mrjoshua
03-06-2008, 09:58 PM
Getting a C: A Benz That Fails to Impress
March 7, 2008; Page W3
The Wall Street Journal
By Jeff Sabatini
A friend is shopping for a car, trying in vain to get my blessing for a new Mercedes-Benz C-Class. "I am bald," he pleads. "I need all the help I can get." His rationale, as with many who buy "entry luxury" sedans, is that having the cheapest Benz on the block will impress. Dates, co-workers, family -- they're all susceptible, he figures. He may be right, but even so, that doesn't recommend the new-for-2008 C-Class.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BC874_audrse_20080306152127.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120483165297517271.html) This is a car that's about as exciting as the road remaining to the Republican presidential nomination. As with the previous-generation C-Class, this new version of Mercedes's best-selling model is comfortable and competent, and somewhat resembles a shrunken S-Class. Except that most of the impressive technology that makes the brand's flagship all that it is -- the adaptive cruise control, the infrared night-vision camera system, the massaging seats, etc. -- has been stripped out. Worse, the diminution removed the big car's gravitas, leaving the C-Class looking more like a restrained, less-ugly version of the Chrysler Sebring, that overstyled mistake that the Mercedes guys left behind when they took their half of DaimlerChrysler and fled back to Germany last year.
The C-Class is available in two somewhat distinct trims, called "sport" and "luxury," the principal visual difference being that the sport model wears a grille with a large, integral Mercedes tri-star logo while the luxury model carries a more traditional hood ornament above its de-festooned grille. Either C-Class also has a round Mercedes emblem affixed within inches of its tri-star, just like the rest of the Mercedes lineup. (The two brand signifiers being all that much the better to ensure everyone knows exactly what you're driving.)
OWNER'S MANUAL
• Here's how the Mercedes C-Class compares (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120483863263617499.html?mod=todays_us_weekend_jo urnal#CHRT) to other "entry-luxury" sedans.
Both C-Classes are powered by a 228-horsepower, 3.0-L V6, though a 268-horsepower, 3.5-L V6 can be ordered in the sport version. The bigger V6 earns a "C350" designation and trunk badge, while the smaller is the "C300." A seven-speed automatic is standard, except in the base sport model, which has a six-speed manual. All-wheel-drive is optional, but only available with the small motor and automatic gearbox. (Oh, and there's also a hot-rod version with a 451-horsepower V8 coming in April, the C63 AMG.)
If the basic mechanical package is stolid, the interior reinforces this notion. The best thing about it is that the switchgear and instrument-panel electronics are principally borrowed from the S-Class, giving the C-Class a distinct advantage over its rivals. Speaking of which, Mercedes has joined Cadillac in offering a disappearing display screen for the navigation system in its least-expensive model, a welcome development. Less elegant is an optional, two-tone tan interior in the luxury model. I'll be charitable and just say that it resembles the hue of a past-its-prime orange. And it's worth noting that, unlike with some of the competition, leather seats cost extra in the C-Class.
On the road, the C300 rides and handles well, though the automatic-equipped car feels as sluggish as the S-Class doesn't. As delightful as the seven-speed is in the bigger car, the extra torque of the S-Class's V8 helps obscure the problem you encounter again and again in the C-Class: In many driving situations the transmission is in the wrong gear, usually by a factor of two. By the time you can jab the pedal hard enough to get the car to downshift, it's too late for the poky V6 to make up the difference. Yes, you can always use the "Touch Shift" to manually shift the automatic, but then why not just get the manual transmission in the first place?
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BC902_auccla_20080306170031.jpg
Daimler If it were a Chrysler, I might be raving about the C-Class, but as it sits, it's just a car for people who can't afford the larger E-Class -- never mind the S-Class. Unlike the sporty BMW 3-Series, the C-Class has no intrinsic appeal beyond being the cheapest way to park a Mercedes in your driveway. While "inexpensive" would be a fine selling point for this $31,975 car, an empirical comparison shows that the Japanese -- particularly Infiniti, with its G35 -- offer more for the money. So we're back to my buddy who believes that buying this Mercedes would say something. It does: He's not a very savvy shopper and bought into the Mercedes myth. Because, honestly, that's really what the scions of Stuttgart are selling here.
While over the years the brand's good name was built on the twin pillars of engineering and exclusivity, neither applies much anymore. It's no secret that Mercedes's reputation for quality has taken a nose dive this decade. Just as legions of car buyers have sworn off the domestics forever because of shoddy quality, plenty of potential Mercedes owners are shopping elsewhere.
But even more harmful to the brand image is that Mercedes has diluted its unique claim as a builder of high-end luxury cars by going after nearly every product segment in the U.S. market. Mercedes dealers now sell everything from a full-size sport-utility vehicle, the GL-Class, to a poorly disguised minivan, the R-Class. A compact SUV, the GLK-Class, is coming. For 2008, Mercedes is more of a full-line brand than Ford. While none of this makes the C-Class a bad car, I'm sorry to have to tell my friend that it casts this low-end Benz as more of a toupee than any sort of automotive Rogaine.
March 7, 2008; Page W3
The Wall Street Journal
By Jeff Sabatini
A friend is shopping for a car, trying in vain to get my blessing for a new Mercedes-Benz C-Class. "I am bald," he pleads. "I need all the help I can get." His rationale, as with many who buy "entry luxury" sedans, is that having the cheapest Benz on the block will impress. Dates, co-workers, family -- they're all susceptible, he figures. He may be right, but even so, that doesn't recommend the new-for-2008 C-Class.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BC874_audrse_20080306152127.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120483165297517271.html) This is a car that's about as exciting as the road remaining to the Republican presidential nomination. As with the previous-generation C-Class, this new version of Mercedes's best-selling model is comfortable and competent, and somewhat resembles a shrunken S-Class. Except that most of the impressive technology that makes the brand's flagship all that it is -- the adaptive cruise control, the infrared night-vision camera system, the massaging seats, etc. -- has been stripped out. Worse, the diminution removed the big car's gravitas, leaving the C-Class looking more like a restrained, less-ugly version of the Chrysler Sebring, that overstyled mistake that the Mercedes guys left behind when they took their half of DaimlerChrysler and fled back to Germany last year.
The C-Class is available in two somewhat distinct trims, called "sport" and "luxury," the principal visual difference being that the sport model wears a grille with a large, integral Mercedes tri-star logo while the luxury model carries a more traditional hood ornament above its de-festooned grille. Either C-Class also has a round Mercedes emblem affixed within inches of its tri-star, just like the rest of the Mercedes lineup. (The two brand signifiers being all that much the better to ensure everyone knows exactly what you're driving.)
OWNER'S MANUAL
• Here's how the Mercedes C-Class compares (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120483863263617499.html?mod=todays_us_weekend_jo urnal#CHRT) to other "entry-luxury" sedans.
Both C-Classes are powered by a 228-horsepower, 3.0-L V6, though a 268-horsepower, 3.5-L V6 can be ordered in the sport version. The bigger V6 earns a "C350" designation and trunk badge, while the smaller is the "C300." A seven-speed automatic is standard, except in the base sport model, which has a six-speed manual. All-wheel-drive is optional, but only available with the small motor and automatic gearbox. (Oh, and there's also a hot-rod version with a 451-horsepower V8 coming in April, the C63 AMG.)
If the basic mechanical package is stolid, the interior reinforces this notion. The best thing about it is that the switchgear and instrument-panel electronics are principally borrowed from the S-Class, giving the C-Class a distinct advantage over its rivals. Speaking of which, Mercedes has joined Cadillac in offering a disappearing display screen for the navigation system in its least-expensive model, a welcome development. Less elegant is an optional, two-tone tan interior in the luxury model. I'll be charitable and just say that it resembles the hue of a past-its-prime orange. And it's worth noting that, unlike with some of the competition, leather seats cost extra in the C-Class.
On the road, the C300 rides and handles well, though the automatic-equipped car feels as sluggish as the S-Class doesn't. As delightful as the seven-speed is in the bigger car, the extra torque of the S-Class's V8 helps obscure the problem you encounter again and again in the C-Class: In many driving situations the transmission is in the wrong gear, usually by a factor of two. By the time you can jab the pedal hard enough to get the car to downshift, it's too late for the poky V6 to make up the difference. Yes, you can always use the "Touch Shift" to manually shift the automatic, but then why not just get the manual transmission in the first place?
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BC902_auccla_20080306170031.jpg
Daimler If it were a Chrysler, I might be raving about the C-Class, but as it sits, it's just a car for people who can't afford the larger E-Class -- never mind the S-Class. Unlike the sporty BMW 3-Series, the C-Class has no intrinsic appeal beyond being the cheapest way to park a Mercedes in your driveway. While "inexpensive" would be a fine selling point for this $31,975 car, an empirical comparison shows that the Japanese -- particularly Infiniti, with its G35 -- offer more for the money. So we're back to my buddy who believes that buying this Mercedes would say something. It does: He's not a very savvy shopper and bought into the Mercedes myth. Because, honestly, that's really what the scions of Stuttgart are selling here.
While over the years the brand's good name was built on the twin pillars of engineering and exclusivity, neither applies much anymore. It's no secret that Mercedes's reputation for quality has taken a nose dive this decade. Just as legions of car buyers have sworn off the domestics forever because of shoddy quality, plenty of potential Mercedes owners are shopping elsewhere.
But even more harmful to the brand image is that Mercedes has diluted its unique claim as a builder of high-end luxury cars by going after nearly every product segment in the U.S. market. Mercedes dealers now sell everything from a full-size sport-utility vehicle, the GL-Class, to a poorly disguised minivan, the R-Class. A compact SUV, the GLK-Class, is coming. For 2008, Mercedes is more of a full-line brand than Ford. While none of this makes the C-Class a bad car, I'm sorry to have to tell my friend that it casts this low-end Benz as more of a toupee than any sort of automotive Rogaine.