W204 to X204?
We love our new C....

"Ya pays yer money and takes yer choose."
You can't much in either. You can put more in the GLK.
Like all multi-varible questions, the answer is: It depends.
Wayne
The real difference is you sit higher on the X204.
Both are a great ride & drive if you are willing to be hands-on - no doze type.
Much lower Ride Height + Sport Tuned Stiffer and plus even Lower Springs (Sport Model C) + Stiffer Dampening (read as shocks) + Superior Performance Ultra-Wide Low Profile Staggered 18" P-Zero Tires + Greater Turn In + Tighter Steering Ratio + Less dampened Steering System (sport model only) = C-Class Sport Sedan's slightly better feed back and road handling performance.
However, it should be noted that neither of these are in the same universe as my other summer ride....
Last edited by MBRedux; May 15, 2012 at 02:21 PM.
Trending Topics
Much lower Ride Height + Sport Tuned Stiffer and plus even Lower Springs (Sport Model C) + Stiffer Dampening (read as shocks) + Superior Performance Ultra-Wide Low Profile Staggered 18" P-Zero Tires + Greater Turn In + Tighter Steering Ratio + Less dampened Steering System (sport model only) = C-Class Sport Sedan's slightly better feed back and road handling performance.
However, it should be noted that neither of these are in the same universe as my other summer ride....

SHOW OFF
and you should be.I lam really really ike your GT-R ...... Sweet ride.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Ours. Perfect.
Theirs. Total disaster.
We like Ours very much.
YMMV.
Wayne
Almost like saying the bigger numbers must mean better...
I just don't see the point; were you going to track these things?
Most likely they are errand runners & good at merging on the beltway.
Else, you ain't doing 9/10th on these things around any s-curves.
Lets not make it out to be more than what surburbia wants.
No prize either in showing a car with enough techno aid to drive itself @ sebring.
Yawn.
Almost like saying the bigger numbers must mean better...
I just don't see the point; were you going to track these things?
Most likely they are errand runners & good at merging on the beltway.
Else, you ain't doing 9/10th on these things around any s-curves.
Lets not make it out to be more than what surburbia wants.
No prize either in showing a car with enough techno aid to drive itself @ sebring.
Yawn.
First, no one, and I mean NO ONE has called the GLK a "TOTAL DISASTER" here except for venchka, who naturally reads way too deep into these posts and can, at times, place words in other peoples mouths, so no surprise there. In fact, I said that my "wife loves" her GLK! So venchka has that in common with her... nothing wrong with that. It should also be stated that I am on record here on MBWorld calling the GLK a "chick car" (2010) and that the "handling left me kind-of limp to say the least"... as well as stating that "the GLK is indeed a Home Run for its intended demographic",... far from a "total disaster" as mentioned here.
Second, naturally if the only car you drive is a daily driver with soft comfortable suspension, cushy ride, and numb steering feed-back, your appreciation and lack of experience can make the driver *forget* what a great handling car should actually feel & handle like. As an owner of both the GLK, C-Class Sport, along with a GT-R, ( not to mention that I own a NISMO tuning garage), I naturally felt I was the best suited to answer the OP question since I not only own and drive both of the cars he is interested in buying, I can compare them to a great handling car, the outer extreme, to better judge and compare them with, to list the differences, which are significant, and to dispute the notion that there "is nothing to differentiate the steering" on both X&W versions. Well, that is total BS. And the ONLY way you will feel and know the difference is if you push the cars to their extreme limits. Only there will you find the truth, which is SIGNIFICANT between these two chassis'!
So let's look at these two cars for what they truly are, entry Benz's with family transport in mind.
My vote: = The C-Class Sport Sedan for obvious reasons. Sorry for roughing-up your feathers, but that's the honest truth IMO, which hurts sometimes.
Last edited by MBRedux; May 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM.
For the record, going way back to the original Baby Benz, and after several test drives, the C-Class doesn't do anything for us. Purely our personal opinion.
Wayne
Fact of the matter is I find no big difference between the 2 automobile in the OP in the steering.
Both requires more attention for sure (pre-add-ons).
However, I am not foolish enough to list a bunch of performance add-ons that inherently make a car 6 inches off the ground vs. a taller CUV feel different & say with a broad stroke that they are truly different. No duh!
Even by ride clearance the 2 characteristics are already a tad different.
No need to have fancy add-ons & a fancy ride to say that.
The OP asked for entire C-Class segment - not just 1 specific car with a bunch of performance add-ons that could change the characteristics of the car.
Heck if I added wider tires on the GLK or C, I would get a different feel immediately.
If you're not driving at 9/10's - then what is there to explore at the limits?
Who drives at 9/10's on the public roads?
Get a Black Series AMG C & then I can say 9/10's is where I want to spend most of my time.
Sometime, people just want to show off for nothing.
Last edited by MBNA109; May 17, 2012 at 04:31 PM.



