I thought I could bring a lunch table conversation among friends to this forum about why opt for C43 AMG which has AMG-enhanced 3.0L V6 biturbo, 362 hp, 384 lb-ft @2000-4200 rpm, which does 0 - 60 in 4.6 sec instead of CLA45 AMG which has Handcrafted AMG 2.0L inline-4 turbo (One man - One engine), 375 hp, 350 lb-ft @2250-5000rpm, and which does 0 - 60 in 4.1 sec ?
Apart from the fact that CLA is an entry level class and C class has much better interior, there's nothing much to choose between them, though CLA45 AMG has surprisingly better numbers in its favor along with better looking rear and a true AMG handcrafted engine

What are your thoughts?

 

C-class is bigger in general, more space in the rear seats, has a better interior by far. Should of been called the c450 imo and not brand it as an amg. Kind of like bmw has 428, 435, m4 vs c300, c450, c63 maybe bmw will start putting m badges on their 35's lol

 

Interior, space, looks. I would buy my C43 100 times over the CLA.

I am 6ft and the rear headroom in the CLA is really tight. Granted, I won't really be sitting at the back but most of my friends are tall.

For more space, better interior, and better looks you pay the same.

Also CLA45 is over engineered and doesn't sound nearly as good as the C43 imo.

 

The C43 is MUCH better to listen to and much better interior and larger and all around the car to buy.
I could not stand to hear the sound of that 4cyl. for very long. and you have to live in the interior and the CLA would not wear well for long.

 

CLA45 FWD bias vs C43 RWD bias?

 

The CLA45 kills Subaru STi's and Mistubishi Evo's. Or the Golf R/Audi S3. That 2 liter 4 is something special, but it's still a seriously over-tuned 4-cylinder boy racer at the end of the day. The C43 is a mid-level C-class trim competing with a 340i, S4, etc. It's a fast, capable, understated, luxury car. I doubt many people seriously cross-shop the 2 cars.

 

both AWD

 

Simply put it is a different level of car... Bigger in size and better in the over all finish inside and out.

The CLA is a much lighter car as well that helps the 0-100.

It really comes down to personal preference IMO.

I would go for the C43 - its a good size... CLA is a bit small.

 

First thread where I see people on the c63 forum praise the C43 LOL. Everyone must really hate the CLA45.... me included. Junk.

 

True, CLA45 is being dismissed outright
I agree that 375 hp from a 2.0L 4 cyl is some serious engineering from AMG

 

haha true that... I have nothing against either cars though, it's also based on affordability

 

The CLA45 is a rocket - but you can tell it's 4 cylinders are working hella hard when it's pulling. You don't get that same sense out of a well built 6 cylinder engine. And so forth with 8, 10, and 12's.

 

The answer is obvious if you drive both cars. If you value straight line performance over comfort and handling the CLA is your car. However, the CLA has significant turbo lag and understeers like a front wheel drive car. The C450/43 corners much more predictably with no significant understeer and if you didn't know it was turbo, you could not tell from driving it as there is no perceptible lag. In fact, I suspect that if you put serious tires on the C43, it would pull some much more serious Gs on the skidpad and would corner even better in the real world. The C does remarkably well with mediocre run-flats.

 

I just got rid of a 2015 CLA45 AMG and went back to a 2013 C63 AMG.
I have been driving MB cars for 30 yr and was super impresses with the CLA45 on the track so jumped in but I always felt I was in a Japanese boy racer the more time moved on. It's a personal thing and anyone not familiar with the brand wouldn't see it this way.
I had concerns as I read about bracket breakage and other things. I also found it horribly concerning going up or down even the shallowest of curbs with any steering angle input going forward or backwards. THe front drive train has a distinct mechanical clunk as if something is banging together. My service manager tried 2-3 cars and they were the same. Long term problem? Who knows.
The CLA45 is fast for sure and steady on the track and seemed to accept endless power input. Mine was only 355 hp. The 4Matic is seamless and on longer highway trips 8L/100 km was often reached (Not likely in this C63)
The C43 is actually a inch shorter and half an inch wider according to specs I just checked. My C63 is 1" longer than the C63 but the C seems roomier.
I suggest take both out for a good hour and be critical and take notes.
At $65000CDN list as turned out a CLA45 AMG is not a cheap entry car but its siblings are the entry car of the line.

 

I was wondering with the 0-60 times:

CLA45 : the stated time of 4.1 sec, is that with launch control? What is it without launch control I wonder?

C43: the stated time 4.6 sec is without launch (it does't have launch control), and there are some reports the real world acceleration does a bit better than 4.6 sec.

So perhaps in the real world (i.e. not going to all the hassle of launch control on the CLA45 just at the lights) the acceleration figures are even closer?

Apart from 0-60 times, the C43 is a superior car in every other way imo.

Views?

 

I had no idea the CLA45 AMG was so quick! However I'm not a big fan of the way they look - sort of banana shape.

C43 AMG! It is just better.

 

Having considered a GLA45 AMG when getting my C450, I concur with everything everyone says in favor of the 43 has said, though let's be clear: CLA/GLA 45s ain't no punks.

Still have thoughts of lowering a GLA45 and having one mean-*** hot hatch, with no real problem with the 4-banger, which is now up to 370hp (can't remember the torque.....what, 360 lb. ft.-ish?)

That said, just lowered the 450 and it looks quite nice on stock 18s; perfect stance and visual flow from bumper-to-bumer, not to mention the nicer feel of any lowered vehicle - less drag, a little more zip, noticeably more hunkered down on highways and in corners; a smidge better gas mileage. Next, maybe some 255/40s on the rear when I change tires and that should do the trick. Maybe Vossen CV3s later. Maybe not.

Anyway, win-win either way, but with the S-Class - and damn near C63 - looks and what appears to be about $6-7,000 in upgrades from the C400 4Matic.........for only a $2,000 bump in base?

GLA45 will have to wait.

 

I had the same dillema. I actually ordered a CLA45 but changed the order to a C43 coupe for the following reasons:

1) C43 looks better in my opinion
2) Yes the CLA45 is faster on paper 0-100kmh/0-62mph but that's mainly because of launch control. If you look at all the drag races of the CLA45 it pulls away quick but then starts to lose ground once things are going. The C43 with a bigger engine will probably be better in real world driving with more torque lower down.
3) The C class a little more refined and slightly better equipment overall vs the CLA. eg HUD display in the C43, 360 degree camera
4) V6 exhaust sound > 4 cylinder exhaust sound
5) The CLA45 is a little more 'boy racer' than the C43

Things I had to get over:
1) Slower 0-100/0-62
2) No apple car play in the C43
3) 9G tronic in the C43 vs 7DCT in the CLA45
4) No red leather line at the 12 o'clock portion of the steering wheel in the C43

Lastly the absence of the 'one man, one engine thing' for the C43 doesnt bother me at all - let's face it, it probably makes absolutely no noticeable difference to your driving experience apart from having a bling tag on your engine cover with some dude's name.

 

You guys will appreciate this old CLA45 thread (the link starts at my first post): https://mbworld.org/forums/cla45-amg...ml#post6547600.

At one point in that thread, launch control is discussed. This article is a bit dated but it mirrors the thread, check out the 5-60 time for the CLA45: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review.

I guess in the end, I had some influence on the OP's final decision.

 

interior on the cla is the biggest turn off. I hate the styling of it.

I also hate the exterior looks of the cla, the hatch version europe gets is much better.

 

The CLA45 is actually a modified coupe design into which the slipped two rear doors. It is not the easies to enter and egress from the rears. In retrospect the GLA45 AMG might have been a better choice in that regard but a Matrix has more room at less than half the price if you wanted a cross-over.

 

I loved your description of the sound on start up. My neighbour liked to needle me about my lawn mower with a tuned exhaust. He ain't laughing now. Just oozes envy!

 

I was surprised too... but then CLA45 is about 500lbs lighter than C43 and that additional hp should help it hold that torque a bit longer

I am also amazed at AMG's persistence with 7 speed transmission while non-AMG and semi-AMG models are being upgraded to 9 speed transmission

 

Here was the response that I posted regarding the 7G vs. 9G question:

 

In the end I think it has as much to do with fuel efficiency than anything.
There is the great bogie man CAFE and California emissions that drives so much of this from my years in the North Amercian business of supply chain work.
Lower revs and torque converter efficiency (i.e. lack of slippage) and lock up all mean lower consumption per unit of distance over time.
As one who grew up on VW bugs and 4 spd manuals downshifting is somewhat ingrained in me and as such I get a lot more wear out of brakes. After all in the bug by the time you got to the light you had to at least be in 2nd or kangaroo gas kicked in when you hit the throttle!
In the 5G you dropped down to 4th and you got some decent engine braking. In the 7G you have to get to at least 5th for any real effort to slow the car can be felt. I had the 7G in my 2011 E350 4Matic, my 2014 SLK350, the recently departed CLA45 AMG and now in the 2013 C63. They all are the same. Down 2 at least and usually 3 pretty quick thereafter.
I have not driven the 9G so I cannot comment but my expectation is it will be 6th at least. Perhaps someone can share who has the experience.
What doesn't come into this is displacement.
I am under no illusions the 6.3L V8 in the C63 is going to give me as good a mileage number as previous cars but one thing is pretty clear.
In my driving patterns in the 2011 E350 4Matic Wagon over the longer term aveage consumption was 10.1L/100 km and average speed was 56 kph.
In the SLK350 about 9.8 and 56. In the CLA45 with a 2L, 9.3 and 46 since I moved. It is the long term average that counts and my experience says speed doesn't vary all that much regardless of which car you drive so driving style and displacement has as much to say as what gearbox the car has.
I think fuel consumption is the last think anyone driving and AMG thinks about.