| 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class and 2013 BMW X5 Specifications
| Model Year | 2009 | 2013 | |
| Model | Mercedes-Benz C-Class | BMW X5 | |
| Engine | 6.2L V8 DOHC-4v 451 hp@6800 443 lb-ft@5000 |
turbocharged 4.4L V8 DOHC-4v 555 hp@6000 500 lb-ft@5650 |
|
| Transmission | 7-speed shiftable automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic | |
| Drivetrain | RWD | AWD | |
| Body | 4dr Sedan | 4dr SUV | |
| Difference | |||
| Wheelbase | 108.7 in | 115.5 in | -6.8 in |
| Length | 182.3 in | 191.2 in | -8.9 in |
| Width | 69.7 in | 76.1 in | -6.4 in |
| Height | 56.3 in | 69.9 in | -13.6 in |
| Curb Weight | 3662 lb. | 5368 lb. | -1706 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity | 17.4 gal. | 22.5 gal. | -5.1 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 | 37.1 in | 39.3 in | -2.2 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 54.7 in | 60.0 in | -5.3 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 | 52.3 in | 0.0 in | 52.3 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 | 41.7 in | 40.0 in | 1.7 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 | 36.9 in | 39.0 in | -2.1 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 55.1 in | 58.0 in | -2.9 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 | 54.9 in | 0.0 in | 54.9 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 | 33.4 in | 36.6 in | -3.2 in |
| Total Legroom | 75.1 in (over 2 rows) | 76.6 in (over 2 rows) | -1.5 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum | 12.4 ft3 | 7.1 ft3 | 5.3 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 12.4 | 21.9 ft3 | -9.5 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum | 12.4 ft3 | 61.8 ft3 | -49.4 ft3 |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
| 2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2010 | 4dr Sedan 268-horsepower 3.5L V6 7-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
This car has a very small back seat. If you want to carry passengers for a long distance, get an E class. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2009 | 4dr Sedan 228-horsepower 3.0L V6 7-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
Mercedes-Benz makes the best seats in the business, period. Even after a 10 hour drive, my back did not hurt. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2009 | 4dr Sedan 228-horsepower 3.0L V6 7-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
The seat causes no discomfort to my tailbone like many ohter cars. Furthermore, the padding is firm and feels like it will last a long time. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2009 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2009 | 4dr Sedan supercharged 181hp 1.8L I4 5-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
Not much leg room when compared to other luxury entries. No flat floor so a 3rd passenger in the rear is not possible. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2009 | 4dr Sedan supercharged 181hp 1.8L I4 5-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
Center console and stack cut into front side leg room, my left leg is always up against the center console. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2008 | 4dr Sedan 268-horsepower 3.5L V6 7-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
just ok see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
| 2008 | 4dr Sedan supercharged 181hp 1.8L I4 5-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
too tight back there. see full Mercedes-Benz C-Class review |
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2013 BMW X5
| 2013 BMW X5 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| 2014 | BMW's multicontour seats, a $1,300 option on six-cylinder X5s and standard with the V8, deliver a rarely matched combination of support in turns and comfort on long drives. In a reversal of traditional tendencies, the buckets in the Range Rover Sport feel firmer and less comfortable. Though you'll find a commanding view forward in either driver seat, the Range Rover Sport maintains an edge in this area. Unusually large windows are one thing that makes a Land Rover a Land Rover. see full BMW X5 review | |
| 2013 BMW X5 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
| Year | Comment | |
| Audi and Mercedes both offer much longer SUVs. At least until BMW fields an X7, the X5 is available with an optional third-row seat. Especially considering the size and price of the X5, said third row is absurdly tight, thinly upholstered, and difficult to access. The door openings are small, and the entire second row seat pivots forward and upward off the floor in an only partially successful attempt to compensate. To provide even minimal legroom for those using it, the second row must slide forward a few inches, to the point that its occupants find their own legroom severely compromised. Both rows are too low to the floor for adult comfort. The third-row seat optional in the Range Rover Sport probably isn't much better, and deletes the spare tire (not available on the BMW regardless). This might explain why it wasn't on the tested vehicle. If you want a usable third row, Land Rover offers the less stylish, but also much less expensive and roomier LR4. Shift focus to the second-row seat, and I found that in the smaller X3 at least as comfortable, and easier to get into and out of thanks to the more compact vehicle's lower ride height. That in the Range Rover Sport, though also not the roomiest or the most comfortable, is better than the X5's. see full BMW X5 review | ||
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2013 BMW X5
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2013 BMW X5.
See TrueDelta's information for all Mercedes-Benz models.
