LILBENZ230

You guys crack me up.

The C250 with its older design, older chassis, much slower, less powerful, less economical engine is the "true winner".

Beam me up Scotty.

The BMW was optioned up and the Mercedes was not (notice no HID on the $42k 201hp Benz). That has nothing to do with performance at all. Had the BMW been a more basic car, it would have still stomped the Mercedes in performance, been the newer design with the newest chassis and more powerful engine. You guys are hung up on that for some reason. Both cars are too expensive for what they are, but the BMW is a lot more car here. The W205 will hopefully be more class competitive, though I won't hold my breath.

Sportstick

Glad to see this conclude with someone who understands how to analyze pricing differentials! Good insight!

Let's not bother debating the "I think-You think" about exterior design. It is highly subjective, there is no right answer, and the companies have already product researched the cars extensively to reach widespread acceptance among the vast majority of the overall target market. If you happen not to like either the MB, BMW, or both, look elsewhere...if you like both, take your pick.

Thirdrem

That was very well put!
Danke!

batmC350

I've been a huge BMW fan ever since I bought my 2006 330xi 6 years ago. I had taken the new 2012 335i for an overnight test drive recently, and was planning on buying it. Before I made the plunge, I decided to check out the competition. I looked at several options, but was really only impressed with the Volvo S60 T6 and the Mercedes C350. After spending a full day with the C350, I decided that it was the car for me. I agree entirely that the BMW is more fun to drive, however between some financial incentives and the rock solid feel of the C350, the decision was a no brainer for me. I've had the C350 for two weeks now, and absolutely love it. My wife has my old BMW, and I must say that even though it is 6 years old, it still drives like new. In some ways I miss the BMW, but every time I get into my C350, I can't help but smile. I hope I still like the C350 as much after 6 years as I still like the BMW - it too still puts a smile on my face, even after 6 years.

There were a few things about the new 2012 3 series that I really didn't like. I felt that the nav screen looked like an afterthought, and was unimpressed with the very limited voice control options. I really liked the fact that the owners manual was available through the control panel, however I felt that the COMMAND system on the MB was overall much more intuitive. I also really disliked the auto stop feature on the BMW. I have no doubt that it can result in decreases in fuel consumption, but I have some conerns both in terms of the effect on starter life, and the lag time of needing to restart the engine when waiting to make a left turn. I realize that the feature can be shut off, but I would prefer the default to be having it shut off, and me having to make the decision to turn it on. During my short time with the 2012 BMW, I ended up shutting that feature off, since it really annoyed me.

The bottom line is that for me, even though I agree that the BMW 3 series may be more engaging to drive, the C class was the better overall choice. In the absence of the finacial incentives, I may have made a different choice, but I really don't think that you can go wrong with either of these. They are both stellar vehicles.

Sportstick

I don't know whether to file this under "Coincidence", "Small World", or one of those similar labels, but my son just rolled in from Ohio a couple of days ago for a visit in his unannounced new ride, the one on the right...2012 Sport Line. Surprise!



Let's stay off subjective (and pointless) exterior design assessments, but the engine, manual trans, seat comfort/support, steering feel/feedback, and chassis........and did I mention the engine and chassis? Wow!

After driving it for a couple of days in city/highway, let's just say the W205 has its work cut out for it. I do agree about the annoying engine start/stop feature and the nav screen looks like it wants to be turned off and stored somewhere, but the basic overall car is so outstanding, a lot of those little sins are easily forgiven. For those relying on the "lux/comfort" vs. "driving machine" distinction, the ride quality was so good (it had the selectable suspension from comfort to Sport +), that distinction no longer applies to what you feel in the ride. Any remaining "luxury" advantage will need to be attached to interior touch/feel/style and exterior style, if those strike you as superior in the MB.

milan187

I was just going through the same decision. Picked a C300 over the new 3-Series.

I like the way new 3-series looks (hated the old one) but I still think the Benz looks a lot better so that was our choice and we are picking it up in a few days.

The new BMW engine is amazing though, it's now even better the Audi 2.0T.


I drove all 3 and I got a much better deal on the Benz (and my wife and I loved the drive of the 3 series), BMW was the most expensive and the most boring styling to us. We though Benz had the best exterior while Audi had the best interior, but you can't get everything, LOL.

Can't go wrong with any of them in my opinion.

LILBENZ230

Nice you got to try it out like that. It lives up to the hype, eh? BMWs mostly do in my experience.

batmC350

I would agree that the 3 series is outstanding, and the minor annoyances can easily be overlooked because of the overall driving feel, however I disagree that the new 3 series drives as smoothly as the C class, even with the comfort setting. On decent roads, that may be true, but with the crappy roads that I am forced to drive on regularly, I feel that there is a distinct advantage to the C class. The new F30 3 series is MUCH better than my E90 in terms of ride comfort, but it still did not match the C class in my opinion. Granted, I only had the new 3 series for 24 hours, and probably put less than 200 miles on (and most on the sport setting), but the C class definitely seems to handle the bumps better than the BMW. I had also taken out an F10 5 series during my decision making process, and although it was very comfortable, I felt that it was too big for my personal taste. The C class to me felt like a good compromise between the new 3 series and the new 5 series - more fun to drive than the 5 series, but more comfortable than the 3 series.

One other thing that I didn't mention before that annoys me about the BMW is the new electronic transmission selector. I had gotten used to it pretty quickly, but I still prefer the "normal" selector on the C class. Sure, the BMW has paddle shifters, but really, I would use them so seldomly that they are a non issue to me.

Jaywalker

Sorry I'm late to the party, here, but there's a real difference between the cars that I almost never see mentioned - the tires, arguably the most important part of the car.

The W204 comes with "normal" tires (and a spare tire), while I believe the BMW only comes with run-flat tires (RFT) (at least the E46 did), a disqualification for my purposes - a toy for use around town rather than a real traveling car. I do not care for RFT and will avoid buying a car with them as long as I have the option.

Acapulco Bill

Agree totally with batm350, especially since just in BMWs we have 2 E46's (one an M variant) an E90 and an V12 E31. All fantastic automobiles (well maybe not the E90 so much) but the W204 stands out in other areas, just that the transmission and steering are NOT among them. Maybe the BMW "driving experience" is like getting constantly poked with a stick. Not the E31 though, a true GT cruiser.

However, the car that get "stolen" the most by the family isnt the BMWs or the Merc, its the FORD, which everyone agrees is the nicest to drive. Therefore the W204 sometimes sits for months in the garage, unused.

Sportstick

Exactly the deal-killer which caused me to leave the BMW showroom and buy the 09 C Class four years ago. I'm still not a fan, but RFTs have improved in ride, handling, and noise and they now go 150 miles instead of the former 50. The new construction is two-piece, so one is not stuck with replacing a rim along with a tire. But, my fear is that the W205 and the sooner-to-launch new CLA will follow in this direction, as the cost and weight reductions will seem irresistable to the MB engineers, taking away their current advantage.

Jaywalker

That's my concern, also, and is the reason I'm looking at the W204. While the RFT have admittedly improved, they are still nothing on which I'd like to travel west of the Mississippi. Even if I could limp into a place to have my tire repaired (not guaranteed out here), RFT are not something most places stock, and I'd likely be stuck in West-MuckAll for a couple of days while they freight in a replacement at a really high price, plus my motel cost.

Sportstick

As long as they don't get too carried away and do away with the spare tire storage area, it could just be a matter of getting conventional rims and tires, which a lot of folks do anyway, and a mini-spare. If they do go over the edge with this, you should know in time to still have a good choice of really good deals on a W204. With all automatic trans, I'm still out of here anyway next time, but good luck!

kevink2

A mechanical engineering co-worker of mine was working with Michelin on their current RFT's ..... over the top non-linerar Finite Element Analysis, with elements of every cubic mm for the rim and non metal parts, speed and braking analysis cases .... impressed me !

I can't see how the cost and/or weight savings are significant, as 4 RFT's would be more/equally expensive as 4 real tires and a lightweight spare (the one in my Rx7 is about 13 lbs). I think the selling point for the RFT's is not cost savings for MB or consumer, but rather personal safety so a person (ex wife, mother, etc) is not stranded on the side of the road late on a dark night .....

.

Sportstick

Your analysis is interesting, but I can tell you from talking to the folks at BMW and Volvo (S60 does this too), that they primarily viewed it as a cost reduction. We don't know the business model for the launch of RFT's and what tire manufacturers were willing to do to get OE market share. If the issue were primarily safety, one would more logically expect that the spare tire area would continue to exist, as these were first launched with a 50 mile limitation, and they would have allowed for someone to protect a longer driving capability for the areas such as in the western half of the US where 50 miles can just be the distance to the next cactus.

Jaywalker

Cost reduction likely drives it, but I expect weight does too - perhaps as a part of reducing total volume, rather than simply one wheel/tire weight. The US is moving toward a mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy of 54.5 mpg, so I don't hold out much hope for the W205 staying the way I like it!

I had my checkbook out for an E46 purchase until I happened to note there was no room for even a part-time spare tire. That killed it, so I've come over to MB to look.

It would be amusing to have fuel economy and cost reductions requiring us to move back to the 1920's, with us having to break down a flat at the side of the road to fix it, or to mount racks on the roof for spare wheels, per Land Rover on safari...

alsyli

And one of the reasons I purchased an MB vs. a BMW (aside from my belief that BMWs, in general, aren't nearly as reliable as MBs). My father had a last-gen BMW 328i. The car (w/o the sports package that I feel ruins the steering feel and high-speed ride) was absolutely brilliant when it came to only one factor -- driving (ride/handling balance, steering weight and feel, transmission).

And, strangely enough, as much as I enjoy driving, it's funny how that quality drops in importance when the rest of the car is sort of a mess. Who made the controls in the last-gen BMW? They were poorly placed, and the cheap-looking LED display was nearly indecipherable. The run-flats are a terrible low-speed ride and started to make a horrific whining noise somewhere around 30,000 mi; they were painful expensive to replace ($400+ for one tire? Really???). The interior quality was such that the driver's seat belt started to fray (again, in a car that was ~3 yrs old). My dad is unusually careless w/ his cars, but we've never had that problem in any MB our family has had over the past 20+ yrs. Why do I have to insert a key fob *and* push a button? Who came up w/ the counterintuitive detents from the turn-signal stalk? And then there were the electrical glitches (one of which randomly left all the windows in a fully lowered position randomly).

There is no question in my mind that the 3-series (at least the last-gen) runs circles around the C-class when it comes to driving dynamics. But the C-class is pleasant enough in that area and really tops the 3-series as a fully thought-out *car* (vs. just a driving instrument). The BMW impresses quickly, but the Mercedes is more livable over the long term. I actually *don't* feel that the fantastic ride/handling compensates for the "small" sins. I actually think that those small sins, over time, b/c relatively insufferable. ::shrug::