The interior looks cheap, sorry.
Mercedes casts a bigger stigma in my mind than either of those other two brands mentioned. The ornament alone creates a stigma. And when I think of the C Class, I see a lot of people buying them hoping to tap into that stigma It's pretentious, and people will buy for that reason, even if it has an ugly interior.
A C Class is a Mercedes. But you don't get the real goods until you're ready to pay for an E or S class.
I am by no means a MB apologist. In fact, I was this close(puts his pointing finger and thumb less than an inch apart) to purchasing a 335. The C350 ended up being a better fit for me. However, I think the above quote can be applied to ALL entry level automobiles from the German "Big Three." From the 3-series BMW to the C-Class Benz to the Porsche Boxster. Yes, those are all ENTRY level automobiles for those of us who may not be in a position right now to purchase the "real goods." This does not mean that those automobiles are engineered any less than the "real goods" models but there will be some obvious cost cutting done on those entry level models to make them affordable. Otherwise, there would be no Boxster, 3er or C-Class.
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...30i-page3.html
Wrong again buddy. You are basing your BMW numbers on an engine that wasn't even installed in the E90 3-Series.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
What mystifies me is why this debate even exists here. Most of us came to this forum to talk about the new C-class. It's pretty clear that you are a BMW person and so, why are you going on and on about how great they are? None of your points are going to change the minds of the MB drivers here. It's almost like the old PC vs Mac debates.
Do you expect everyone to be like you? When you quote the word "spank" you are not quoting me, someone else said that.
Last edited by Spoonie; Sep 14, 2007 at 04:09 PM.
I said that MB never made a "C" class that had a more powerful engine than the competing 3. Which was also wrong.
So we're even.
I said that MB never made a "C" class that had a more powerful engine than the competing 3. Which was also wrong.
So we're even.
I said that MB never made a "C" class that had a more powerful engine than the competing 3. Which was also wrong.
So we're even.
Do we all have to log in every day and see your annoying crap?? All you do is argue! Debating ok but you..you're worse than my wife...
What is your problem? I guess I'm not allowed to defend myself here, or even correct someone else here. Get a clue
Last edited by Spoonie; Sep 14, 2007 at 05:49 PM.
Now back on topic....Yes, the interior does look a little sparse compared to the competition. That is my only complaint really. Would like to have the options available everywhere else but what can you do besides waiting.
On the other hand the interior is sort of a classic, modern, retro style as well. I don't think it's all that bad as its functional just a little boring especially the aluminum trim.
To each their own of course but it's a VERY subjective topic and hence the arguing. A thread started the way it was worded usually ends in people bashing each other. Seen it over and over...
I've seen the new C Class television commercial several times now. The one where they end saying they took 7 years to design the car so it would be a "Mercedes BENNZZ", and then the $31k Hondaish MSRP is shown.
What a disappointment the interior is when you go look with a preconceived notion of what a Mercedes Benz is like.
The new Accord, by the way, has a much nicer interior the the C Class.
That being said, I'll reserve my full feelings for the interior until I get back from the C-drive at 1:30... Lets see how it actually feels/looks. As a warning, I'll be reviewing very honestly regarding space, functionality, etc as I'm seriously contemplating the new model...
Here's hoping the quality is better, else I agree that Honda Accords have VERY nice quality inside as compared.
- Eric


