His top does fold, but it's in the form of a sunroof so it's a partial cabriolet.

 

Me thinks he'd have a hard time actually folding any part of his sunroof, and even if he could, let's see him UN-fold it!!! :p

 

I will say that the only problem I have experienced since purchasing my car last September, was warped brake rotors. They were swapped out under warranty. Warped rotors seems to be a fairly routine occurence among new cars. I have experienced it with other makes - BMW included. Although, I still have relatively low mileage, 5800 for a car purchased almost nine months ago, it's holding up well.

Now for the de-contenting of Merecedes. The upcoming Chrysler Crossfire interior looks like it was grafted- almost unaltered from the SLK series. The engine is the same corporate 3.2 liter found under the hood in my 320. To me that's fairly dangerous, because once a customer knows he can basically have the same vehicle as an SLK for thousands less, MBZ has created unecessary competition for itself. Don't get me wrong the Crossfire - if it comes to market the way it looked at the car show - will be a very nice car to own. The current Chyrsler 300 "02" can be had with our mirror signals, albeit they are slightly different, but to the untrained eye look the same.

Would this sway me from buying a another Benz? Not exactly, platform or parts sharing is the way of the future. Especially for companies that produce multiple brands or makes.

However, the SL's, 4.3's, 4.6's, & 6.9 Benzes from the 70's that I fell in love with as a kid, could never be accused of such a thing

 

I have seen pics of the Crossfire, and I agree, it looks like a nice car. However, I think there is a difference when you compare cross brand parts in the Chrylser/MB and the Jag/Ford. DC is using MB parts in it's chrysler which I would think would be considered an upgrade. I have not heard of any Chrysler parts being used in MBs. Jag is using Ford parts in it's cars which to me would be a down-grade (I'm just grading here based on brand status, and not by quality. After all, we are talking about buyer perception).

 

Crossfire? Sounds like a Mercedes made Chrysler. Now you not only get an unreliable car but you get crappy service to go with it. Sounds like the old Chrysler TC (Messerati).

 

I would have to agree. If you're speaking about a lower class of vehicle benefitting from the tooling reserved for the high end, yes that is a definite advantage.

 

Sounds right up your alley! Of course, they would have to offer free car washes and loaners.

 

Well i was waiting for that since u were not able to even try to comment about anything, u had to act immiture and say thrown in a little punctuation?? just to go off to another subject. and i guess thats what writting looks like when u are trying to rush. But to tell u the truth i dont Fuc*en care if it takes u your whole life time to figure out what i said. It wont bother me a bit.

 

Actually, this is not quite true. A coupe is a hard top car with two side doors and less than 33 cubic feet of rear interior room. Off the top of my head, I don't know if the MB coupe meets this requirement. Therefore, all two door cars are not coupes. Hope this helps.

 

Not to change the subject, but please excuse the engine displacement errors I made. The statement should have read
SL's, 3.5, 4.5, & 6.9 Benzes from the 70's that I admired as a kid , could never have been accused of such a thing

 

 

I've never seen a limit on rear interior room in any coupe definition I've read... and I never said all two door cars are coupes. Not to nitpick, but a "hardtop" is a car with no post between the front and rear windows, so are you saying a coupe can't have a "B" pillar?


Anywhos, the point remains: The C230 meets the definition of coupe according to a few different sources. Can't say that about a "C240 Cabriolet".

 

It's the opposite of what I want. If it has MB parts or is made by MB it can't be reliable. Since MB has such good service I put up with it, Chrysler won't give me loaners, car washes and free maintenance so what's the point.

 

You expect Daimler-Benz to call one of their cars a "Sports Hatch"?! Man, I'd like a toke of what you're smokin'...

Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner! :p

I love hatches for their practicality (and so does everyone else in/from Europe) and don't understand why they've got such a bad rap in America?! That's why the Saab 9-3 was a contender. I'm not sure the 2003 has a hatch? With a hatch, I don't need to buy an SUV to get a big gate in the back.

As for the X-type, for that kind of cash, I'll take an Audi A4 any day. It has a superior drivetrain, fit and finish, and it doesn't look like a shrunk A8! It actually feels more roomy in the front (I didn't try the rear seats in any of the two). But that's just me.
Whatever toots your root...

 

i agree.

actually if you want me to choose between C320 sport, 330i sport, A4 3.0 sport or X-type 3.0 sport i would take the BMW with no question asked. 330i sport is just a much better sport sedan.

if you want me to choose C32, M3, next S4, or future X-type R ...i will take C32 no doubt.

thats just me.

 

It's "cachet", not "cache", or even "caché". Hey, if you're gonna do the snob thing, at least do it right

If you really want some additional "cachet" that will impress the unwashed masses, may I suggest that you call your C 240 a "Flügeltürer"? It's perhaps even less accurate than calling it a "Cabriolet", but it is even more exclusive-sounding.

But in all seriousness, if you wanted more exclusivity and panache, you definitely should have got a C 230 K Sportcoupé. It's not too late for you to trade up