[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by 88stlgrym3

touch call. on one hand you have a rwd coupe with a tried and true I6 twin turbo along with plenty of M goodies. on the other hand you have a full blown real AMG sedan with a turbo I4 that pumps out more hp and torque than M235, but is fwd. i don't know man, but i would get the M235i because it holds a slight edge on looks over CLA45, at least in my opinion

Don't know about the edge on looks, nor I care... I know what car looks more luxurious and goes fast though... 6 cyl. and RWD doesn't mean sh#t here:

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Don't know about the edge on looks, nor I care... I know what car looks more luxurious and goes fast though... 6 cyl. and RWD doesn't mean sh#t here:

Who the fuck cares about the cars you like or you. Get a life douchebag. Fanboy my ass, who the fuck cares about all the cars you are talking about, follow the thread dumbass. Mercedes AMG vs M235 in case you can't read.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Don't know about the edge on looks, nor I care... I know what car looks more luxurious and goes fast though... 6 cyl. and RWD doesn't mean sh#t here:

Based on the numbers the M235i is putting up, it looks like it will be a stronger competitor against the CLA45 AMG, with the exception of 0-60, which will always be dominated by an AWD car.

I can see where someone would find the CLA more luxurious looking, but I put some seat time in the CLA today, and I much prefer the BMW. The Merc has the edge in some areas, but the BMW blows it away as an over all package. My problems with the Merc have more to do with design than materials quality. BMW's new iDrive screen is bad enough the way it sticks out of the dash, but it at least looks like it was incorporated in the overall interior design. The nav screen in the CLA literally looks like an aftermarket mount. It's ridiculous.

From an exterior perspective, they're two very different cars. The M235i has a more aggressive "wedge" profile, while the CLA goes for more of a swept teardrop shape. Ultimately, it comes down to what you want out of the car. I wouldn't say the M235i is going for the luxury focused buyer though. It's targeted squarely at the sport-luxury buyer, with more focus on the sport side of the equation.

The AMG has it beat by the numbers, but we're comparing a full blown AMG car to an M-Performance model. A more apt comparison would be the upcoming M2. Based on how well the M135i fared against the A45 AMG in the comparison tests, I wouldn't expect it to be much of a fight for the M2. Although, Mercedes has plenty of time to update the A/CLA.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Who the fuck cares about the cars you like or you. Get a life douchebag. Fanboy my ass, who the fuck cares about all the cars you are talking about, follow the thread dumbass. Mercedes AMG vs M235 in case you can't read.

Are there any special forum users here with special rights, maybe in proportion to the number of BMWs owned, that allow them to say whatever they want?!

I have systematically been banned from forums here for a LOT less by answering to posts like that.

I'll just ignore it and let the moderation do their work...

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Based on the numbers the M235i is putting up, it looks like it will be a stronger competitor against the CLA45 AMG, with the exception of 0-60, which will always be dominated by an AWD car.

What you see in the vid is two AWD cars, it's the M135ix version.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

The AMG has it beat by the numbers, but we're comparing a full blown AMG car to an M-Performance model. A more apt comparison would be the upcoming M2. Based on how well the M135i fared against the A45 AMG in the comparison tests, I wouldn't expect it to be much of a fight for the M2. Although, Mercedes has plenty of time to update the A/CLA.

My point is simple... when compared to modern turbocharged 4 cyl. engines there's no technical reason whatsoever that can justify the use of a 6 cyl. engine on this segment, let alone in the upcoming M2. On the contrary, with higher capacity, 6 cyl. engines BMW isn't being as fuel-efficient as the competition.

The 6 cyl. engine is right now a marketing thing for BMW.

[basiluf]

newest motor trend comparo, semi-relevant:

4th Place: Mercedes-Benz CLA250 It'll be a star when rough-riding luxury cars become all the rage.

3rd Place: Volkswagen CC 2.0T R-Line Beauty craving more substance.

2nd Place: Buick Regal T Nearly bucked the “3 Series always win” trend.

1st Place: BMW 320i Prepared for any road, anywhere, any time.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

[GoingTooFast]

By looking at the pictures alone you can clearly tell what car stands out both from the interior and exterior... again, it has that expensive look even when compared to the much more grown-up competition, no matter what the text can possibly say which I didn't take the trouble to read anyway, because luxury is about image...

If it doesn't look expensive, it's not expensive!

[MDIVISION]

CLA looks like it fell the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.....twice

[HowardM]

Both great looking; slightly biases toward the mercedes. Purchase will depend on which suspension and steering is better on everyday roads

[GoingTooFast]

And to prove the above point, the CLA 45 keeps being compared to luxury oriented cars of the more expensive segments... and you can clearly see how well it stands:

[GoingTooFast]

The evidences continue... the inline 6 cyl. engine is so lengthy that makes the 3-series silhouette awkward due to the very long bonnet... and for what?! Wouldn't a turbocharged 4 cyl. engine be a much better option from all perspectives (pun intended)?! See the Audi for instance... there's a reason for them to use inline-4 and V8 engines as they are shorter.

[GoingTooFast]

So, which one looks more expensive, which one looks more luxurious to you?!

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, which one looks more expensive, which one looks more luxurious to you?!

You're asking the wrong question. I agree that the CLA is a very sleek, luxurious looking car, but that's not what I'm looking for. The M235i looks more aggressive and sporty. That's what I'm looking for.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

What you see in the vid is two AWD cars, it's the M135ix version.

I didn't say that the reason the A45 won that race was because of AWD, I said that in comparison to the M235i (which is RWD), the CLA would have an advantage because of it's AWD system. I also pointed out that it's a comparison between BMW's M-Performance car and Mercedes Benz's full-blown AMG car.

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

My point is simple... when compared to modern turbocharged 4 cyl. engines there's no technical reason whatsoever that can justify the use of a 6 cyl. engine on this segment, let alone in the upcoming M2. On the contrary, with higher capacity, 6 cyl. engines BMW isn't being as fuel-efficient as the competition.

The 6 cyl. engine is right now a marketing thing for BMW.

You're flat wrong about this one. There are very good objective, technical reasons that an I6 turbo makes sense. It all depends on the buyer. The CLA45 has turbo lag that far exceeds what I'm willing to tolerate. The throttle response of the N55 engine is far better. That's because you've got a larger base displacement and number of cylinders pushing the car around before boost comes on.

That's physics. No amount of turbocharging can overcome it. There is a conceivable future where this shortcoming is compensated for by something like an electrical assist, but that future is not hear yet, and this new crop of high-boost I4's suffer from poor throttle response.

[five3three]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, which one looks more expensive, which one looks more luxurious to you?!

The front of the CLA looks killer but it seems like they got lazy halfway through the design of the car. That rear end looks absolutely hideous.

I would hardly classify a CLA as looking expensive and luxurious. The only thing that would make the car seem expensive is the Benz logo in the front, nothing else. To me, the CLA looks only a step above a Ford Fusion in terms of looking expensive and luxurious with the rear of a Ford Fusion acutally looking way nicer.

They were clearly going for the same CLS look but failed miserably in the rear 1/3 of the car. They managed more of a VW beetle look in my opinion.

For reference, I would gladly drive many Mercedes models and don't find the 2 series to be the most attractive car either, but it is nowhere near as hideous as the CLA. I would happily drive a C class Mercedes any day of the week but I wouldn't drive that for half the price.

With performance, hands down I think that MB did an amazing job with that 4 cylinder.

[Red Bread]

The short gap from the front wheel to the front door dooms the CLA to look cheap, no matter how many times GTA tries to tell us otherwise.

[darkerosxx]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, which one looks more expensive, which one looks more luxurious to you?!

The cla looks like a tank in comparison.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by darkerosxx

The cla looks like a tank in comparison.

Do you mean more muscular and hence masculine?!

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I didn't say that the reason the A45 won that race was because of AWD, I said that in comparison to the M235i (which is RWD), the CLA would have an advantage because of it's AWD system. I also pointed out that it's a comparison between BMW's M-Performance car and Mercedes Benz's full-blown AMG car.

So, in your opinion the CLA AMG doesn't justify the price difference to the M235i despite the fact of being and looking more expensive and faster, am I right?

Originally Posted by bradleyland

You're flat wrong about this one. There are very good objective, technical reasons that an I6 turbo makes sense. It all depends on the buyer. The CLA45 has turbo lag that far exceeds what I'm willing to tolerate. The throttle response of the N55 engine is far better. That's because you've got a larger base displacement and number of cylinders pushing the car around before boost comes on.

That's physics. No amount of turbocharging can overcome it. There is a conceivable future where this shortcoming is compensated for by something like an electrical assist, but that future is not hear yet, and this new crop of high-boost I4's suffer from poor throttle response.

In that line of reasoning the new M3/M4 should never have trade the NA V8 for a turbocharged engine, let alone to trade a V8 twin-turbocharged, like the S63, for a twin-turbocharged inline-6.

Moreover, it seems to me that whenever BMW is concerned about throttle response quality while the engine's power output is increased it simply adds two smaller turbos instead of a single bigger one... like they did when they went from the N55 to the S55. That's how you use physics to your advantage!

So, if you really feel turbo lag is a concern in modern high boost I4's all that BMW have to do is to transform the N20 into the S20, which would mean increase the engine's power output by increasing the boost through two smaller, low inertia turbochargers instead of a single bigger one.

As I said, with modern turbocharged 4-cyl. engines there's no technical reason whatsoever to use a bigger, heavier, less fuel-efficient 6-cyl. engine... it's pure marketing!

[five3three]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, in your opinion the CLA AMG doesn't justify the price difference to the M235i despite the fact of being and looking more expensive and faster, am I right?

The only fact here is the being faster part.

Looking more expensive is not a fact. To me, it does not look more expensive than the 2 series so that leaves it being faster. I wouldn't buy it for half the cost of the 2 series just because it is faster.

[basiluf]

Originally Posted by five3three

The only fact here is the being faster part.

Looking more expensive is not a fact. To me, it does not look more expensive than the 2 series so that leaves it being faster. I wouldn't buy it for half the cost of the 2 series just because it is faster.

Well its only faster from a standing start due to awd. I would bet the M235i is faster at speed.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, in your opinion the CLA AMG doesn't justify the price difference to the M235i despite the fact of being and looking more expensive and faster, am I right?

This is a total straw man. I'm not defending points I never made, and I don't agree with anything you've said there.

The CLA AMG is a full-blown AMG. It should be priced higher, just like the M2 will be. I don't prefer the CLA. It's a fine car, but I think some of its proportions are ungainly, and the character of the engine isn't to my tastes. Yes, it puts up the numbers, but if you're looking for a clear, objective representation of what I'm complaining about when I say the throttle response is poor, have a look at the in-gear acceleration times for the M135i vs the CLA45 AMG.

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

In that line of reasoning the new M3/M4 should never have trade the NA V8 for a turbocharged engine, let alone to trade a V8 twin-turbocharged, like the S63, for a twin-turbocharged inline-6.

I think most enthusiasts would have loved for the M3/M4 to stick with a V8, or at least a naturally aspirated I6. Just look at all the people who continue to cry out for a high-revving, N/A engine in cars like the M2, despite repeated clarifications from BMW that N/A engines are a thing of the past.

Turbocharging is necessary in order to meet fuel economy requirements. No matter what you do, a turbocharged engine cannot match the throttle response of a naturally aspirated engine.

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Moreover, it seems to me that whenever BMW is concerned about throttle response quality while the engine's power output is increased it simply adds two smaller turbos instead of a single bigger one... like they did when they went from the N55 to the S55. That's how you use physics to your advantage!

So, if you really feel turbo lag is a concern in modern high boost I4's all that BMW have to do is to transform the N20 into the S20, which would mean increase the engine's power output by increasing the boost through two smaller, low inertia turbochargers instead of a single bigger one.

As I said, with modern turbocharged 4-cyl. engines there's no technical reason whatsoever to use a bigger, heavier, less fuel-efficient 6-cyl. engine... it's pure marketing!

It strikes me that maybe the reason you hold these views is because you only have a shallow understanding of the engine technologies employed here. Simply slapping on an additional turbo is not a cure-all. This is especially true of an I4 engine.

In order for the turbine portion of a turbocharger to operate efficiently, you need a smooth series of exhaust impulses. Generally, you want 3 or more cylinders feeding a single spool. Any less than that and efficiency falls at low RPM.

This means the yield in improvement of throttle response for an I4 is not optimal when you add a second turbo. I'm not saying it's never done, and I'm not saying BMW won't do it, but I would expect them to stick with the current twin scroll design, rather than to move to a twin turbo system on the N20/S20.

The displacement of the base engine has an impact on the character of the total package. The deficits in character inherent to small-displacement, high-boost engines cannot be overcome by adding turbos. They can be improved, but they cannot be overcome. Fundamental changes to the technology will be required in order to solve these problems to my satisfaction in a package like the M235i or CLA.