cusdaddy

Agreed... They seem to know how to make you feel like part of the car.

I was just saying reliability sometimes leaves something to be desired. Especially MB lately

Beltfed

You're right, they are solid cars.....the previous Sclass was a big fat luxury pig and drove like it also. Not only are they built like Bank vaults, they look them as well.

What weren't you impressed with on the E500? I want specifics, because I think you're opinion is completely off base.

I'm extremely critical over interior build quality and the new Eclass, especially a full leather E500 is absolutely solid and well built (very nice materials used).

BMWs are nice, I have had 2 (Mcoupe and and E36 M3), my oldman has had 2 as well (97 740i, 94 540i). My buddy is a BMW salesperson, I have driven every model they make. The interiors are nice and well made, the new E is on par with them.

torqueaholic

NSX? try 90 large for a na v6

torqueaholic

trust me, I'll put your prescious star on the butt of my car, and you won't know the difference! I'll have "CLASS", and "STATUS"!

amir was here

yes, you are right, their reliabilities are not top notch.

cusdaddy

I sat in the E class at the Detriot auto show. To be truthful, I don't remember it if was the E500 or E320, but overall, my opinion of the interior was that it felt less solid than previous MB's. The plastic used for the radio and climate control buttons had a cheaper feel compared to older MB's, the plastic vent molds had sharp pastic edges that weren't filed off. It just did not have the tactile feel of a 540 or A6 IMO.

Is it better than an Acura, hell yeah. I am comparing the interior to my experience with previous MB's, a 540 my friend owns, and my friend's A6 2.7T (which we drove from NY to Detriot in). I felt the tactile quality of the Audi and BMW interiors is superior.

I in no way meant it is bad. I just feel MB of late is not the same MB of old (late 80's - early 90's)

nate'sCLS

"star" I always looked through it (from the passengers view anyway) as a target sight.




(yes, I know it really represented the three divisions of the old Diamler Benz)

Beltfed

MB has had some issues because of their merger with Chrysler....hasn't helped at all. I looked over my oldman's E and have not noticed any of those issues you noticed at the show. Hopefully, the quality will only get better due to the criticism MB has received which stems back to 2000. The E is definitely a step in the right direction.

My brother has an A6 2.7T, the interior nice.....Audi's switchgear is what stands out, their buttons and knobs are "very" nice. Also their interior illumination rocks.

cusdaddy

It probably have been the car that I sat in at the show that gave me an overall less than glowing impression, or maybe just that I had sky high expectations. Don't get me wrong. I still really like the E500. E320 I think is way underpowered for the $$ they are asking.

The evil red glow of the A6 illumination is awesome. I have issues with the car's suspension (it dips and wallows a bit too much IMO), but the interior is excellent for it's price IMO.

1SICKLEX

It is becoming painfully obvious so many people here don't know crap+love their cars=heads so far up their arse they can lick their tonsils.

Accord a better value? Give me a break. It is a 15-28k car. The CLK is a 43-70k car when the CLK-55 comes here. Think about that.

15-28k
43-70k

Do you think the price is all B.S. Obviously not. The CLK is a great car, MOST BENZ OWNERS don't care about performance.

Looks
Quality
Feel
Prestige

They could care a rat's ass about any fugly, common Accord or a CL for the matter. It's not like they cross shopped them.

I do think it was a cool article, it shows the Accord is better in some aspects.

But damn, this is such a gimmie, which would you buy? Don't give me no "I'll buy an accord with the SEMA kit with a COmptech supercharger" CRAP either or I'd buy a CLK55 that would rape you harder than they guy in PULP FICTION.

Mercedes Benz is a car most others have copied at one point or another, pay some focking homage.

nate'sCLS

torqueaholic

your post was going great until you betrayed your intelligence right here! Benz owners don't care about performance? THEN WTF IS AMG?? WHAT DO THOSE LETTERS STAND 4? Jerkin' off?

DISRUPTV

He said most don't, which means there are some that do, thus, those are the mb enthusiats that opt for AMG. Its like the acura Tl-S/Cl-S, I mean you know you see more TL-P and Cl-Ps than the rtype S's, which indicates most of acuras buyers are not as enthusiast minded as you would think



I think this thread is getting out of hand

mmmm

nate'sCLS

'nuff said.

This thread is dead.

lou_RENAMED

Most people that drive MB have multiple cars anyways so even you beat there CLK they know the have the Porsche 911 turbo they take out in the weekends.

As far as the reasoning behind somebody paying 45K for a CLK 320 is because they can. Shit people buy the CLK 500 which starts at like 53K without options where most people would buy the M3 that surely kicks its ass.

The Accord is a great car and its Honda's flagship built to do everything be fast, look good, be reliable, be cheap. While the CLK 320 is one of MB lesser models. What you think MB is going to make the CLK 320 do 0-60 in 6.0 sec and the CLK 500 do it in 5.7 sec a lot of people would not opt. to pay the extra 15K for a mere .03 sec. You want to race in a MB you opt. for the CL55 series that are beating Ferraris.

bkknight369

hmm...thats funny...remind me again of all the people that had mercedes and switch to accords...

when I see a benz on the street...it doesnt matter what class...it has presence. People notice it. It stands out. An accord (or an acura in the DAYTIME) doesnt.

all you want, but dont actually try to claim that you dont notice a clk as it zips down the street...

amir was here

torque, you're not the brightest lad...

give it up, im happy for you, cause you have a car that you really like. you like it soo much, it blindfolds you from the truth...but hey theres nothin really bad about that...who cares, just shows YOU got luv for your ride.

F23A4

But the CLK320, isnt that exception. The M3 is sweet but NOT worth >50G, and neither is the NSX. IMO. Even my fav car (Nissan Skyline GTR R34) isn't worth the >50 large.

The Porsche 911 though, is THE exception.

peiqinglong

I would take a clk55, a sl55...or anything AMG for that matter

Beltfed

Am I understanding you correctly, are you saying Porsche cars are not overpriced?

jimcol711

next issue of motor trend:


Lamborghini Murcielago vs. RSX Type S

"sure you can by 15 RSX-S for the price of the Lamborgini but its a better car...*


seriously, this article is asinine....there is no comparison whatsoever between the 2 cars....who the fuck in the market for a CLK is going to even SPIT in the direction of an accord?? and who in the market for an accord is going to even waste their time entertaining the idea of a CLK???

sure, the Accord may be faster...who the fuck cares? what the fuck does that mean?? nothing, how incredibly pointless this all is...

AcuraFan

I would. I will be in the market for a 50K+ car soon...however, I'm not ignoring inexpensive cars that have the features I want. Some people have a lot of money because they don't waste it on frivalous things. My parents were looking at a XKR last year. But they decided they just didn't need something that expensive and bought another Explorer instead. Not everyone is looking for the ultra-high profile car. The rich capitalist in me will look at an Accord Coupe and then at a CLK and say, "Is it really worth the extra money? No."

But that's not what the article is doing anyway. They aren't comparing the two cars so they can try to convince someone to buy one or the other. They basically said "these cars look similar, have similar specs on paper...let's throw them into a competition and have some fun with it." Like you said, it IS pointless. And that's the fun of it all. So, settle down...life is full of contradictions and silliness. Embrace insanity.

AcuraFan

Oh, and a RSX-S vs Lamborghini Murcielago comparison would be stupid. However a NSX vs Murcielago comparison would be fun. And would be more true to the forementioned article.

torqueaholic

hm...... I'm going to head to my nearest MB dealership, pull up in the accord, and show every one my di.ck!

F23A4

What I'm saying is that the satisfaction of having say...a Carrera 4 makes it worth it. Sidebar: EVERY car is overpriced to some degree, as evidenced by the immediate drop in value @ the time of initial purchase.

torqueaholic

if a HONDA accord coupe vs clk is stupid, then a HONDA NSX vs Mucielago comparison is equally as stupid!

HONDA accord= 25grand
vs
clk= 50grand

HONDA nsx= 90grand
vs
mucielago= 300grand

so is a mucielago worth 3 NSX's + a honda accord coupe with some change for mods on all 4?

I don't see why any CL owner would be mad because of this comparo!! The next cl, if it continues, will be based on a chasis, that in effect out handled a highend benz. WHats not to like about that? if the '03 accord coupe is not > a CLK, then neither is your CL, or whatever FWD boat that comes out next to replace the CL!

END OF RANT!

torqueaholic

in fact you can have a field day with these silly comparos!! here let me start:

1. is a mclaren F1 really worth 11 NSXes? which would u take?

2. is an NSX really worth 2 C5s? which would you take?

3. is a BMW 330XI really worth 2 WRXes? which would you take?

4. is a Z06 really worth 2 S2ks? which would you take?

5. is a BMW 330CI worth 2 rsks? which would you take?

come on guys answer my questions, then see how many of these silly scinarios we can come up with! some are really perplexing

Beltfed

Also, I would take an 03 CL600 over 4 CL-TypeS all day long.....don't even need to ponder it.

blackmagiCL_S

Is it just yet another example of Motor Trend liking Honda? Or perhaps the article is just MT way of say "hey look, there is some really good value and performance over here the equals or excedes the performance and (obviously) value of the Benz". Perhaps it was the author (and editors) way of thumbing their nose at the high price luxo cars when all they really offer over a Honda (or Toyota or Mazda, etc,etc) is that "I drive a luxo car" recognition...which some people are willing to pay for. I give a big thumbs up to the new body styles of most of the new MB and BMWs and I would consider them based on the looks and performance but not because I have to buy a MB or BMW just to clean out my bank account. There is a market out there that just wants the recognition of an expensive car and there is a market out there for performance minded people. The Accord CLK comparo was silly but the take home message for those that want to HEAR it is valid. You pay $50K, you get a car that you paid $50K for. You buy an Accord, you get a $25K car that beats that Benz in a lot of ways.

Zoot

F23A4

1SICKLEX

9.8 out of 10 AMG owners don't track their cars or race em. I'd bet my left nut on it. AMG=exclusivity. If anyone has READ any knowledgable automobile authority (not motor trend or the mags here), the M5 keeps getting picked over the NEW RS4 and E 55 because OVERALL, it is the better package. They feel the new E55 is too much, weighs to much, too much electronic this and that, and an auto. Seems most editors overseas prefer normal aspiration and a manual with less weight. Makes sense to me.

Though the E 55 is a ROCKET killing any other SEDAN on the road ACCELERATION WISE.

I love Porsche cars and the 930, 993, 996 and Boxster but one of the reasons Porsche is the MOST PROFITABLE CAR COMPANY in the world is because the cars are cheap to make, they share so many parts together and price them outragously.

Think about this. Say the 911 shares 50% of it's parts with a Boxster:

Boxster-45-55k
911 65-85k
911 Turbo AWD, all gizmos 130k
GT2-no gizmos, 220k

Think about that for a second.

Beltfed

It's true, for example....you can get good discounts on the 911 Turbo because that car has 14% profit in it, that's insane. But for quite awhile, you couldn't touch a 996 Turbo for under MSRP.

The GT2 MSRPs for about $180k, but dealers get over sticker.

And just to follow up on Porsches profit margin, all MB cars have 7% in them (inlcuding the AMGs).

AC_RENAMED

This is pretty funny...

Accord is better than CLK I guess it is because it's faster...so I guess that makes the WRX better than the SL500 because it's quicker to 60?

Don't just drive one, but own a German car and you'll know. I loved my TL, but I will never buy another Japanese car again...Lexus GS excluded Not that Japanese cars are bad, but the overall driving experience and feel is just not there compared to German cars. You wonder why the German cars are 9 out of 10 times picked over the Japanese cars by just about every car mag..."...they must of got paid off by Audi, BMW, MB, blah blah blah".

Amir, I feel you bro!