FC
10-20-2003, 03:45 PM
Work is slow today, so since TD has opened my eyes to just how big the Saab wagon is, I decided to update my wagon spreadsheet (attached).
As many of you know, I really like the new E-class wagon. Beautiful,comfy, luxurious, EXPENSIVE :roll: , etc. But one of its biggest pluses was that it was large (cargo-wise). In fact, it was the largest, or so I thought. I have seen the older E-class wagon several times and it is big. In this C&D article, ( http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=6692&page_number=1 ) they mention how despite the more sleek rear end it is actually slightly bigger than the older model (85 cubic feet vs 83 with seats down). But I looked at the brochure and at the MB website and they list it at 68.9 :? That makes no sense. Especially since with the seats up they list the cargo at 24.4 (the older wagon is listed at 43.8). The C-class has more than that!
Yesterday I got to see a new E-class wagon at a dealership and I will say that it scargo area is VERY wide, and it is deep enough to offer a 3rd row seat as standard equipment. I would say that it is comparable to the older model. So why the hell would MB print their sales brochures and post in their website with such ridiculous numbers? :?
(Regardless of the models, year and mileage will be adjusted so we don't spend more than 35-40K, hopefully less. The only exception MAY be the E320 CDI IF it is available, since it probably wont go on sale before 2006-07 and it's just too kick-a$$ to pass up.)
As many of you know, I really like the new E-class wagon. Beautiful,comfy, luxurious, EXPENSIVE :roll: , etc. But one of its biggest pluses was that it was large (cargo-wise). In fact, it was the largest, or so I thought. I have seen the older E-class wagon several times and it is big. In this C&D article, ( http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=6692&page_number=1 ) they mention how despite the more sleek rear end it is actually slightly bigger than the older model (85 cubic feet vs 83 with seats down). But I looked at the brochure and at the MB website and they list it at 68.9 :? That makes no sense. Especially since with the seats up they list the cargo at 24.4 (the older wagon is listed at 43.8). The C-class has more than that!
Yesterday I got to see a new E-class wagon at a dealership and I will say that it scargo area is VERY wide, and it is deep enough to offer a 3rd row seat as standard equipment. I would say that it is comparable to the older model. So why the hell would MB print their sales brochures and post in their website with such ridiculous numbers? :?
(Regardless of the models, year and mileage will be adjusted so we don't spend more than 35-40K, hopefully less. The only exception MAY be the E320 CDI IF it is available, since it probably wont go on sale before 2006-07 and it's just too kick-a$$ to pass up.)