Topic: Comparison Test: German Compact Luxury Sedans

[dirtyjeffer]

Yeah, I was just saying that although the Germans have a reputation as having high resale, it's not necessarily the case. Some of the worst residuals are from the flagship 7-series, A8 and S-class.

yea, one of my favourite vehicles is the Volvo XC70, and you can get decent ones that are 4 years old for $20-$25k easily...that seems like an awfully good deal for a vehicle that is about $50k brand new.

[hemusbull]

Wow! After reading this very balanced review and all day posts, I'm surprised (by posters) that ones time the benchmark for luxury pricing Mercedes Benz is the "budget" oriented leader of the bunch. Seems to me even in this mass luxury class the price can be deal maker!

[jt328i]

We just went through this process and picked the A4. I would have ranked it:

1. Audi A4
2. BMW 328i
3. MB C300

In all fairness, we didn't test drive the MB, but the exterior and interior design are dated and the interior is very plasticky and that was a deal-breaker.

Our first german sports sedan was (and still is) an E46 328i, so we wholly expected to end up with another one... not so fast.

First off, the BMW is quite a bit more expensive. It's hard to compare apples-to-apples because of what each manufacturer includes in their option packages, but it you want everything except the top-shelf stuff, the Audi is a few $k less.

Second, am I the only one that doesn't like the new BMW front end? The headlights aren't supposed to merge into the kidney grill, it's a BMW kidney grill... they stand on their own! And the way the nose drops off at the grill isn't working for me either.

Third, the interior is way too busy. Interiors are supposed to get better from one generation to the next, but the best 3-series interior was the E46. The E90 interior went too simplistic and looked sparse w/o iDrive and when iDrive was optioned, it looked like an afterthought. The F30 has gone too far the other way and there's too many materials and too many levels going on. We much preferred the A4 interior (especially on the S-Line which is what we got), nice materials, beautiful button action, cupholders where they should be, cool flat-bottom steering wheel, etc.

I know looks are subjective, but that and the price were the deciding factors for us. Dynamically, they're very close, with the BMW having the edge in engine power and handling. I've always felt that Audi's have traditionally had overboosted steering, so getting the Drive Select was critical so that I could set up the steering with some feel. I wasn't fond of the BMW's start/stop feature either, so that would end being turned off and essentially useless.

As they say, you just gotta go out there and drive them (and look at them and sit in them in the showroom and not just once, but a few times) and make your decision from there. I bleed BMW blue and white so I'm as surprised as anyone else that we ended up with the A4, however the next car might just be an E92 M3

[Triple Bob]

Mt compared the ATS 3.6, 335i and C350 recently.

They ranked them like this:
ATS
C350
335i

Seems like the new gen BMW is a step back from the previous gen in terms of dynamics which is a shame.  ATS is widely praised as the best handling sport sedan on the market today with god awful transmission and interfaces.  The one thing the 335i still has for it is its engine which is massively underrated making the car faster than competition.   The C class to me at least looks best on the outside, the A4 looks best inside.

The auto in the ATS is a killer, and apparently they have already improved the manual. Seems that someone in GM is listening.

I don't understand that comment, the transmission in the ATS is very good indeed. 

[Mike]

Mt compared the ATS 3.6, 335i and C350 recently.

They ranked them like this:
ATS
C350
335i

Seems like the new gen BMW is a step back from the previous gen in terms of dynamics which is a shame.  ATS is widely praised as the best handling sport sedan on the market today with god awful transmission and interfaces.  The one thing the 335i still has for it is its engine which is massively underrated making the car faster than competition.   The C class to me at least looks best on the outside, the A4 looks best inside.

The auto in the ATS is a killer, and apparently they have already improved the manual. Seems that someone in GM is listening.

I don't understand that comment, the transmission in the ATS is very good indeed. 

Are you referring to greengs or Erik?  I think Erik meant killer in like 'it is awesome'.  Like I said yesterday, I was impressed as hell by it for being 'only a 6-speed auto'

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Mt compared the ATS 3.6, 335i and C350 recently.

They ranked them like this:
ATS
C350
335i

Seems like the new gen BMW is a step back from the previous gen in terms of dynamics which is a shame.  ATS is widely praised as the best handling sport sedan on the market today with god awful transmission and interfaces.  The one thing the 335i still has for it is its engine which is massively underrated making the car faster than competition.   The C class to me at least looks best on the outside, the A4 looks best inside.

The auto in the ATS is a killer, and apparently they have already improved the manual. Seems that someone in GM is listening.

I don't understand that comment, the transmission in the ATS is very good indeed. 

Killer, as in sick, or possibly phat. He liked it. At least I think he did. Kids these days....

[Triple Bob]

Mt compared the ATS 3.6, 335i and C350 recently.

They ranked them like this:
ATS
C350
335i

Seems like the new gen BMW is a step back from the previous gen in terms of dynamics which is a shame.  ATS is widely praised as the best handling sport sedan on the market today with god awful transmission and interfaces.  The one thing the 335i still has for it is its engine which is massively underrated making the car faster than competition.   The C class to me at least looks best on the outside, the A4 looks best inside.

The auto in the ATS is a killer, and apparently they have already improved the manual. Seems that someone in GM is listening.

I don't understand that comment, the transmission in the ATS is very good indeed. 

Killer, as in sick, or possibly phat. He liked it. At least I think he did. Kids these days....

Goddamn kids, I just can't understand them these days... 

[Erik]

Mt compared the ATS 3.6, 335i and C350 recently.

They ranked them like this:
ATS
C350
335i

Seems like the new gen BMW is a step back from the previous gen in terms of dynamics which is a shame.  ATS is widely praised as the best handling sport sedan on the market today with god awful transmission and interfaces.  The one thing the 335i still has for it is its engine which is massively underrated making the car faster than competition.   The C class to me at least looks best on the outside, the A4 looks best inside.

The auto in the ATS is a killer, and apparently they have already improved the manual. Seems that someone in GM is listening.

I don't understand that comment, the transmission in the ATS is very good indeed. 

Killer, as in sick, or possibly phat. He liked it. At least I think he did. Kids these days....

Goddamn kids, I just can't understand them these days... 

We have to learn you to speak English proper like.

[jjc]

That's yet again you guys have said the C300 has a detuned version of the V6 in the C350. 

I don't think that's quite right but I cannot seem to find confirmation.  It is a 3.5l V6 but it's the older 90° model based on the one they've been making for years that was derived by chopping 2 cyl. off the 8.  The new one in the C350 is direct injection and has a 60° angle, revs better, runs smoother, doesn't need balance shafts, etc.  It has more power and better fuel economy than the old one (tuned to the same power).  It's related to the Chrysler Pentastar 6 while the C300 6 has nothing to do with Chrysler (it was developed before their ownership).

[Mike]

That's yet again you guys have said the C300 has a detuned version of the V6 in the C350. 

I don't think that's quite right but I cannot seem to find confirmation.  It is a 3.5l V6 but it's the older 90° model based on the one they've been making for years that was derived by chopping 2 cyl. off the 8.  The new one in the C350 is direct injection and has a 60° angle, revs better, runs smoother, doesn't need balance shafts, etc.  It has more power and better fuel economy than the old one (tuned to the same power).  It's related to the Chrysler Pentastar 6 while the C300 6 has nothing to do with Chrysler (it was developed before their ownership).

When they first came out with the new 248 hp 3.5 L, I assumed the same thing.  But thanks to a tip form a forum user, I researched the engine further and it indeed is the same 3.5 L DI V6 engine found in the C 350.  The C 300 does feature direct injection.

http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/content/canada/mpc/mpc_canada_website/en/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/c-class/_w204/facts_/drivetrain/petrolengines.html

From the M-B Site

Mercedes-Benz V6 gasoline engines are equipped with the latest direct injection technology; delivering responsiveness, smooth running and excellent fuel economy. True to Gottlieb Daimler’s motto, ‘the best or nothing’, the innovative features of these powerhouses represent the collective efforts of the best and brightest at Mercedes-Benz:

•      A further-developed spray-guided combustion process and high-pressure injection using piezo reduces fuel consumption.
•      The ECO start/stop function saves gas by killing the engine when the vehicle comes to a prolonged stop.
•      It puts out 248-302 hp while consuming up to 25 percent less fuel than comparable predecessors.
•      Maximum torque across a particularly broad engine speed range ensures that exceptional power reserves are available for every handling
  scenario.

[redman]

As much as I want to get on the bandwagon regarding combustion engines, let's be real. The ICE is approaching the end of it's life cycle or should be.
Anything combustion with cylinders and pistons is old hat, regardless of the fuel delivery system, D.I. or not.
Sure there have been some adaptions of so called new technology in today's combustion engines, but as long there burning gas and moving pistons there's little new under the hood to excite me.

[Snowman]

As much as I want to get on the bandwagon regarding combustion engines, let's be real. The ICE is approaching the end of it's life cycle or should be.
Anything combustion with cylinders and pistons is old hat, regardless of the fuel delivery system, D.I. or not.
Sure there have been some adaptions of so called new technology in today's combustion engines, but as long there burning gas and moving pistons there's little new under the hood to excite me.

Not for a very long time as there are no economic alternatives. The ICE is here for several more generations.

[nlm]

We just went through this process and picked the A4. I would have ranked it:

1. Audi A4
2. BMW 328i
3. MB C300

In all fairness, we didn't test drive the MB, but the exterior and interior design are dated and the interior is very plasticky and that was a deal-breaker.

Our first german sports sedan was (and still is) an E46 328i, so we wholly expected to end up with another one... not so fast.

First off, the BMW is quite a bit more expensive. It's hard to compare apples-to-apples because of what each manufacturer includes in their option packages, but it you want everything except the top-shelf stuff, the Audi is a few $k less.

Second, am I the only one that doesn't like the new BMW front end? The headlights aren't supposed to merge into the kidney grill, it's a BMW kidney grill... they stand on their own! And the way the nose drops off at the grill isn't working for me either.

Third, the interior is way too busy. Interiors are supposed to get better from one generation to the next, but the best 3-series interior was the E46. The E90 interior went too simplistic and looked sparse w/o iDrive and when iDrive was optioned, it looked like an afterthought. The F30 has gone too far the other way and there's too many materials and too many levels going on. We much preferred the A4 interior (especially on the S-Line which is what we got), nice materials, beautiful button action, cupholders where they should be, cool flat-bottom steering wheel, etc.

I know looks are subjective, but that and the price were the deciding factors for us. Dynamically, they're very close, with the BMW having the edge in engine power and handling. I've always felt that Audi's have traditionally had overboosted steering, so getting the Drive Select was critical so that I could set up the steering with some feel. I wasn't fond of the BMW's start/stop feature either, so that would end being turned off and essentially useless.

As they say, you just gotta go out there and drive them (and look at them and sit in them in the showroom and not just once, but a few times) and make your decision from there. I bleed BMW blue and white so I'm as surprised as anyone else that we ended up with the A4, however the next car might just be an E92 M3

Thanks for sharing! I'm curious did you buy it out, finance or lease? I ask b/c anecdotally people seem to lease this class more, and if that is the case does BMW still offer better lease deals (higher residuals) that effectively offset the msrp b/c the real monthly cost is lower?

[Vanstar]

Great and honest comparison test that many are looking for.

I still can't understand why BMW would dump an inherently balanced I-6 for a rough 4cyl turbo. This was the engine, the one trump card that Bimmer held over all other competitors. To throw away there venerable I-6 which was tantamount to a Swiss watch and use a turbo 4 is nothing more than asinine. It does not surprise me that the new 3 series came in last. 
I don't buy the difference is fuel economy between the T4 and I6 being the deciding factor. Anyone will to dump over 50K on a small lux vehicle should not be concerned with a 11% fuel economy penalty.

This is in fact east to understand: Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The same reason Ford is going Ecoboost, GM is putting a diesel in the Cruz, Fiat has the Multi-air.

Large engines are going away now. They will still be available if you want to pony up the bucks, for example a 335i.

[sacrat]

"Still, I had to cringe a bit when I read for the second time (after the ATS review) "it rang in at a very competitive $54,245 before destination charge". That's over $60k on the road which is serious cash to pay for a newcomer to the compact luixury field. If I count my own beans, that's a lot of risk to take and a lot of faith to put into a bailout company."

But on the bright side, it will retain a solid 30% of it's value after 3 years 

[sacrat]

When they first came out with the new 248 hp 3.5 L, I assumed the same thing.  But thanks to a tip form a forum user, I researched the engine further and it indeed is the same 3.5 L DI V6 engine found in the C 350.  The C 300 does feature direct injection.
http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/content/canada/mpc/mpc_canada_website/en/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/c-class/_w204/facts_/drivetrain/petrolengines.html

What I find interesting in the above link is that the detuned 3.5 (248 HP) gets the same combined mileage (9.1 l/100 km) as the 302 HP version. Additionally, the 4-matic version of the more powerful engine does .1 l/100 km better which seems unintuitive. So if the detuned version is from the same engine class why doesn't it do better with 54 less horsepower 

[dirtyjeffer]

What I find interesting in the above link is that the detuned 3.5 (248 HP) gets the same combined mileage (9.1 l/100 km) as the 302 HP version. Additionally, the 4-matic version of the more powerful engine does .1 l/100 km better which seems unintuitive. So if the detuned version is from the same engine class why doesn't it do better with 54 less horsepower

likely because it has to work harder to do the same work, therefore, reducing the operating efficiency of the engine...honestly, these "detuned" engines bother me...GM did it with the various 2.0T versions used in several of their vehicles...just put the engine in it in its most efficient manner.

[sailor723]

What I find interesting in the above link is that the detuned 3.5 (248 HP) gets the same combined mileage (9.1 l/100 km) as the 302 HP version. Additionally, the 4-matic version of the more powerful engine does .1 l/100 km better which seems unintuitive. So if the detuned version is from the same engine class why doesn't it do better with 54 less horsepower

likely because it has to work harder to do the same work, therefore, reducing the operating efficiency of the engine...honestly, these "detuned" engines bother me...GM did it with the various 2.0T versions used in several of their vehicles...just put the engine in it in its most efficient manner.

Then they would have a harder time justifying the higher price (and I suspect much higher margins) for the C350

[whaddaiknow]

Then they would have a harder time justifying the higher price (and I suspect much higher margins) for the C350

And 328i over 320i

[dirtyjeffer]

Then they would have a harder time justifying the higher price (and I suspect much higher margins) for the C350

And 328i over 320i

they should use other "content" to differ the models.

for example, use the 300+HP engine in the C300 (or whatever), for $42k (example)...the step up to the C350 at $46k, while using the same engine, comes standard with AWD, leather and moonroof...option up to the premium sound and nav package for $2k more (examples)...it seems stupid to have the same engine "detuned" in lower priced models...it makes sense to use the same engine (untouched) in lower models, but just change the "content" to suit the price point...Artico vs Dakota Leather, regular (good) stereo vs Bose Audio, no NAV vs NAV, AMG performance package std vs optional or N/A...there are many better ways to do it, even if it were to add a slightly higher price...for example, add $1k to the base model and just include for DI engine...sure, maybe you will sell a handful less 350s, but you would likely attract a lot of new customers to the brand as a whole.