Talk:Mercedes-Benz C-Class

C is not the most affordable MB

C is not the most affordable MB as there is the A-series which is not a "premium car" like C and E but a more like a small MPV.

Thats A-Class, Not -Series, Series is BMW, M-B arch-rival. -Martyn King

The A-Klasse is the most affordable overall. But in the American market, the C-Klasse is the least expensive Mercedes-Benz.(Myscrnnm (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

America isn't everything. Therefore, it's the A-class. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2004 C320 Coupe Picture - 2004 or 2005?

The pictures of a C320 coupe looks to be a 2005 model instead of 2004. Can anyone confirm this? --Vandelay 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

KDI EVT (camless) motor?

Was this model ever released with the KDI EVT motor that was promised for the 2008 model year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.66.199 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

US bias

This article is clearly biased towards the American market versions of the C-Class, with references to "model years", little information about the estates and Diesel models and incorrect horsepower values. Also, there were no V6 engines in the W202. --Pc13 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely were V6 engines in the W202. In fact, most of the models were powered by the V6. Only the C220, C230 and C43 did not have a V6. They had four, four and eight cylinders, respectively. I will double-check the W202 horsepower values, but by all accounts, they seem to be accurate. I did not add the horsepower values for the W203. As for an American bias, I can only comment on the American models because I myself am an American. If you know anything about the European models, I encourage you to add it. Jagvar 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC) The Least Expensive Model in the Canadian and American market is a base-model B200 Tourer. nothing goes cheaper then thatin Canada and the US.

Nope, sorry. The W202 had straight-sixes. The V6s were introduced in the W203. Pc13 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the correction. Jagvar 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The W202 did indeed have V6 engines. In the middle of 1997, the revised 1998 models bowed, with the C280 introducing a new generation 2.8 liter V6 (194 hp) replacing the 2.8 liter inline six. This V6 W202 C280 continued on in producting until the W203 was introduced for the 2001 model year. Reference the following:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/5070313.001/page3/mercedes-c-class-history

Also, my mother drives a 2000 W202 C280. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, that's a V6, not an inline six, under the hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.163.15 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct - there was also a C240 (2.4L V6) introduced in the late 1997 facelift.MisterZed (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

C 160 1.8

The current atmosferic 1.8 L engine available in the Sportcoupé is called C 160. Check [1]. Pc13 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Europe bias

Back in December, it was stated that this article was biased in that it included mostly information about the U.S. market. It was heavily edited to remedy this, but now the article has the opposite problem. It contains European information almost exclusively and U.S. information, when it is added, is often removed. Is there some way we can find some common ground and include both U.S. and European information? Jagvar 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any need. The US market C-Class is different from the European market one by a process of elimination, not substition, it only has three engines (ten in Europe), two bodies (three in Europe) and two kit levels (three in Europe). So, any bit about "but in the US only these certain items are available" just makes the article longer without actaully adding information. As for prices, if that's the specific area you're talking about, these not informative, as prices often change on a monthly basis, and this is an article about the C-Class from an historical perspective, and not an automotive guide to new cars (visit mbusa.com if you want to learn how much a 2006 C350 Sport costs). If you want to add references to model years, I'll just replace them with calendar years, which are more correct. Finally, the Acura TL is just a rebadged Honda Inspire, which is built on a stretched platform from the World market Accord. It is a generalist brand car, not a premium brand one, and as such it is just a less expensive introduction into the luxury subsegment, inferior in image (not in quality, though, I drove several variants of the C-Class and I'd rather have a Mazda6 or Renault Laguna, thank you) to a Volvo, Alfa Romeo or Audi. --Pc13 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would leave the Acura as a competitor because in its most popular world market, the United States and Canada, it is classified as a luxury sedan, offers most of the same features as the C-Class (leather interior with walnut trim, DVD, premium 8-speaker surround sound, Bluetooth communication, XM satellite radio, Alpine navigation system) and falls into the same price range as the C-Class. Brands Acura, Infiniti and Lexus are owned by Japanese automakers Honda, Nissan and Toyota respectively, and while not big sellers in Europe, they are popular and respected in North America. Jagvar 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all of those features are standard, and you can find them as extras on an Opel Zafira (a 7-seater GM minivan on the same platform as the Chevy Cobalt), and, to be fair to the Acura TL, it's $5,000 cheaper than the C350 at a base price. USA and Canada are not Acura's most popular markets, they're its only markets. On the rebadging exercise, Nissan and Toyota have nearly always chosen their deluxe vehicles to rebadge as Infiniti (Skyline --> G35, Fuga --> M45, Cima --> Q45) and Lexus (Aristo --> GS, Celsior --> LS, Soarer --> SC), while Honda doesn't have any deluxe vehicles per se. The Integra/RSX is a sports compact, while the Accord/TSX is a midsized sedan with a sporty image (in Europe, the Accord 2.4 Executive is an alternative to the VW Passat 2.0 TFSI Highline, not the Audi A4 2.0 TFSI, yet it has no less features than the TSX); only the Inspire/TL and the Legend/RL, more due to size than anything else, can be classified as luxury vehicles, but they're still luxury vehicles from a generalist manufacturer. There's a reason why Honda is still investigating whether to launch Acura outside North America, while Lexus has been in Europe since 1989 and Infiniti is already available in certain markets (a full attack on Europe begins in 2008): Honda already is a sporty brand with a good amount of standard kit on offer. Popularity and sales aren't the issue, Lexus is looking to double sales compared to last year. So, after all this, I won't be removing the TL from there, but please keep the Alfa 159 - it's an actual premium car engineered by a premium company for a premium market, instead of a mere rebadging exercise. --Pc13 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And The C-Class

The C-Class is only shorter, and one of the shortest midsize cars ever. The C-Class competes with entry-levels such as the Acura TSX, the Lexus IS, the BMW 3-Series, the S40 (and the S60), and the Infiniti G35. The C-Class is shorter in length than a Chevrolet Cobalt (which is 180.5 in. in length, even longer than Ford Focus or Honda Civic). Bull-Doser 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. The C-Class is not an entry level model, that's the A-Class. Engine line-up and price put the C-Class in the European D segment, which is for upper-midsize cars. It's longer than a BMW 3-Series, but shorter than a Volvo S60. It's shorter than the Alfa Romeo 159, but longer than the Alfa Romeo 156. Not only that, its line-up is mde up of engines from 1.8L to 3.5L with power between 90 and 200kW (with the performance model at 5.5L and 270kW), putting it in direct competition with other premium D segment cars (Audi A4 1.6L/75kW to 3.1L/188kW - performance 4.2L/253-309kW ; BMW E90 2.0L/95kW to 3.0L/225kW;M - performance 4.0L/>294kW), and can even be compared to a non-premium D segment cars (Opel Vectra - 1.6L/74kW to 2.8L/169kW - performance 2.8L/188kW ; Peugeot 407 - 1.8L/92kW to 3.0L/152kW - no performance model). However, most of the mainstream European manufacturers now have D segment cars larger than the premium manufacturers, because they mostly abandoned the non-profitable E segment. Size alone does not define market segmentation. --Pc13 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure the C-Class is a mid-size car? As far as I know, the main rivals are the 3-Series and Audi A4 and others include the X-Type, IS, S60... all of them compacts (for the North American term). Regarding Europe it is a premium large family car (or compact executive car?), which is the same as D-segment or medium class. Isn't it? -- NaBUru38 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, D-segment is upper midsize. There's no such thing as "compact executive". What there is is "premium hatchback", cars such as the Audi A3, BMW 1 Series and Alfa Romeo 147. The american term is irrelevant. Compacts are in the B-segment, most definitely not in the D. --Pc13 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Compact exec is quite a common term in UK motor journalism to describe a D-segment car with a premium badge like the c-class and the 3 series as they aren't direct competitors with mondeos and Vectras.(86.31.188.11 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

I would like to see further proof of the crash ratings show forn the W204. Nowhere do I remember seeing only one star for side crash ratings. The reference that is used on the page is no longer working (URL is invalid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.244.77 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

W203 (2000–2007)

• I have a problem with this title. Given the fact that the Sport Coupé will still be produced beyond 2007, with a new front end modeled after the W204, is it right to put the date 2007 as end of W203 ?Hektor 10:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the Sportcoupé successor will be sold under a different name (Mercedes CLC), I think it is justified to let W203 production end with the year 2007. Any future article on the CLC should, however, point out, that the car is built around the basic body and components of its predecessor. My two cents only. -- --328cia (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a different commercial name (CLC), but indeed it is still a W203. The internal name is W203-2. Hektor (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Advert

What are the words to the advert for this car? Maybe it should be added to the article? Bendragonbrown47 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Model years

Why do people insist on adding a year to the models? The W204 was announced in 2007, started production in 2007 and went on sale in 2007. So why do people insist on calling it 2008? eg W204 2008 - present?? Paul Fisher 06:52, 16 Bold text'Bold text'September 2007 (UTC)

Revert it without discussion. That's what I do. Pc13 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Autos policy is to use model years, not calendar years. It's the other way around that generally is, and should be, reverted without discussion. IFCAR 11:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How then do you define a "model year"? If the car is announced, produced and sold in 2007, then it's a 2007 model. The "model year" defined as real year+1 seems to be only a North American usage as far as I can tell. If it's a Wiki policy to add a year, then the policy should be reviewed. Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide a link to this policy. Paul Fisher 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found the policy here. [2] The actual guideline reads as follows: If common usage is to refer to year series when talking about a specific vehicle type, then this should be followed on Wikipedia (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). In North America, model years are used, which do not accurately match to calendar years (normally starting early and finishing early). Elsewhere, calendar years might be used.

Because the C-Class is not a North American vehicle then the calendar year should apply. Paul Fisher 14:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"The model year and trim level should be added to the image caption if they are available." This clearly suggests a preference towards model over calendar years (though I can't immediately find the specific page that says so). And there is no model year formula as simple as adding a year; though most cars of the 2007 model year are introduced sometime during calendar year 2006, some instead come in the early months of CY 2007.

If you want to argue the policy, the MB C-Class talk page is probably not the place to do it. Try the WikiProject Autos discussion page instead.

And you are quoting a proposed guideline, while I am quoting one currently in place. IFCAR 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IFCAR, this being a European model, calendar years apply. Stop reverting. The car has been in production since January and therefore the year indicated should be 2007. --Pc13 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy is NOT to use calendar years. If you want to change that, take that up on something other than a case-by-case basis.IFCAR 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It IS policy to use calendar years. We agreed on it in January 2006. The use of model years is a case of systemic bias anyway, as it only applies in North America. --Pc13 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Better take it up with Benz then because they just announced in Geneva a 2012 C-Class coupe that goes on sale in September 2011. Oldsmoboi (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you and two other users who said it on a talk page, but it was never widely discussed nor added to the Conventions, while a clear reference to model years was. IFCAR 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, could you give us a link to the real applicable convention please? Not the one referring to pictures. Paul Fisher 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an obvious de facto policy in every article here. Whereas evidence on the convention page indicates a preference of model years, and your only argument is that three people talked about it on some talk page once. IFCAR 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would we need to talk about it more than once? Those of us that talked about it agreed, nobody else came in to disagree. Meanwhile, your supposed policy applies only to photo captions, not to model naming. Without a written convention, we should use the proposed convention, which is backed up by a discussion. Of course, what this means is that we should actually update the guidelines page more often. In any case, "model years" are not applicable outside North America, so I don't see why we should apply American marketing conventions instead of industry production dates to European models. --Pc13 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a message on the more-often-read WikiProject Autos discussion page. That will likely include significantly more input. IFCAR 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on - a car made in January 2006 is not going to be a 2007 model year...not in any car I can think of. Generally the 2007 cars would have appeared in the dealerships around August/September of 2006 - the cars sold in January would have been '06 model year. The 'model year' convention avoids the problem of having to say that such-and-such design change was added on cars built after August 7th 2006. Nowadays, new design changes are grouped together and released as a 'new model' towards the end of the year - and because people won't buy a 2006 model year car in 2007, the numbers start one higher to allow for the fact that MOST 2007 model year cars will be sold in 2007 - with a much smaller proportion sold in the tail end of 2006. The year the car was sold is pretty useless anyway because quite often lots of the 2006 model year cars will still be sitting on the dealer's lots in early 2007. We can't call those '07 cars because they won't have the design features in other '07 model year cars. I don't think this is a case of systemic bias because I know lots of modern European cars that are sold that way. (MINI for example). SteveBaker 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of "model years aren't used outside North America" is difficult to grasp? The phrase "model years" is simply not used in Europe. Not for Mercedes, not for Peugeot. We refer to cars as "new model", "new generation", "restyling", "redesign". Years are used for license plate registration. --Pc13 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of the W203

Actually I was surfing to this website to get hints ( external links to tests ) on the reliability of an used W203. I am especially interested in an eventual "fluctuation of workmanship" through the model years 2002-2006. Besides I would admire any info on the "Achilles heels" of an used W203. I get the impression, that this site is a sort of " mirror site" of the original Mercedes site : no critisism at all. If someone knows links to tests, or critical websites, please include them. 2007-IX-19. Szabolcs Gaal

Actually, in order to feature any negative criticism, we'd need to be quoting a reliable external source (a book or magazine article) about the car. This is supposed to be for encyclopedic content, not a buyer's guide. --Pc13 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article's main picture

The W204 is now the current model. Will somebody explain why it isn't the article's picture? Luigi6138 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because policy is that the best image goes as head, not simply the image of the newest car. There is no particularly good image of a W204. IFCAR 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Luigi6138, there should be a better pic of a CURRENT C-Class. A W202 which has been modified with a 600 grille and aftermarket wheels is not the best representation of the C-Class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.221.1 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Trim Levels?

I question the need to include minutiae such as the colour of the turn indicators on certain models / trim levels. This is really getting into the realm of trivia. Importantly, it probably only relates to particular markets anyway, as each country has its own regulations for things such as turn indicators. Further, the names of the trim levels vary from place to place - eg in Germany and Australia they are Classic, Elegance and Avant Garde. Whereas in the US it's Luxury and Sport, and something different again in the UK. I suggest this section be dropped. Paul Fisher 10:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are Jacopobenz's edits constructive?

I am seeing that after every 10-15 edits from him, some of the stuff he/she includes gets reverted or severely changed. Anybody know if they are good or not? Luigi6138 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that if you see something that looks wrong, it probably is. IFCAR 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacopobenz edits

I don't understand why the main picture of an European car should represent a US-spec version.
The W202 trim levels were Classic, Esprit, Elegance and Sport: Avantgarde is available in the C-Class only from the W203.
Luxury and Sport trim levels are available in the U.S. only from M.Y. 2005: until this data American C-Class didn't have trim levels
The SE and Sport trim levels are available in UK only from the W204 model: before this data the trim levels were the same of any other Euro C-Class, german, french, italian...
Dear Paul Fisher, maybe you are not a MB fan, but I am. Because I am a great Benz fan, I think to know enough things about three-pointed-star vehicles: one of this things is that "minutiae" like safety and exterior features (e.g. ABS, ESP, double exhaust pipes, turn signals colour...) are the same in all Euro-spec Benzes; things which can change are the presence of accessories like power windows or A/C.
Please, use "he" when you're talking about my edits: Jacopo is an italian male name and, until now, I have never been in Casablanca.Jacopobenz 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)The Trim levels are weird here in the US and Canada. I've been to the Mercedes-Benz UK website, and it shows certain trim levels with changing pictures. There is Elegance, Sport and one other.. I Don't know why we can't have the same things. Why can't we have the C-CLass Estate?!?!?!!

Casablanca?? Anyhow, this is not a contest about who knows the most trivia (or who is the biggest Benz fan), it's an encyclopedia. Minute details of trim levels are not encyclopedic content in my view. Paul Fisher 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that Jacopobenz's edits usually require rewriting and restructuring for better reading. And I have identified some minutiae about non-existant problems (such as adding that the C 55 was not available in the W202 in America - when in fact there was never a C 55 in the W202 at all). --Pc13 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the W202 T-Modell and US-spec sections. I removed the trim levels because, contrary to Jacopo's assertions, trim levels were not identical in available features throughout the whole of Europe - for example, in Portugal, because of high prices based on high levels of automotive taxation, more spartan equipment levels were stricken from the lineup. --Pc13 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch that the edits now are becoming even more trivial. Luigi6138 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

W202 C 55 AMG

A W202 C 55 AMG was produced from 1999 to 2001, both in the sedan and T versions. It's extremely rare because it was built in a little series. For more information go to[3] and[4].Jacopobenz 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacing in model names

Is there any reason why the model names on this page are listed e.g.: C 300 whereas in other articles regarding M-B products they are listed e.g.: S500? I believe the latter to be the correct nomenclature. Does anyone else have any input? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.175.105 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the former to be correct, because in the placement on the vehicles, there is a visible space between the letter and the number. Those others need to be changed. Luigi6138 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Production dates W202 / 203

The headings indicate: W202 (1993–2001) and W203 (2000-2007). Was there an overlap between the start of production of the 203 and end of production of the 202? Do these dates need correcting? Paul Fisher (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Automobil Revue, 2001 catalogue issue, the W203 saloon/sedan was first introduced in March 2000; the W203T followed in early 2001. The W202T is still listed as being in production in this catalogue (that appears annually in late February, i.e. coinciding with the Geneva Salon). --328cia (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so there was an overlap - thanks. Paul Fisher (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is misleading since the Sportcoupé is still produced as CLC-Class so in fact the W203 is still produced. Hektor (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Split AMG models

There has been three generations of C-Class AMG models and yet it doesn't have it's own page? There is more than enough information on all 3 generations, the BMW M3, Audi RS4 and even the Lexus IS-F all have their own pages. Its about time the AMG C-Class gets one too. The number 3 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't favour splitting information over numerous pages. It would be better (IMO) to consolidate the C-class AMG information in the C-class page. Paul Fisher (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense, considering that the Audi S4 even has its own page, and that the IS-F is a brand new car. I back this decision should anyone choose to take action. Luigi6138 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions

The edits by Bulldozer (1-4-2008) seem to be full of anomalies:

• Widths seem to be measured either to body extremities or mirrors, with no consistency
• Height of the 2006-07 sport sedan is about 300mm too high
• Years are quoted for some dimensions but not others (Do we really need to list every minor change of a few millimetres? There is likely to be much more variance between the options packages on each model).
• Units have been specified in inches rather than millimetres. The WPOV would dictate that for a European car sold all around the world that SI units should prevail.

I have reverted the edits - perhaps Mr Dozer could check and correct the numbers? Paul Fisher (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Break up the article

Per all other articles wrt classes and models, what do people think of spliting off the detailed sections wrt the 202, 203 and 204 into their respective articles, and condensing this one?--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - it wasn't that long ago that the various smaller articles were amalgamated. This one isn't too long, in my view, and all the information is nicely available in one place. In fact some of the other models (in particular the CLK-Class) should also be amalgamated. Paul Fisher (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is where I disagree have a look at Mercedes-Benz S-Class or Mercedes-Benz E-Class that should be the standard that this article should resemble, the excessive information on every single model does not belong here, like for example Crash test ratings of the W202, is that notable enough to be included in the general C-Class article? It would certainly fit in the individual article about the W202. Another point, is that the W201 "190" must be included in this article as part of the lineup, true it was not "officially" a C-class, but then, neither were the pre-W116 S-classes... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes please just break up the article already. W205 is coming up later this year and it would be too crowded by then. Thank you Christian Liberty (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree - this article is way too long. It should be broken up into several pages, as has been done with most other vehicle pages. I also agree that the W201 should be included with this article, even if it wasn't officially named a C class. Clearly the internal naming scheme (W201, W202, W203....) indicates that it was the first generation of the series. scottt (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Restyling Section (w202)

Do we need the third image of the w202? A silver one has been added, however it's low resolution, shows an aftermarket grill and not well formatted within the article. Inkyskin (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the image as there have been no objections Inkyskin (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz C-Class C300

• 2,996 cc 3.0 liters V 6 front engine with 88.0 mm bore, 82.1 mm stroke, 11.3 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
• E85 fuel with additional premium unleaded
• Fuel consumption: EPA 08 city (mpg): 18, highway (mpg): 25, combined (mpg): 21, 588 and 365
• Multi-point injection fuel system
• 17.4 gallon main E85 fuel tank 14.5
• Power: 170 kW , 228 HP SAE @ 6,000 rpm; 221 ft lb , 300 Nm @ 2,700 rpm
• ABS
• Brake assist system
• Four disc brakes including two ventilated discs
• Electronic brake distribution
• Electronic traction control via ABS & engine management
• Immobilizer
• Responsive suspension electronic
• Stability control
• Multi-link front and rear suspension independent with stabilizer bar and coil springs
• Painted front and rear bumpers
• Day time running lights
• Driver and passenger power heated painted door mirrors indicator lights
• External dimensions: overall length (inches): 182.3, overall width (inches): 69.7, overall height (inches): 56.9, wheelbase (inches): 108.7, front track (inches): 60.7, rear track (inches): 60.8 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 35.5
• Front fog lights
• Complex surface lens halogen bulb headlights
• Luxury trim leather on gearknob, wood/woodgrain on doors and wood/woodgrain on dashboard
• Black paint
• Fixed rear window with defogger
• Glass electric front sunroof
• Weights: curb weight (lbs) 3,560
• Windshield wipers with variable intermittent wipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.253.170.194 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2002 C32 AMG

Hallo all. I have just purchased a C32 AMG 2002 model with only 43765km on the clock. What a beautiful car indeed. I just need to know if anybody out there can tell me the quantities that were fabricated of the above model in the different years of fabrication. Regards Christo 04/03/2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.144.146 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kleemann C55

Would it be advisable to insert a section here for the Supercharged v8 Kleemann C55 ? Or would this be better situated on the Kleemann page ? --Fraulein451 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's not authorised By Mercedes-Benz, then it doesn't belong here. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MERCEDES-BENZ C63 AMG

C Class C63 AMG Performance

• Engine: 6208cc V 8 DOHC with variable valve timing and four valves per cylinder
• Premium unleaded fuel
• Fuel economy: EPA (08):, 13 MPG city, 19 MPG highway, 15 MPG combined and 261 mi. range
• Multi-point fuel injection
• 17.4gallon fuel tank
• Power (SAE): 451 hp @ 6,500 rpm; 443 ft lb of torque @ 5,000 rpm

C-Class C63 AMG Handling

• 2.820:1 axle ratio
• Brake assist system
• Four-wheel disc brakes including 4-ventilated
• Electronic brake distribution
• Electronic traction control (via ABS & engine management)
• Immobilizer
• Responsive suspensionfeatures: mechanical-control
• Space-saver spare tire with steel rim
• Electronic Stability Program (ESP) stability control
• Agility Control independent front strut suspension with stabilizer bar and coil springs, agility Control independent rear multi-link suspension with stabilizer bar and coil springs

C Class C63 AMG Exterior

• Body-color front and rear bumpers
• Chrome/bright trim around side windows
• Day time running lights
• Driver power door mirrors: heated, body-color with turn signals, passenger power door mirrors: heated, body-color with turn signals
• External dimensions: overall length (inches): 185.3, overall width (inches): 69.7, overall height (inches): 54.6, wheelbase (inches): 108.9, front track (inches): 62.4, rear track (inches): 61.5 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 36.4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.125.67.127 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Useless pricing info

Can someone PLEASE remove all the garbage prices in various places that vandals keep inserting??? Wikipedia is not a pricing catalog last time I looked at WP:NOPRICES and I am certainly not interested in prices expressed in mystical "€" currencies with some "VAT" mumbo-jumbo that doesn't apply to many countries, including mine. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes prices are encyclopedic information and useful. If they contribute nothing and are being used to possibly advertise - then that's different. Please re-read the prices policy you just mentioned. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

W204 (2007–2014)

I was thinking maybe we should make a own page for the W204 as it takes so much place? It is very much info, and it will be better if it has a own page, just as the W211, W212 and BMW E90. SideMaster (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What might be better is if the W204 section was made smaller. Large tables collating variations of driveline specification serves no actual purpose for the wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a consumer advice column. The two tables listing transmissions could easily be replaced with a single sentence:

The W204 is available with either a 6-speed manual transmission or a 7-speed automatic transmission.

Frankly, the article is massively over-written. An understanding of how to write concisely could help this article considerably. Long description of specification coes under WP:DISCRIMINATE. --Falcadore (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of these comments. There's already an article about the W201, and there could also be a corresponding article about the W204. Also, a lot of the articles about car models are really unsatisfactory, and this is one of them - it needs, at the very least, a really good copyedit. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So whats going to happen? What should we do? SideMaster (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone should split each generation into its own page. I would volunteer, but I'd probably break something. Anybody here with a bit more experience? scottt (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)