tommy

So, what's the internal designation for the CL then? Always wondered about that. Maybe CL$$?

Boo2

Not exactly. SL is to SLK as CL is to CLK. The Coupe is a hatchback that has a panaramic sunrood. The CL or CLK don't. I think it is also just as fair to say that people judge others by what car they drive. It goes both ways.

nboyd

The C230 is priced differently accross the world. The C230 Coupe is only the cheapest C-Class in the US. In the UK the C180 sedan starts at just under 20k while the C230 Coupe starts at 26k.

Therefore this question should ask whether the C Class, not the coupe alone, is the poor mans MB. For those listees outside the US will noted that the A-Class is less than half the price of the C230 Coupe.

This list contains members from all over the world, I am sure they are more than a little perplexed by this thread. I live in the US, so I am the target audience for the thread, and I struggle to grasp the point.

My Coupe costs more than the base price of the c-class sedan, which means more that 32k. For what I wanted, the cheapest car was the Jag, followed by the 325CI, as they came with the options as standard.

The last point to take into consideration is that not everyone who bought the C-Coupe, bought it because it was a mercedes. The strengths of the car, without the brand, are more than enticing enough.

Nathan

JeT

Hehe, thanks preyx...oh well, if it looks like a coupe and it drives like a coupe, then it must be a coupe!!!

taylor192

I think its just a different type of car offered by MB. Seriously, its $3K difference between the base C230K and the C240. Without the C230K I could've easily gotten a C240, but at 23, WHY? Its a 4-dr family sedan, not a sports car, or even a "sporty car".

Might be, but maybe its just the C240 repackaged to appeal to a difference audience. If the C230K was a coupe rather than a hatchback, would we even be having this debate? I think the "poor man's car" issues comes solely from the fact its a hatchback, and not having leather as standard.

Not having leather is something some people would even like out of the higher MB brands, cause not everyone likes leather, and like I said, the leather accounts for $2K of the price, so strip $2K from a C240, and you're no different than C230K in price, so, answer this:

Is the C240 a poor man's MB?

BMW is releasing a 1-series, and alot of the imports are starting to catch up on luxury features, even if the "status" of the brand name isn't there. Just look at the RSX, you can almost get the same level of luxury you'd consider from a MB now if you get all the options.

So, no, I am not loyal to MB, but hopefully I will be instead of loyal to Infiniti as I was headed if I bought the Nissan and had a good expereince with Nissan. This is especially important for us younger recent successful grads. I started at $~70K/year, and if I keep working hard, I'll be making $100K+ not too long from now and want to get out of the C-class and into something better.

If MB doesn't get me into the showroom to start, they'd have a tougher time gettng me in later, and I think they understand that. The C230 isn't priced to get "-20+" people in, cause we could afford the C240, its designed to appeal to the younger generation to get us into a MB if we can't afford a SLK or CLK cause the curent C-class doesn't have a coupe.

Boo2

Be careful with your words. Modern day cars have blurred the traditional definition of what constitutes a "Sports car". I'm 24, but I would like to consider my car sporty. I club alot, and always pack my car with females. They are not always careful getting in and out of the ride, since they care more about their damn shoes that the back of your seat. Besides, no one would deny that an E55 or M5 is not a sports car (or Sports Sedan for those P.C. freaks).

monty0501

Well, alot of people are saying that Mercedes are getting cheaper and cheaper, but thats probably because many parts and accessories they put on the Merc nowadays is alot cheaper than how much it was 10 years ago.

Having a 'mobile' phone in your car 10 years ago was like having gps on your car today.

Technology is increasing rapidly, and everyday things get cheaper in price, because innovators find easier, and more reliable ways to produce. This does not necessarily mean that the quality has gone down; just the price.

Now, I think that the C-class has alot of quality for its price and is why I have one today.
It really shouldn't matter how much the car was, just what it means to you.
When I was buying my C; I had a choice: buy a 99 S-420 or a 02 C240. I went with the C240 because it had a better warranty on it and because of mileage and many other reasons.
Now, for everyone who thinks that a C is 'cheap'; if you saw me driving down the road in the S instead of the C; what would you think then. Honestly, I am the same person, but would be in just a more expensive car; that doesn't change who I am and how much money I make.

tommy

Some might say that a sports car really has to have a manny, though I don't know who those people are.

I do have to say, though, that the "sportscoupe" is about the dumbest moniker put forth by any marketing department.

Spyke

The Boxster's considered to be mid-engined; the engine's in front of the rear axle...

Jorel C320

Well, i dont know about that one....seems to me its more like the RichMans HONDA. $86,000 for a v-6 is crazy. But running 13.1 on an all motor v-6 is impressive. Honda has some crazy engines. ie s2000.

junyo

What about "sports wagon"?

vyse

The whole Mercedes brand could be considered a "poor man's" luxury car. I could say that all you S-class drivers out there couldn't afford a car as luxurious as the Bentley (many say the S-class is on par, if not more luxurious than a Bentley) if Mercedes wasn't around. What's the point? It's all relative.

And why do you have to own your own business to be rich? I don't understand that. You could've become a millionaire playing the stockmarket, speculating in real estate in countries that have a speculative housing market, or hell you could rob banks. You'd be pretty damned rich if you were a CEO in any company too, and you don't really own it, you just run it. You're an employee like anyone else (though most likely a large shareholder, but that's not necessarily true).

spindrome

For those that are shallow to think that buying a poor man's MBZ (any c-class) is a "status" thing, then you can can follow me home to my $850K house. It's called opportunity cost...First rule of Economics 101.

I'd rather put my hard earned money elswhere, and certainly not a lot of it goes to a car that some may perceive as what makes a man (or a woman).

- spin

Boo2

Sure, but what if you follow the S500 to the $4 million house? Also, it is not in terms of market value, but rather LTV. The equity is more important. So many people have double comma homes, but how much of it belongs to the bank?

tommy

Geez, do we just want to whip them out and declare a winner?

This discussion started in the basement, and just keeps sinking...

trench

The CL's internal designation is the CL215.

Cheers, BT

spindrome

Obviously most of it, but at least you can write off the interest on your mortgage to counter your salary, plus the home appreciates, unlike a car.

BTW, $850K isn't jack in the bay area. That's average.... I just wanted to see if anyone picked up on my sarcasm.

avlis

My ride is bigger than yours. Follow me to my trailer-home.

230

I cant even finish this thread it's so absurd.

As for the 230K being a "poor mans MB"? The person who started this tread doesn't even drive one, why would you care? When I bought my 230 I was originally looking at the SLK's. After driving a couple I decided they looked to much like a female car (Slkride, think about that before you start knocking the coupe). I am young so I was interested in a young mans car that would be fun to drive from work and back that few of my peers have. To be quite honest I think I made the best decision. Basically what it all comes down to is a matter of opinion. So those of you that drive a more expensive car dont trash on us to make yourselves feel better about your small *****.

Boo2

I agree with you on the SLK's feminine association. I think it's pretty stupid to connect ***** size to the price of a car. It can always be argued that at least someone with a Ferrari uses his "small" ***** more than a common car driver!!

amgme

i think we're going off the topic now. now we're saying the slk is girlie. the coupe is equally girlie. moot point. then someone said the nsx is a poor man's ferrari. that's the silliest thing i ever heard. why are u even comparing two different makers of cars? this point is moot.

the whole discussion is whether the c230 is a poor man's benz. judging from the poll, about 40% think it is. as you can see, that's quite a lot. no matter how much you discuss this, there will be quite a few people that will think it is.

brand name is very alive in america. why do woman buy prada or other expensive name brands bags? why doesn't your kids want to wear payless pro wings and want to wear nike? there's nothing special about them except for the name. i can go on and on about this.

i understand what slkride is trying to say. people buy into the name. maybe the way he's stating it incorrect but i get his point. mb simply made a cheaper version so it can appeal to the mass market (the one's that wanted one but couldn't afford it before) so can buy into their name thus creating the term "poor man's benz". when you do something like that, you can can see what happens.

see what happens when you make me read thru the extremely long thread.

230

blah blah blah, whatever. For the same amount of money that I spent on my coupe I could have gone out and bought a 97 BMW 7 series. The amount of money one spends on their car has nothing to do with it. I did not by my car because it was the low end model benz. Does that label me a "poor man" f*** that. The thing thats funny is that you guys are so materialistic that you only care about the brand name, well whatever the case stop trying to make the owners of the coupe feel less about their expense.

viper

This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen. The low end product in any manufacturers line is bound to be referred to as the "poor mans x". The insinuation is that the low end product is inferior in some way. But you can't compare the low end product to the high end product because it would make absolutely no sense. They are at different ends of the cost spectrum and serve totally different customers.

The original poster psun786 threw us the hook and we all grabbed it. Its time we jumped from the bait.

taylor192

I really don't understand this, but just checked the USD prices and seem to understand more now.

C230K $26K USD, $34K CND
C240 $30K USD, $38K CND

Now $4K can be a lot, but really isn't. So I don;'t entirely agree with the statement of making a cheaper version to appeal to the mass market, cause the C240 was already out there, just it didn't have the mass market appeal.

The styling appeals to a whole new market, and the price makes it competitive. So those that could've afforded the C240, but didn't want a sedan, now have another option (the CLK is $60K and the SLK $55K).

I hate people blaming the price for the surge in MB demand, when realistically, its as much, if not more, the styling.

Lastly, isn't the C32 the poor man's AMG?

nboyd

For a laugh someone should post a link of this thread to the bmw forum. They would eat up the opportunity to add some snide digs at us upset C-Class owners, who's nerve have been toughed with the thread.

Got to laugh as it is a little funny.