now i have to say something....the way that W202 look is following the last generation S-class just like the the new W203 is following the current S-class. remind you that W202 came out in 91 in europe where the E36 came out 2 years before it. the look the the 3-series follows their larger sibilings just like the Audi and MB. even the Jag are doing the same thing now. E36 matches with the last gen 7-series perfectly. W203 is a W202 with serious updates, just like the E46 is a E36 with serious update.

if you really want to say out dated, i would say that the W203 with the SLK/W202 rear light design and S/E like head lights is SO 1998/1995 and the NEW E-class is outdated too because it retains the headlight of the current E-class that came out in 95. same goes for CL, SL, CLK because they all use the two round head lamp design.

BTW john...the two pictures you posted, one is the last gen M3 and one is a clubsport 3-series. please use pictures of a regular E36 and regular E46 if you want to actually compare the two. Thanks


AS for the safety issue, the test done by IIHS shows what is would happen in real life. the frontal test done by www.euroncap.com is the same as the IIHS...now why would there be two different results...there is different safety standard in euro version and US version of the car. BTW in europe they have different idea of what is safe and what is not safe. i.e. Ford Focus which is bad for U.S. it is good for them. So i would stick with the test done by IIHS in our own country.

With all due respect, that is nonsense. You REALLY should read up on crash test protocols before believing that the IIHS test is superior to the EuroNCAP.

There are only very modest differences in safety equipment between European and North American versions of cars these days, probably the most notable being slightly different airbags and the 5 MPH bumpers that are still required on Canadian-market cars.

Once again, based upon EuroNCAP crash test ratings, I'd rather be in a C Class in an accident than a BMW 3er. The structure is far stronger and it protects its occupants better.

Nearly every car the IIHS tests receives perfect, or near perfect ratings, which is ridiculous.

this is not ridiculous. most modern cars have gotten a lot safer and thus, the overall ratings reflect that. if you want, you could say that the testing could be recalibrated towards the higher end so that you could nickle and dime the safety of cars... mb is safer than bmw... but that doesn't mean the bmw is a death trap or anything.

to be honest, the biggest safety risk factor is the driver. you could say that you wouldn't get a less safe car (how about getting a tank?). but i'm certainly willing to risk driving the bmw for it's other advantages - (pretty much universal consensus) bmw's awesome sporty driving pleasure. the selling numbers, i think reflect the general confidence of the public (US and Europe) of bmw's safety.

safety is a factor for me when deciding which car to get, but i wouldn't say that that is a primary positive factor. more like a negative factor; if the car is found to be unsafe (which the bmw isn't) then, it will sway me away from the car. the 2 door vs 4 door is a bigger factor for me... :p or FWD vs RWD vs AWD... or panoramic moonroof... or the car's relative rarity... price (ok, maybe not for some people here)... etc.

john, let me ask you a different question. would you rather get the new CLK320 (which you've bashed several times about its aethestics) or the BMW 330ci (which you seem to have an irrational hate for... why???) irrespective of the price difference.

btw, here's the new-er 330i sedan's front... i thought some people here like evolutionary changes? vs revolutionary ones.

It's funny you ask, I actually had a CLK500 on order but switched the order back to a C32 when I discovered that the W209 CLK looks strikingly similar to a Volvo C70. But if the choice was between a W209 CLK and a BMW 3-Series, I would take the CLK, no questions asked.

It's not just the 330ci that I hate, it is all BMW's in general, old and new, lol .

IIHS did rate the C-class higher on the dummy protection than the 3-series.

the test by euroncap.com doesn't tell me much with their drawings of the dummy. i rather trust the IIHS with their actual pictures of the crash test and the cars that we would get in the U.S. market.

and YES our C32/C-class looks like a over dried S-class....lol

CLK320 and 330CI is comparable because both have similar performance and same cylinder #. CLK500 is in its own catagory. Of course i would take the CLK500 too, but if the choice was CLK320 and 330CI i will be happy to take the 330CI over the CLK320 for the price and sportiness...

good thing you choose the C32 John...otherwise i'll bash you good if you get a CLK500 over C32... your next step is the CLK55 AMG

i just wanted to chime in on this one. i think the bmw looks great on the outside, i always have. my friends wife drives one (what a shock) and it is the interior that leaves me wanting more. the materials seem to be of fine quality, it is just a subjective prefrence about the styling or lack there of. it is just sort of blaw. it is functional and it may just be my taste. i gave the benz the nod due to its appealing price and its new look. i fell in love with it the first time i saw it in a magazine. and i don't see them all that much around here. i think mine is the only one in my town.
but as for the original question asked in this thread, it isn't really a fair comparison. the two cars are not in the same category. coupes and sedans don't compare straight across the board. and if it was your money i was spending i would get the m3. i just love that smc shifting.

I don't want an AMG Volvo, so I don't want the new W209 CLK55 either, LOL .

I hope you know John that the BMW forum will never ask you to be a moderator if you keep this up.

lol, I have no desire to help the online BMW community .

Sorry John, I'm late to this battle, and you've been holding your own without me, but I simply have to chime in.

While you car enthusiasts see the changes from one Bimmer to the next, the average driver does not. Ninety out of 100 people can't visually distinguish an E-36 from an E-46, or from a 1977 320i, for that matter.

They can't be too dissimilar, because they use the same, in-line 6 cylinder motor that dictates the packaging design of the car from the A-Pillar forward. The upright grill angle is no more efficient, aerodynamically, than a 1970 Olds 4-4-2. Come to think of it the grill designs are similar, too.

And, it doesn't take a rocket scientist at IIHS or Euroncap (or whatever) to determine whether a 3-series BMW is safe(r) than a C-Class. You need only open the hood on any 3-series and see the less-than 2 inch space between the engine block and the grill to know that it can't be safe, or cheap to repair beyond a 5 mph bump.

Don't get me wrong. I like the general looks of the BMW's. And I shopped the 330i before buying my C320. It's just that BMW has sat on its laurels for decades with the 3-series. As long as every third executive secretary wants one, I can't blame BMW for having no incentive to change it much.

Frankly, I don't see the 190E vs W203 similarity comparisons. My best friend here in Dallas parks his 190E next to my C320 at the golf course every weekend. His car is significantly smaller, both inside and out, has razor sharp styling cues (vs rounded W203), high 1980's-style dashboard, rectangular head and tail lights (vs sculpted W203), and the same antiquated I-6 engine squeezed into the bay that the BMW has. In spite of what I think, HE thinks the cars are as different as night from day. And I find the W203 a refreshing departure, both in style and engineering, from the W202.

We've had this debate a hundred times on this forum, and frankly, I'm getting tired of having to defend my opinion regarding BMW. Since this is a Mercedes-Benz forum, I don't feel obligated to defend my position, either.

Whoa MR-BOB. I think all of us on this forum agree with you with the exception of dasMafia at least. But your post seems a little on the agitated side if you ask me. I don't think anyone has asked you to defend anything. This post started out with someone asking for our opinions. Switch to decaf eh.

Self-explanation #1...

Viper, just preemptively stating that I didn't want to trade 8-9 posts explaining myself. In this thread alone, Accord has been bashed with several challenges, ranging from, "care to explain that," "That's the weirdest statement I have read," "can you substantiate that," "you have an irrational hate for 3-series cars," to "I'll bash you good," etc.

The BMW obsessed here like to point out the "major" changes between half-moon lower headlight styling and shallow-dish lower headlight styling, and why a BMW I-6 engine is the most perfect object next to Halle Berry or Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Accord and I often find ourselves tag-teaming these comments, some of which (IMO) are intended to agitate and bait people on this forum, myself included. The 190E vs W203 comparison is an example... I've spent considerable time in both, and they neither look anything alike, nor function alike. Just been through this before and know how flamey it can get.

Good suggestion on the decaf, though...

an MB

It's a no brainer, if you are going to an automatic, get the Benz 4 door -
More room, better interior, better automatic, better resale.

You can get a sportier feel with the sport package or just mod your C320 with a Kleemann or other suspension.

Bob, i'm the one who use the "I'll bash you good" thing. if you want to say something please re read my post to John again and understand what i was saying in the last part. don't just waltz in here and act like you know everything.

True that 190E has nothing alike with the W203, and the BMW E30 and E46 has nothing alike too. W203 are much like the W202 except it is more rounded and different interior design. i agree that E36 and E46 are pretty much the same way too, with rounder body and new interior design in the E46. i know ppl can argue that the W203 have in common with W202 is only the rearlight design and the front grill. The only thing in common on E36 and E46 are the headlight and the front grill. Don't even throw in the I-6 in the mix because as ppl should know that the V6 W203 uses was already used in the W202 C280 model start from 98. both the newer E46 and W203 have different design than their predecessor, yet they are both very much similar.

that's my story and i'm sticking to it

BTW did you do a survey on 100 ppl when you said that 90 out of 100 can't tell the difference?...guess you don't have anything to fall back on that do you. also when you said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick 3-series over C-class because of the 2inches in the front then my C32 must not be good then right?...cuz it has very little room between the intercooler and front beam. From what i seen, previous Dodge Ram has lots of room between front beam and engine, but the crash rating sure SUCKs...once again...find something you can fall back on before you say them. I'm not going to say those statement because i know i'm not an engineer for BMW nor MB. Are you an engineer for BMW or MB or any car manufacturer for that matter?

I'm glad you pick the C320 BTW.

Self Explanation #2...

FrankW, as I said earlier, I don't really want to play, other than to make a couple brief comments...

The 90/100 comment was a metaphorical comment... But would bet it will hold up in a mass market scientific survey... at least on MBWorld.org.

Just called the dealer to verify... The W202 C280 was produced with a 2.6L I-6, only. No V-6. edit: this is incorrect. see below.

What would you rather replace following a 15 mph crash, an intercooler, or an engine block... and the firewall behind?

You can stick with your story, I'll stick with mine, thank you.

Check out the latest Road & Track mag, they did a comparo on 11 sports sedans. If you want sports more than luxury=330ci, other way around C320. BTW 330CI fastest published 0-60=5.8sec on this month's C&D, as for C320 fastest is around 7.3 sec ish.

which imaginary dealer did you called? the dealer guy probably don't know what he is talking about too.
W202 C280 from 98 and up has the 2.8 V6 and FYI it was 2.8 i-6. the new C240 use a 2.6 V6 engine.

just when i thought you know some MB history

MBUSA 15 years over view: 98 C280

I have recently test driven for a week the BMW 320d se and the Merc 220 cdi in the UK. My opinion of the BMW was, nice looking car on the outside, nice to drive and great performance from a 2 litre diesel engine - 0-60 in 8.7 secs, 135 top speed and average economy of 50 miles to the gallon. Better performance than the 2.2 litre Merc diesel. What I did not like was the crap interior, so square and basic and this was the SE. It did not feel like a new car at all. I am just not a BMW fan as there is too many tossers driving them in the UK.

I have ordered a Merc C270CDI Elegance auto with leather, comand, bose, memory package, parktronic, rain sensing wipers, auto dipping mirrors etc. Performance 0-60 in 8.7 secs, top speed 140mph and average 40 to the gallon. Not bad for a diesel but I have had to get a 2.7 litre to match the BMW performance. I wonder which will last the longest out of the 2 engines.

I really like the new C Class shape and design both inside and out. I just hope that the quality is up to scratch. I will have my new car at the end of August to register for the new plate on Sept 1st.
I am also hoping that the new mods will be included in my build.

Self Explanation #3...

FrankW, I called Ewing Autohaus service, 972-599-0800, because I didn't have access to my '99 C-Class brochure. If they misled me, it wouldn't be the first time, sad to say.

I shopped a 99 C280, and have a '99 brochure at home. I'll check it tonight.

Update, indeed the brochure says 2.8L V6. So, I stand corrected. This is very odd, because I seriously considered the C280 and passed that year -- I thought because I didn't want an I-6 motor. Maybe it ws just the square headlights I didn't like.

I am by no means an MB historian. I only took an interest in MB's in 1998. I am even less a historian of BMWs or any European car. Instead, I am one of those 90/100 who look at a 3-series and see pretty much the same thing... year, after year, after year.

FrankW, I have no interest in waging a campaign of words with you. In part, that is why I offered up front that I didn't want to "defend my OPINION" over and over. Peace, please.