Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class - Page 5

Benzboi_inoz · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 01-26-2008, 05:17 AM

I bought the mag as I couldn't resist having a read as to why the Merc made it to top of the heap, when supposedly superior(?) machines didn't.

I thought the criteria they used to assess the vehicles very credible for someone who would be assessing a vehicle with intention to buy and own, and looking for a balance of qualities, as against someone who was merely looking for the sportiest or most exciting drive.

Given that it was a panel of judges, and a result of awarded points, I thought it was a very fair and reasonable result.

I didn't detect bias, and when vehicles didn't make the grade it was usually for a good reason.

It was interesting to read how good the Mercs ABS and ESP worked on gravel as well as bitumen, and how well the tuning of the suspension worked on Australian Roads as well, re the ride/handling balance, where a number of otherwise highly lauded vehicles failed to make the grade.

It is easy to get carried away with Automotive exotica which might perform well in its domestic market, but this is Australia here and now, and on that basis one would have to say given the criteria used for judgeing by the Wheels team, the best car won.

Well done indeed Mercedes-Benz, and as the article said, re quality and depth of engineering "welcome back".

John.

vroom_vroom · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 01-26-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

I had a quick flick through the mag today, the M3 lost out because of the lack of efficiency and value (god knows how they think the M3 wasn't an excellent value package), the Mazda 2 lost out because of extremely poor wet weather handing, and the Ford Mondeo lost out because of too many minor faults. The C-class won because of its versitle and strong engine range, advanced technology, ride comfort and superb handling ability.

Do you know why the A5 lost out??? I love that car, you have to see one in real life to understand how good looking they are

Mr. Mercedes · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 01-26-2008, 09:11 AM

The Audi didn't even make it past stage one because of poor packaging, the rear seats were deemed completely unsuitable for passengers, a very rough ride and poor steering feel. They were actually quite harsh on the cars dynamics, claiming it is an uncomfortable compromise between a GT cruiser and a true sports car. In the end it doesn't do either very well and is quite poorly sorted dynamically. They also felt the design was fairly generic, though this was not used to judge the car.

This doesn't bode well for how the new A4 will perform on Australian roads as the A5 is essentially an A4 coupe.

They did however say if it were 'Interior of the Year, Audi would have walked away with the prize.

Monster · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 02-28-2008, 06:56 AM

This is the full article of why the C-class took out the Car of the Year award.

Quote:

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Yes, a Mercedes-Benz is Wheels Car of the Year 2007.

The new C-Class is a comfortable, well-engineered sedan that bullseyes the criteria of Australia’s longest enduring and most respected annual motoring award. The Mercedes’ performance is good to great (depending on which of engine options is selected), its fuel efficiency is outstanding throughout the range, its safety credentials are unimpeachable, and its dynamics truly brilliant. So the C-Class is a car that deserves both great respect and our coveted trophy.

The W204 is also the model that marks a welcome return to the intrinsic engineering integrity once taken for granted from the world’s oldest car maker. All the great qualities that made Mercedes-Benz the envy of every other manufacturer from the ’60s to the early ’90s, when the company undoubtedly built the best cars in the world, return in the new C-Class

So polished is the compact Mercedes that it surpasses the BMW 3 Series in talent and desirability. Across the entire model spectrum and in every aspect of its performance, the new C-Class represents a significant step forward over the previous model. Here is a high-quality, incredibly capable and enjoyable car that is more affordable than ever before.

Every model in the C-Class range shares the same core engineering values and key driving characteristics. Its slightly enlarged, though little heavier body is strong and stiff. The structure provides a sound foundation for Mercedes’ dynamic, refinement and safety engineers to build on. And they made the most of the opportunity.

Some may question the absence of fully power-operated seats in the C220 – a car costing over $60,000 – but such omissions cannot detract from the essential driving, comfort or safety experiences.

The C-Class sedan line-up opens with the $56,990 C200K Classic and ranges upward to the $92,800 C320 CDI. There are four different engines – two petrol and two diesel – that offer a real choice in performance, economy and character, across three trim levels: Classic, Elegance and Avantgarde.

Buyers even get to choose between a traditional grille (Classic and Elegance) with thrusting three-pointed star on the bonnet, or the more forceful Avantgarde that opts for a huge star integrated into the grille, rather like the treatment applied to Mercedes’ coupes and sports cars. Yet more choices are available in the obligatory and copious range of often (too) expensive options.

While its options price-list is eye-watering, the C-Class earned average or slightly higher scores from most judges for value. It wasn’t always easy.
“At $56,990 [the C200 Classic] matches the high-grade Mondeo in spec levels, but does it drive $15,000 better?” noted Sally Dominguez. But even those inclined to raise eyebrows at the basic models’ high prices had to acknowledge that the four-cylinder C-Classes cost much the same as the top end of the Commodore range (the Calais V V8).

A decade ago, a base C180 Esprit with 90kW cost $56,300, or just $690 less than today’s bigger, better equipped, more refined and quicker entry-level model.

The new car is superior in virtually every area, including build quality and (according to a dealer contact) warranty claims. As a reference, during the same time-frame the price of a base Holden Commodore automatic rose by 20 percent. So there’s a persuasive argument that Mercedes’ compact sedan is stronger value than ever in 2007. This factor, along with the C-Class’ record of slow depreciation, meant there was never serious dissent among the judges on the question of overall value.

Regardless of engine, the new C-Class is easy to live with on a daily basis. Even the base and best-selling C200K’s 135kW supercharged 1.8-litre four – to prove that the C200 badge bears no relation to engine capacity – crept up on the judges. Initially, they were critical of the doughy throttle response, but with every kilometre behind the wheel came an appreciation of its willingness and surprising ability.

Because the engine mates beautifully to the five-speed auto, performance is seamless and the cruising refinement unexpected. “Engine does the job surprisingly well,” wrote Jon Hawley of the C200K’s drivetrain.

With 170kW and 300Nm, the 3.0-litre petrol-burning V6 C280 adds grunt (plus two gears) and improves refinement, although without, we should acknowledge, ever matching the silkiness of BMW’s inline sixes.

Throughout the COTY process the judges returned from driving the C220 CDI astonished by the smoothness of its performance and the shove of the mid-range acceleration. The 2.1-litre diesel makes just 125kW, but its 400Nm peak torque figure is quite remarkable. Consequently, the C220 CDI is notably quicker almost everywhere than the C200K. By the end of the week-long test program, the judges agreed that the C220 CDI is everything you need and, apart from a diesel rattle at idle, ideally suited to the C-Class’s cultured character. Ged Bulmer summed it up: “220 CDI engine very impressive; stronger than 200 with lovely, linear power delivery.”

The V6-powered C320 CDI adds 110Nm, a seven-speed auto, a little more refinement, turns in a rapid 6.9sec zero to 100km/h time, and is a great engine. Yet, we questioned whether that is enough to justify another $30,000 on the price-tag when the four-cylinder C220 CDI does the job so successfully.

In terms of efficiency, these four are among the best engines anywhere in their respective categories: the C200K achieves 7.9L/100km in the official ADR81 test, the C280 10.0L/100km, the C220 CDI 6.7L/100km and the C320 CDI an impressive 7.4L/100km. These numbers earned the range strong scores for efficiency and environment. That Mercedes’ engineers managed to minimise weight gain through the skilful employment of lighter materials was also noted.

The secret to the range’s dynamic talent is a chassis that might have been specifically bred for Australian roads. Without the handicap of run-flat tyres (are you listening, BMW?) the C-Class chassis is utterly polished, absorbing the punishment of potholes and corrugations. Equally convincing is the way it slices through apexes and deals with small bumps. Such a combination of supple, measured ride and exemplary body control isn’t easily engineered.

The C-Class, however, regardless of engine, can carry immense speed into corners without a passenger being aware the driver is in full enjoyment mode. “Superb ride, steering and handling in all models,” noted Jon Hawley. “Some tyre noise,” he added, and this was indeed one of the few issues judges had with the car’s general refinement.

At first, the steering feels eerily light, as if its weighting is overcompensating for the heavy, leaden feel of the previous model’s. Familiarity quickly reveals the true nature of the steering’s precision and sensitivity. The rack is direct (just 2.7 turns lock-to-lock), and the tight 10.8-metre turning circle is a traditional Benz bonus. The C-Class never feels unsettled and you can forget any old perceptions that front-engine, rear-drive Mercedes models are relentless understeerers.

Just occasionally did we find a hint of the rack rattle that so plagued the W211 E-Class during its Wheels COTY campaign in 2002. Aside from this, no rattles, no zizzes, no unexpected groans or structural complaints during our stringent testing of four different C-Class models. Nor were any holes found in the

C-Class’s electronic safety net. On dry or wet bitumen, and gravel, too, the ESP and ABS settings might have been calibrated by local engineers working for Ford or Holden, so beautifully were they judged for Australian conditions.

Many imported cars are found wanting on roads that are all too common in Australia. “ESP dirt fantastic,” noted Michael Stahl succinctly.

The new C-Class is bigger than its predecessor. Wheelbase is up 45mm, height 42mm, length 55mm and rear shoulder room by 40mm. The body is also more rigid, and while better equipped, the 1490kg C200K weighs just 5kg more than the outgoing model. Most of the extra length has been applied to the cabin to improve rear seat space. The C-Class does not have the rear seat room of the much bigger, front-drive Ford Mondeo, but thanks to the enormous front seat travel it’s possible to liberate enough space for two adults to be surprisingly comfortable over long distances in the rear compartment.

Despite deliberately targeting Audi, the C-Class’s interior – even with the $3500 Elegance and $5700 Avantgarde packages – still lacks the interior polish and classiness of that brand’s rival A4. Too much shiny plastic, though most of it is soft-touch, not quite the same peerless quality of fit and finish. The basic ergonomics of the controls and the legibility of the instruments and graphics of the satellite-navigation are outstanding.

“Superb man-machine interface!” noted exclamation-mark-lover and designer Sally Dominguez. Not every judge was quite so enthusiastic. Mercedes’ Comand system uses a rotary function controller mounted in the centre console and, while a little more intuitive than BMW’s iDrive, it still requires familiarity.

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Mercedes’ commitment to safety ensures that there is a full complement of side and curtain ’bags, and virtually every other currently available passive safety feature. In fact, the C-Class, with its standard-in-all-models set of eight airbags, goes two better than its competitors. The additional pair of ’bags offer protection for rear seat passengers in side impacts. The C-Class also features Mercedes’ Pre-Safe system, which clenches down the seatbelts in occupied seats when it calculates an accident is imminent. Although overactive on the dirt handling track, this is a technology with genuine merit.

Beyond the headline safety features, however, the C-Class has the essential engineering honesty, the almost total lack of superficiality that the Wheels COTY judges love. It’s simply a brilliantly functional car.

Welcome back Mercedes-Benz…

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Monster · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 02-28-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vroom_vroom

Do you know why the A5 lost out??? I love that car, you have to see one in real life to understand how good looking they are

This is why the A5 lost out.

Quote:

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

The A5 came to Wheels COTY as a slightly unusual contender in that it basically previews the architecture of the next A4 sedan, although in coupe guise. It isn’t often that a two-door precedes a four-door variant, but for Audi the A5 (and its V8-powered S5 sibling) represents a promising step forward, mainly because its designers have repackaged the drivetrain by moving the engine farther back, relative to the front axle line, in a quest for better weight distribution and handling balance.

As a coupe, then, the A5 has a conservative yet pleasant shape (with “a generic coupe glass-house,” according to Robbo), although the way it’s packaged drew mixed responses. There was praise for the huge boot, with its 455 litre capacity, but entry to the rear seat isn’t easy, and head room is quite
limited for its two occupants.

The panel didn’t have to look much farther than the BMW M3 to find a rival that treats its passengers properly. Stahl probably summed up the A5 best by describing it as “a two-plus-luggage more than a two-plus-two.”

On the other hand the big Audi coupe drew unanimous praise for the quality of interior fittings and materials used, and its overall design and execution, with the word “beautiful” popping up regularly. Even if Robbo questioned the plethora of buttons and controls across the dashboard surface – odd given the MMI central control replicates most minor functions. The A5’s safety credentials were also hard to fault, with a full complement of passive and active hardware on board.

The road exercises brought out a mixture of good and bad. The A5 – a front-drive 3.2-litre V6 with multitronic (CVT) gearbox – has a particularly sweet drivetrain package with power aplenty and a faultless transmission, let down by overly light steering and excessive torque steer. The S5 quattro with 260kW of V8 grunt and a six-speed manual ’box added another dimension in performance, together with a NASCAR soundtrack, all-wheel-drive grip – with torque-delivery biased towards the rear wheels – and greater steering precision. “The V8 is a gem,” Bulmer said. “A lovely engine note, broad rev band matched to a very sweet gearbox.”

But the S5’s ride is firm to the point of being harsh, while the A5’s softer suspension doesn’t have the level of control required to conquer Lang Lang’s rougher sections that mimic typical Australian country roads all too well.

“The ride lets it down,” said Samantha Stevens. “A GT car should not shake your back teeth out.”

“The ride is very disappointing in a GT,” Stahly echoed.

It all led to a fair amount of head scratching as to what Audi was aiming at with a car that was uncomfortable in the ride department, yet didn’t steer like a sports car and couldn’t really carry four adults in comfort. It seemed to fall somewhere between being a GT and a two-door muscle car without hitting the target head on. “A German Thunderbird,” Robbo sniffed.

This is obviously an expensive car at $91,900 for the A5 3.2 and $131,900 for the S5 manual, and although it stacks up reasonably well against competitors such as the BMW 3 Series coupe or Mercedes CLK, the panel questioned whether obvious dynamic and packaging faults meant it was still good value for money.

If you hadn’t guessed it already, every single judge had difficulty scoring the Audi coupe highly and it failed to progress to the next round of COTY.

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

The Artist · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 02-28-2008, 11:45 AM

superb news..the new C class rocks..its one of those cars that get attention from ppl that dont even know cars..
ive heard alot of ppl say..damn have u seen that new mercedes.. its so hot.. it must be expensive as hell..

...

GTA8.5 · **Re: Wheels Car of the Year: Mercedes Benz C Class -** 02-28-2008, 12:43 PM

Mercedes-Benz has really gotton their act together with quality control!
This was a very stringent test for the baby C and it passed with flying colors.

This is excellent news. The C-Class is the compact car to get.