E-Class (W211) 2003-2009

W211 has LESS rear leg room than W210??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 04-18-2007, 01:24 PM
  #1  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
ProV1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
MB, BMW
W211 has LESS rear leg room than W210??

the E350 I saw seemed to have slightly less legroom than my car, so I looked it up online.. and in fact W211s have 35.7in rear legroom vs. 36.1in in W210?? After each generation these cars always grow in size, but how can the rearseats actually go smaller?? This is really too bad, b/c I was hoping my next car would have the same if not slightly more rear legroom. Anything less is unacceptable.
Old 04-18-2007, 01:45 PM
  #2  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Barry45RPM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale Area, USA
Posts: 5,017
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts
2015 ML 350
Originally Posted by ProV1
the E350 I saw seemed to have slightly less legroom than my car, so I looked it up online.. and in fact W211s have 35.7in rear legroom vs. 36.1in in W210?? After each generation these cars always grow in size, but how can the rearseats actually go smaller?? This is really too bad, b/c I was hoping my next car would have the same if not slightly more rear legroom. Anything less is unacceptable.
The difference is 4/10 of an inch.... but check out the difference in the 2 trunks! The 211's is much much better! Unless you have 2 full size adults in the back all the time, the .4 inch difference is a non event given the difference between the overall designs of the 2 cars. Oh, and did I mention the trunk?
Old 04-18-2007, 01:50 PM
  #3  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
ProV1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
MB, BMW
you're right. i guess i was hoping for a noticeable improvement over my car. 2 extra inches over W210 woud've been perfect. S-class is huge but also a pig. i guess you can't have everything..


didn't look in the trunk, but i'm happy with W210 trunk. When I had my BMW 540, I could barely fit 3 golfbags. 4 is no problem now
Old 04-18-2007, 01:53 PM
  #4  
Super Member
 
silberrosa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 663
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Have you driven a new S-Class? I would recommend this before referring to it as a pig. Your colleagues on the S-Class board might have a different opinion of the new 221 S-Class.
Old 04-18-2007, 02:07 PM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
ProV1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
MB, BMW
Originally Posted by silberrosa
Have you driven a new S-Class? I would recommend this before referring to it as a pig. Your colleagues on the S-Class board might have a different opinion of the new 221 S-Class.


haha, i wasnt knocking the S-class per se, they are fantastic cars with a different purpose & for different crowd. Plus i was referring more to W220. Perhaps I need to test drive a S55 AMG.
Old 04-18-2007, 04:41 PM
  #6  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
lkchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 6,075
Received 207 Likes on 184 Posts
'07 GL320CDI, '10 CL550
Yes, the W211 is in fact a smaller car than the W210.

Mercedes Enthusiast magazine has written there was fear it was getting too close to S-class size.

See my sig ... the difference is noticeable.

Last edited by lkchris; 04-18-2007 at 04:48 PM.
Old 04-18-2007, 05:19 PM
  #7  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 4,260
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
2010 ML550, 2010 E350 4M, 1966 Corvette Convt C2
Originally Posted by ProV1
the E350 I saw seemed to have slightly less legroom than my car, so I looked it up online.. and in fact W211s have 35.7in rear legroom vs. 36.1in in W210?? After each generation these cars always grow in size, but how can the rearseats actually go smaller?? This is really too bad, b/c I was hoping my next car would have the same if not slightly more rear legroom. Anything less is unacceptable.
Think you are making a big deal out of nothing .4 of an inch actually means nothing about the comfort of rear seat passengers. You are not mentioning the larger measurments in other dimensions. I had a 210 and now, since 05 have a 211 and I can tell you from personal experience that the 211 is more comfortable in all seats.
Old 04-26-2007, 05:17 PM
  #8  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
starbrite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,779
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
2004 E320
Originally Posted by ProV1
you're right. i guess i was hoping for a noticeable improvement over my car. 2 extra inches over W210 woud've been perfect. S-class is huge but also a pig. i guess you can't have everything..

didn't look in the trunk, but i'm happy with W210 trunk. When I had my BMW 540, I could barely fit 3 golfbags. 4 is no problem now
Dramatic difference between a w210 and w211 trunk !
(first pic is my previous '98 E320, my '04 has split rear seats but I believe all 211's are the same size trunk)

Along with the clubs, you could probably get a cart in there as well



Old 04-27-2007, 01:13 AM
  #9  
Member
 
mbnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hunterdon County
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'06 E 350 4matic wagon; '05 E 500 4matic sedan; '09 S550 4matic
I have both and although I've never officially checked I would say the 211 has more front seat room than my 210. I am pretty tall and have no problem with either but when you slide the 211 front seat back you feel like you your legs stretch out forever. If you really want to squire folks around in you back seat then you do need to look at an S.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: W211 has LESS rear leg room than W210??



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:26 AM.