Mercedes-Benz has never sold the A-Class in the U.S. as it wasn't sure consumers would buy a luxury hatchback. But Mercedes will be finally bringing over the next-generation A-Class, but as a sedan.

"We truly believe that now with the body style we have the right answer for the market," said Britta Seeger, Mercedes-Benz's global sales chief to Automotive News.

When the model launches next fall in U.S., the A-Class sedan will become the brand's entry-level model. Mercedes is aiming the model at younger buyers that are new to the brand. 

"It's a very attractive car for younger people. But not only for younger people — it can have a broad audience because it's a nice entrance into the Mercedes-Benz family," said Seeger.

Currently, the cheapest way to get into a Mercedes-Benz is the CLA-Class with a pricetag of $32,700. It is expected that the A-Class sedan will start under $30,000. When asked about this, Seeger said, "We will see."

Click here for more Mercedes-Benz News

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

View full article

So an even smaller Bag of Poo with a 3 star badge on it that people will think is superior to any other auto out there and yet is no different than buying a Toyota, Ford or Chevy. 

20 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So an even smaller Bag of Poo with a 3 star badge on it that people will think is superior to any other auto out there and yet is no different than buying a Toyota, Ford or Chevy. 

They get the privilege of paying more for less reliability and more electronics issues. 

The new A-class has a pretty good interior, it is better than what the CLA has.  I think this car looks better to, they should just kill the CLA all together and sell the A-class sedan.  They don't need both.

Not to sound like @dfelt or anything, but these cars are just too small for that kind of money... And this is coming from a guy who has an Encore. 

I'd want this if they kept it as a hatch. Tiny sedan? Pass. 

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Not to sound like @dfelt or anything, but these cars are just too small for that kind of money... And this is coming from a guy who has an Encore. 

It is bigger than an Encore, it is as big as an E36 3-series and those sold well.   A lot of people will think the car is too small, but some people won't mind or will want a small car if they live in a city.  This car has outstanding value I think.  I'd rather see the CLA die and the hatchback replace it also.

I thought the old 3 series was too small also.

How does it compare to the uber-cramped CLA- that's the important thing. If this a-class, entry-level MB 2.0 doesn't address that glaring fault, why bother.

I find the CLA too small, I think the C-class which is roomy enough car, for me at 6'2" lacks some width in the footwells and I wish it had a narrower center console.  So I even find the C-class a little cramped more so from a width standpoint, not length.  But not everyone wants a big car as I said, and women who are 5'4" will probably find the A-class large enough.  I think this 2nd effort will be a hit, where the CLA fell short.

CLA meant Merc could sell the C class at higher prices.  Same car, higher profits.  

I like the CLA actually but its worthless for space inside.  I don't see why they just couldnt ride out the CLA.

i.e. i see no point to this ugly A class.

One has to wonder why waste R&D on such small worthless hard to profit auto's, why not just stay with the C class and above of higher profit luxury? 

15 minutes ago, dfelt said:

One has to wonder why waste R&D on such small worthless hard to profit auto's, why not just stay with the C class and above of higher profit luxury? 

Are you kidding?  Mercedes is selling a glorified Focus for $30k... why wouldn't they sell that?

44 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Are you kidding?  Mercedes is selling a glorified Focus for $30k... why wouldn't they sell that?

So many people on the Forum and in the news says making a profit on sub compact and compact auto's is hard, so my assumption is that those auto's have low profits for BMW and MB as well.

Just now, dfelt said:

So many people on the Forum and in the news says making a profit on sub compact and compact auto's is hard, so my assumption is that those auto's have low profits for BMW and MB as well.

Focus and Cruze sell for $10k less than a CLA... there's a lot of room for profit there for something that is mechanically no different. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Are you kidding?  Mercedes is selling a glorified Focus for $30k... why wouldn't they sell that?

So you don't get a reputation for selling glorified Foci?

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

So you don't get a reputation for selling glorified Foci?

pfffft... who cares about that when there are quarterly profits to consider?!

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

pfffft... who cares about that when there are quarterly profits to consider?!

Makes ya wonder what GM could do if they were not a public traded company! 

16 hours ago, dfelt said:

One has to wonder why waste R&D on such small worthless hard to profit auto's, why not just stay with the C class and above of higher profit luxury? 

All the A/B cars like CLA, GLA, B-class, A-class hatch, etc sell over 400,000 units worldwide per year and Renault and Infiniti use that platform too, so they have economies of scale to make it profitable.  Plus Mercédès has one of the highest owner loyalty ratings, the more people they can get in early the better.

15 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Focus and Cruze sell for $10k less than a CLA... there's a lot of room for profit there for something that is mechanically no different. 

Yesish. Their performance is more along the lines of the ST/GTI/hot hatch which is 26k.  and they have higher ratio transmissions than the other compact class as well raising costs probably significantly.

I'm not saying there aren't profits to be had but I think 10k premium for "the same" is way off. 

Think cost to build rather than MSRP.

Does Cruze 1.5t with direct injection cost any more to build than an MB 2.0t with direct injection? Largely no.  Unless there is some weird technology in an engine, that type of engine with the same technology will cost roughly the same regardless of who is building it and regardless of it's performance (baring ultra performance models). 

A compact FWD platform will cost roughly the same regardless of who is building it. There is nothing particularly special about the CLA.

The only difference might be suspension complexity, but there is certainly not a $10k advantage there.

So for what it costs Mercedes to build a CLA versus what it costs Chevy to build a Cruze, they're going to be pretty darn close.

The CLA or A-class has more tech and better interior materials than a Cruze does, all wheel drive option, etc,  There is still a lot of cost differential there.

23 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The CLA or A-class has more tech and better interior materials than a Cruze does, all wheel drive option, etc,  There is still a lot of cost differential there.

Again, no.  The costly stuff is largely the same.   What better tech does the base $33,6k CLA that a $23k Cruze LT doesn't?    

 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Again, no.  The costly stuff is largely the same.   What better tech does the base $33,6k CLA that a $23k Cruze LT doesn't?    

 

I never looked at the Cruze LT standard equipment list, but the Mercedes has better interior materials, a dual clutch transmission, and 208 hp which is better than a Cruze, it has automatic braking and attention assist which a Cruze doesn’t.  The new A-class has dual 10.25 inch screens.  I’d imagine the safety ratings are higher on the CLA, 96% of Mercedes have automatic emergency braking, only 4 car brands are over 50%, safety is in Mercedes DNA.

@Drew Dowdell @smk4565

So you guys made me curious to see the difference in the base CLA versus Cruze. What was interesting is that at $33,695 for the CLA you have a base car that is nothing special compared to so many superior options out there for the same money with much better packaging.

In the Cruze, to get it identically configured to the CLA, I had to actually go with the Premier edition of the Cruze and still it came at $28,475. Considerable difference for the FWD Premier versus RWD CLA 250. Not really sure that most people other than looking for a badge would care to spend $5,220.00 more for what really is just a commuter car for most.

The CLA may not have that nice of an interior but look at the Cruze.  The CLA also has an extra 55 hp on the Cruze, which is a lot when you talk about 153 vs 208.  That is like a 300 hp car vs a 400 hp car, you are going to feel it.  All wheel drive offered on the CLA also. 

And really this is an irrelevant comparison, I doubt these two ever get cross shopped.  

$28k or $33k seems like a lot for a generic FWD 4cyl econobox. 

8 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The CLA may not have that nice of an interior but look at the Cruze.  The CLA also has an extra 55 hp on the Cruze, which is a lot when you talk about 153 vs 208.  That is like a 300 hp car vs a 400 hp car, you are going to feel it.  All wheel drive offered on the CLA also. 

And really this is an irrelevant comparison, I doubt these two ever get cross shopped.  

55hp more but needed to move an 400+ lbs of weight more.

Interesting is if you go out and I wish I had thought of this earlier, but using Edmonds compare tool. WOW, Chevy gives you real Leather at 28K and for 33,6K MB can only give you Leatherette? plus yes MB has extra year on warranty but Chevy has extra year on powertrain, you start comparing them side by side and the CLA is blown away.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-comparisons/?veh1=401717637&veh2=401717008

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The CLA may not have that nice of an interior but look at the Cruze.  The CLA also has an extra 55 hp on the Cruze, which is a lot when you talk about 153 vs 208.  That is like a 300 hp car vs a 400 hp car, you are going to feel it.  All wheel drive offered on the CLA also. 

And really this is an irrelevant comparison, I doubt these two ever get cross shopped.  

You're only looking at customer price, not manufacturing cost. I'm not looking at the customer end at all, only the manufacturer end.

 

A1.5t costs the same to manufacture as a 2.0t does. They're both turbo direct injection 4 cylinders with VVT. There is 1.25 cubic centimeters of displacement per cylinder difference between them. There is no advanced engineering difference. Mercedes gets to charge more for the higher output, sure, but it doesn't cost them more to build it.  

Mercedes is selling cars that are technologically the same (aside from rear suspension) as the Cruze for $10k more. AWD is an option that further increases the price. The rest is low cost fluff that Mercedes adds to get the fake Gucci crowd to buy it.

This whole debate started because @Dfelt wondered why MB was chasing this segment. I was pointing out how MB was making a huge profit on it by selling the lowest common denominator to status seekers. 

Quote

Considerable difference for the FWD Premier versus RWD CLA 250.

CLA is front wheel drive. It's one of the reasons it has such dreadful interior packaging.

Edited December 24, 20178 yr by balthazar

You guys keep comparing based on price but the CLA performs more like a hot hatch than a Cruz’s Permier. So it’s more like an Autobaun GTI or Focus ST with, I think, the ST2 package and then you’re only looking at a couple grand difference rather than 10k. 

42 minutes ago, balthazar said:

CLA is front wheel drive. It's one of the reasons it has such dreadful interior packaging.

Isn’t interior packaging usually better on FWD vehicles? Exteriors look worse but I thought there was more room inside for the same length, width, height exterior than a RWD vehicle. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're only looking at customer price, not manufacturing cost. I'm not looking at the customer end at all, only the manufacturer end.

 

A1.5t costs the same to manufacture as a 2.0t does. They're both turbo direct injection 4 cylinders with VVT. There is 1.25 cubic centimeters of displacement per cylinder difference between them. There is no advanced engineering difference. Mercedes gets to charge more for the higher output, sure, but it doesn't cost them more to build it.  

Mercedes is selling cars that are technologically the same (aside from rear suspension) as the Cruze for $10k more. AWD is an option that further increases the price. The rest is low cost fluff that Mercedes adds to get the fake Gucci crowd to buy it.

This whole debate started because @Dfelt wondered why MB was chasing this segment. I was pointing out how MB was making a huge profit on it by selling the lowest common denominator to status seekers. 

If the 2.0T costs the same to build, then why doesn't Chevy make a 2.0T standard in all Cruze, Malibu and Equinox and blow away the Ford, Toyota and Hyundai competition?  If you want a 2.0T in a Malibu you have to spend $31,850 on the Premier model.

And even if the 1.5T and 2.0T cost GM the same to make, once you go to the 250 hp engine you have to beef up the transmission, beef up the engine mounts and engine cradle, enhance the suspension, better differential to limit toque steer, etc.  Cost, cost, cost.

And as far as cost to build goes, I'd image the profit margin on a CLA is the worst of any Mercedes.   They probably only make $1-2,000 per car on CLA/GLA's vs about $5-6,000 on every E-class sold.

CLA ~
wheelbase: 106.3, overall: 182.3, frt legroom: 40.2, rear: 27.1, total: 67.3

C-class ~
wheelbase: 111.8, overall: 184.5, frt legroom: 41.7, rear: 35.2, total: 76.9

ATS ~
wheelbase: 109.3, overall: 182.8, frt legroom: 42.5, rear: 33.5, total: 76

ATS has 8.7" more total legroom than the CLA with only 3" more wheelbase, and the same total legroom as the c-class with 2.5" LESS wheelbase.  Mercedes has noticeably poorer interior packaging than Cadillac here.

Yet, when you read about this size class luxury models having poor legroom, all you ever hear is about the ATS. Guess no reviewer has EVER tried to get a human inside the rear of a CLA.
 

Edited December 24, 20178 yr by balthazar

*Watches wildebeest go under for last time as crocodiles whip their tails back and forth in the muddy pond*

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

If the 2.0T costs the same to build, then why doesn't Chevy make a 2.0T standard in all Cruze, Malibu and Equinox and blow away the Ford, Toyota and Hyundai competition?  If you want a 2.0T in a Malibu you have to spend $31,850 on the Premier model.

And even if the 1.5T and 2.0T cost GM the same to make, once you go to the 250 hp engine you have to beef up the transmission, beef up the engine mounts and engine cradle, enhance the suspension, better differential to limit toque steer, etc.  Cost, cost, cost.

And as far as cost to build goes, I'd image the profit margin on a CLA is the worst of any Mercedes.   They probably only make $1-2,000 per car on CLA/GLA's vs about $5-6,000 on every E-class sold.

E Classes have the advantage of also being high volume taxies.

The reason why Chevy puts the 1.5t in instead of the 2.0t has to do with engine architecture.  The 2.0t is on the same block as the 2.5 which won't fit.  

It's a shame you can't ever see in more than one dimension at a time.

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

You guys keep comparing based on price but the CLA performs more like a hot hatch than a Cruz’s Permier. So it’s more like an Autobaun GTI or Focus ST with, I think, the ST2 package and then you’re only looking at a couple grand difference rather than 10k. 

Isn’t interior packaging usually better on FWD vehicles? Exteriors look worse but I thought there was more room inside for the same length, width, height exterior than a RWD vehicle. 

Again, you're looking at it from the consumer's point of view.  Look at it from a manufacturer's point of view.  A 1.5T would cost the same to build as a 2.0T assuming technologies are the same. (DI, VVT, Turbo, etc). There is not going to be some huge amount of price difference for that.

Manufacturers (not just automobiles) often offer options that have a perceived value to a product while actually adding little or no cost to the underlying product. A good half of the consumer market is built that way. 

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

CLA is front wheel drive. It's one of the reasons it has such dreadful interior packaging.

Thank you, MB web site does not state rwd or fwd. I appreciate the info. This just makes the CLA even a worse deal than it already was.

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Again, you're looking at it from the consumer's point of view.  Look at it from a manufacturer's point of view.  A 1.5T would cost the same to build as a 2.0T assuming technologies are the same. (DI, VVT, Turbo, etc). There is not going to be some huge amount of price difference for that.

Manufacturers (not just automobiles) often offer options that have a perceived value to a product while actually adding little or no cost to the underlying product. A good half of the consumer market is built that way. 

Thanks Drew, This is a great point looking at it from the Manufactures viewpoint.

13 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Thank you, MB web site does not state rwd or fwd. I appreciate the info. This just makes the CLA even a worse deal than it already was.

No doubt the perception there is NOT "the best or nothing".
Don't expect to see mention of nissan or renault platforms, either.

Yeah, like ppl paying big money for blackout packages... which are no doubt actually cheaper to produce than examples without them.

39 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Thank you, MB web site does not state rwd or fwd. I appreciate the info. This just makes the CLA even a worse deal than it already was. 

CLA is just the 4dr 'coupe' version of the current 3rd generation A-Class.  The A-Class is a FWD 5dr hatchback, their entry level 'family hatchback'. 

8 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

E Classes have the advantage of also being high volume taxies.

Fleet sales help profit margin?

And the Mercedes website does say the CLA is front wheel drive, on the features section, under performance and handling which is the very first feature group listed it says it is front drive and has a whole paragraph about it.

Edited December 25, 20178 yr by smk4565

8 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Fleet sales help profit margin?

And the Mercedes website does say the CLA is front wheel drive, on the features section, under performance and handling which is the very first feature group listed it says it is front drive and has a whole paragraph about it.

Where? As I just looked SMK and NOWHERE does it say it is a FWD car. You always say everything is RWD Superior till people point out A-Class.

4 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

CLA is just the 4dr 'coupe' version of the current 3rd generation A-Class. 

CLA is more like a much cheaper '2+2' sedan version of the c-class sedan (since it's within 2 inches of the c-class's length).

4 hours ago, balthazar said:

CLA is more like a much cheaper '2+2' sedan version of the c-class sedan (since it's within 2 inches of the c-class's length).

They are unrelated, the C class is RWD.  CLA is on the FWD A class platform, as is the GLA. 

Edited December 25, 20178 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Pffft- you know consumers don't know or care about drive wheels. The average schlub in the MB mega-dealer sees 2 identical-size sedans.

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Pffft- you know consumers don't know or care about drive wheels. The average schlub in the MB mega-dealer sees 2 identical-size sedans.

Not when they sit in them. The C-Class definitely feels roomier. The CLA is nearly unusable for more than 2 people.

^ At first glance; no, but sure; there differences.

The C-class is as roomy as an ATS inside!

The A-Class sedan that is coming will accommodate those that want less legroom and more of formal sedan than the CLA. 

No niche left uncovered