Anybody else just prefer the pre-facelift all around?
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Of the pre-facelift model, I only like the front bumper and headlights better.
The facelift model looks better in just about every other way.
The facelift model looks better in just about every other way.
#3
Senior Member
I prefer the facelifted model (obviously), but more for interior quality than exterior looks. I don't care about LEDs at all. But I couldn't deal with the cheap pre-2012+ interiors (for the money).
#4
I prefer the pre-facelift front,but prefer the 2012+ taillights. I'm indifferent on the Interior as both are just whatevers. I do not like how the c250 is only a 4 cylinder. I know there are lots of people on here that do though,but I can't justify spending close to $40,000 on a small turbo four.
Trending Topics
#8
Super Member
Nope, love LED drls and taillights, center dash screen is incredible, console nav looks much better than flip up nav, center console stack looks better too. Plus the power of the M276
#9
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 CL63, 2013 GL550
I prefer everything about the pre-facelift. The headlights with the eyelids look nice, the fog lights look and work great too (instead of being built into the headlamp). If I wanted an LED strip on the bottom of the car, I'd have bought an Audi :P
#10
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BLR-BFL-LAX
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 Acura TLX
I prefer the pre-facelift front,but prefer the 2012+ taillights. I'm indifferent on the Interior as both are just whatevers. I do not like how the c250 is only a 4 cylinder. I know there are lots of people on here that do though,but I can't justify spending close to $40,000 on a small turbo four.
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
the 7" screen in the dash and the NTG4.5 COMAND really bring the W204 to a new level imo
on the other hand i really don't like the headlights of the facelift all that much
on the other hand i really don't like the headlights of the facelift all that much
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germantown, MD/Rehoboth Beach, DE
Posts: 1,351
Received 90 Likes
on
62 Posts
2024 GLS450
The only thing I like better about the pre-facelift is the fact that it uses projector beams for halogen lights (a nonissue for me as I have xenon, but the reflector bowls on the facelift look cheaper and perform poorly in comparison).
My boss has a 2010 C300, and every time we go out to lunch or such in it it reminds me of why I am glad I waited for the facelift - even though it meant forgoing a manual transmission. There isn't really any comparison on the interior front IMO.
In regards to the 4 cylinder - it regularly gets 32.5MPG on the highway where it has no problem pulling to 100+ MPH very quickly, and it makes pretty nice sounds while doing it. The notion of a 4 cylinder only being for a low cost car is unique to the US - elsewhere it is not the case. The days of displacement being everything are numbered - especially as these small turbo 4s are outperforming the V6es that they replaced.
My boss has a 2010 C300, and every time we go out to lunch or such in it it reminds me of why I am glad I waited for the facelift - even though it meant forgoing a manual transmission. There isn't really any comparison on the interior front IMO.
In regards to the 4 cylinder - it regularly gets 32.5MPG on the highway where it has no problem pulling to 100+ MPH very quickly, and it makes pretty nice sounds while doing it. The notion of a 4 cylinder only being for a low cost car is unique to the US - elsewhere it is not the case. The days of displacement being everything are numbered - especially as these small turbo 4s are outperforming the V6es that they replaced.
Last edited by MDMercedesGuy; 10-15-2013 at 11:30 AM.
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
I've read this comment before, but still take exception. I've looked closely at the materials used for a variety of parts in the I.P. pre and post-facelift and don't see the "cheapness". I also don't see any improvement in fit. What I do see is a very nicely done change in design, which gives an appearance of being more upscale vs. the prior more plain and simple design. However, actual materials and assembly of are equal apparent quality, so I think cheapness is not the best descriptor....it's more of simple vs elegant, and there will be those who prefer each of those two design approaches.
#14
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BLR-BFL-LAX
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 Acura TLX
The only thing I like better about the pre-facelift is the fact that it uses projector beams for halogen lights (a nonissue for me as I have xenon, but the reflector bowls on the facelift look cheaper and perform poorly in comparison).
My boss has a 2010 C300, and every time we go out to lunch or such in it it reminds me of why I am glad I waited for the facelift - even though it meant forgoing a manual transmission. There isn't really any comparison on the interior front IMO.
In regards to the 4 cylinder - it regularly gets 32.5MPG on the highway where it has no problem pulling to 100+ MPH very quickly, and it makes pretty nice sounds while doing it. The notion of a 4 cylinder only being for a low cost car is unique to the US - elsewhere it is not the case. The days of displacement being everything are numbered - especially as these small turbo 4s are outperforming the V6es that they replaced.
My boss has a 2010 C300, and every time we go out to lunch or such in it it reminds me of why I am glad I waited for the facelift - even though it meant forgoing a manual transmission. There isn't really any comparison on the interior front IMO.
In regards to the 4 cylinder - it regularly gets 32.5MPG on the highway where it has no problem pulling to 100+ MPH very quickly, and it makes pretty nice sounds while doing it. The notion of a 4 cylinder only being for a low cost car is unique to the US - elsewhere it is not the case. The days of displacement being everything are numbered - especially as these small turbo 4s are outperforming the V6es that they replaced.
#15
I'm not questioning the competency of the turbo 4, I just prefer the smoothness of the v6, especially at this price point. Just a personal preference.
#16
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2012 C250 Sport
I've read this comment before, but still take exception. I've looked closely at the materials used for a variety of parts in the I.P. pre and post-facelift and don't see the "cheapness". I also don't see any improvement in fit. What I do see is a very nicely done change in design, which gives an appearance of being more upscale vs. the prior more plain and simple design. However, actual materials and assembly of are equal apparent quality, so I think cheapness is not the best descriptor....it's more of simple vs elegant, and there will be those who prefer each of those two design approaches.
#17
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BLR-BFL-LAX
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 Acura TLX
I don't have pre- and post-facelift models for side-by-side comparison, but I do think the plastic used for the upper half of the dash and door panels looks a lot better. But otherwise, I agree that "improvement" it's more of a stylistic things (and I do personally think it looks a lot better and more upscale).
#18
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BLR-BFL-LAX
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 Acura TLX
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#20
Senior Member
The steering wheels alone are way nicer in my opinion in the 2012+ models. As are the vents, dash design, and HVAC/radio area. The pre-refresh displays are dated too. And that's fine, they are old, they weren't out-dated at the time. But now they are.
But really it all comes down to the NAV screen.
Before the refresh, I only considered models without NAV to avoid that flip up screen. I figured I could leave the radio display flap closed but then I realized I wouldn't see the station info.
But as another poster said, I don't think the assembly was terrible in the pre-refresh model. Just not as "pretty". And I just don't find the nav/radio display concept in those models to be a quality solution. Why did it have to be so complicated? Now it's just a screen in a hole in the dash. Simple and elegant.
But really it all comes down to the NAV screen.
Before the refresh, I only considered models without NAV to avoid that flip up screen. I figured I could leave the radio display flap closed but then I realized I wouldn't see the station info.
But as another poster said, I don't think the assembly was terrible in the pre-refresh model. Just not as "pretty". And I just don't find the nav/radio display concept in those models to be a quality solution. Why did it have to be so complicated? Now it's just a screen in a hole in the dash. Simple and elegant.
#22
Member
I like my 2010, although i do like the face-lifted interior. Loved the rear tails on the facelifted, so outfitted mine with a pair of those. The turbo on the C250 is just superb; always love spirited driving.
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
I don't care much for the new sculpted headlights and crimped up rear diffuser panel but I do think the new interior is "prettier"...of course I don't mind my simple, solidly built interior but it is a bit more Spartan than most people prefer.
#25