New CLK Class????

[kbhogalW126]

Just noticed on the Mercedes Benz Website that if you go to the car configurator the New E Class now has a slot.

However, it is just for the Saloon.

If you want the Coupe you have to go to the "New CLK Class Coupe" Tab!

Hmm.

 

[The Boss]

german website engineering is getting on par with the german car engineering.. impressive! lol

 

[hawk20]

Just noticed on the Mercedes Benz Website that if you go to the car configurator the New E Class now has a slot.

However, it is just for the Saloon.

If you want the Coupe you have to go to the "New CLK Class Coupe" Tab!

Hmm.

Quite right too since it is based on the C class platform.

 

[pos.k]

Quite right too since it is based on the C class platform.

I have just dropped my car for service at the stealers, and picked up a flyer which is a reprint of a test drive article on the new E Class coupe.

They categorically state that it is based on the E class platform with about 10cm removed.
This article is by drivers republic and can be seen here:
First drive of Mercedes-Benz E-Class Coupe

The article is somewhat disparaging about the CLK.

Given that this is being distributed by MB, surely they are endorsing the content and comments, which should therefore be technically correct?

 

[hawk20]

I have just dropped my car for service at the stealers, and picked up a flyer which is a reprint of a test drive article on the new E Class coupe.

They categorically state that it is based on the E class platform with about 10cm removed.
This article is by drivers republic and can be seen here:
First drive of Mercedes-Benz E-Class Coupe

The article is somewhat disparaging about the CLK.

Given that this is being distributed by MB, surely they are endorsing the content and comments, which should therefore be technically correct?

Well if you read all the other threads and other magazine articles you will see that from the outset it has been stated it will be built on the C class platform. Check the wheelbase. Absolutely identical to the C class.

I'll give £10 to your favourite charity if you can get MB to put in writing that it is based on the E class platform. Or find any press release from them saying it. Truth is, they have been remarkably silent on the subject of late.

 

[kbhogalW126]

I got a call from a Mercedes Benz Call Centre yesterday asking how my test drive had gone.

The lady on the phone confirmed that the car was based on the C Class Chassis but had the E Class "look" hence E Class Coupe.

KJ

 

[pos.k]

Hawk20,
I am not doubting for a minute that the wheel base measurements etc are as per the C, but by reprinting, distributing and thereby endorsing, then they have a responsibility to ensure that the data they provide is accurate.

I would love to take you up on the £10 offer, but doubt that I can obtain the required evidence.

I was only posting the link as an observation -not to dispute what has been written before by you and others - only to contribute to the discussion

note to self - learn to type faster

 

[wemorgan]

Despite not having any inside information I would guess that the E-coupe is based on the C-class platform.

Since both the E-class saloon and coupe were launched at the same time it would have been a huge engineering task to develop 2 variants off the same platform at the same time.

Whereas to develop a new E-class platform (saloon) and re-engineering the C-class to become an E-class coupe simultaneously would have been manageable, as this is what most OEMs do normally.

 

[dchester]

I saw one of them in the flesh the other day, and I have to say I was quite pleasantly surprised by it. The photos I've seen online I've not been sold on the looks, but it was rather attractive.

D.

 

[hawk20]

For those who still think that the "E class coupe" is really an E class coupe, try this article --and note that the evidence all comes from senior MB employess: -


2010 Mercedes E-Class Coupe is based on W204 C-Class Platform
http://www.worldcarfans.com/109052019460/2010-mercedes-e-class-coupe-is-based-on-w204-c-class-platform

Here’s the nub of what it says; -
“Speaking with Wolfgang Bremm, E-Class product manager, Automotive News has confirmed that the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Coupe is in fact based on the C-Class platform, not on the E-Class after which it is named. This is the very same C-Class platform officially called the W204. Renaming the car that replaced the two-door CLK as an E-Class is interesting to say the least, but it follows Merc's previous production of basing the W209 CLK on the W203 C-Class platform.
The new E-Class sedan uses a platform codenamed W212 which is clearly not W204. Speculation is that the E coupe's platform designation is C207.
The question may arise as to why Merc would rename the car after the E-Class when it's based on another. Ernst Lieb, CEO of Mercedes-Benz USA says one of the answers is that the car performs better for its intended purposes with C-Class underpinnings than it would with E-Class architecture. But more telling a reason is that customers will be far more willing to fork out more money for something called an E-Class Coupe rather than one called a C-Class Coupe, especially at the higher end where the margins are bigger.”

 

[Adam230K]

the clk has always been based on a c-class chassis to look like an E-class coupe.

 

[del320]

If you actually Google "is the e class coupe based on a c class?" You will get all the proof required.

Not only do MB admit that by cynically naming it an E-Class so as to re-position it and thereby generate more income, they try to pull the wool over our eyes by bleating that the confection "shares more than 60 percent of its "components and technology" with the E-Class sedan". There are also clear references to the cost-cutting that allows MB to market it slightly cheaper than a CLK.

Its wheelbase is largely irrelevant - around six inches was hacked out of the 124 saloon to make the genuine C124 and A124 series.

 

[Adam230K]

To be honest it shouldn't bother people that it shares its chassis with a c-class (it would bother image-hunters), it might even mean that its lighter and handles far better then the massive e-class.

 

[hawk20]

the clk has always been based on a c-class chassis to look like an E-class coupe.

Yes and then again No. Yes the CLK was based on the C class chassis, but no, it wasn't made to look like an E class but always looked remarkably like the C class saloon. No attempted 'con' there and all MB publicity made its origins quite clear.

There used to be an E class coupe based on the E class platform and a convertible too. Super cars and loads of space in the back.

The new so-called E class Coupe is clearly a replacement CLK and is based on the C class platform. Wheelbase is crucial for rear legroom and the C class platform is considerably shorter than the E class -as you would expect. The whole approach looks sadly like a cynical marketing attempt to fool buyers into accepting E class prices -and some- for C class underpinnings.

 

[hawk20]

To be honest it shouldn't bother people that it shares its chassis with a c-class (it would bother image-hunters), it might even mean that its lighter and handles far better then the massive e-class.

I agree with that. A perfectly valid model as was the gorgeous CLK it replaces. It is just sad to see MB stoop to what looks like an attempt to sell C's as an E but at near S class prices!

 

[wemorgan]

This highlights the shortcoming (or strength, depending on your viewpoint) of branding cars with number or letter combinations.

If every vehicle had a unique name then the customer would judge each vehicle on its own merits, including price.

 

[hawk20]

This highlights the shortcoming of branding cars with number or letter combinations.

If every vehicle had a unique name then the customer would judge each vehicle on its own merits, including price.

Yes but don't you think they'd notice if you launched a car called the Honda Accord Coupe that was actually based on the Jazz platform?

Whether you use names or initials, a 'con' is a 'con'. If you try to pass off your sheep as a goat expect some people to call you an imposter.

 

[del320]

Yes and then again No. Yes the CLK was based on the C class chassis, but no, it wasn't made to look like an E class but always looked remarkably like the C class saloon. No attempted 'con' there and all MB publicity made its origins quite clear.

There used to be an E class coupe based on the E class platform and a convertible too. Super cars and loads of space in the back.

The new so-called E class Coupe is clearly a replacement CLK and is based on the C class platform. Wheelbase is crucial for rear legroom and the C class platform is considerably shorter than the E class -as you would expect. The whole approach looks sadly like a cynical marketing attempt to fool buyers into accepting E class prices -and some- for C class underpinnings.

I just said that

And I've already posted these diagrams before to demonstrate that the C124 is considerably smaller in every direction to the new "CLK" which can only be marginally called a four-seater.

 

[hawk20]

I just said that

I was replying to Adam230k not to your postings, interesting though they are.

 

[The Boss]

I for one, as you are probably aware am a fan of the w124 model e class.

The new e class coupes were meant to be a highlight for me.

Instead, its been a dismal failure on many parts for me, most relevantly, irrespective of the c class underpinnings being better, if this be the case, and in honest portrail and advertising rules, surely it should be branded the c class coupe, which it clearly shares more with.

60% of the coupe is said to be e class, but the chassis is the biggest part.

Then every panel is styled similar to the e class, but is in effect new, and the interior, same goes there.

I mean wheel design might be the same as e class, so does that add into the 60% bit?

Until the revelations of c class chassis, i was under full impression that this would be some sort od reincarnation.

In stead you have got a fake!

what does the advertising regulatory body have to say about his kind of "semi" misrepresentation?

Or am i just wrong??