Mercedes CLA Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Good article! I was waiting on a first drive article. Thanks!
The more I read...whether CLA or A250 test drives...the more that 2010 CPO 328XI looks good.
IT's all about looks (I like the BM) and the steering feel/capabilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
Nice read, are we going to get the run flats here in the us? I guess it doesnt matter, as im switching to performance winter tires asap. (SLK in the Spring/summer/fall). Thought i saw in the guide that the 18's would be a perf tire? Was disappointed in the hiway milage of 33 ;(. Thought it would do better. Thanks for posting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
The article's driving impressions are interesting but the facts are just not there. The predicted fuel consumption, for example: the B250 with the identical engine and transmission but less aerodynamic body achieves 7.9 L/100 km in the city on the Transport Canada test (as opposed to the 10.0 suggested by this article for the CLA 250), and the highway rating is 5.5 L/100 km in Canada for the B 250, as opposed to the 7.0 that the writer estimates for the CLA.

Exactly how a car that is more aerodynamic and weighs more or less the same can do 25% worse in fuel consumption....well it just shows that the writer did not do his homework.

The comments on the steering and transmission should not be surprising. Mercedes steering has always been so-so (going WAY back) and it still is, apparently. That sport steering sounds particularly nasty. The regular steering on the B 250 and CLA 250 is OK, better than the B Class I have now (I've driven the B 250). Apparently there is now a recalibrated program for the 7 speed dual clutch transaxle that improves upon the problems mentioned in the article. I know of a few B 250 owners in Canada who have had it done already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
The article's driving impressions are interesting but the facts are just not there. The predicted fuel consumption, for example: the B250 with the identical engine and transmission but less aerodynamic body achieves 7.9 L/100 km in the city on the Transport Canada test (as opposed to the 10.0 suggested by this article for the CLA 250), and the highway rating is 5.5 L/100 km in Canada for the B 250, as opposed to the 7.0 that the writer estimates for the CLA.

Exactly how a car that is more aerodynamic and weighs more or less the same can do 25% worse in fuel consumption....well it just shows that the writer did not do his homework.
.
I agree, those numbers don't add up.

I hate to say this, but I'll wait until I see reviews of the N/A CLA and not the European CLA. They may be similar in specs/size/hp etc, but I know they change/add/subtract things for the N/A market.

Also, I see nothing in this review to change my mind about buying a CLA. There are no GLARING issues with it and as far as I'm concerned, I'll be driving the car on a daily basis, not the reviewer, so their input is only good for an OVERALL perspective of the CLA and doesn't sway my mind.

It's my mind and I'LL make it up whether or not to buy the CLA, not a review from someone else who has different criteria as to what makes the CLA a good car or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Exactly, it makes sense to do this. I have always preferred cars that were - if not derided by the press - not the press darlings (i.e. the heaviest advertisers).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
...its been my understanding that sometimes these reporters are paid under the table to say a few negatives.... as they say, 'Money Talks' ???
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top