you Europeans, your whole "all Americans just want power, power, power" -it's ridiculous statement.  Don't we all know by now that MOST buyers go for the C300 instead of the C350?  That the 3-Series buyer usually chooses the 28?  Camry and Accord 4 cylinders far outnumber the V6's.  And same for E's, 5's, A4's, etc.  For them, the lower powered engines are more than sufficient.  And for those that buy the larger engined variants, I'd venture to guess that only a small portion of these really want ultimate performance, and that most of them are choosing this version for the additional equipment, prestige, and yes, power, but only because they simply want the most power they can get, regardless of whether or not they can actually tell the difference between the two versions. 

But Wimmer is right about one thing - most Mercedes buyers want different things in their cars, and "adequate performance" is fine with them, not the fastest 0-60 times.  Otherwise, they'd buy something else.  And I see plenty of C300s, and hardly any C350's.


The magazines are entertaining for us, but they want the best performance they can get.  And most buyers don't read them. 

[Tave]

I don't know if I'd go that far. Our idea of "adequate performance" changes all the time. If buyers (both European and American) didn't care anything about power, we'd all be driving around in cars propelled by 100-hp engines from 40 years ago. Even of those base 4-cylinder Accords and C300s, buyers demand more performance with every successive generation.

If you're cross-shopping a class of cars, all else--comfort, features, style, quality, price, fuel economy--being equal, you'll tend to take the car with more power if there's a noticeable difference.

[SVT_Power]

If people didn't care about the amount of power, how come almost every car commercial that has any kind of statistics incorporated into it has a HP figure in it?

[cawimmer430]

If people didn't care about the amount of power, how come almost every car commercial that has any kind of statistics incorporated into it has a HP figure in it?

Because the amount of power they advertise sounds good to people who don't care about cars and to those who do. The difference is that of the people watching or reading the advertisement, half will think the power is adequate to their needs while the other half will feel that it isn't.

[Hachee]

I don't know if I'd go that far. Our idea of "adequate performance" changes all the time. If buyers (both European and American) didn't care anything about power, we'd all be driving around in cars propelled by 100-hp engines from 40 years ago. Even of those base 4-cylinder Accords and C300s, buyers demand more performance with every successive generation.

I don't think it's that buyers demand more power with each successive generation, it's that they've been conditioned to expect it, along with more features.  It's the nature of the competition among manufacturers - they need to offer "more", "better", "newer" than their competitors, in order to achieve ever greater sales and/or profits. 

[Hachee]

It wasn't that long ago that Mercedes offered the S-Class here with multiple engine choices "below" the 550 V8.  W116's and W126's offered six cylinder and 5 cyl turbodiesels, as well as different size V8s, and also short wheelbase models.  The W140 offered sixes, in gas and diesel, SWB and LWB.  The next one (I forget the model designation - the one from 2000 on) only offered V8s, the S430 and the S500, and only LWB.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but most buyers chose the smaller, lower powered versions over the the top V8 models.  But Mercedes stopped offering them - why is that?  I'd guess that they figured as the prices rose so high, most people will just pay for the larger, higher profit model if it was the only one offered, and they were probably right.  Gas was cheap, money was flowing.  Now, I think if they offered an S420 or whatever, plenty of people would find it "more thant adequate" and buy it over the 550.

My point is, I really don't think all Americans are HP-obsessed who must have the car with the most.  Again, MOST buyers will never discern the performance difference.

[Tave]

Meh--supply/demand is a sound concept. It'll take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that the increase in power among engines is due to some sort of vast subliminal Pavlovian consumer conditioning effect and not the more simple explanation: consumers want it, and car companies supply it.

[Tave]

It wasn't that long ago that Mercedes offered the S-Class here with multiple engine choices "below" the 550 V8.  W116's and W126's offered six cylinder and 5 cyl turbodiesels, as well as different size V8s, and also short wheelbase models.  The W140 offered sixes, in gas and diesel, SWB and LWB.  The next one (I forget the model designation - the one from 2000 on) only offered V8s, the S430 and the S500, and only LWB.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but most buyers chose the smaller, lower powered versions over the the top V8 models.  But Mercedes stopped offering them - why is that?  I'd guess that they figured as the prices rose so high, most people will just pay for the larger, higher profit model if it was the only one offered, and they were probably right.  Gas was cheap, money was flowing.  Now, I think if they offered an S420 or whatever, plenty of people would find it "more thant adequate" and buy it over the 550.

My point is, I really don't think all Americans are HP-obsessed who must have the car with the most.  Again, MOST buyers will never discern the performance difference.

Again, I'm not talking about different options among a model line, I'm talking about the evolution of performance over time, and the relative merits between competitors.

Simple illustration: look at the Accord's base 4-cylinder today compared to the Accord's base 4-cylinder of 20 years ago.

[Hachee]

Again, I'm not talking about different options among a model line, I'm talking about the evolution of performance over time, and the relative merits between competitors.

Simple illustration: look at the Accord's base 4-cylinder today compared to the Accord's base 4-cylinder of 20 years ago.

I understand that, and you are correct.  And that's due, mostly, to the advances in technology.  But it's also necessitated by the fact that the Accord is a much different car that it was, with a wider circle of competitors.  This and the Camry are probably purchased by many older buyers who years ago would have bought midsize offerings from GM - remember when those all sold in the hundreds of thousand's each year? 


I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore!

[Tave]

[Raza]

Have you ever wondered who buys the C-Class in the first place? It's mostly people who care about comfort and driving in a relaxed manor. Basically people who don't give a damn about razor sharp handling or quick 0-60 times. For them the performance of the C350 is more than adequate. It satisfies them (they probably don't even use it most of the time anyway). And if they want a C-Class so badly with more power then they can almost certainly afford a C63 AMG or even chip-tuning if they're crazy enough.


In Europe the complains about the performance of the C350 are practically non-existent. I've never seen a magazine complain about the 0-100 km/h time. It seems to be purely an American thing. 

I'm surprised your trucks don't do 0-60 in 5 seconds. 

If performance doesn't matter to C class buyers, why does each generation of C class more resemble the 3 series?  The new C class is fairly sporty and does have a fairly firm ride.  It's not as comfort oriented as you make it out to be (and I say this after driving one for 500 miles). 

And your argument that a person who wants a C350 could afford a C63 is absurd.  Also, why would one bother to buy a C63 if the 335i offers the performance they want at a cheaper price?  The C350 doesn't compete with the C63, it competes with the A4/S4, 335i and IS350.  I'll round it out here.  If a C350 costs $40,000 and a C63 costs $60,000, do you really think a jump of $20,000 or 50% is easily absorbed by every C class buyer?  But, say, a C350 costs $40,000 and a BMW 335i costs $40,000, and someone in a Mercedes showroom wants more performance, do you really think they'll mortgage the house to buy the C63 or just drive across the street to the BMW dealer? 

Wimmer, no one is saying the C350 is slow.  It's plenty fast enough.  What they're saying is that it offers no competitive advantage over other cars in its segment on the performance front.  As stated before, cars must be viewed in context.  If a car does 0-60 in 3 seconds, and every other car does it in 2, the 3 second car does not compare favorably to its competition.  That's all that's being said. 

If the C class weren't a Mercedes, you'd likely see that.

[Raza]

It wasn't that long ago that Mercedes offered the S-Class here with multiple engine choices "below" the 550 V8.  W116's and W126's offered six cylinder and 5 cyl turbodiesels, as well as different size V8s, and also short wheelbase models.  The W140 offered sixes, in gas and diesel, SWB and LWB.  The next one (I forget the model designation - the one from 2000 on) only offered V8s, the S430 and the S500, and only LWB.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but most buyers chose the smaller, lower powered versions over the the top V8 models.  But Mercedes stopped offering them - why is that?  I'd guess that they figured as the prices rose so high, most people will just pay for the larger, higher profit model if it was the only one offered, and they were probably right.  Gas was cheap, money was flowing.  Now, I think if they offered an S420 or whatever, plenty of people would find it "more thant adequate" and buy it over the 550.

My point is, I really don't think all Americans are HP-obsessed who must have the car with the most.  Again, MOST buyers will never discern the performance difference.

Later on in the W220's life, an S350 became available.  It was probably a better choice than the 430.

And as for the 550 being the base engine, it was a factor in my father choosing the LS460 over the S550.  It wasn't the main reason, the main reason was an inline six that blew up under the hood of his W140, but it was still a consideration.  He didn't see a reason to pay $20,000 for performance he didn't need.

[Hachee]

Later on in the W220's life, an S350 became available.  It was probably a better choice than the 430.

And as for the 550 being the base engine, it was a factor in my father choosing the LS460 over the S550.  It wasn't the main reason, the main reason was an inline six that blew up under the hood of his W140, but it was still a consideration.  He didn't see a reason to pay $20,000 for performance he didn't need.

Exactly.  Let's not kid ourselves - a good portion of the S-Class's (and competitors') drivers are 60 year old women tooling around suburbs.  They could give a rat's ass about what's under the hood.  A good six or smaller V8 would be more than sufficient, and they would not know the difference.  If smaller engined, less expensive versions were offered, they'd sell.  The question is, would there be a net increase in overall sales vs. having only the larger engined variants, or would these sales just reduce the sales of the larger engined models, and therefore eat away profits?


And as for the C - you're right in that it has become sportier over successive generations.  Not quite a 3, but not what it once was either.  There'd be no point in making it as overtly sporting as a 3 Series.  BTW, I'm actually renting one of these (a C300) this weekend when I'll be away, so I'm looking forward to comparing it to my (older) 3 and the IS250 I rented last year.  (I get a good deal from a little car rental place in CA - lux cars for Malibu money.)

[cawimmer430]

If performance doesn't matter to C class buyers, why does each generation of C class more resemble the 3 series?  The new C class is fairly sporty and does have a fairly firm ride.  It's not as comfort oriented as you make it out to be (and I say this after driving one for 500 miles). 

"Resemble"?

They're giving buyers a choice here. They can select the C-Class Sport or the C-Class Elegance, the former is more sport-oriented and the latter is more comfort-oriented.

Comfort is a subjective term too, but in general, in my experience and from what I've read, the C-Class had the edge over the 3er in this regard. I've experienced the W204 C-Class too. Some of my testdrives took place for hours and I've found the comfort to be very good. I'm not sure how the 3-Series comes equipped in the US in regards to seats, but here in Europe the standard seats in the 3er are the same as those found in our 118i - too thin and uncomfortable after an hour of driving. I love the 118i, but I'll be honest: the comfort is crap. I can live with the suspension, which isn't bad, but those seats are terrible. If you want proper seats in the 3-Series here, you'll need to pay extra for them. These will be the sport seats, which provide better support and are strangely more comfortable than the standard seats.

And your argument that a person who wants a C350 could afford a C63 is absurd.  Also, why would one bother to buy a C63 if the 335i offers the performance they want at a cheaper price?  The C350 doesn't compete with the C63, it competes with the A4/S4, 335i and IS350.  I'll round it out here.  If a C350 costs $40,000 and a C63 costs $60,000, do you really think a jump of $20,000 or 50% is easily absorbed by every C class buyer?  But, say, a C350 costs $40,000 and a BMW 335i costs $40,000, and someone in a Mercedes showroom wants more performance, do you really think they'll mortgage the house to buy the C63 or just drive across the street to the BMW dealer? 

That statement was simply made out of frustration.

Still, I figured that your typical American Mercedes client is quite well-off and could afford either a C350 or C63 AMG. They probably purchase the car they feel suits their needs and this might even be a C300.

Someone wants performance will go get a 335i? Hardly. Some people want performance and Mercedes and for them the C350 performs well enough. I don't think they care if the C350 is a full second slower than a 335i or S4 etc. And if they did then they wouldn't get a C350. It's safe to say that Mercedes knows what their customers want. The feeling I am getting is that most MB customers in the US find the C350 to be quick enough and it also offers something that the competition doesn't (in their minds - which is realistically the case with customers and their favorite brand).

Wimmer, no one is saying the C350 is slow.  It's plenty fast enough.  What they're saying is that it offers no competitive advantage over other cars in its segment on the performance front.  As stated before, cars must be viewed in context.  If a car does 0-60 in 3 seconds, and every other car does it in 2, the 3 second car does not compare favorably to its competition.  That's all that's being said. 

I understand that.

Still, I think it is a trivial matter that really isn't an issue at all. Most people on this board are speed fanatics, that's no secret. To them the C350 isn't a consideration because it is "slow" to them and it doesn't come with a manual transmission. For the people out there to whom the car is aimed at, the appeal and desire is there. The 0-60 time of the C350 is quick and quick enough for these people. There are other qualities in the car that they find far more appealing.

There were rumors of a C400 Biturbo which was to be a twin-turbocharged 3.5 V6 with 400-horsepower when the C-Class came out but it seems Mercedes dropped the idea. This would really be the car that would compete with the S4 and 335i if it were made. I personally don't view the C350 as a competitor to either the 335i or S4. The C350 competes more with the 330i and A4 3.2 V6.

If the C class weren't a Mercedes, you'd likely see that.

Oh come on. I've argued in favor of non-Mercedes' cars in similar situations many times.

[Cookie Monster]

Oh come on. I've argued in favor of non-Mercedes' cars in similar situations many times.

lolwut

[cawimmer430]

lolwut

lolwut