Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mercedes-Benz CLK (2005 and earlier)

pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
edited August 20 in Mercedes-Benz
"A Hatchback With a Three-Pointed Star"

image


Here's a direct link to Edmunds' First Drive of the 2002 Mercedes-Benz C230, by D. John Booth.


Please post your comments below. Thanks! ;-)


Pocahontas
Host
Hatchbacks Message Board

«13456752

Comments

  • mfarmer2mfarmer2 Posts: 67
    A hatchback with class! I like the looks all around.

    Mary
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    8 seconds 0-60?? I would expect much more to compete with the 3-series or even all the upcoming pocket rockets. Unless they can bring that number down to less than 6.5, then my money can be better spent elsewhere.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • I can't help but thinking that this will end up being a "girl car."
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    Absolutely LOVE the looks of this car!! It's so perfectly flowing and the rear is sporty. They need to do something about the cloth pattern though. The big yellow ovals everywhere is very unattractive. Kudos to Mercedes for finally offering us a European flavored hatch unlike anything else on the market. I'm also glad they decided to keep the supercharged four hooked up to a 6 speed manual instead of offering the weak 2.6 liter six with an automatic. The panoramic sunroof is an innovative idea as well. One this is for certain: I expect to seriously consider this car as soon as I graduate from college. Can't wait to see it in person.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    There doesn't seem to be many comments flying around this particular board. But, I have to ask anyway, what is appealing about this car?

    I can see from those couple of people that have posted positive comments that they like the looks of it. Do the looks and the badge really justify that $30K pricetag?

    I gotta admit, I loved it when I saw it as well, but once I read about it, I was thoroughly disappointed. For that much money, I'd rather sign up for the Mazda RX-8 (for instance).

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    I keep hearing all these comments about disappointment. What is there to be disappointed about? You either like the uniqueness of a sporty luxury hatchback or you don't. The appeal is that there is nothing else currently on the market like it. The star on the hood is just an added benefit. For hatchback lovers, it's an awesome car. The C230 is not trying to be a Mazda sports car, so its pointless to compare them (I currently own a Mazda RX-7 so am well aware of its appeal). Comparison on price alone is always a stupid idea. A better comparison would be between the Acura CL and the C230. They both are in the same price class and are both coupes that offer a compromise between pure sportiness and luxury. In that comparison, I would be willing to trade the smoother V-6 power and utter blandness of the Acura for a sportier and more uniquely-styled hatchback that offers superior cargo flexibility. I would prefer that Mercedes offer the car in the 20K price range, but realize that's a tall order for a luxury marque that doesn't want to tarnish the image of its more expensive cars. And when you consider that the coupe has the same exact engineering put into it as does the C-class sedan, than it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be priced 10K less than the sedan. If you suggest that the coupe isn't worth the 30K price, than you should also be ready to suggest that the sedan is not worth it either. They are the same exact car! I think it all boils down to American's perception of the hatchback as nothing but a cheap economy car. I'm hoping that will change, but only time will tell. Thankfully, Mercedes has decided to take the plunge with a worthwhile entry.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    Why wouldn't you compare on price alone? Don't you want the most for your money? Maybe you have a wad of cash to throw around, but most people don't. If I'm paying $30K for a car, I want the best car that the money is going to buy.

    I would look to compare a compact 2-door with a hatch at the rear. The CL doesn't really fit that description. The RX7 (for instance) has incredible performance, but it also has leather interior and power everything. I consider that on the edge of luxurious. But, I mentioned it mainly for its performance.

    OK. Let's compare the Acura CL then. I'll take that in a heartbeat. This Mercedes isn't even close to the sportiness of the CL. For $30K, you can get yourself the CL S-type. 0-60 in 6.4 and a manumatic tranny. Not to mention a fairly roomy backseat and a large trunk.

    Better yet, how about the Mini Cooper S that's on its way. All leather 2-door hatchback distributed by BMW. I think this is most likely the same target audience as this Mercedes. The Mini Cooper will most likely be a bit smaller, but, for the superior performance to be had, the classic heritage that goes along with the model, and the $8,000 price break over the Mercedes, I'd sign up for the Mini first.

    If you look back, you'll see that my disappointment comes only from the performance of the Mercedes. For that much money, I want something with leather, a good name with good reliability, and performance that will rival the other $30K luxury coupes out there.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    Do I think the sedan is overpriced? Definitely.

    By the way, looking at those pictures again, yes, the Mercedes has "superior cargo flexibility", but the Acura has more actual cargo space. With the back seats in the upright position in the Mercedes, there appears to be but a couple of cubic feet left in the rear. the Acura's trunk is much larger than that.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    You made a good effort at your comparisons, but it was lacking in the finer details. I would also like to point out that what you consider is worth spending your money on is not necessarily what other people consider is worth their money. Different people want different things. You obviously want the fastest accelerating car money can buy. I, however, want an all around good performing car. Having fast acceleration numbers doesn't make a car sporty. The CL Type-S was recorded at 6.8 seconds from 0-60, respectable, but that doesn't make it sporty. The manumatic tranny is far from sporty; it's simply an automatic with a lever you slap forward or backward. BORING! Anyway, the CL is considered to be a competent but far from sporty car to drive. It's not considered a "fun" car to drive due to the fact its handling is hampered by a 63% front weight bias. As Car & Driver states, "It lacks the necessary balance and fluidity that we want from a sporting car". I think that sums up the Acura. The shorter length of the Mercedes ought to make it more nimble than the long Acura, not to mention its rear-drive characteristics. Nimbleness and good handling qualities combined with good performance is what makes a car sporty. Handling is purely a guess at this point, but considering the C320 sedan with the sport package was considered to have just as good handling as the BMW 3-series, than it is likely the coupe will be just as good. As for your suggestion that the Mercedes has little cargo room with the back seats up, you obviously have never owned a hatchback. You clearly cannot state what you did by just looking at a picture. When you consider that my small Hyundai Accent hatchback is rated at 16 cu ft with the rear seats up (which trounces the Acura's 13.6 cu ft), than it only makes sense to assume the larger Mercedes will have just as much room. In other words, you were VERY wrong. The Mercedes also has a roomy rear seat as Edmunds stated.
    As for your comparison of the Mini and the C230, it was off as well. The Mini is more than just a little smaller than the C230. Do you realize the Mini is smaller in length than the Chevy Metro hatch?? It is about 2 feet smaller than the C230!! No comparison size wise there. The Mini literally has no space behind the rear seats. And what superior performance are you speaking of? Initially, the Mini will have only about 115 hp with a supercharged 160 hp version a bit later on. The C230 in comparison has 190 hp. The Mini may be small but it will not be light. Expect them to be equal performance wise when comparing the supercharged engines. If you think you can get a Mini in the first year for 21K, I think you will be sadly disappointed. Expect dealers to gouge heavily and bring the price right up to the C230. At that price, the Mini is not worth it at all for what you get. You do realize that the C230 has power everything standard and leather is optional right (29K without leather, 30K with)? That price is rather common for a compact car from a luxury division. Anyway, lastly, the RX-7 had fantastic performance but was also troublesome and very expensive (engines rarely last more than 80K before needing a rebuild and the turbos failed often; not exactly cheap maintenance for the performance gains). Prices in 95 were 36-42K, well north of the C230's price. Even if there is an RX-8, it will cost around 35-40K because the Miata is already up to 26K.
    In conclusion, this new Mercedes hatch may not offer top-notch acceleration, but it won't leave you embarrassed either. It offers a good combination of style, substance, safety, and competent performance. Overall, I feel it offers plenty for the dollar. Others may not agree, but that's my personal opinion.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    I drove the Acura. I thought it handled VERY well. I was impressed with how little body roll I encountered when cornering. I try not to take magazine reviews all too seriously unless I find that I always agree with them (and I don't)(not to mention that Motor Trend claimed it had "rear-wheel handling in a front-wheel car").

    We, obviously, don't have weight figures on these, but if 190 hp is taking the Mercedes to 60 in 8 seconds, I have to assume that it is significantly heavier than my 626 which can hit 60 in under 8 with its 170 hp. But, that's a very generalized statement because we also have to consider gear ratios and torque. In any case, when my $20K 4-door sedan can out-accelerate a $30K Mercedes, I've gotta think that's pretty humbling for the Mercedes driver. And, if you've ever driven a newer 626, you'll also know that it handles very well.

    The Mini is also supposed to come fully loaded with leather and power everything. "New levels in subcompact safety and luxury" is what BMW states. If you're saying it is so incredibly small, then why wouldn't it be a great deal lighter? If its not lighter, then its obviously of a more solid construction (and I doubt that for the price).

    Mazda is claiming that the RX8 will come in under $30K.

    As far as the cargo room, do you think there is a possibility that the "roomy" back seat of the Mercedes is taking up that seat-up cargo space? Neither of us have seen it in person, so neither of us can claim anything. The reason I said "there APPEARS to be but a couple of cubic feet left in the rear" is due to the photo of the back seat. The tops of the seats look like they are a few inches away from the glass of the rear hatch.

    If any trouble was had with the RX-7, I have to attribute that to owner issues, not engineering. We've owned an RX-7 in the past, and I've worked on my share that have had 140K and over. Not to mention, just look on Ebay, you'll find plenty with high mileage. The Rotary engine is proven to be very reliable.

    Obviously, we're not going to convince each other that the other one is wrong. And, neither of us is. We're both of different opinions. I was simply looking for an answer why this car is going to be so expensive. I don't think there is an answer. Its just an accepted fact that anything with a Mercedes badge is going to cost more than a similar vehicle without one. I've never owned a Mercedes, so I really can't claim that its worse or better than anything else. I've merely ridden in them and thought nothing special of them compared to a cheaper car (well, nothing that nice aftermarket leather seats could change, anyway).

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    That's how hatchbacks are generally. The rear glass is usually rather close to the rear seat headrests. My Accent's glass is close to the rear seat and yet it is rated at 16 cubic feet. You cannot deny that's a lot of room as it beats any mid-size sedan and even some full-size sedans. What you aren't taking into account is that the cargo space of a hatchback is a lot taller than is a sedan's and the steeply angled rear windshield stretches over a large area, allowing more space than you would think. I guarantee that the Mercedes will have at least 13 cubic feet if not more. Heck, even the puny Metro had 10 cubic feet.
    The reliability problems I was referring too was with the twin-turbo RX7 of 92-96. The older non-turbo rotary engines are VERY reliable. I own an 84 and it runs great (except for the carbuerator). However, the newer rotaries were under too much stress from the 2 turbos and tend to blow their apex seals around 80-100K, requiring an entire overhaul. The turbos were also very troublesome. Engineering problems ranged from too much heat under the hood cooking vacuum lines and causing premature cooling system hose failures. There were lots of recalls on this car and they were plagued with electrical problems. They were awesome cars, but not meant for long-term reliability. Read the RX7 forum in the sports car section and you will hear of rebuilds way too early from both those who race their cars and those who just use them daily.
    The Mini will be lighter than the C230 I'm sure, but it also won't be some little 2000 pound car either. It was engineered to be as safe as a much larger sedan so it has a bulky structure and thick sheetmetal. I expect it to weigh around 2400. The C230 should weigh around 3100. The power to weight ratios of the 2 supercharged cars will be about the same. Thus, they should be about equal performance wise. I think the 8 second guess is a bit high (Edmunds usually quotes slower times than the car magazines); it should be capable of 0-60 sprints in the 7-7.5 area, plenty fast. We will just have to wait until the official test results come out.
    As for Car & Driver's opinions, I tend to believe them most of the time because all of my experiences and opinions have closely mirrored theirs. Example: the Mazda 626 was considered a very bland family sedan with a soft suspension and average handling. Supposedly Mazda improved that in 2000, but I have driven a 98 626 ES-V6 and agree with C & D's findings. I drove one with the 5-speed and found it utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration. I didn't push the car past 4500 rpms, but up until that point the car had less pep than the 4 cylinder (although it was much smoother and quieter). The car had lots of brake dive, weak brakes, and rolled considerably. My mom's 92 Accord EX handled much better. It's a nice looking competent family car, but sporty it is not. All I gotta say is you have one big preoccupation with acceleration numbers. There is a lot more to a car than its 0-60 number. Lastly, when even Hyundai sells a car nowadays for 24K, you should be happy Mercedes still offers something below 30K. You must still think we are in the 80s when 28K was considered expensive.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    Maybe to you, 28K was expensive back in the 80s and now its a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, there are still alot of us out here who can't afford that kind of money. Well, I could afford it, I just find it difficult to pay half as much per month for the car I'm driving as the house I'm living in (and lets please not put down my house).

    I'm absolutely in shock about C&D and your experience with the 626. Mine is a '99 LX-V6 and I (and anyone else who drives with me) am entirely impressed with it as a family sedan. When I can eat up an Accord off the line and then take a sharp offramp at 80 with little tire squealing, then I'm pretty happy.

    I would be much more inclined to the Mercedes if it was down just around 7 secs. or better. Am I obsessed with acceleration? Somewhat. But, I know that is just part of the package. If that was my only consideration, I'd still have my V8 dodge dakota (and, talk about storage capacity!). But, as I've said before, I bring up acceleration here continuously because if and when I am willing to fork over that half a mortgage payment every month for my commuting/weekend fun machine, I want it to be the best I could have gotten in EVERY area. And, from their preliminary estimates, the Mercedes hatch is going to lack in AT LEAST ONE of those areas. Get it?

    Thanks for the info. on the turbo RX7s. I'll have to read that board. I was real close to buying a '93 a couple of months ago and am still considering it. Maybe that will change my mind.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    And, considering that you found the Mazda "utterly lacking in any kind of acceleration," and it has been tested to get to 60 in 7.6 (wish I could find THAT review), then why in the world would you spend $30K on a car that is being estimated at slightly better than 8?? Even if it comes in at 7 1/2, you think that kind of acceleration is "lacking." So, why would you spend that kind of money and think that the car lacks in ANY respect? Oh, right, I forgot, you don't think that's a lot of money.

    Well, I guess I'll just have to be content in the fact that I spent less than $19K on MY car.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • totalnettotalnet Posts: 67
    From Autoweek review of the car:

    Mercedes claims that the C230 Sport Coupe hits 60 mph from a stop in 7.5 seconds, measured under the German standard of two occupants, full luggage capacity and a full fuel tank. Top speed exceeds 149 mph-not bad for a three-door hatch.

    Also in the article they claim MB USA say the price will begin at $26K. Cargo volumn of 10.9 cubic feet with rear seat up. 38.8 cubic feet when the the rear seats are down.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    good post.

    That is an impessive top speed. Sounds to me like they could have changed the gearing a bit and gained a little more down low. but, then again, maybe that's an easy job for me to do. Hmmmmmmm......

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    Stay far far away from the 93 RX7s. They were a nightmare reliability wise! It was the first year for the redesign and they ran into all sorts of problems. A lot of people in the forum suggest getting a low mileage 95 as that was the best year. As for the acceleration of the 626, what I was referring to there was the lack of low-end torque. The 2.5 V-6 only has 161 lb feet at a high 5000 rpm, less than some four bangers (by the way, the V-6 is back down to 165 hp). As such, it is slow to accelerate until you get to around 5000 rpms. In comparison, the 626 four cylinder achieves its max torque at a low 3000. That meaty low-end torque is what made it feel peppier than the V-6 in around town driving even though it is actually much slower overall. If you push the car to the high redline, I'm sure it will have respectable acceleration. But driven how most people drive it, it is lacking. It just doesn't give the impression of having good pull unless you rev the hell out of it. A low-end high torque engine is always more enjoyable than a top-end high horsepower one, and it will outlast a high revving engine as well because you don't have to push it to get the power you need. In the case of the Mercedes, the supercharged four is rated at 200 lb feet from 2500-4800 rpms. That long-lasting meaty low-end torque span will give this car strong off-the-line and mid-range acceleration (I think it will be faster than what Edmunds stated anyway). I guarantee you would not be disappointed. Anyway, don't think I am dissing your car. The 626 is a good family sedan. The leather and wood is nice, the 2000 and newer models look elegant, and the rear seat is spacious and comfortable. They just need to give the car a more powerful V-6 and four cylinder that will allow it to compete better with others in the class.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
    Just one small suggestion: if you have a long message, it will be easier for people to read if you break it up into smaller paragraphs.

    Participants will be more likely to read your entire post if it's easy on the eyes. And now back to the subject of the 2002 Mercedes-Benz C230. Talk later. ;-)

    Pocahontas
    Host
    Hatchbacks Message Board
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    The supercharger is definitely a nice addition to any car. The readiness of the power is apparent. Pretty much the reason I've always been skeptical of turbos (the main reason I didn't buy the Rx7 and why I'm hesitant about the WRX). I've often thought that I would be much happier with the supercharged 2.2 from the Millenia, but that's a different story.

    The supercharger is why I'm looking forward to the Mini as well. I hope both of these vehicles turn out with higher numbers than advertised at this point. I don't see why they shouldn't.

    By the way, I definitely do rev the hell out of my 626. Its does well from around 3500 to redline (a respectable 7000). Probably explains your lack of enjoyment when not taking it past 4500. But, I do want something sportier. Probably if I had gotten the leather power seat, I'd be keeping the 626 and adding a lot of mods to it (not that there are many available).

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • totalnettotalnet Posts: 67
    I been trying to pull up some numbers for SLK230, since C230 will use the same engine. The SLK230 weight 3055 lb and C230 weight 3300 lb. I can't find any tested 0-60 numbers for SLK230. I think Mercedes said 7.2 secs for the manual.

    I like the number on the low end of torque of this engine. The WRX is 217 @ 4000 RPM. But that just the torque, the WRX has more hp and it's 4WD. I can't wait to test drive both cars. BTW, the WRX weights 3085 lb and gets 0-60 around 6 secs area.

    I think I will check up on the reliability of the supercharged engines of SLK230 and the late model C230 Kompressor.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    The WRX is definitely a nice car and I was considering it, but after reading more and more about Turbos, I think I'd rather get a car without one.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • totalnettotalnet Posts: 67
    What about turbo? Reliablilty? Or do me mean the turbo lag?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    I'm just unsure of their reliability. I mean, I know that certain manufacturers, like Volvo for instance, have been using them for decades and they have become very reliable. But I've just read so many horror stories here on the boards from owners of other turbo vehicles. I've never owned one, so I guess it just makes me a bit nervous.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • totalnettotalnet Posts: 67
    Well it really depend on the engine. The WRX's engine has been turbocharged for couple of years before coming here. Ofcourse, I don't know what it's track record has been.

    Supercharging an engine is pretty demanding too, not as demanding as turbocharging. But MB has been supercharging their engines for years. Going get a chance to drive a supercharged E320. Wonder how the smaller C230 compares.

    Was at the local book store and saw that UK car magazines now have articles on the C230. BBC Car has a short preview piece. I agree with them on that if you are getting the car with the sun roof, you should get the car in a darker colour. :-) The top of the car, from the windshield to below the spoiler, is black. But I really like silver. The second chose is complete black. Well I guess I will have see them in person.

    I bought CAR magazine, but I won't read it yet. Will read it on the 14 hours plane ride to the land of Mercedes-Benz. No, not Germany, but Hong Kong. Hong Kong, where more people own more MB per capita than anywhere in the world.

    I also bought Road & Track and Sport Compact Car. R&T has a review on the WRX. SCC is going to be long read for me. 8 cars shoot out and preview of Z and SE-R plus an article on the new SE-R's QR25DE engine.

    Oh, it going to be a lot of compact sport cars to choose from in the coming years. I am still very happy with my 95 200SX SE-R. Going to move up for my next car. I am looking at the C230, CL Type-S or the hinted IS Coupe.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,664
    Yes, I would trust a Mercedes supercharger about as much as a volvo turbocharger. Like you said, we really don't have much data yet as to the reliability of Subaru turbocharging.

    I'm planning on moving up, as well, but I'm thinking that $30K is a little beyond practical reach. I'll probably be waiting until a couple of the recent vehicles are a little more in my range (i.e. Volvo T5, Licoln LS, CL-S (doubtful that will drop enough for me in a year, but definitely my favorite of the bunch)). Or, I will be looking at the new pocket rockets, although they will probably not be comfortable enough for me to drive 100 miles a day in.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • totalnettotalnet Posts: 67
    I myself will give it sometime before buying my next car. But the C230 is currently on the top of my list. I will wait a year on the C230. There been report of built quality on some of the newer models of MB. Also I will see how the well the car will sell. I don't like driving a car that everyone else is driving. That's why the new Integra/RSX was never on my list.

    Will have to see how much all of the options going to cost. Like the other C-class, a CD player is not even standard. Hope there is a package that include the CD, leather, and sun roof. If not, adding up everything and this car could cost over $30K.

    The more I look at the rear C pilar, the more it look like the one on the 318ti. I will dig up the spec on the 318ti. The 318ti is just too tall for it's length.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Hi all, I know some of you have been waiting for the '01 C-class's offset crash test results (even though we already know that it receives a "good" and a "best pick"). I'm happy to report that tomorrow's Dateline NBC Tuesday at 10pm EST/9pm CST will be airing the results of the crash test, just in time for tomorrow's MB Tuesdays chat at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10pm Eastern! Please check your local TV listings.

    Also included in this round of IIHS crash tests will be the Hyundai Elantra, the Honda Civic, the Dodge Grand Caravan, the Ford Focus, and the Dodge Stratus. Note that all of the models that are being crash tested have been substantially or completely redesigned, and are model year 2001 vehicles. Dateline is only covering the IIHS test and has no say in the results.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    I'm afraid that you'll be disappointed if you expect the CD changer to be included in a package. MB doesn't offer it since some customers don't listen to CDs and would rather save the few hundred dollars. If you order the COMAND option, the in-dash GPS map CD drive can also play audio CDs.

    As for build quality, none of the new C-class owners (don't forget that it has been on sale since fall of 2000) have reported any trim/fit and finish issues. The '01 C-class has been on sale in Europe since Spring of 2000. Don't forget that these cars have waiting lists. For example, the C-class waiting list in Canada is currently 6 months long.

    Hi all, I know some of you have been waiting for the '01 C-class's offset crash test results (even though we already know that it receives a "good" and a "best pick"). I'm happy to report that tomorrow's Dateline NBC Tuesday at 10pm EST/9pm CST will be airing the results of the crash test, just in time for tomorrow's MB Tuesdays chat at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10pm Eastern! Please check your local TV listings.

    Also included in this round of IIHS crash tests will be the Hyundai Elantra, the Honda Civic, the Dodge Grand Caravan, the Ford Focus, and the Dodge Stratus. Note that all of the models that are being crash tested have been substantially or completely redesigned, and are model year 2001 vehicles. Dateline is only covering the IIHS test and has no say in the results.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
  • pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
    Thanks for the information. Keep us posted on what you find out...!

    ;-)

    Pocahontas
    Host
    Hatchbacks Message Board
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    image

    Don't miss the weekly MB Tuesdays chat at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10pm Eastern! All MB fans/enthusists/owners/potential owners are welcome to participate. Hope to see you there!

    Click on the link below to enter the chat at the times above. Note that the link to the chat is always near the top of this page, just under the discussion topic title:

    http://www.edmunds.com/chat/mercedeschat.html


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    I took these pictures of the C230K coupe on display at the '01 Pacific International autoshow here in Vancouver. I did get to sit in it front and back, BTW, and the rear was comfy for 2. There was the same amount of room back there as the C-class sedan (read: more than adequate). The unique twin moonroof is definitely a positive as it makes the interior feel airier, and larger than it actually is. Lots of interest in the car, BTW, and I was lucky to be able to get these shots. I can't wait till it arrives! A test drive is definitely in order...


    More autoshow pictures here:
    http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=137587&a=12386777&f=0&sp=0

    image


    image


    image


    image


    image


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards

«13456752
This discussion has been closed.