sensoryx

nice sig.
Is that your car?
Would love to see more pictures of that ride!

Outland

I disagree that it looks like a hatch back. The Golf is a Hatchback.

In its first year it sold quite well here. 30,000+ cars over what was barely a 3 year run. That's decent- Audi's A3 isn't even moving 5K a year. Believe it or not, for a while the Coupe was outselling the Celica. All Coupes in general are a hard sell in the market lately, as buying tastes have changed. Adding a trunk would have made little difference, Coupes with Trunks like the Prelude and the 240SX didn't even sell at the volumes a C230 did.

It definately was badly needed because they needed something to put them on the map with people who never would have considered an MB. MB's are old person cars. That was certainly my opinion. Big barges with automatic transmission and outdated interiors. The Coupe caught my attention- quick, manual transmission, cool looking, handled good, and RWD. I would have bought a BMW, or a Mini Cooper S, or even the RX8 if it weren't for the Coupe.

Its plenty sporty. More so than you think.

Thank you, that proves my point.

A4 isn't all that sporty, at least in stock form. Scrubby handling FWD, boring 4 door shape, although the interiors were fantastic.

I don't think so, I could care less if the car has a trunk. A 2 door with a trunk is just a two door sedan. Its the fast back roofline that has always grabbed my attention.

Yes, us Americans can't stand Corvettes, Z4 Coupes, RSX, etc...all those hatchbacks we hate.

MBUSA gave a pathetic effort with the coupe. ZERO advertising. Wouldn't import a high performance or AMG model, and virtually ignored it. They discouraged dealers from ordering manual transmission cars. Its only effort seemed to be the pathetically ricey 'pimped' coupes they had on the show circuit for a while. And then, to add insult to injury, they stopped importing the car right after the refresh, which did wonders to the interior, and gave the car pack leading handling/ride characteristics. For 06, a C350 would have been available that would have been a serious performance bargain, and would have attracted a lot of attention.

MB USA didn't want the car. Same way it does not want the A class, the B Class, and Smart. They want MB to remain this old snob brand in the US.

Outland

Check my sig.

Germancar1

Doesn't matter, it is still a hatchback and with that glass panel at the back it looks like one, it didn't fool anyone into thinking it was a "coupe". Mercedes calling it a coupe was just downright disingenuous to begin with, it was a hatchback plain and simple.

I don't doubt any of this, but Mercedes expected to move a lot more than around 10K a year, that is why they dropped it.

Bingo, true but it wasn't done right at all.

Here lies the problem with the C hatchback, it was just a regular C-Class sedan with the same sport package and the same interior and everything as the sedan, it wasn't nearly sporty enough to tackle other hatches in its price range. They tried to change this over the run, but by then it was too late. What Mercedes did effectively was deliver a hatchback that drove no sportier than a C240 or C320 Sport.


Much better cars, by far. Truly sporty not just sedans with a different rear end.

Yep and you missed the point by a mile. The execution was off. The car was anything but sporty enough for people who wanted something truly sporty to buy it. Mercedes are seen as older wealthier peoples cars for sure so when they do something sporty for younger folks it has to be done right, not an half-hearted attempt like the C hatch was.

True, but here is where that MB image you mentioned comes in. In the smaller segments the A4 and 3-Series wear sport on their sleeve compared to the C-Class. The hatch did little or nothing to change this.


Ok, thats fine, but you're in the minority on this because Americans don't like hatchbacks.

.

One is an icon (Corvette) which no one thinks of as a hatchback, maybe the 400hp V8 has something to do with it. The Z4 Coupe is as rare as hen teeth and again a far sportier car than anything Mercedes makes. The RSX was a Civic and drag and is no longer made. None of these cars have anything to do with why the C-Class failed and they prove nothing. 2 of them are serious sports cars and the later just got cancelled because it didn't fit in with Acura's so called push upmarket.

The cars you should have used are the A3, which does ok, but not great and the Rabbit, which does ok, but not great. The numbers prove that American don't like hatchbacks. They'll only buy the GTI and they perfer the Jetta to the Rabbit.

Yeah that is a shame especially if they truly wanted to sell a lot of them. MBUSA gets it sometimes and others they're totally out to lunch.

Well with sales being what they were, there was no need to do that.

Well partly because the market for a manual trans Benz simply isn't there, but if what you say is true here I agree with you whole heartedly. The thing is though is that MB doesn't do sporty/inexpensive well anywhere, it isn't just here in the U.S. Their thing is marketing the SL, CL, S, E, CLS, GL etc, so they're lost on the younger folks when it comes to marketing. I see they're running ads for the C230 now that show a much younger side of MB, so maybe there will be a chance for the next hatchback model to come over, this time under at least a decent marketing campaign.

I agree, but Mercedes-Benz is just that a snob brand, arguably the biggest one of them this side of the truly upper-tier brands like Maybach, Rolls, etc. They've never done inexpensive well and they've never done sporty as well as say Audi or BMW when it comes to the lower and mid-classes, so the C hatch was doomed from day one IMO. They would have had to go all out with a marketing blitz to change the public's perception about Mercedes for people to buy the hatch in the numbers they wanted so I sympathize with you here. Than again being that snob brand means big $$$$ because they're selling more AMGs and S550s and CLs than ever before.

M

TNblkc230wz

After seeing the w203 coupe and sedan side-by-side, the coupe/hatchback was the clear winner for me. Car still gets numerous compliments. MB has has a customer for life unless they bring the w204 coupe. Got to have 2 doors, RWD, 6 spd and room for four or more.

The real reason MB didn't sell more coupes is marketing. I never saw a single add in any media for the coupe. Most younger people look at my coupe and think it costs 50 - 60K. We all know better, but the shopping public didn't know the car existed and didn't know it's price point.

Outland

Pulease. How is it different than any other car with a hatch being called a Coupe? Frankly, 2 doors and a fast back roofline is a Coupe. Far less of an affront to common sense than the 'four door' CLS Coupe. No one owns the damn word. There's no governing body sanctioning that you must have a trunk to be a coupe. Unless its a fastback, having a trunk and two doors is just a two door sedan.

I'm not anti- hatch, but anyone determined to keep grinding the hatch ax apparently is. Same with the swipe about the glass panel, implying its CRX-esque. Honda stole that from Maserati- another well known Hatchback maker.
[QUOTE]



Yes, they clearly made some mistakes. MBUSA is a very stupid and short sighted company. BMW, Infinity and now even Lexus, are becoming the drivers in this class of cars. MB needs new blood. If you want to bring in new buyers, you've got to show your in it for the long haul, show the new buyers features that appeal to younger customers, and you've got to market the car. Its hard to get new buyers on your radar. Just ask Ford. They can't get anyone new to look there way.

Dropping the Coupe was the worst message they could send.

No, it wasn't. Not a SINGLE piece of sheetmetal or other body panels, not even the lights were the same as the sedan.

Wrong. The Coupe interior was unique to the coupe. The coupe interior actually even has more interior space than the sedan. Door panels were a different style, different wheel, the dash was different, the only shared components were the center stack components and arm rest. Different seats too! You could argue this one I'm sure based on standard equipment level, but I think the Coupe had the nicer design interior. The Sedan sported a mouse fur headliner- whoa, am I in a GM rental car?, some really cheap material on the doorpanels, the most fake looking real wood ever to be in a car, and a pretty boring instrument binnacle. The coupe sported a much more upscale woven material on the headliner and pillar covers, a sculpted binnacle for the instruments, a larger interior, and real metal trim, as opposed to the painted plastic in every asian sporty car masquerading as matte aluminum.

Nowdays, no one can afford to develop entirely new switchgear for each car in the range- its just too costly, and frankly, it hurts you in tracking down quality problems.

Not true. When it launched with the SLK motor, it wasn't far off. Its biggest competitor was the RSX- which due to its much lighter body- its just a Civic- and far better sorted gearbox, was a slightly better straightline performer than the Benz. ANd cheaper, because it was really a Civic. What hurt the car most was how they handled it after 02.

But they didn't. They went backwards in the motor dept. The Sedan issue 1.8L engine lacked far more than just 3HP, MB would have been better to keep the SLK engine. Yes, it was plenty uncivilized during startup- but the 1.8 makes those same noises during cat preheat. The 1.8 lacks the torque the 2.3 had, and its very mod resistant.

Where was the new shifter barrel for the tranny? Where was the proper rear end gearing? How about a US AMG version? Europe got at least 3 different AMG versions. Limited slip diff? How about more power. Where was the C350? Canada got one. And lets talk about the stupid head unit with no CD player. Well?

No, it is nothing like ANY C240. I will agree however that they should have went further than the C320 sport package. Stiffer sways, and much faster steering would have been my feedback. Did they mess some stuff up, sure. The rear end styling for one. Its awkward, but doesn't need to be. The AMG rear bumper and the 05 lights completely change the look.

The BMW was more sporty, the Mini is an ICON, and the RX8 isn't a 'better car'. Its rear seats are unusable, the car gets horrible mileage, and its not much faster than a C-Coupe besides costing more. Most Coupes are derived from other existing architectures. The Jetta/Golf spawned the TT, Saturns SC is a shortened SL with much better styling, the Solara is a Camry with gaudy clothes, etc... Even the CLK, its a C Coupe with a trunk. There's nothing wrong with that, its how they came into being. Coupes are not supercars.

The 3 series yes. The A4 has the rep from the S4 and its mod potential. In stock form, a C-Coupe is quicker and handles far better than the A4. Yea, I agree the coupe didn't change this image, because MBUSA gave up. You can't just say your this or that, and expect it to be that way. You have to earn the reputation. BMW has honed its message for 20 years, Mazda spent nearly as long trying to live up to Zoom Zoom. Audi is still reaping the benifits of the Quattro Coupe(which, had a Hatch, BTW). MB doesn't have to become BMW. Nor does it need to give away AMG models. But it needs more C350 Six Speeds, SLK350's and C- Coupes than it does C240's and the B-Class.

Germancar1

Uh....one look at it says hatchback. If you can't get that then there is nothing I can tell you. The C hatch looked like a hatch from the side and rear, while Aston-Martins and Corvettes don't. To even compare the C to those cars an suggest that they are similar is utterly ridiculous.

Yeah right. You can define it any way you like, but when it comes down to it, the look is what says coupe or hatchback, and the C said hatchback, which American buyers consider as being cheap. There is no way around it.

True, but the CLS is gorgeous and was a stunner to look at when it first started showing up on the roads.

Again, defining it and making it work to the eye is 2 different things. The C was a hatchback, period. Just like the CLS is a sedan.

It was just that CRX-esque, and how many Americans know anything about past Maseratis? Guy Maserati is not a hatback maker, come on guy that is absurd. No one is going to look at a Maserati and call it a hatchback no matter how you define "hatchback" on paper. That is what you don't seem to get. It is the design, better yet the execution thereof that killed the C hatchback, it look liked it was from the same ilk as a Rabbit or previous Civic Si, not a Maser, Aston, or Corvette, which all have a liftback also. Big, HUGE differences there.

I don't know about that. The U.S. market doesn't want a poorly executed lower-end Mercedes hatchback, that is for European buyers.


Big deal, it still didn't look like a useful improvement over the sedan. It still looked like a sedan with a different rear end. Hardly the change say from the 3-Series Sedan to Coupe, i.e. enough to make a difference.

If you ask me none of that really made a bit of difference. It wasn't different enough and the pre-facelift cars were awful as was the entire W203 lineup was interiorwise. Its matterless to debate whether or not the sedan and hatch had different interiors, they all were sub-par for a Mercedes-Benz produdct.

The hatch was never sporty enough for the target market, every single test I'd seen on it back then confirmed this. It was basically a C-Class sedan in drive, feel and handling. Maybe a touch sportier but it wasn't up to the RSX or any other similar cars.

All legitmate gripes, no argument from me there. I don't know how Mercedes got away without standard CD players for years and years. It was something of a enigma to me.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. The thing is though, is that all the cars you list here are far better executed than the C hatch ever was. What does a Solara or CLK have to do with this? The CLK is far more changed inside and out and you wouldn't know it was derived from the C-Class chassis unless someone told you, unlike the hatchback which was a cut and paste job at best.

True, they don't have to become BMW, but I think you're asking Mercedes to be something they aren't. The manual transmission seekers just don't look to Mercedes-Benz and they know this which is why they don't build many of what you're talking about here. If Mercedes doesn't need the B-Class then they certainly don't need a C-Class hatchback either. A real coupe with a trunk would be better, while pushing the CLK upmarket or even basing the next CLK on the E-Class chassis would be nice, but a hatchback isn't going to fly here. Americans just don't see Mercedes is that way no matter how sporty they make it.

M

FrankW

well said Germancar1. nevermind outland.


reality check for outland:

the C-coupe is indeed a hatchback. They just didn't want to call it that way because they knew how bad the E36 ti did in the market. given the 4 year that the CL203 was sold for the only reason that people bought it was because it was most affordable MBz and it was a better built car then the GEN IV Golf and there aren't other hatchback out there at the price and performance. Still, the W203 far out sold it's hatch counterpart. Go ask the CL203 faithful and they'll still tell you it's a hatchback.

The reason mbusa dropped the CL203 from the line up in 06 is because they showed much better sales volume in the C230 sport sedan which looks better and has better features. PLUS now you get a much better hatchback in the GEN V GTi/Golf and the A3 for the same or less money which the CL203 can't compete with.

You constantly egging to have a more powerful CL203 such as the C350, C32 AMG coupe, but yet you bought the 2.3L...why? what's to you anyway? doesn't seem like you are going to trade it in for a C350 even if it's available in the CL203 form. While you are talking you should've opt for the C320 like Carlos, Advan, and Blakey or Pshek.

btw, they replaced the 2.3 because it was an aging engine that served since 95-96 when it was still a 2.2L. The 1.8L is a great change which is tuned for few different models and saved the cost.

oh yea...the BMW is being smart and only bringing the 1-series to the States as a coupe.

and the Audi Quattro is a fastback coupe with the proper proportion. As in where do you see the C-coupe has the same proportion as the Quattro coupe??

Outland

Hey Frank. Stop being a jerk. I never told anyone to ignore you.

No. I could have easily afforded far better. What you sedan people don't get, not everyone likes the conservative shape of a sedan. I've always been a coupe person. 2 doors, fast back roofline. As others have noted, the way some sedan owners talk to coupe owners is the way that they themselves sometime get bashed on other forumns for owning the 'cheap benz'.



I doubt anyone who is in the market for a hatch like the Golf cross shopped the Coupe. The car had four seats, a manual transmission, handled good, rear wheel drive, and lots of safety equipment. And I liked the styling, and the cool roof. That is what sold me. My alternatives were the Mini, the 3 series coupe, WRX or the RX8. I think its a load of crap to think that for something other than a family hauler, people shop for based on body style. Lots of my friends bounce from market segment to market segment with each change in vehicle. Just to hear them talk, and others here, people like what they like. "best in segment" only applies to four door family haulers.

Should that surprise anyone? The Coupe was the variant, so was the wagon. the sedan was primary product. All the chassis and platform engineering was payed for- any additional sales volume is a bonus. And you've got to promote a car to sell it. Ask MB how that R Class is selling. Great vehicle. Zero promotion, zero interest.


The A3 is a five door HATCH. Man, its nearly a wagon. It doesn't have a slopping fastback roofline. BTW, the A3's yearly sales volume is less than half the CL203's- The new Golf is a classic squared off hatch. I could never own this car no matter how good it may be for the same reason I couldn't pull the trigger on the WRX- it looks like dirt. UGLY.

Well Frank, its all there was in 02. Kinda hard to get one, when they didn't build it.

I would have traded up for a C350 Coupe. That would have been worth it. The C320 is only a couple tenths of second quicker to 60 than a stock 02, and with a pulley, the C230 is far quicker. Beside, the C320 sucks a whole lot more gas than the fours.

I'm aware of why it was replaced. I made the point about the 2.3 because we were talking about 'improving the car' over the years. Any 2.3 owner will tell you the 1.8 doesn't cut the same swath the 2.3 did.


Cost. That's really what it was about. The 1.8 was one engine, with several outputs. The M111 variants all had mechanical differences. The 1.8 was mostly software. Great idea, its a shame they didn't care more about the performance.

the BMW...

Again. We like what we like. If a 3 door fastback design were produced that I liked, I would buy it. The 5 door

Yeah, if you don't, I can't help that. The Audi is more angular, fitting the styling of the time, and has a shorter wheelbase, meaning less room in the back seat. I was always a fan of the Audi Coupe. Nearly bought one as a project car a few years back.

So, get over it. There are those of us who like this style car. Make the Corrado jokes, the Ti comparisons, and bemoan the similarities to the Audi. But stop lumping the car in as some lame Golf wannabe.

Outland

The latest Jag XK is very similar in layout to a C-Coupe. I am not trying to imply that the car is comparable in performance or styling, but go look at one, and you'll see I'm right.

That's your opinion. From the front and side, its a Coupe. Its only at the rear, that things get a little jumbled.


Never heard a joke before?

I agree that the execution of several items were off. Not all of them were design. I enjoy the car immensely, but like anything, after you live with it, you can find room for improvement. Your gripes about the coupe being merely a sedan with a hatch I find not only wrong, but they aren't what's wrong with the car as is. IF it were up to me, I would have addressed these.

The car does handle quite well in stock form, but it needs faster steering, and the sport package roll bars aren't stiff enough. Spring wise, I'd take more, but its a fine mix as is.

The afformentioned stereo was a problem.

Driveline. The manual trans, although not really a bad trans- isn't a fine one either. It takes a deft hand to shift cleanly. The shifter mechanism, and the shifter barrel need work. The shifter itself, is sprung- strongly. Why? The glass rear diff- that's junk. SO are the ones in the sedans, they just don't have the power to break em. Rear end gearing is too low. Or first and second are too short. All the coupe engine choices have respectable or better torque output, so taller gearing would be helpful. I'd through in a req for more power, but a pulley swap and some other minor tweaks have given the car a lot more power. No its not C350, 5.4 seconds to sixty fast, but I'd say its mid sixes.

The dual mass flywheel is a noisy beast. Uncouth noises are not in short supply at low speed, on and off the throttle. OTOH, you give it the beans, and the supercharger whine is quite pleasing to the ear. Its no V8, buts its turbine like sound is a joy.

I would have ditched the rear 'tail gate' window. Not for styling reasons...but because its useless. You can't see a damn thing out of it. And while I'm the rear glass, I would have pitched it down more, and dragged out the C pillers into mild flying butresses. A little more deck without the tail gate window. And I would have chosen different tailights, and the AMG issue rear bumper. The rest of the styling, I love.


,Now that's absurd. Both of those are two door bread boxes. I enjoy the debate, but that's not even in the realm of truth.
In performance and status, yes. But if your just talking about the formfactor, NO.

So, let me get this straight...the US, which is normally dumped on for being unsophisticated slobs, prefer dumbed down SUV's, pickups, and gas guzzler sedans...they are actually the smart ones, and its really the Europeans who are the dopes that want the junk?

The Coupe looks like an SL, CL, or CLK from the front. The sedan....well, no one was sure what it was trying to be with those fat chick with thick glasses headlights it had at launch. Styling wise, the sedan was more Hyundai, than current Benz.

More so. The 3 series retained that box behind the rear window that you lovingly call the trunk. So, in my book, the 3 series coupe just had two less doors. Did I dislike the design...not at all. I think a faster roofline would have made it better looking- and the latest version has that. New one overall is disappointing in the styling dept...looks like Britney after the kids. Everything droopy, saggy and rounded.


Hey man, I've been in the old CLK...that's nothing to brag about.

The RSX was quicker in a straight line. It was lighter, and had 8 more ponies, and someone at Honda knows to gear the car to the power curve. In the curves, it bites well, but its FWD, so hello understeer and smoking front inside tires. Plus, this car is SMALL inside. ANd it FEELS like a Honda. Painted silver plastic abounds, the car has a "pontiac excitement' feel to the interior...which is to say, pretty lame. If your into the ricer, fart can scene, this was your ride. Now discontinued. The coupe won this battle, its still around, at least outside the US. The Integra/RSX got nuked worldwide, IIRC.


Even the ones with a CD player are a letdown.


No, MB asked the question...they just failed to follow thru on it.

In a recent interview, a BMW exec stated that they think MB gives them a certain percentage of its customers every year because of the dearth of manual transmission cars, especially in the AMG vehicles. Even if I wanted a sedan, why would I buy a C55 or C32, and have to deal with that gaudawful slow to react transmission? If you don't offer it, you can't say people don't want it. Quite a few of the Sedan C230 owners have manuals. Many more who don't, lament not getting the manual after purchasing the car.

The B class has been a failure even in Europe. You missed my point that MB is in danger of becoming irrelevant. It knows this, and that's why things like the C Coupe were designed.

If it had the proper roofline, and manual transmission, I'd consider it.

The CLK is already out of its market, its too expensive for what you get, and although its a fine looking car, its styling doesn't scream to people to the level that it costs. I think basing it on the next E is a good idea. I think its unlikely, because they already have the CLS which is E class based, moving up to the E would likely mean a folding metal hardtop on the convertbles, and basing it on the C means big phat profit for MBUSA.


With all the quality problems, and the rise of Lexus and Infinity, and the continued dominance of BMW on the sporty side, I think Americans just don't see Mercedes at all anymore. Unless they eventually plan to be the "ballers brand of choice", MB needs some new blood.

FrankW

lol...a jerk? to you maybe...

us sedan guys?? what the hell is that? when's the last time you see me or other sedan owner bash the coupe? I want my car to be a wagon btw I've said this many time. gotta love the functionality of the wagon.

fastback coupe, fastback coupe....go back and look at all the fastback coupes from the Mustangs to the Audi including the new TT to the Z33 or the , integra/rsx, Celica and Scion tC. They're all great example of a coupe with a hatch, but none of it has a squared off flat rear that's out of proportion. holy cow!! did I see you mentioning the new XK with the C-coupe in the same breath. XK has similarity to the C-coupe??? they both have wheels right? Jag could've easily do without the hatch being present and still look the same. The hatch on the XK is solely for easy luggage access purpose like the Z33.

Look at all the fastback coupe in the history. all of them design wise if you just remove the hatch they would all still have usable trunk given that some may need to shorten the glass a little or make it a little less raked. With the hot hatches, you can't!!

I'm guessing you also want to call the CR-X a fastback coupe then? or the new Brera? or the new Civic type-R? and what do you want to call the E46 325ti? the 325ti basically has the same side profile as the C-coupe and it is a direct competitor of the C-coupe and the A3 (8P and 8L). If you don't know what a E46 Ti looks like (uploaded instead, link doesn't work). The E36 Ti had the same "fastback" roofline according to you as well. I guess that make'em "coupes"

I can tell you I know guys and girls that bought the Golf/GTi or the C-coupe cross shopped each other. One friend that bought two Golf (GTi and the R32) said he looked into the C320 coupe, but for the same money the R32 was a better hatch and yes he called the C-coupe a hatch.

yearly sale for the A3?? wow you searched into the European sale of the 8P and 8L too? or are you just referring to the US sales volume in a country that hates all hatches other than the GTi.

I had a E46 328Ci before and I can tell you 4 other friends with the E46 coupe various all calls the C-coupe a hatch. One even said "why the hell they named a hatch "coupe"". I didn't cross shop for a hatch because I didn't want a hatch.

no commercial for R-class? then tell me what is that I'm seeing every single day with the "one of the 4 new Mercedes SUV" commercial. The R-class not selling it's not because the lack of promotion. It's because not many people want to pay $60k for a minivan. You should know since the Pacifica is in the same catagory.

regarding the engine, if they didn't care about performance they wouldn't have bothered pumping 192hp out of it for the C230k models. And NO, a pullied and chipped 2.3 s/c still won't have the same pull to the 320 with chip and pulley.

what you last said was straight out hilarious...LOL "GOLF wannabe" too bad it's the truth and it's in the market hoping to compete with the Golf. A shortened Jetta makes the Golf, a shortened w203 makes the cl203, a shortened A4 makes the A3, and a shortened 3-series makes the Ti. What do they have in common? they're all hatches.

btw, just looking through your response to germancar1, have you even drove the RSX extensively? I have drove both the regular and the type-S up in the hills/mountain roads. It is by far a better handling car than the C-coupe and NO the C-coupe understeer way worse than the RSX does. And yes you are probably going to say "the C-class sedan handles worse" which is true. Not sure if this is what you think, but you seem to have the misconception that RWD automatically makes the C-coupe handles better than other comparable hot hatches?

You've been in the w208 and there's nothing to brag about? did you bother to check out the W202 and the W210 which the design theme was based on? I guess not.

just so you know, the E46 coupe shared nothing exterior wise with the E46 sedan. The roof is also lower and both the front and rear window was raked more than the sedan. The trunk makes it a proper "coupe".

WTF...basing the w209 on the w203 means big profit for MBUSA?? you are more confused about car market then you are about hatch and coupes...
even tho the w209 is based on the w203 by making it a b-pillar less coupe there is a lot more engineering going on hense the raisen cost correlated with the "coupe" styling different stuff has to be added etc which also reflect on teh cost of the car. Why do you think the C-coupe is cheaper? by keeping the b-pillar it's heck of a lot easier to allow the body to have the same rigidity as the sedan as well as keeping a lot of the sedan dash design. I still don't know what MBUSA has to do with this in your argument I also don't see how the CLK is out of it's market? The base CLK is a 200k which is sold other than in US. MB intended for the CLK to take place of the original E-coupe to begin with which is a up-market 4 seat coupe. Only dissapointment is with the styling of the w209 being less E-class like compare to the w208.

B-class is not selling in Europe? you know this because you live in Europe? MB becoming irrelevant?? that's why they made the C-coupe?? where the hell did you get that idea? are you working for DiamlerChrysler now? or you just know stuff because you drive the C-coupe?

speedshift's slow?? you really has never driven an AMG on any level. AMG drives buyer away for not offering manual? Did you not know the fact that only 10-12% of the AMG buyer wish their cars have manual from AMG's own survey? Did you not know that people that wanted to have a manual and power they bought the M's already? and did you not know that many of us who drives the C32/55 opted the car because M didn't offer the M3 in sedan? including me. This actually brings me back to your saying that you looked at the E46 coupe when purchasing. why didn't you? your C-coupe is a 2002 which at the time either the 330ci or the 325ci does have manual and is a coupe...a real coupe at that, or did you just wanted a hatch?

ismeto

You are really Out of Control !

FrankW

i am pretty calm and had a pretty fun time writing that reply

C230 Sport Coup

Well I do have to chuckle at that whole mess...
what the hell are you guys going on about?

Anyway, I actually did start out looking for a used 318ti, but at the time in the used market, people wanted stupid money for any used BMW.

I looked at the 3 series of that time, and stripped, base with plastic seats was almost 30K. And that was a 4 door. 2 Less doors cost like 5 grand more.

Anyway, I put the BMW 3 and the C Coupe side by side in one of the car sites, and the C Coupe beat it hands down as far as features, power etc.
At the time BMW did not offer the free maint. and MBZ did. The situation is now reversed..
Besides, the C Coupe was something completely new, nothing else even close to it on the market. I live in an area, where it's hard to impress, hell everyone has an AMG or whatever. My car stood out a little, for better or worse. The coupe was also about 10 grand less than a 325 coupe with the same features, less power and interior room was about the same. And EVERYONE had a freakin' 3 series at that time. Now, I see a lot of W203 sedans out there, and less BMW 3 series.

Tonight I hooked up with a group of friends, to check out a local band,
one guy just picked up a new freakin' Bentley Convertible coupe!
Damn....I think he said he paid like 200-or 225 for it?? Geez.
This guy goes through cars like people go through clothes.

FrankW

well, in short, Outland thinks the C-coupe is a fastback coupe like the new XK, the old Audi quattro coupe, Mustang fastback coupes, etc coupes with a hatch opening. Germancar1 and I think the C-coupe is a hatch and competes in the same market as the Golf, A3, E46 Ti, etc hot hatches. What do you think?

whatever you do...never touch a E36 318ti. the thing was badly engineered as it can be to bring the cost down to be able to slot the car in the Golf market at the time when it came out. I remember they had to put a really cheap rear suspension because there wasn't enough room to work with the normal E36 suspension at the time. the interior was also very poorly conceived.

comparing standard features and option wise...MB always had more standard stuff yet the resale value has always been lower than that of a BMW with less feature. A lot of it has to do with in the mid 90's when MB started cutting down the cost of everything that they could think of while BMW plays the catch up game trying to make everything with certain quality even tho a lot of the stuff in the BMW are over engineered which cause them to fail a lot even to these days. i.e. what could've been a simple button and they have to make it into several buttons.

the C-coupe is definitely a break through in the hatch-back market because even tho it wasn't at the success MB expected to be it's still way better than BMW's attempt with the 318ti. I mean in 2001 there really isn't any other good looking hatch for the package that the C-coupe came with.

What's sad about the US market is that whenever people think of a European hot hatch they look the way of VW, so it is hard for MB and BMW to push the hatches to the public.

Germancar1

This is a classic "so what" statement. The Jaguar is as gorgeous and beautiful a car as you'll find on the road today. A Jaguar no matter what the layout has absolutely nothing to do with a C-Class hatchback. There are lots of cars with similar layouts, but what you've missed here from the start is that it is the execution that makes the differences. To say that a Jaguar has a similar layout is just the utmost in ridiculousness. Its completely matterless. The Benz looked liked an economy car, the Jaguar XK doesn't.

Uh...actually it was a very popular opinion, enough to get the car thrown off the U.S. market. A "jumbled" rear didn't help either.


Seems like to me you've found plenty wrong with the car, and you're supposed to be a fan of this thing?

IYO, because of the car's utter failure here I'd say you're in the minority on everything dealing with this car.


No, they don't like junk, but they do prefer hatchbacks. No one said that C hatchback was "junk". Quit putting words in my post.


That was about the only thing it had going for it too. It actually was an embarrasment to those upscale cars.

Really and a hatchback isn't? Now you're just reaching.

Why do you keep bringing up the most irrelevant things? No one cares a lugnut about the "form factor" between an Aston-Martin or a Corvette having a liftback or rear hatch like a C-Class hatchback. Thats like comparing a Sebring convertible to a Rolls Phantom convertible because they both have folding softtops......its the most ridiculous "they have it too" statement I've ever seen. An Aston-Martin could have "hatchback" written across the back of it and it would still look better than any Benz hatchback every could. Saying that the C hatch had the same form as other more expensives cars is the most irrelevant, matterless thing you could say about the car.

What are you talking about? The 3-Series coupe is just that a compe with a trunk, not a sedan with a hatch grafted on. Please don't tell me that the 3-Series coupe is similar to the Benz hatchback.


Now in 2007 it isn't, but for its day it did a far better job of representing the Mercedes-Benz brand than the C-hatchback every did. The CLK430 in particular was a hell of a car for Mercedes, seeing off the old Lexus SC400 among other things.


The whole manual trans issue has been worn out. The fact is that most Mercedes owners don't want one, just like similar luxury brands. BMW is the exception to the rule. Hell BMW didn't even offer a manual on the new M5 or M6 until customers started yelling and even thing they only half-arsed did it. The only place where Mercedes could use a manual are in the C-Classes an the AMG SLK and C, no where else. They aren't missing out on any customers in any other classes due to not having a manual. No one buying a E-Class is going to want to row their own gears. BMW again is the only exception in that class too.


Guy, you couldn't be more wrong. They just annouced that they've sold more than 250K of them in the 2 years it has been on the market, mainly in Europe. Here is the press release:

* Sports Tourer impresses customers with its unique combination of design and generous dimensions

* The Mercedes-Benz B 200 CDI is awarded the Öko-Trend institute’s Car Environment Certificate

* B-Class named “Company vehicle of the year 2007” in the “Vans” category

Stuttgart, May 30, 2007
More than 250,000 Mercedes-Benz B Class units have already been sold since the model’s market launch in June 2005. “The innovative B-Class product concept impresses our customers with its fascinating design and unique blend of spaciousness and high degree of utility. The strong demand for the Sports Tourer is yet another confirmation of our role as the market leader in the premium compact car segment,” said Dr. Klaus Maier, Executive Vice President Mercedes Car Group, responsible for Sales and Marketing.

The most important market for the B-Class is Germany, which accounts for about one third of the model’s sales worldwide, followed by Italy, France, Japan and Spain. The vehicle is produced in three-shift operations at the Rastatt plant. The majority of B-Class customers chose one of the diesel models: one third has purchased the B 180 CDI, and 20 percent have selected the B 200 CDI.

In March of this year, the Öko-Trend environmental institute awarded its Car Environmental Certificate to the B-Class. The Sports Tourer was recognized by the institute in particular for its impressive versatility, spaciousness as well as convincing environmental credentials. The independent institute determined that in addition to its exemplary fuel efficiency and low noise and emissions, the B-Class also stands out with its environmentally friendly production processes, materials and logistics. The Öko-Trend institute had especially high praise for the B 200 CDI’s engine, with an average fuel consumption of less than six liters per 100 kilometers.

In May of this year, the B-Class also was named “Company vehicle of the year 2007” in the “Vans” category in Germany. This honor is awarded to vehicles in nine categories, which are evaluated by fleet managers from medium-size and large companies. The fleet experts conduct more than 1,500 test drives to rank the vehicles on the basis of their handling properties, costs, comfort, functionality and design.

Only according to you. Mercedes high-end products are enjoying record succes as is the E and the new C looks to do the same. One mediocre hatchback isn't and wasn't going to do anything for Mercedes. Making their cars sportier while not turning away the traditioinalists is the key for Mercedes, not a underdeveloped hatchback that gets run over by every other car in its segment.

That was the premise under the old guard, things have changed, thankfully. Mercedes is concentrating on doing what they do best, which isn't small and inexpensive.

What do you base this on? Your own personal view of it, or hard data and facts?

I don't know what America you live in. Mercedes quality is on the rise and brand new models like the S and CL have proven with their sales that Mercedes is still the brand to have among the rich. The new S-Class in particular has been an overwhelming success for Mercedes. I don't know how you could not see that. The AMG cars are also big hits, well except for silly R63 AMG.

Lexus is running on borrowed time as of late and Infiniti is BMW's problem.

M

ismeto

Check it out ! The same body continue !

FrankW

that is going to be a sad car...w203 chassi with a w204 nose.

mig888

If that type of coupe releases, it'll bring the value of the entire C-class range down, lol.

Shake

The back looks exactly the same

patrick_y

What a nice and clean garage. If only I organized my garage a bit, it'd actually look like that.

FrankW

i think it's just very good photoshop from different angles.

Saprissa

Thanks !




I buy / order / arrange things by the way they look and how they make me feel. NOT on anyone else's opinion or taste. That's why I bought my C-Coupé, that's why I added the OEM modifications to it that I did, and that's why my garage looks like that.

I have fun driving my Coupé, I have fun modding my Coupé, and I love parking my Coupé in my garage !

Carlos

Saprissa@aol.com

hobie

Anyboby know if MB Canada will bring in the W204 coupe?

keith100

Wow, gotta admire the typing ability of you guys. :