The_Ronin

Hey guys potential buyer here but I have a few questions. What are the numbers for 0-60 and quarter mile on the new c350 coupe? Ive looked at different reviews and its all different, the 0-60 times run from 5.5, 5.6 to 5.9. They have the quarter mile at 14.6, anyone have any ideas?

AV1

AFAIK the above acceleration figures are correct according to most publications.

You'll find that the differences in the 0-60 time are because you guys in the US use 0-60mph but in most other 'metric' Countries it's 0-100km/h or 0-62mph if measuring with the imperial system, that 2mph does add 10ths of a second to the times, especially in manual transmissions where in some car types you need to change up a gear to get over 60mph.

Ubiquitous5

0-60 is 5.9 as far as I know. I would just go with Mbusa.com specs

The mercedes is not meant to go fast anyway. It trails behind the S5, 335i, and G37 Coupe.

jctevere

Mercedes always underrates their vehicles. I'm not sure if this is due to where they do their official testing, if it is higher sea-level or what. But the C350 by all reviewers seem to be getting 0-60 of 5.5 seconds for the Coupe, and 5.9 seconds for the sedan.

Ubiquitous5

I don't doubt car companies underrate their cars. A lot of them do actually. Which also means, Audi, BMW, and Infiniti is doing the same thing. When given to Car and Driver or MotorTrend, they usually post better numbers. Which does not negate the fact that the C350 is still behind. However, MB is not trying to win you with numbers, but more with a refined an interior.

As far interior goes:
Audi > Mercedes > Infiniti > BMW

Performance:
S5 > 335i > G37 > Mercedes

Bang for your buck:
G37 > 335i > toss up between an S5 & C350.

Sportstick

Numbers will vary with launch style. Some car books have their drivers torque brake (rev while braking at standstill, then release brake to launch), and find the best technique/time for each car. Manufacturers typically just have the driver stomp the accelerator to establish "official" times.

Ubiquitous5

I really wish Mercedes made the C350 or 250 in a manual.

Another reason why I think MBenz is not trying to be as competitive as they should. Infiniti, BMW, and Audi all offer manual transmission in their lineup.

Although a manual transmission is not "popular," it should still be offered if they are trying to cater to enthusiasts.

Pretty sure a manual 350 would have posted even better times than an auto (if it means anything).

johnny--2k

5.5 to 60 is about on the head. I have gone head to head with a friends G37S Coupe in an automatic many times, and each time, we are dead even from 0-80. Neither one of us can gain on the other. If one gets a jump, the other cant catch up.

Now, on the freeway, the G has a bit of an advantage in getting the jump from a 60-xxx pull, buy once you enter the low 100's you will start to catch up and slowly but surely pass the G. I did this in Mexico with him...

jctevere

This is far from fact and I am wondering if you are going from your personal opinion or the autoblogger's opinions?

Interior on the Audi is garbage in my opinion, and I think that I share a common opinion with others if I were to change it to:
Mercedes > Infiniti > (Audi = BMW)

Performance wise I think your rating is skewed. The S5 competed with the C63 and M3, in both power and MSRP. So I think again it should be:
335i > G37 > C350 > A5

As far as bang for your buck or value, unarguably the Infiniti has the best value, but 335i being a value, the C350 coupe is a FAR better value. It should be as follows:
G37 > C350 > 335i > Audi

shauni

I think it is 5.9 but could do better i had the previous 350 and was claimed at 6.4 and got 6.2. not that much to be honest..The S5 is in an awkward place, a bit fast to be compared to the 350 and a tad slow for the M3 and such..

AV1

The comparisons above are a bit all over the place as already mentioned...

Depending on what your specifically wanting with these the relevant competing model variants need to be looked at separately and in the same or competing classes.

In terms of performance, the Audi S5 is in competition with the BMW M3 and MB/AMG C63, not C350.

Above that the RS5 lines up with the BMW M3 GTS and MB/AMG C63 Black.

If you wanted to compare a C350 to an Audi A5, it would be against the 2 A5 V6 models they have.

The MB C Class is also in competition with the Audi A4 range.

shauni

Well i think the S5 is the awkward one out sitting in the middle haha!
the S5 is a claimed 4.9 sec, and the RS5 is a claimed at 4,5 which puts it on par with a C63 which is claimed at 4,4. The current M3 is around 4.8 so thats where the S5 is compared to. The 63 black is claimed at 4,2 which is quicker than all. Not sure about M3 gts

Breitling65

Why would I put > or < between cars with different size of engine's like S5 and 335 for example? As far as interior G37 sucking special place from C350, as well as from many other aspects. I just switched from 2009 G37 coupe and nothing will turn me back to ugly Nissan made design again. 0-60 depending on many factors this is why it is different, I am sure on stock tires it is worse than on good summer tires for example. Different drive modes also makes difference, testing on E which is starting from 2nd gear and switching slow would be different to S mode. I don't feel much of difference in speed to G37 since torque of the engine is about the same. But I feel much better fuel economy, suspension, brakes etc

Vash

Competitors:

A4/A5, 328, C250/300, G25, IS250, etc
S4/S5, 335, C350, G37, IS350, etc
RS5, M3, C63, ISF
M3 GTS, C63 BS

I ran a new (dealer plates) C350 sedan in my then new (now dead) '10 G37S from a dig. Put two cars by 70. I believe there have been some performance improvements in the C that put them neck and neck.

roguewrester

Had a guy in a g37s try to get me to run today. i drive a 99 E55 AMG. Too many cars on the street so I didn;t bother. I was wondering how it would have went though. Im guessing I would have walked him.... but not sure.

jctevere

From a standstill you definitely would have walked on him. However, from a roll its tough to say who might have won. The modern 7-speed in the G does a pretty good job applying all the usable power to the wheels at any speed. If you had a 7G tronic tranny in your car, no question you would win. But the 5-speed tranny in my father's SL, if its anything like your's (which I'm sure it is) is kind of a slouch when it comes to putting all the power down from a roll.

Breitling65

Believe me, I drove two Infiniti one after another G35 sedan & G37 coupe, it is not very quick cars and E55 will dust it. Besides ugly as any other Nissan made, needs tons of mods to look good. I will never comeback there.

Ubiquitous5

Great responses from everyone.

Please keep in mind. The S5 comes stock with AWD which drives its price high. Like others have mention...it is at a price point between a 335 and M3 (About 7k more than a 335 AWD and 7k less than an M3). However, for MY 2008 - 2012, the Audi S5 used a V8 engine (underperformed) and is now using a V6 Supercharger. The car also dropped in price for the reason of that and there is no longer a gas guzzler tax that is incorporated onto the car.

The '13 S5 is now approx $5k more than a 335 AWD and $15k+ less than an M3.

The RS5, which finally arrived in the States, is now at $69k (starting) competing directly with the M3 and C63.

Going back to the interior debate. I still stand by my personal opinion that Audi has the nicest interior, but I do think Mercedes is easily second. This is a big deal for me, otherwise I would have bought a 335 or G37 instead.
Other guys on bimmerpost.com also share the same voice as far as interior is concerned. I think its kind of funny that you think Audi has the ugliest interior Steve. I respect your post, but I find this one is a little skewed.

Carbon Fiber Inserts, Smooth Flat Bottom Steering Wheel, MMI functions within reach, and the Navi superior to MB.

Ubiquitous5

Going back to the OP....If you are concerned with 0-60, you should consider a Manual 335i or Manual S5.

You can easily tune a 3.0T S5 and 335i with a quick flash as well.

jctevere

I still don't see what anyone sees in that interior with the Audi. It just looks bland, boring and CHEAP. The flat bottom steering portion is the coolest part, but I think the circular center just looks awkward inside a flat bottom looks funny. There is one little bit of CF around the center console area, but that's all I see. I just personally don't like it and don't think it looks very luxurious. The area beneath the center air vents looks like it is part of a vehicle from the 90's.

About a year ago when I was shopping for a near car to replace my 2009 C300, I found the MMI system to be very inconvenient and hard to maneuver. It just didn't seem intuitive like the comand knob, but I'm sure you would get used to it; however, I didn't have to with BMW or Mercedes interface. As far as navigation, I'm not familiar with Audi's, but the Mercedes' navigation isn't bad at all. But to that point, I have never found any in-car navigation system to be great, I would much prefer my iPhone's, but in the car. I'm glad that Audi is finally coming to their senses as far as pricing and competition placement. Until now they seem like their stance was, they are Audi, we do what we want. We outsell any other competitor globally, so we are the best.

JohnnyUte

I'm in the MB > Audi interior group. I looked at a wide variety of cars before I bought mine (oddly enough, no BMWs). The Audi S4 I drove was very quick and handled amazingly well, however I felt the interior was lacking. Not bad by any means however, it didn't really impress me. I agree in that it is bland, at least in that pic. The A6 interior was much better though. The Mercedes interior I really like, especially with my red leather seats, however my biggest gripe is that being taller I have to recline my seat a bit so the driving position is less that ideal.

Ubiquitous5

The door trims and rear passenger also contain the carbon fiber elements. I do agree the MMI takes practice, but I have found Mercedes MMI system very frustrating. No car is going to be perfect, so with that said, I would prioritize what's important to me.

If the OP cares about 0-60 I would go with 335/S5.

Nuieve

Count me as another one who hates Audi interiors. Freaking drab mess of buttons and cracks that looks like exposed innards of a refridgerator.

But some people call it ''style''. Lol...

JP(Canada)

I found one one video on YouTube that shows the 0-60 time for a C250, stock, at 6.4 secs. That's almost a second faster than what Mercedes claims it will do.

There are also a couple of vids of a 2012 C350 coupe. One with a 0-60 time around 6 seconds in "E" mode, and the same care again in "S" mode and I've timed that a few times with a stopwatch and it comes in a hair over 5 seconds.

Looks like the times that Mercedes posts are somewhat conservative, compared to what these cars are actually capable of.

And no, I'm not looking for a 'this is faster than that' debate...I owned a muscle car before this and that stuff get's a bit tiring, frankly. I'm just sayin', the coupe seems to be quicker than the factory spec numbers suggest. Naturally, there are a lot of factors to get a good time out of your car, starting with the abilities of the driver.

jctevere

Yup, that video of the C250 doing the 6.4 seconds 0-60 stock was my clip. Unfortunately, I have not recieved any statistical 0-60 reduction from the JB+ tune and intake.

Perhas maybe the coupe is slightly lighter then the sedan, making up for a faster then advertised 0-60 time? Additionally, I find that Merc conservatively publishes their power and 0-60 times. I live at sea level too, which may help, perhaps where they test officially is at a higher elevation?