Tandrek

In this instance, that would be quite impossible. The only statement made was regarding my opinion, which was that they are both fine vehicles. I asked questions and requested clarification regarding your statement... this could hardly be considered "talking before you know".

I'm impressed. Perhaps I should give it another chance...

Tandrek

In this instance, the Rolls Royce seemed more prestigous... and it is. In the same way, the S-Class is more prestigous than the E-Class, which in turn is more prestigous than the C-Class. You are simply supporting my statement... there is no Mercedes less prestigous than the C-Class. It is the "bottom-of-the-barrel Mercedes" and is also the cheapest Mercedes sold in the United States. Can you dispute these statements?

mick1

i don't dispute that the c-class is the cheapest mercedes but I dispute your claim that the c-class cars make the mercedes brand less prestigious. the same goes with the porsche boxster.

you know bmw 3-series is the cheapest bmw but i like the 3-series more than the 5-series and the 7-series. i don't think the 3-series makes bmw less prestigious in any way.

SergC

Please...

Tandrek

Alright, i'll do it for you.

SergC

No.But ( no offence )you sound like a guy who has made one a liiittle step up and emmediately start bashing C230

mick1

nah. you should go for the 997 since you're the type of person who would appreciate the higher end models. I think the 997 will go on sale in the fall

SergC

This coming saturday at all Porsche dealler's, would be a Presentation of 997 S in black with ceramic brakes

mick1

whoa. thanks. I got to check that out.

I am a great fan of the 997S

Guest0001

Tandrek, you know you are driving a the cheapest CLK in the USA? Which is about 6,000 more than my C320 right? Your 320 isnt THAT much more prestigous than my car. Maybe if you had a 430 or a cab you can have some "prestige" bragging rights here. But you are arnt gaining ground here with your statements. You are probably one of those people who would buy a used car just so you dont drive entry level Mercedes.

Guest0001

Seriously, I guess he forgot his CLK is based off our C class platform. And if its the W208 it is build off the Aging 202 platform.

Tandrek

1) For the umpteenth time: I believe that the C-Class are fine vehicles. I personally love the interior of the 2005's, and the new aggressive grill on the coupe. I simply do not believe that the "prestige factor" of the C-Class allows it to overcome all of the shortcomings when you compare the C240 to the Acura TL.

2) At no point did I state that I had "bragging rights" for owning a CLK320. Additionally, this vehicle is neither new nor my first luxury vehicle. This is a temporary vehicle, as I will be living in this place for six months and the hit that I would take on a new vehicle over six months is absolutely unacceptable. I will be moving to another country and bringing my vehicle with me simply isn't practical. This is, however, my first used car... hence the emphasis on the Starmark Warranty.

3) Numerous individuals choose the CLK320 over the CLK430 for reasons of practicality. Paying an additional $10k for the extra horses simply isn't practical when you spend most of your time driving in 2-20mph rush-hour traffic. Whether you're driving a Kia or a Viper, you're not going to move any more quickly. The CLK320 has the same luxurious interior as the CLK430, and looks the same above-the-hood. I saw no reason to opt for the CLK430.

SergC

I'm done with this thread

fasteddie

Poor man's Porsche - only by those who don't have it. It's obvious you haven't driven one. It's awefully hard to get something that handles better than a rear engined vehicle, with a flat six that is almost set at the height of the rear axle centerline!!! Don't think for a second that you can call that car a fake. There is little compromise in it and it will easily out-handle just about any other of so-called sports cars out there. How did you figure that is fake.


The C is a car specifically designed for a market segment. Just as the E and the S are, similarly the 3, the 5 and the 7. Interestingly, the CLK is pretty much the same parts on a slightly different chassis.

However, given the Mercedes rep for a solid well built car in the C, with a lineage that goes back to long before Honda built mini-bikes with wings on them; the prestiege easily goes to any Mercedes over any Honda.

And, when you think about it, that is really what pisses off the rice owners isn't it? They have got a really nice Honda or Toyota, literally a dressed up to copy, at least in concept (sometimes in form too), vehicles that have been designed and built for a specific purpose, by a quality manufacturer.

It's really like ....a short person complex, isn't it?

Ed.

Slater126

Boy how jaded we've become. With a 0-60 time in the mid-7s and a quarter in the mid/high 15s, the '04-05 C230, with a 6-speed anyhow, is quicker than the revered and pricey Cosworth '86-87 190E 2.3 16-Valve, and could probably take a E30 M3 in acceleration too. I know technology has advanced and these are not earth shattering times today but the C230 doesn't pretend to be a dragster. The only real edge the TL has is in engine power. As an overall car, the C230 is superior, and the price is lower. I've owned German, Japanese and American cars and the C doesn't by any stretch feel cheap.

Tandrek

That's fine, but the competition in this thread (Acura TL) still blows it away with 0-60 times in the mid-low 6's and 1/4 mile in the mid-high 14's. If you're not pushing superiority in performance, why bring it up?

I test-drove two Boxster's today. I was not impressed by the base, but the S was acceptable. The handling is superb, and the power of the S was acceptable. However, I still don't feel that it is worth the sticker of $62K. Other vehicles with similar handling, more luxury, and far superior performance cost less (M3, etc).

fasteddie

Hahahahahaha you traded a POS for another POS. Get rid of it and get the real thing!!! Even that car mags acknowledge that the SC just Toyota trying to copy an MB. Thing is, they say it lacks character. What you really have is a cheap, fuc#ed up copy of an SL.

Ed.

fasteddie

Sorry bud.....

M3 doesn't handle like the boxter (at least not the S)......not even close. M3 might have quite an edge on power though.

Ed.

Tandrek

Actually, it does. The M3 offers handling similar to every other 3-Series, which is famous for being quite excellent. As for "might" have quite an edge on power? The M3 blows the Boxster S out of the water, for performance... that is its forte.

Performance Specs for the Porsche Boxster S vs BMW M3 Coupe:

Porsche:
3.2l V6 258hp
0-60 in 5.7 , 1/4 mile in 13.9s

BMW:
3.2l V6 333hp
0-60 in 5.0 , 1/4 mile in 13.1s

jinijazz

I think you better go get some used V8 truck.

'outperforms' most of fancy car out there,
'similar handling' as Boxster
'not overpriced(translation-you can affod)' not like Boxster S

I'm done with this thread, too.

mick1

Tandrek, have you ever test driven a Subaru WRX-STI ? I don't like the look of that car but according to the car magazines, that car can easily out accelerate both the boxster and M3. I was driving next to one yesterday. The engine really sounded very powerful.

Saprissa

Somebody please kill it !

fasteddie

M3 may handle well, but Porsche is literally a big cart!!!!! Sorry but M3, and even an MZ doesn't stand a chance against the Boxter in handling.


Ed.

Tandrek

Great logic there, chief. I don't hang your vehicle on a pedestal, so you insult me with baseless and asinine accusations. You have neither met me, nor reviewed my financial situation... yes, it is a baseless and asinine insult. Overpriced != "cannot afford".

I love the CLK500, but I certainly wouldn't pay $100k for it. Why? I don't feel that the CLK500 is worth $100k. In the same way, I don't feel that the Boxster S is worth $60k. Is it a good car? Sure. Does it handle well? Sure. Can I afford it? Absolutely... Is it worth $61K to me? No.

I like a bit of luxury in my vehicles, as well as prestige. Subaru has insufficient amounts of both. I have also heard that the handling is impressive on that vehicle due to Subaru's famous AWD system. FYI: I'm not stating that I would purchase an M3, Boxster, or any other performance-vehicle (else I would already own one). For me, the perfect vehicle is the new 2005 CLK500 for a combination of comfort, luxury, prestige, performance, and value. Someone brought up the performance of the Boxster, so here we are discussing it.

PS: Yes, my next vehicle will be the 2005 CLK500. As stated above: My current vehicle is temporary... when I move in six months, I will "upgrade"

As stated above: I felt that the handling on the Boxster was superb...

fasteddie

The thing you have to remember is that, like in the comercial, on the Porsche.there is no compromise!!!!

What I mean is that the M3 is by comparison a souped up grocery-getter(i hate to say it because I love the car too) Literally, it is a car that is designed to be a basic 4 seater, front engine, nice handling grocery-getter - that someone has gone to town on, and turned into a mean street machine.

If you had to pick the optimal configuration to run on a track, you would logically select the Porsche over the M3. On the track - fast in corners is where is counts.

It isn't a V6, it is a flat 6. Better still!!!

The center of gravity on the Boxter is probably about a good foot lower than the M3.

Boxter-s starts at $52K US vs the M3 Convert. starting at $57KUS.

The 0 to 60 on the M3 Conv. is 5.4 vs 5.7 on the Porsche.

The top speed on the M3 conv is 155 vs 165 on the Porsche.

Also, if you buy a Porsche, in 20 years it is a member of the family and not just a old BMW.

To me , seems the Boxter is the way to go. Buy it, be happy, thrash it every weekend, and give it to someone in 20 years.

Ed.