newyorktoLA

All coupes and sedans including C250 are now online at mbusa.com

itsLoonie

So is the actual line up? Thought they were getting rid of the c300. And what is with the C300 getting less MPG than the C350? I guess...

C300Kid

No they're keeping the 300 4Matic..prob explains the poorer mpg.

ucfbeta92

The C300 was going to be there all along; it remains the only 4MATIC in the lineup. It has the same engine spec, hp, torque as the pre-facelift C300. It is officially the most inefficient offering in the C-Class.. lol

And the C250 has more torque than the C300. AND it can do 0-60 in the same time as the C300 (7.1 seconds)... At this point, unless a 4WD is a must, it makes no sense to go with the C300.

The C350's gotten a nice boost though.

mac911

I agree that the 2012 C250 would be the top choice over 2012 C300 4MATIC unless you live in the harsh winter climates. Of course, you won't find the C300 4MATIC in So Cal or Florida lots anyway.

However, engine to engine (not considering cosmetic and other upgrades to 2012 car) a 08-11 C300 versus 2012 C250 is open for argument. Better economy with the 2012 C250, but perhaps more easily produced performance on 08-11 C300 while chugging more gasoline as a consequence.

It should also be noted that the 08-11 C300 7.1 sec. time might have been a bit inflated by MB by a couple tenths. The fact they gave the same time for the 4MATIC which was always going to be a tad slower was odd.

Furthermore, better evidence, the 2012 SLK 250 (once it arrives in a few months) is quoting about 4 tenths slower 0-60 than the SLK280 and SLK300 that were the entry level models before it, with the same 3.0 liter V6 as C300 and same 4 cylinder in the 250. It seems the C300 had more inflated padding in its 0-60 than the SLK280/300 did and allowed the entry level C to retain the identical 0-60 published time as its predecessor.

The 3.0 Liter V6 is only the slightest bit down (about 3.5 percent) on torque compared to the C250 but it has its max torque over a wider band and more power too (27 HP or 13.4 percent more power).

Don't get me wrong, I think the C250 makes the smarter choice for the entry level car. There should be a larger gap between models, and they have that now with 250 and new 350. Furthermore, I'm not hating on the C250 at all because I have an old clunky C300. The C250 should also be lighter up front for handling.

I just think MBUSA did play some games with the pre facelift C300 numbers before and it might just be that tenth quicker than the new C250, but neither of these cars are about their straight line performance. They are fantastic entry level luxury sport sedans. The fact is they now have the C250 with VERY close performance of the outgoing entry model, C300, and they have gained respected fuel numbers with that change. If fuel was $1.00 a gallon, I might still take the C300 for its more traditional normally aspirated output and tad more power.

luminus

Funny....neither shows the command system standalone as an option, nor the dynamic handling package.

ucfbeta92

@mac911:

I generally agree with what you're saying but I want to point out that the 7.1 sec 0-60 statistic is actually for the MY2012 C300 (straight from mbusa.com: http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN )

I'm not sure what the 0-60 for MY 08-11 is, but I think it should be lesser than 7.1 secs for non-4MATIC C300s.

Also, the '12 C300 4MATIC has packs 228 horses under the hood, while the C250 packs 201 horses.. that difference in performance will reflect in longer stretches, even though the C250 will be zippier from 0-60.

The main gain from choosing a new C250 over a new C300 (when 4WD is not a requirement) will the 21/31 mpg (city/hwy) vs 18/25 mpg.

That said, in layman terms, with a turbo engine there are more parts that can break.. (ok, so that's a very sweeping statement to make, but you get the point)..

I'm curious why these C250 turbo cars aren't labelled C250 KOMPRESSOR. Wasn't that the name used for MB turbos?

nlpamg

Cool, I get mine in a week

nlpamg

+1, the COMMAND Launch Package and the Dynamic Handling Package aren't there.

I'm glad I got both.

The Multimedia Package is such a rip-off compared to the Command Launch Package. I paid $930 for S32 (Command Launch) and $460 for 218 (Rearview Camera). So you're telling me that the 6-disc in dash CD/DVD changer is worth an additional $1400? Who uses discs anymore?

The Dynamic Handling Package is such a good value if you're getting 18" wheels.

Sportstick

Keep in mind who MB increasingly sees as their target customer. Between the advertising featuring distracted and oblivious drivers being "saved" by their car and dropping all manual transmissions, the head of MBUSA Marketing has actually said they primarily are going after folks who appreciate "sporty design", with no mention of actual performance. Most of those prospective buyers won't understand Kompressor, and once explained, won't want to know, or might actually become anxious! Leaving it off also saves about $3/car for the badge on the decklid.

luminus

Agree, I got the same. (Well, kinda, I picked parktronic over camera....can never figure out what that camera is showing.)

I wish they have the dynamic handling package on their website though. Some website reviews seem to suggest the car's lowered by an extra 0.6 inch. Not sure if they confused it with just comparing the sedan to coupe.

nlpamg

nice. I got parktronic as well.

hmm, yeah, you're right about dynamic handling, I'm not too sure either.

luminus

And yea, i reread the multimedia package so many times trying to figure out what's worth the extra $1400 in there..... Looks like the bigger screen is in the standalone command online system, and Harmon Kardon speakers are in the include premium package. The only thing that caught my attention on that ordering guide pdf slide thingee he has was that multimedia package has Dolby 5.1. (It was in an asterisk.) Maybe that means playing movies won't get 5.1? Kinda silly but weird.

Never get the use of playing DVD in these cars anyway, when it won't run unless the car is stopped. Leaving the car running while idle is a waste of gas (or illegal depending on where you are), while not running the car will drain the battery like crazy. When can you even use that feature anyway then?

nlpamg

Kompressor referred to superchargers.

The MB's that have turbos, such as the S600, the new AMG 63's, the AMG 65's and the new CL550 or CLS550 do not have any designation of turbo. The AMG's at least have "bi-turbo" on the side.

I'm glad there's no turbo badging, but like the w203, there will be tons of kids with C250's that think they can take on M3's just b/c the car has a "turbo".

nlpamg

haha, we are the same. I saw that as well and figured "oh well, I don't need Dolby 5.1". BUT, on my order confirmation sheet, it said that my car will indeed be equipped with Dolby 5.1 as part of Premium 1. so the only difference now is the changer.

exactly. although, I do hope that someone such as Steve (MBenzNL) figures out how to enable video in motion.

C300Kid

So this standalone command system option is only available at launch? Anyone from this point out that wants nav will have to drop $2800 on the multimedia package filled with useless stuff?

DCubed

HK is part of the P1, to get full Dolby 5.1 you need to get comand.

jctevere

I complained to MBUSA about the inaccuracies of the site through generation benz and have gotten good feedback (they have fixed most of the problems and added many more models). But it seems that it is still filled with errors. The literature within the coupe says that 4matic is available on the c250 coupe. But when you go to add it, the option doesn't exist. Also, a lot of the configuration photos on the site (that let you look at your exact configured vehicle still aren't very accurate. It doesn't show the interior without the nice big screen, it also doesn't show the ugly headlights without the lighting package. And I have still been unable to see what the back of a luxury car looks like (to see if its body colored or not). I have only seen the black plastic rear diffuser on sport models.

Does the COMAND online system have the hard drive built in for music, etc? Also, perhaps it doesn't have the uconnect features for tethering.

nlpamg

I thought so too. BUT, my order Confirmation of Order and Invoice for European Delivery from MBUSA says otherwise. It specifically states "harman/kardon Sound System w/Dolby 5.1".

DCubed

There is a note on the Dealer Order Guide specifically stating what I noted above, wonder what the real story is.

nlpamg

Check it out:

mac911

First point, MBUSA advertised the same 7.1 secs for the non-4Matic C300s throughout their history. I know, it made no sense, but that was the same time they put on the non-4Matics. Mercedes really plays games with the 0-60 times to protect other models and whatnot. This is what I based my summations on, and I 100 percent agree with you. They obviously had more padding in the 7.1 Second C300 non-4Matic times, which allowed it to remain at 7.1 when it went to this new engine (the 1.8 Turbo). The new one probably is the tiniest bit slower, but they had enough padding in the 7.1 time, that they didn't have to change it. Just the fact that even the updated 2012 C300 4Matic has the same "quoted," 7.1 time as the much lighter and simpler RWD 1.8 Turbo car shows that the 3.0 Liter V6 is a bit stronger if it was still offered non-4Matic and if fuel economy was no concern.

Honestly, I would like a facelift car for all the improvements in design and technology available. However, if I'm going to have the entry level engine, I'm quite happy with my simpler 3.0 liter V6. I don't put enough miles in a year to worry about a few dollars in gasoline. If I was buying today, I'd get the 350 anyway.

Why they aren't calling it Kompressor. Kompressor is the German word for Supercharged. The last C230 Kompressor was a Supercharged 1.8, not Turbocharged.

Totally agree with what everyone is saying too. I'm also a bit nervous about the direct injected engines. Hopefully they're ok now, but they do worry me a bit about carbon buildup on the intake valves as gasoline does not splash on the back of them to keep clean.

nlpamg

I agree with what you said. The 7.1 time is exactly the same as my 2005 C230 Kompressor Sedan.

Perhaps the C300 engine is stronger, but the C250 engine is lighter and is combined with a slightly more revised 7Gtronic Plus transmission.

I hope the direct injection works out as well. I don't want to have the same situation as we're seeing on the Audi engines.

I picked the C250 b/c I don't need the extra power from the C350. I have two cars that have well over 500hp, so an economical beater with great gadgets and options was more practical.

ucfbeta92

Thanks (to everyone) for the Kompressor clarification. I was under the impression that any MB turbo fell under that category.

That was funny! Building a fortune 3 bucks at a time

I guess they could always try racing a 2.0T Sonata

Amen... The website does not allow a user to clearly see the differences between the various trims (visually / in pictures). The 360 degree external view only shows the C350, and as you mentioned, there isn't a single picture with the basic/standard headlight package.

I see what you mean. What's marketing without a little embellishment to suit the product positioning Like you, if I were buying a C-Class sedan today, it would be the C350. Although from what I see of the C250 coupe, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to it either.

luminus

Except the 2.0T sonata will probably still beat them.