2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Reviews - Page 5 of 5

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class AWD from North America

Model year2003
Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.4 / 10
Distance when acquired9000 miles
Most recent distance25000 miles
Previous carHonda Accord

Summary:

Great car, awful service

Faults:

Parking brake sticks after 3 times repair.

Bearings had to be replaced at 20,000.

Sunroof stuck after 1 year, but has been fixed.

General Comments:

Car is fantastic. Tight handling, good braking, good in snow. Service centers are entirely awful though. Takes multiple times to get things fixed and they don't care. Are an embarassment to the Mercedes name and the time and trouble it has taken is making me switch to a different brand of car, even though I love the C240. :- (

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 27th January, 2006

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class C240 from North America

Model year2003
Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired1300 miles
Most recent distance37000 miles
Previous carMercedes-Benz C-Class

Summary:

Nice to have a Benz, but my Maxima was quicker with nicer leather

Faults:

Car is slow off of the line. Trouble seems to be getting worse Dealer does not find an issue.

Otherwise, the car has been fine.

General Comments:

Handles great in traffic, and at highway speeds.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd June, 2005

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class C180 Kompressor Classic 1.8 supercharged petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 1.8 supercharged petrol Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.6 / 10
Distance when acquired1500 miles
Most recent distance42000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 406

Summary:

Soothing,

Faults:

Reliable as clockwork.

General Comments:

If you want a car to cope with 40,000 annual motorway miles, you simply cannot do better than this without spending daft amounts of cash.

The supercharger means the 1.8 litre engine copes a lot better than you think it might. It's not quick, but plenty lively enough for most situations, and has lots of torque to pull the car along. On the motorway at 80-85 mph it is whisper quiet, has plenty of power in reserve, and does 35 mpg. If you live on motorways, you don't need a bigger engine than this, as it will still show 140 on the clock (approx 130 genuine I suspect) if you allow it its head. In fact, compared to my previous Peugeot 406 SRi Turbo, there's not much in it.

Much is made of Mercedes build quality not being up to scratch on newer cars, but mine is totally faultless. It still looks and feels new after 42,000 miles. It's a relaxing car to drive, and I can't seriously fault it. More power would be nice, but not enough to justify the higher purchase, running and insurance costs of one of the larger engines. In 99% of road situations, the 180 Kompressor lump is perfectly adequate.

I would recommend this to anyone looking for a beautifully engineered, comfortable and soothing motorway express. Just dig deep come service time.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st April, 2004

7th May 2009, 08:48

Ahmed from South Africa - I totally agree with all comments made on this vehicle, my C180k has 147000 km's on the clock and she goes like a dream. There are times when she just bursts with power and the sound that comes of the engine is very refined at low torque levels, but very roarish at high levels. Although the maintenance costs a bit more, it's a very reliable vehicle. I would recommend this car to anyone any day.

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class C320 3.2 liter V6 from North America

Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.2 liter V6 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
10.0 / 10
Distance when acquired28 miles
Most recent distance10000 miles
Previous carCadillac Catera

Summary:

The best in its class

Faults:

None.

General Comments:

A perfect small four door sedan. This car was totaled with my wife driving a week ago (other driver's fault) equaling about a 40 mph head on crash. The whole front end was gone. The driver and passenger's compartment were totally undistorted! My wife has virtually no injuries, and in other cars I would be a widower. I have never seen a car after such a collision with the cabin so untouched! Immediately ordered a replacement, and will be MB drivers from now on.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th October, 2003

4th Nov 2009, 01:11

BMW's and Volvo's are just as safe. Sorry to burst your bubble there, Hoss.

24th Jun 2012, 01:57

Volvos were once... BMW's are not, and never have been. Mercedes invented and continue to perfect crumple zones. Everyone else is just playing catch-up.

2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class C240 2,597-cc SOHC 18-valve 90 from North America

Year of manufacture2003
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2,597-cc SOHC 18-valve 90 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired2 miles
Most recent distance5425 miles
Previous carToyota Camry

Summary:

Satisfying entry-level luxury sedan

Faults:

The fuel-level indicator stopped working at 250 miles, requiring an "all-day" service visit to repair.

The "premium" sound system is actually quite mediocre.

The glove-box lid fits poorly.

The front driver's side wheel-well is a bit small for a big guy.

General Comments:

This car has snob-appeal! I get envious looks while driving this car (even though it is only an entry-level Mercedes).

Overall, I have been very pleased with the car and the dealership's service.

While the C240 is a satisfying car, I do not feel the newer Mercedes-Benz cars possess the same level of engineering and quality as they did years back. As to fit and finish, my old Toyota appeared more carefully built (though Mercedes materials are of much higher grade).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 25th July, 2003

29th Oct 2004, 23:37

I test drove the C240 and wasn't turned on with its performance. I settled on the BMW 325i. Great car and fun to drive. owners get more for the money and heads still turn when I drive it around.

23rd Mar 2013, 20:00

Have to laugh at the 'heads turn' comments, as Mercs and even more so Bimmers are almost dime a dozen these days.

24th Mar 2013, 13:37

Well, did you notice that the comments that preceded yours were entered in 2003 and 2004? A good 9-10 years ago? These just came out at the time, and the previous C-class still had squared-off features.

Average review marks: 6.8 / 10, based on 18 reviews