MERCEDES-BENZ C 200 CGI Review

Until the 1980s, Mercedes-Benz were exclusively earning their bread by selling luxury sedans, coupe and convertibles. "Affordable" was missing from the tri-star brand's dictionary until the W201 came aboard their line-up. At the time of the car's launch, in 1982, it had a number of never-before-seen on a Mercedes innovations, which were even more impressive considering the model's price range.

It was the first modern "affordable" Mercedes and also their smallest sedan. It also introduced the world's first mass-produced rear-multilink suspension setup and the first anti-skid regulation system for a rear-wheel drive sedan. Millions were spent on research and development, with the Swabians sharply aware that if the little sedan failed then it would also have a negative impact on the brand as a whole, and that was unthinkable, especially in the 1980s.

Even though it was officially named the "190", the "baby Benz" was actually the first modern predecessor of the current C-Klasse, and one of the last "over-engineered" Mercedes. Twenty eight years since the first model was launched, the car is now at its fourth reincarnation and it can no longer be called the "baby Benz", since the A-Klasse has been filling that position since 1997.

Launched at the 2007 Geneva Auto Show, the current W204 C-Klasse is now already approaching its mid-cycle facelift. Until that time comes, however, Mercedes has decided to operate quite a few modifications on its smallest sedan to better prepare it in the battle against the Audi A4 and the BMW 3-Series.

The only visual modifications consist in the addition of LED daylight driving lights in the front bumper and new alloy rims for some of the versions, with most of the "pre-facelift facelift" novelties finding their way under the hood.

Seeing the success enjoyed by BMW with their highly-acclaimed "Efficient Dynamics" models, Mercedes had to resort to their own designation for more fuel conscious versions and so the "Blue Efficiency badge was created. Coincidentally, this technology first made its way onto the current C-Klasse.

In just a few words, the "Blue Efficiency" badge mainly consists of downsizing, direct injection, turbocharging, small aerodynamic enhancements and other similar efficiency measures. We weren't exactly convinced, so we decided to take a C 200 CGI for a test drive. Read on to find out what we think about it now.

Mercedes-Benz has pretty much always managed to catch the eyes of premium car buyers with cars that manage to combine timeless elegance and understated design. Designed under the direction of Mercedes-Benz's former head of design, professor Peter Pfeiffer, the W204 C-Klasse represents a true return to the roots of this model.

Quite different than the generation which precedes it, the W204 is still very much recognizable as a Mercedes-Benz though. Despite being much more angular, the drag coefficient is even better than the already class-leading one the previous "C" had. On some of the "Blue Efficiency" models, it can have a Cd of no more than 0.25, which ties it with the most aerodynamically-efficient mass production car in the world. Coincidentally, or not, that car is the Mercedes E-Klasse Coupe. Talk about design efficiency.

The front end varies by equipment level, as Mercedes tried to use the design of the radiator grille as a way to distinguish between the three available trim levels: Avangarde, Elegance and Classic. Since we manage to get our hands on an Avantgarde model with the Blue Efficiency Badge, the front side of our test car is dominated by the grille-mounted and oversized Mercedes-Benz star surrounded by three horizontal louvres, while this mild "pre-facelift facelift" also includes two LED daylight driving lights instead of the fog lights.

The side view benefits from one of the best proportions seen in this class, while the addition of chrome strips all around the car doesn't take away from its elegance and/or sportiness. The 17-inch twin-spoke alloys could have been a little larger, to better fill in the wheel arches, but the compromise is just right even as it is.

The rear end is a bit odd and somewhat atypical for a Mercedes, but still full of tri-star recognizable bits, starting from the anti-dust shape of the taillights to the overall stance and the choice of chrome stripping. If you look closely, one of the reasons for the 0.26 drag coefficient our car had is the inclusion of small air outlets on the outside of the taillights.

These air outlets pump out air that's extracted from underneath the car at high speed in order to diminish the aerodynamic turbulence that's manifesting itself at the rear. Quite a well thought-out detail, if you ask us. On the whole, the C-Klasse is a pretty good-looking car, keeping the Mercedes-Benz timeless design tradition alive and spicing it up with some catchy new details.
We think that whomever coined the phrase "when you buy a BMW you do it for the way its engine sounds and a Mercedes-Benz for the way its door sounds upon closing it" was a pretty cool dude. That's because he was pretty much dead on with this saying.

The second we closed the doors for the first time in our test car, the most-memorable "Mercedes-thunk" told us we were in a safe car. We're not exaggerating, you can actually feel the safety through the car's pores, or it this case, by the sound its doors make when you close them. The same can be said about the interior design, since it closely follows the lines of the exterior.

Sure, some critics might say that there's an oddly large amount of grey plastic in there, which for a Mercedes is saying something, but every material inside is soft and/or very touch friendly. The overall look doesn't do it justice since the ambiance inside is that of a truly premium car, no matter how few premium gadgets or toys you can find inside.

The attention to detail can be most seen/felt in the overall ergonomics and the quality of the most touched bits in the car. The iDrive-like Comand control-knob is surprisingly easy to use and it's made of aluminium, while the door-levers both inside and out feel like they could provide the same feel after a million uses. The overall feel of the (slightly too-large) steering wheel filled with helpful buttons is also top notch, while the gear shift knob is one of the most ergonomic in this class, as usual.

Even though it wasn't equipped with the optional navigation and audio system, our C-Klasse was fitted with a color LCD display, hidden in the upper side of the center console and controlled by the Comand controller. Since we can't go ahead and only discuss the best bits about our test car's interior, we should also specify its downsides. Completely opposite to the general trend in the last couple of decades, Mercedes hasn't increased the size of its C and E-Klasse that much over the years. For some, that's a good thing, but for people with long legs, it isn't.

To put it short, we don't think it's the same situation with the E, but the C-Klasse is pretty cramped for a Mercedes. You won't get sore knees from seating in the rear for longer periods, but you won't be able to fit five fully-grown men in the car without sacrificing some comfort either. After also testing the 3-Series and the A4, we'd say that the C-Klasse suffers the most at the interior space chapter.

On the good side, the luggage compartment is more than adequately-sized, with a volume of no less than 475 liters (16.8 cubic feet) at your disposal. Plus, the opening is very good and you can also increase its volume by folding the rear seat flat, in a 60:40 percentage. Sadly, the rear-folding seat is optional (!?!) and our car wasn't fitted with it, so no points for that.
Usually, the pairing of a gasoline engine with an automatic transmission that uses a torque converter isn't exactly the best idea for a fuel efficient sedan, especially like this. Contrary to what you might think, this is not exactly the case. That Blue Efficiency badge isn't just for show apparently and our test car actually managed to surprise us.

Considering the official figures were telling us the in-city fuel consumption should be around ten liters per 100 kilometers (US 23.5 mpg), and knowing that this is a 184 horsepower rear-wheel drive sedan with a rather old automatic transmission, we were expecting around 13-14 liters (US 16.8-18.1 mpg) in a highly-congested city.

As it turns out, during heavy traffic, our C 200 CGI managed to indeed use around 13.5 liters per 100 kilometers (US 17.4 mpg), which is somewhat OK given the circumstances, while outside the rush hour it even went as low as 9 liters per 100 km (US 26.1 mpg), which is even better than the official figures! We think that with the addition of an automatic engine stop system the rush hour figures would have been much lower.

Apart from the pretty adequate fuel consumption, the C 200 CGI is simply a breeze around town. The five-speed automatic transmission, although it's quite a bit older than the car itself is one of the best old-school automatics we've ever tested – not including the dual-clutch ones from the VAG Group here – and every gearshift is almost seamless while used in "Comfort" mode.

The overall visibility is very good for an entry-level premium sedan, and it's also helped by the oversized exterior rear view mirrors, which also have integrated LED signals. Although our test car wasn't exactly a true Mercedes form the available features point of view, it was fitted with front and rear parking sensors. Therefore, parking was easy as 1-2-3, mainly thanks to the fact that the parking sensors use both acoustic and visual signals to guide you.
Whenever a tri-star badged vehicle is brought into a discussion about cars it's usually preceded by its reputation. You say Mercedes-Benz, you say comfort and safety. Well, as it turns out, even though it managed to impress us with a level of comfort very hard to find at this level, believe it or not, the C 200 CGI is also a sporty little bugger.

Of course, it can't stand a chance against a 3-Series in the curves, but it can pose quite a threat to the more mellow (but still dynamic) Audi A4. We know because we drove all three in pretty much similar conditions and with them having somewhat similar performance, and the surprising conclusion is that the Audi isn't exactly a compromise between BMW and Mercedes. We found the C 200 CGI to be more comfortable than both of its number one competitors, while it only loses to BMW in terms of sportiness in the curves.

The "Sport" button for the gearbox software slightly improves the shifting times but it mainly improves the transmission's kick-down response, letting the engine rev through the roof whenever needed. Plus, even though it's obviously comfort-oriented, the rear-wheel drive, the high torque figures and the surprisingly direct steering can provide quite a bit of fun on the twisties.

As far as the long-distance comfort goes, the C-Klasse is probably the best in class, followed closely by the Audi A4. We did have to get accustomed to the high positioning of the cruise control lever, as with almost every other Mercedes, but despite this it's also probably the easiest to use of the bunch of vehicles we've tested so far. The designated speed is just a flick and a push of the lever away, unlike the multiple button pushing we found in other cars.

The suspension, though missing the "Agility Control" optional package, with the electronically controlled dampers, is close to perfection when it comes to a sporty/comfortable compromise. The accent is obviously put on comfort in its setup, but it doesn't say a full "no" to dynamic driving either.

By far the best open road feature our car was fitted with was the Intelligent Lighting System, which makes the bi-xenon headlights not only swivel around corners but also change their intensity depending on the headlights of other cars and weather conditions.

As far as the fuel consumption goes, by using the cruise control and staying just at the legal speed limit on the highway, we managed the impossible and again fell under the official fuel consumption numbers. Instead of achieving the official 5.5 liters per 100 km (US 42.8 mpg) or more, we managed to achieve 5.4 liters (US 43.6 mpg). Obviously, when driven with a heavier right foot, the fuel economy can worsen dramatically, with the onboard computer showing as much as 9 liters per 100 km (US 26.1 mpg) at some points during our "dynamic part" of the test drive outside the city.