oblu

http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea7160

"Among the many choices available for solo commuters, I really don't think you can do much better than our $39,450 Benz for day-to-day pleasantness. The trouble is, I find myself thinking of it as a rear-drive Honda Accord, and other than an extra smidge of fun on back roads, I'm hard-pressed to grant the Mercedes C300 any big advantages over our $30,895 Accord EX-L Navi."

I'd probably argue it's a little more exciting than an Accord; but not by a whole lot. I keep finding myself liking this car a little, but thinking it's too expensive and too thirsty for what it delivers. It just doesn't have anything particularly special about it. Maybe that's the norm for Mercedes products?

I know a lot of people are still really excited about theirs because it's still new to them, and I'm not trying to **** on your parade. I'm more on a quest for my perfect car and I was hoping Mercedes would live up to some of the hype.

The absolute weirdest thing I've discovered about driving this car is that I find myself often driving very close to the speed limit. This is something I've absolutely never, as my driving record as my witness, been acused of before. I can get in my wife's Q7 and I'll instantly be doing 10-20 over the speed limit without much thought. It's not that the C won't go fast, it's just that it feels like it's going fast when you do; it doesn't mask speed like other cars I'm used to.

On the plus side, I do have to admit that both of the Merc dealer's service depts in my town treat me wonderfully. One of the Audi dealers is okay and the other sucks. Both BMW dealerships would rather spit on you and go out of their way to make you feel like you should be privelaged just to set foot on their lots.

joebenz

and that sums up the reason i bought the 350 :o

when i test drove the 300, speed/accelerationwise, it felt exactly like my 4-banger accord

atspring

My reaction to the 300 was that it was acceptable, but not what I was expecting. The 350 is what I was expecting and what I ended up buying.

blastit

i have to admit that the build up to getting this vehicle has not exceeded my expectations. my c350 is nice but its not amazing. but when i look at its competitors what can i really expect for 58k CAD. nothing in this range is all that impressive. to be honest most cars under 100k CAD are nothing great. for the sake of arguement if i was able to buy a car worth a 100k or more I can almost guarantee that I would get bored of it in a matter of months.

i will say this for an everyday commuter this car is far nicer than any accord i have ever seen or driven. but i understand where you are coming from. it lacks that wow factor.

ATSOBE

A mercedes are built to be driven all day at 135 mile other cars are meant to take you from point A to B and be sped from point to point . So there the differenc ewhen you drive you can tell the speed cause it a speed machine built to speed

jstaneff

As one who drove an Accord (not the same one, but many) over the 21 year period prior to buying this C, I have a few observations:

- The accord is designed to last about 180,000 miles. The C is designed to last about 30-40 years. I regularly see 35 year old Mercedes, but rarely see an Accord that is even 20 years old. The cost of one C for 30 years versus 4 Accords for the same period of time seriously weighs in on the side of the Mercedes.

- I drove a series of 4 cylinder VTEC Accords. Yes they offered a V-6, but I stuck with the 4. The VTEC is peppy and moves the car right along. From the driver's seat, it feels fast, even if it's not. The C is fast, but doesn't feel that way (this is a C-300). I also have a Volvo XC70, and it really is fast off the line ... the C feels like it does, it's fast but doesn't really seem like it.

- All my Accords had cloth seats. They lasted well. The MBTex should do much better. Time will tell. But I seriously doubt that the stitching will come undone on the Benz.

- My last Accord was rated at 29 mpg, prior to 2008 EPA mileage rating scheme. The C is rated at 26. When I went through the comparison calculations, the Accord's 2008 rating would be 26. In effect the mpg is the same (but gas costs more for the C).

- Accords are much less smooth on the roads. They really do bounce a bit and you can tell where all the cracks are in the freeway surface. The C is much smoother. Both have considerable road noise on the local freeways (noted elsewhere on the forum, we have poor quality road surfaces). On a smooth road, they are comparable, on a really rough road they are comparable, but on a semi-rough road the C is better.

- The Accords have a decent audio system, but it is nowhere near the HK system in the MM.

- No one ever gave the Accord a second look. I still get blatant stares from drivers who pass me, or whom I pass. No, it's not me! It's the car: they don't know what it is.

- The seating arrangement in the Accord is better than the C. Hands down, I sit much better in the Accord. But there's a price: my head sticks out the top through the sunroof (well, okay, I do slouch down a bit, but that hole in the top gives me a tad more headroom). I have more headroom in the C, but the seat surface is too close to the floor. (I sincerely believe that the rather large bald spot on my head is a direct result of rubbing my hair off on the Accord's ceiling ;-)

- I service my cars at the dealer. It's just easier and I feel better for it. Don't let anyone tell you that the Mercedes is more expensive: a Honda stealer is just as expensive as any other. OTOH, my two primary Accords lasted well past 100K miles each (128.5 and 145 respectively). And were in excellent mechanical condition when traded. Hmm.

- The Honda is a well-built car that is very reliable. So far (8900 miles) the C is comparable. Cool. We'll see as time moves along ....

In general, they are comparably sized and feel good when being driven. The long-term benefits of the C strike me as the real reason for getting the car. I strongly believe that all the other benefits (features, options, etc.) will dissipate before too many years elapse. An old Mercedes is just an old car ;-) But an old Accord, a really old one, is now a Hyundai or a Ford since it was recycled!

webada

i'm beginning to think edmunds editors are bunch of rejects from real automobile publishing houses.

This is a long term log and yet they continue to pass it around and editors who first got their hands on it continues to review them with their what appears to be their first impression of the car. One editor even talks about the near 90 degree fold of the hood (c'mon, is it first time you saw a merc?!) Long term log suppose to track the economy, reliability, and overall usage. took them over a month to publish a 5 min review which reads more like a blog.

In my own experience, Accord is a horrible drive, under steer tremendously and engine parts will begin to rattle after few years. You can't just compare the drive of a car by going on a straight line acceleration. One poster is right, accord is built for 130k miles and merc will last you 30 yrs.

Now i know why i've stopped tracking their long term logbook for c300. They should just stick to price tracking...

webada

jstanjeff, you should go work for edmunds, you will blow their "editors" away.

nice summary.

oblu

I have to agree with you there; plus they've got like 30 long term cars and 4 people driving them. That's not really what I'd consider a "long term" test. It's just having cars sitting around that they can drive so that the staff doesn't have to pay for private cars.

ismeto

you -most of them - see C300 power is Not acceptable but what we will do we drive only C180 C200 C220CDI

Edit: it is enough for us

Alpha Zero

Most Hondas will last well over 250k miles.

chilledbenz

I'm going to disagree with this statement. I have seen Accords roll over 500k miles and still have the original engine and drive train. I will admit that the Accord V6 transmissions tend to be a bit troublesome (although I don't have actual numbers) I'd be willing to bet a new transmission for an Accord would be many hundreds if not thousands of dollars cheaper than a trans for a C. Honda is going to have you beat hands down every time in the parts department because in most cases all you need is a trip to Autozone or Pep Boys for new parts, Benz keeps getting more and more specific making you return to their service centers for parts.

As for the original posters topic, I see where your coming from. If anyone has read any of my posts here before this will sound all too familar, but the C class is not a $40k car. Theres no way I would have even thought about purchasing it if it were. I had a hard time parting with $37k and now I feel a bit ripped off honestly, I haven't had any problems with the car, its just that I've had it now for 5 and a half months and from the squeaks and rattles you would think it was more like 5 years. This is a first model year and my car was one of the first ones built, so build quality has probably picked up. Its just sad to see a new 08 Accord (which is light years above the old Accord) go by and see that it has more room, more goodies, real leather inserts, memory seats, and a bigger engine with better fuel economy and it costs less money to buy and maintain.

Ha ha I was a little bit afraid to post this post as all the C lovers would hate on me, so here are a few things I do like about the C. The service department is the best I've ever experienced, one of the main reasons for buying the C. The warranty is great, I've had very little trouble with them covering just about anything I could think of in the past. It is the best looking car in its class, the BMW is probably the better car but it just doesn't have the looks that the C class does (mild redesign for the 3 in 09 though). The current Audi A4 is a very nice car but blends in too much with the other cars on the road (09 redesign as well). The Lexus was just awful and the Acura TL doesn't offer awd and is quite plain (09/10 redesign as well). While many people have complained about the cheapness of the interior I find that the materials are quite fitting for the car, I would like to have real leather in a $30k+ car but it seems to be the norm to have a simulated leather in cars these days.

So the real question car companies want to know is "would you purchase another one" or "would you recommend this car to a friend". The answer would come down to if I had to pay sticker price for it then no for both. If I could get a C300 4matic with P1 for around $35k then it would be in consideration for both questions.

http://www.carspace.com/rsolorio

Added a link for a guy who has video documented his trek to break 500k miles with his Accord, quite funny to watch.

jrct9454

And all I know is that our C300, at 7300 miles and 9 months, still qualifies as one of the best, if not the best, cars I've owned, and I've had 54 total since 1962.

I've owned and/or driven every generation of the Accord since the early '90s, and simply wouldn't trade our car for an Accord....period. If and when Honda puts the promised diesel in the Accord [and Acura TSX], I might reconsider, if MB hasn't gotten religion by then and done the same with the C [and I'm looking for the MB 4 cyl diesel, not the 3.0 V6].

Our car is tighter and better-assembled than any Accord we ever owned, and we've had no issues to date. I love Honda for their commitment to fuel efficiency and their drivetrains are among the best around, but they have yet to make a car that competes with our C for long-distance comfort and refinement. The new TSX is supposed to have finally addressed the long-time bugaboo for all Honda products - excessive road noise; if that is true, then they might tempt me back.....we'll see.

chilledbenz

Well the Accord isn't meant to compete with the C, the Acura TL is, I'm just saying that the Accord happens to be a great car, even better than the C in a couple areas, all for $12k less. Just saw on another thread here someone got rid of their C and got a new 08 Accord so I must not be the only one thinking it. I'm not sold on the idea that the C is a tighter better assembled car, mine has numourous squeaks and rattles and the panel gaps are quite bad for a German car, that said it does have an over all more solid feel than any Honda (or Acura for that matter), I've ever owned as far as materials used and handling. I'm still a Benz fan and when my current C runs out of warranty (4years or 50k) I'll most likely stay in the fold, by then they will have improved on the C and will be into the second year of the GLK.

pmb600

Does anyone understand what this is trying to say? lol

pmb600

I have to say I sadly agree with the summary that Edmunds writer gave the car. I had a C300 Luxury as a loaner for a day, and I left with the same impression, that the car just isn't special enough and that I would be sick of it in about a month. Not that it's a bad car, I just felt like that exciting feeling of having a new car would be gone very quickly.

My car is far from perfect, but even now, two years after buying it, I find myself still happy with the design, the interior, and the way it handles. So because of this, I will probably be passing on a new C for now, and plan to get either an 2009 E-Class or CLS-Class in late summer/early fall.