GLC Anyone else disappointed with the GLK interior?

[EnI]

Can somebody make list of MB design trademarks (beside specific MB grille). Thanks.



I'm a bit lost.

What makes MB a MB (beside grille & badge)?

Eg. BMW have (beside the kidney grille): 4 round headlight projectors, Hofmeister kink, L-shaped rear lights currently with CELIS LED horizontal strips, sharp character (shoulder) line, long bonnet + pushed back cabin + short overhangs etc


So, let's find true MB DNAs ... I really have no idea what they really are.

 

[coolraoul]

For me the high and big GPS screen kills the interior design. Of every car from every brand.

Here the GPS it is quite good integrated, under this second smaller dash...but it still makes the whole heavier and more complex than it would be without this big screen.

Agree with Khaled, the heaters are not fabulously upscale, wait to see IRL though. Good interior, but not that exciting.

I even begin to think that the folding screen of the C is a very very good idea after all!

 

[SDNR]

Can somebody make list of MB design trademarks (beside specific MB grille). Thanks.



I'm a bit lost.

What makes MB a MB (beside grille & badge)?

Eg. BMW have (beside the kidney grille): 4 round headlight projectors, Hofmeister kink, L-shaped rear lights currently with CELIS LED horizontal strips, sharp character (shoulder) line, long bonnet + pushed back cabin + short overhangs etc


So, let's find true MB DNAs ... I really have no idea what they really are.

Good challenge

....I struggle to find the exterior of the GLK has much in common with the W102.


I think the main thing is the "wedge" shape which was pioneered on the W102.

Mercedes has invented new styling cues which are interchangeable -- not every car has all these traits.

The rear lights, first seen on the SLK, are one detail that has found its way on to the CL and C class.

 

[Merc1]

Yawn...sigh...oh god.

M

 

[Centurion]

What makes MB a MB (beside grille & badge)?

The forward leaning tail lights, mighty grill, steep character line, tail light graphic i.e red-white-red and indicators on the wing mirrors which btw all other manufacturers have mimiced. Lastly we have the clean/elegant AMG bumper and skirt lines plus the very delicious pipes found on all Mercs. You you a Benz when you see one.

Next question!

 

[martinbo]

For me Mercedes Benz DNA is as much about recognisable styling cues as it about perception. With regard to the interior, I recognise the chunky, squared off looks of many a Mercedes Benz that I admired back in the 80's and 90's. I perceive a robust fit and finish because that's the image that the style of the facia and fittings portrays...

One thing is remarkable about Mercedes Benz, whilst they may not cling as fervently to brand identifiers as, let's say, BMW, they always manage somehow to infuse their cars with an unmistakable Mercedes Benz identity barring, of course, some questionably penned "fashion cars" like the SLK and B-Class.

It's not rocket science - somehow, a new Merc C-Class looks exactly like a credible successor to the (as recognisable) generations before it. In fact, I'd wager to say that a Merc E-Class looks more like a "Merc" than a 5er looks like a "BMW". Of course, that's purely down to opinion...

One may ask why was a W124 series instantly recognisable as a true Mercedes Benz when it represented such a quantum leap in design over its predecessor? Dunno - it just did. Maybe that's simply down to the recognition power of the three pointed star, but I surmise it's something greater all together.

Maybe that's why I like the new M3 so much - it just reeks of pure-blooded BMW M3 DNA.

 

[SDNR]

Sacco style.

These are design studies for the W140. The W140 is probably the most refined example of Sacco's design influence.

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

 

[coolraoul]

True MB DNA? Wow, I never asked me the question...It's more about feelings for me.
MB DNA is much more subtle than a list of characteristics...

You have something I always liked, it is the way the side pillars are slightly higher than the roof, so you have the windshield connected to the roof, and you clearly see the pillars going a bit higher than the roof, don't know you see what I mean. It gives a very clear shape to the roof.

The car appears more edgy, and longer. I love that detail.

You also have the rising windowline, with the strong, rising character line.

The typical bonnet, with big lines coming from the grill to the exterior of the bonnet.

A specific rear window inclination (on sedans)

Very short front overhang, and significantly longer rear overhang

Triangular rear lights (on sedans), but not always, since the W124 and 202

Very often, the chrome strip over the plate. Sometimes short, sometimes long, sometimes all the rear of the car.

Big door opener (now everybody has them, but once there were usually plates one on the competition cars)

A particular connexion between the C-pillar and the rear side, giving the impression that the windowline continues on the rear of the car (hard to explain but pretty obvious on the cars)...

Maybe I'll think to other features...

But also, an overall quite rigid, edgy shape, except on Schrempp-era.

 

[Merc1]

Wow Rob..thanks. Where did you get those pics? Very interesting to see that. I wonder what stage the next S and Maybach are in designwise. You'd have to risk getting shot by guards to see design sketches for the next generation S or Maybach.

M

 

[EnI]

MB moved away from angular-designs to attract younger & less traditional buyers ... To increase customer base & the sales ... That's also why they go more sporty ...

But ...

Now they say will concentrate on profit numbers not sales numbers ... Making MB more traditional (boxy) & less trendy ... To attract traditionalists again ... And also with the new-old design trying to convince the customers the times of superbly made & reliable MB cars are back (boxy & angular = solid & durable).

Or why are they moving to boxy designs again? I'm sure there's a rational reason behind.

But ... As said many times: profit margins are not everything. To cover huge R&D expenses huge revenues are needed. Which come with huge sales. And very cost efficient operations.



*****

So, why do you think MB are going back to basics, to the roots - to the more boxy & angular designs?


Btw, those Sacco designs looks close to current Audi design philosophy somehow: intelligent simplicity & sophistication (although Audi is moving away from that lately - heck the A5 & A4). Clean, simple, elegant. More to do with MB than Audi.

 

[Centurion]

So, why do you think MB are going back to basics, to the roots - to the more boxy & angular designs?

For the same reason you might wear a leather jacket today and a blazer tomorrow, refreshing yourself since you'll end up looking boring if you wear the same type of clothes every year.

 

[coolraoul]

To answer your question, EnI, for me there is a very good reason to that move.

In the 80's a Benz was edgy, over-engineerd, exceptionally well finished and had the better reliability on the market, along with an ability to do 300,000kms and more with ease. They did not had faults, recalls, failures.

In the 2000's a Benz is more rounded, good engineered but not more than another German premium car, has an average reliablity and is not as good finished as an Audi. It has a giant recall of 1,3 million cars, leads the satisfaction surveys but when you begin at the end, and has as many electronic failures as electronic features.

Mercedes only wants to go back on the 80's Mercedes: failure-proof with perfect reliability, no recalls, very solid and good finition...and an edgy shape.

MB wants to make us forget the Schrempp-era. Technically, but also designwise.

Therefore, back to edgy, to show the client "Benz is back". Edgy again, to show reliable and perfectly engineered again. Back to the old MB values!

 

[EnI]

For the same reason you might wear a leather jacket today and a blazer tomorrow, refreshing yourself since you'll end up looking boring if you wear the same type of clothes every year.

Going backwards is not refreshing at all.

 

[EnI]

To answer your question, EnI, for me there is a very good reason to that move.

In the 80's a Benz was edgy, over-engineerd, exceptionally well finished and had the better reliability on the market, along with an ability to do 300,000kms and more with ease. They did not had faults, recalls, failures.

In the 2000's a Benz is more rounded, good engineered but not more than another German premium car, has an average reliablity and is not as good finished as an Audi. It has a giant recall of 1,3 million cars, leads the satisfaction surveys but when you begin at the end, and has as many electronic failures as electronic features.

Mercedes only wants to go back on the 80's Mercedes: failure-proof with perfect reliability, no recalls, very solid and good finition...and an edgy shape.

MB wants to make us forget the Schrempp-era. Technically, but also designwise.

Therefore, back to edgy, to show the client "Benz is back". Edgy again, to show reliable and perfectly engineered again. Back to the old MB values!

So, that backs my theory: with the old-ish design they try to convince customers the good old MB is back. Admitting the "new MB" was a mistake?

 

[coolraoul]

Honestly? I think so, yes. And a big one.

(just like the e65 design?)

I think (hope? the last studies and reliability inquiries show it could be the case) it is however more than trying to convince. I think they understood the lesson, and are really building cars according to the old Benz values.

 

[Centurion]

Going backwards is not refreshing at all.

Yes it is. Porsche did it with the 911. They had round repetative head lights for ages and with the 996 they decided they wanted to try something new and went with the egg shaped head lights. Then they reintroduced the round ones on the 997 and Boxster 987 and both looked very refreshed when they were introduced. It's the same case with the new Mercs.

But Raoul does make a good point as well. The previous ML, first generation A-class and w203 left a little sour taste in peoples mouths and it's no mystery that MB want to restore some of the customer faith that was lost between 1996-2005.

I wouldn't say that MB are admitting that the "new MB" was a mistake. That's like saying that with all these new individual designs BMW are admitting that all their previous cars were design faliures/mistakes. It's common for manufacturers and designers to take inspiration from the past.

 

[Khaled]

^ Well I do agree that it has MB DNA ......but personality?

Please ...this is the Kevin Costner of auto interiors.

Don't you mean Nicholas Cage?

 

[SDNR]

MB moved away from angular-designs to attract younger & less traditional buyers ... To increase customer base & the sales ... That's also why they go more sporty ...

But ...

Now they say will concentrate on profit numbers not sales numbers ... Making MB more traditional (boxy) & less trendy ... To attract traditionalists again ... And also with the new-old design trying to convince the customers the times of superbly made & reliable MB cars are back (boxy & angular = solid & durable).

Or why are they moving to boxy designs again? I'm sure there's a rational reason behind.

But ... As said many times: profit margins are not everything. To cover huge R&D expenses huge revenues are needed. Which come with huge sales. And very cost efficient operations.



*****

So, why do you think MB are going back to basics, to the roots - to the more boxy & angular designs?


Btw, those Sacco designs looks close to current Audi design philosophy somehow: intelligent simplicity & sophistication (although Audi is moving away from that lately - heck the A5 & A4). Clean, simple, elegant. More to do with MB than Audi.

Mercedes is not "retuning" to any of its past ......the angularity of the current cars is purely a change of fashion -- nothing to do with any kind of "going back"

As for getting back old customers ......they never left.

The W220 was the best-selling S class ever.

The big difference is, after the W140, Sacco decided to let the designs of Mercedes become less formulaic ...and allow them to develop in a more organic way ...introducing some new Mercedes signs/characteristics like the round headlights.

The Mercedes-Benzes from the mid 1990s became less figurative -- they started to become much more subtle with less obvious established Mercedes signs.

Pfeiffer has re-emphasized many established Mercedes signs (From Sacco and Bracq) ...and married them to a lot of fashionable styling ideas (mostly from the USA)

So it is imortant to realize that Sacco and Pfeiffer have very different approaches here.

For me Mercedes Benz DNA is as much about recognisable styling cues as it about perception. With regard to the interior, I recognise the chunky, squared off looks of many a Mercedes Benz that I admired back in the 80's and 90's. I perceive a robust fit and finish because that's the image that the style of the facia and fittings portrays...

One thing is remarkable about Mercedes Benz, whilst they may not cling as fervently to brand identifiers as, let's say, BMW, they always manage somehow to infuse their cars with an unmistakable Mercedes Benz identity barring, of course, some questionably penned "fashion cars" like the SLK and B-Class.

It's not rocket science - somehow, a new Merc C-Class looks exactly like a credible successor to the (as recognisable) generations before it. In fact, I'd wager to say that a Merc E-Class looks more like a "Merc" than a 5er looks like a "BMW". Of course, that's purely down to opinion...

One may ask why was a W124 series instantly recognisable as a true Mercedes Benz when it represented such a quantum leap in design over its predecessor? Dunno - it just did. Maybe that's simply down to the recognition power of the three pointed star, but I surmise it's something greater all together.

Maybe that's why I like the new M3 so much - it just reeks of pure-blooded BMW M3 DNA.

Excellent post Martin.

I agree with you that it is often about perception ...lots of subtle things combined to give an overall impression.

However, Pfeiffer's approach is ecclectic and not really about subtlety at all.

Sacco created an entire design language-system and then allowed it to devellop its own 'dialects'. Pfeiffer has taken some well recognized 'phrases' from that Sacco-language and appied them to a [perhaps] more dynamic, but less academic design culture.

 

[SDNR]

Wow Rob..thanks. Where did you get those pics? Very interesting to see that. I wonder what stage the next S and Maybach are in designwise. You'd have to risk getting shot by guards to see design sketches for the next generation S or Maybach.

M

They are interesting aren't they


I discovered them on a Russian Mercedes forum a few weeks ago while I was just searching the net for some pictures.

 

[Yperion]

The air vents are too big and the steering wheel is a bit weird. Also the instrument cluster looks a bit cheap (in the pics) due to the silver cover.

The best interior in Mercedes line up (in terms of design) is the one of the E class IMO followed by SLK.