There's a good reason why you stated the E-Class to be the forebearer of MB Design, because if you look at some redesigns in the past, you'll why the Top-Down approach isn't so exact. The W124 in 1985 debuted the V-shaped aka V-Boot bootlid design and trapezoidal styling signatures, MB became well-known for entering the 21st Century. Its brand contemporaries in the W201 190-Class (1982) and W126 S-Class (1980), didn't have those styling signatures, but shared so many styling cues with the newer W124.

The R129 SL roadster of 1989 took that W124 lineage further, marrying it to more aerodynamic design for the 1990s with a flush body color grille and more flush panels. Instead of entirely new styling, the W140 S-Class of 1991 looked like a smoothed over, jumbo-sized E-Class (W124), which was 6 1/2 years old by that point in 1991.

W140 600 SEL (1990 Daimler-Benz AG Press Photo)

W140 S-Class had needed a fresher look for the 1990s and just evolved the existing design idiom from the W124 instead, sometimes looking dated as a result as the years went on. It went through two facelifts, to correct this on a 7.5 year run, in 1994 and 1996. Only some elements like the flush chrome grille, side glass, and body panels, migrated to other models like the W202 C-Class of 1993. The W210 E-Class of 1995 debuted a new (Xenon) quad light setup for much of the brand and lozenge like all-red taillights, yet still part of the W140-W202-W210 trifecta and borrowed elements from them itself.





W202 C 280 (1992 Daimler-Benz AG Press Photo)


W202 C 280 (1992 Daimler-Benz AG Press Photo)


1995 MY Mercedes-Benz Sedan Range (1994 Daimler-Benz AG Press Photo) Notice the C Pillar of all the W140/W124/W202 sedans with sharper rakes?



W210 E 230 Avantegarde (1995 Daimler-Benz AG Press Photo) Curvier C Pillar than the above with sharper rakes.


W210 E-Class (1995 Press Photo)


Some traits from W210 E-Class migrated to the W220 S-Class launched in October 1998 (USA/CAN March 1999), in the more rounded roofline and curvier C-Pillar, not present on boxier W140 S-Class and outgoing W202 C-Class. W220 taillights were also derived from the SLK roadster of 1997. W203 C-Class of late 2000 was simply a baby S-Class once again, even more so than the previous relationship between W140-W202 in the 90s which easier to differentiate between.


1999.5 MB Guard Model Range (Pre-facelift W210 Shown)


R170 SLK 230 Kompressor (1996)



W220 S 500 (1998 Press Photo)


W203 C 320 (2000 Press Photo)


The W211 E-Class of 2002, fit in perfectly with the softly shaped W220 S-Class (1998-99) and W203 C-Class (2000), but gained a lot of styling elements, which later appeared in the W221 S-Class in 2005. Compare a 2003 E 320 sedan to a 2007 S 550 with panoramic roof in the same color, you'll see what I'm getting at. The below, shows this between the two in Euro spec. Despite being part of the W220.5-W203-W211 early 2000s trifecta, the W211 E-Class shared a bit with the future W221 S-Class, but it didn't necessarily set the tone either. W221 was part of a return to slightly less jellybean styling. The trifecta of W221 S/W204 C/W212 E were boxy throwbacks to the 1980s era of MB Design. This design language was quickly done away with in favor of Sensual Purity design language in June 2008 when Gorden Wagener took over as the youngest MB head of Design and made his effect on the core lineup via the $1 billlion E-Class facelift debuting in 2013 and redesigns via W222/W205/W213 from 2013-2016. Of the 3, the first model to get such attention was the W222 S-Class, finalized in 2009.


W220.5 S 500 4MATIC (2002 Press Photo) Contemporary of W211 E-Class Below



W211 E 320 (2001 Press Photo) See what it has in common with the other two silver examples above.

W211 E 320 (2001 Press Photo) See the similarities with the much later W221 S-Class.



W221 S-Class (2005 DaimlerChrysler Press Photo) See the similarities with old W211 E-Class from 2002.



To me, the E-Class has somewhat been a nameplate, which splits the difference between past and future design from MB. It's a transitional model in regards to MB core model design language. Just like the CLS in more recent years (2004, 2011, 2018). Lowly cars like the A-Class, have been the forebearers of all new MB design language and to me, it is why I dislike the W223 as a potential owner versus a chauffeured passenger in 2020s luxury (unbothered by exterior). I dislike the S-Class exterior and dash, but love the backseat environment.

Anyway, It has been said that the very ambitious W222 S-Class launched in 2013 to split the difference between MB and Maybach to bring S-Class name to higher heights, was a heavily revised W221 basis. The W221 was all new in 2005 (USA Feb 2006), yet its replacement kept the same basis. Something unheard of in MB history. BMW did this for 2014 X5, reusing the same basis as the 2007 X5.
The 2013 LS megafacelift was anywhere from 50 to 75% similar in (W221-to-W222) execution against the MY2007-2012 LS. Mercedes-Benz fully redid what is called the tophat and just revised the underbody only (think 2013 Avalon, 2014 X5).

Instead the rather lowly W205 C-Class (and later derivatives) was all new, debuting modular MRA in 2014, later used by the 1G X256 GLC-Class from 2015 (plus Coupe derivative), W213 E-Class (and later derivatives) from 2016, and CLS-Class 4-door from 2018.

The W223 S-Class was all new inside out in early 2021, debuting modular MRA II, which is shared with the current W206 C-Class, new W214 E-Class as the subject of this thread, and upcoming CLE. While the other models are just heavy revisions of the previous models, the S-Class was all new from scratch and not for the better in some cases.

A good example of this from Lexus, in terms of modular new basis (TNGA) married to evolutionary styling, think maybe 2019 ES, 2022 NX, 2022 LX. and 2023 RX against their predecessors, on the much older "platforms". With those redesigns: All new underlying basis, barely updated evolutionary styling. Some people can't even tell the difference between them and think they're just a big refresh. Far from it The only TNGA redesign at Lexus which is easily distinguishable from pre-TNGA generation, was the 2018 LS 500 and of course the main flagship next to the new nameplate flagship of LC, itself the first TNGA product at Lexus in 2017. BMW's new G70 i7/7 uses the same basis as my G12 did and so will the next 5-Series and 3-Series apparently, while a BEV i3 will ride an entirely different BEV architecture called Neue Klasse.

Despite an all new platform (for the S-Class nameplate), MB designers between 2014 and 2016 did their best to keep the W223 winning design proposal as close as possible to the then-incumbent W222, while using all new bits. For anyone interested, MB finished designing the W223 S-Class around December 2016, several months before the mid-cycle facelifted 2018 S-Class even appeared. The other cars below it on MRA (Gen 1), were either killed off or in being already on MRA, having now been evolving onto the 2nd generation of MRA called MRA 2. The S-Class didn't use MRA previously, but instead waited for the second generation to it arrive on the W223.
The W223 in that sense borrowed the cheaper models' modular architecture and revised it into MRA II, instead of its own unique basis like the past. Basically the 2006-07 model was the last S-Class to get an all new basis, never shared with lowly models. It's a sign of the times I guess, which BMW probably understands better than MB (past 5 and 7 shared components, unlike the S and E kept segregated).

It is very obvious I am not a Toyota insider, as in an employee working directly for them, as posting here would be career suicide if I was. I know plenty of them who do work for Toyota, as acquaintances and friends. Emails and PMs via online strangers too, who come forward and share with me of their own free will.

I only interned many years ago for Toyota and never again. They are not headquartered in the USA and since I don't want to work in Japan, not even a hope. Even if here in Michigan Toyota staff might have some leeway for developing regional product, it's still limiting in my opinion. They do not answer themselves, but to HQ in Toyota-shi. It always matters in the end and no Japanese OEM is worth the trouble, if my bosses are in an entirely country and the line of communication and cultural difference hurts business cases for USA-centered products at times.

I work for another OEM and have my own personal automotive interests, that aren't beholden to corporate loyalty. Anyone who has an inkling of my work today, quickly realizes I NEVER discuss it online and wisely so. If I do, not very often. There's no risk clearly to me on discussing things Toyota and for 95% of what I comment on. I am not a Tier 1 supplier employee, subject to NDAs against different automakers. I work with one, only.

Years ago, maybe I took some risks online while at JLR early in my career, but far from it today because that's where my limits are towards discussing things from work.

Other than suing me for violating some semblance of corporate privacy or weak case of espionage, Toyota can't do anything to me nor can 90% of automakers I comment on as an...outsider . If I hear it through the industry grapevine and decide to share here, it's up to them to decide if they DMCA or issue cease & desist to @DaveGS4 . Luckily, he has maintained a forum where this is rarely a concern for him and flown below the radar of TMNA in the rarest cases, unlike other forums that are at risk and threatened.

Being skeptical of my presence here takes the cake, considering I am not the only person who does this in such an online capacity and I can name a few others too, if I didn't respect their privacy as paramount to them. I deal with these attacks enough on other forums with less sophisticated crowds, which is already ridiculous in itself, seeing as I am often too busy to even frequently log in and post regularly compared to other users (also leading professional lives), but with much more flexible work-life balances than me. If I posted here 24/7, such skepticism would compute. I do not, as I cannot keep up. Your comment only makes me think, this is again based on someone else on another forum making character attacks against me once again. I can name those detractors too I bet, but that's really their issue and not mine.

As a youngish car enthusiast in my 30s, who considers himself to be an automotive historian outside of my professional work, I love learning about new things at every corner of the automotive industry and sharing it with the next person, who can appreciate it. I have done this for many years in my youth, because outside of the industry, the average person isn't on the same wavelength in terms of automotive knowledge and/or discussion. My housekeepers don't care about cars, we don't discuss it. My relatives at best only care about automobiles as accessories or respectable transport. We don't discuss it, except regarding advice and corporate discounts. Only my husband and most of my friends are car enthusiasts, but very busy folks who don't have time to chat always. However in us bouncing off of each other's knowledge, I see a wider group to reach online and help maintain the automotive narrative against actual misinformation globally. My recent comment was not misinformation, since I didn't state it as fact that must be trusted. It clearly wasn't even a declaration you are making it seem like. It was concerns I had, not even previously clarified here. Someone can ask about my confusion or explain to me otherwise, if they choose to. How dare anyone accuse me of such a thing, if that wasn't what I even did?

Going back to a previous comment, I don't even know how so many of you "regulars" here are able to even log in so frequently, yet able to still carry on with daily activities as working professionals and never miss a chance to sign in. I cannot even hope to keep up and for this reason have a very low post count, as a user with an 11 year old account.

Seeing as I am rarely online, I am quite sick of my posts being taken out of context or nitpicked, often to castigate me as some know-it-all with nefarious intentions, when I rarely if ever make it my business to do that to other users unprovoked. I am more about people being on the same page, than anything else. It seems that the main indictment against me, is I am perceived as an "insider" of sorts, who unlike others (seen as such) is too involved, enthusiastic, verbose. And not morose, borderline mute, and detached like most of them I can easily name, but won't do it so as not to make personal attacks myself.

The few of us working in the industry are people too and like anyone else, are free to do what we please as long it's not illegal nor violates internal policies we're beholden to. Some of us sign up and post about cars just like anyone else. 99% of us, don't talk about our own specific work and that includes me nowadays, a very private person as it is anyway. Talk to me about anything, other than work basically.

Further more, there is very little I am ever wrong about and when I make mistakes, I rush to correct course, to keep the narrative accurate. A well known "engineer" (like me) in David Chao of Automotive Press on YouTube, never admits to making mistakes or being at fault for misleading people on his reporting, yet I often have to be held to a higher standard than him and the others much worse than him, even when I am simply a messenger in many instances. I'm tired of it, because the $$$ ad revenue and etc those vloggers get from spewing clickbait half-truths, rarely gets the criticism and silly skepticism my posts do. They are trusted without having to prove it, despite the their track record in reality being questionable. They copy from forum posts like mine and others, yet get all the credit and the same people saying these things in the first place, get instead "show me the receipts" comments.

I don't want to hear about this again from anyone, considering the free pass those guys get for repeatedly passing on bad info and knowing they've been warned otherwise. I have better things to do, than defend my perspective from online strangers, who can take or leave anything I state.

More to the point of your criticisms of my last post:

First off, I didn't state anything confidently regarding Mercedes-Benz BEVs. I used shaky language on purpose, since no research was done on it by me. I was speculating MB being seemingly done with ICE development, would just carry on with BEV or EQ models possibly. I hadn't determined whether EQS or S-Class e. I was more focused more on my photo comparison and forgot some parts of my comment. "Probably" =/= "for sure" or "not sure" doesn't sound like confidence of any sort. Reading my text in my response to @bitkahuna , the only confidence expressed was regarding past and current ICE models following a design template. I didn't care much about discussing the next generation W224 S-Class, already in development I'd expect at this point and pretty far along I'd guess, from educated guessing on MB product planning methods. The only wrench in my existing knowledge, was never reading up on the future of EQ BEV products against core MB models in S, E, and C. Thanks to TangoRed, those concerns have been cleared up. I was very angry about the W223 and in having been a 7-Series buyer, I was curious. Ultimately I hate both cars and went with something else.

If you're going to criticize anything else I've stated previously as you claim above, you need to back it up with hard evidence and not vague claims, taking any previous statements I've made out of context. I really don't like that one bit. I've seen that happen far too many times and then when I read whatever it is, I've already clarified the issue in question or the context isn't even correct.

I lost interest in MB developments, when I could no longer keep up as I used to in the 2010s and specifically after I saw the W223 S-Class and W206 C-Class, having ugly styling cues I didn't care for inside-out. Not to mention EQS and EQE being design jokes to me and the retirement of Dr. Dieter Zetsche as CEO in 2019, one of the very men I am modeling my career after (next to Lee Iacocca and Dr. Wolfgang Reitzle).

My SIMPLE comment on MB's BEV direction, was a side comment anyone was welcome to help me out with. It is utterly ridiculous for you to even imply such a thing in response to who knows what. When it comes the engine lineup of the 2024 Tacoma range, I don't recall that being obviously known in any sense for to even imply "very clearly incorrect". There is context for everything and make sure you have it right, before throwing around accusations.

Two, seemingly attacking me for ever making mistakes, as if I never have made corrections immediately afterward and accepted fault, I might just plainly call disgusting and unfair. I have never regarded you as a problem user, in never being seen as hostile or arguing in any capacity, so I don't even understand where this (perceived) hostility is even coming from. In coming from a very successful immigrant family and second generation, I try to put my very best effort forward in everything I do. None is flawless of course, but I never rest because of it and even though I type fast, it's time consuming at times. This is no longer enjoyable due to the effort it can take.

I am enthusiastic and curious of where, when, why, and how things come together in this world, across many industries. Some people describe it as "just trivia", but I consider it one of my life's hobbies to study the background of everything of interest I come across and learn about how it came to be, to adapt it for my own purposes. Plus I also like to get ahead of the next thing coming down the line as well in terms of future products, since I am already work in that capacity. I am a self-professed historian for this reason, in terms of mostly past and future, with some focus on the present.

I feel like some individuals across several forums, are just looking for people like myself to stumble and make mistakes publicly, so they can point the finger and delight in it. I do not understand why that is necessary and with some of them, I know why they do it and just won't say it. I do not go on camera like Automotive Press and vloggers on YouTube to spread secret information that might hurt the privacy of OEMs on a broader basis nor do I knowingly spread around misinformation. I have fought with journalists, media personalities, and similar entities, including Wikipedia for that very specific reason.

I generally avoid commenting on anything I am not certain of, unless I am confident in it. The few times I am wrong, I don't change the subject to save face and pretend I didn't claim what I did. Seeing as I don't work for Lexus nor Mercedes-Benz, I can only trust what my skilled research provides and what my industry contacts share with me, including a few of those within forums. I haven't been interested in MB lately, other than basic knowledge of MRA 2 development for recent models. I don't even care about the ugly EQ models, so I've never been interested in knowing what they represent beyond their lifecycle.

Someone like @TangoRed has a good pulse on MBUSA developments, so I trust him. If he got something wrong ever, it is certainly not my place to attack him if it came from an inside contact of his. It is very different however, if I knowingly make up information that my research could never even support nor has a contact shared with me, to even be uttered in the first place. The previous sentence is VERY much what most of the automotive media does nowadays, including those on social media or YouTube (I keep YT separate from social media).

Media will make an empty claim about a future Toyota or Lexus model with no insight from a credible perspective and push it around like it's absolutely fact. Yet, those of us either at Toyota or elsewhere in the industry pretty much know otherwise for a fact. The Toyota people zip it, while I challenge it on the belief, it will misinform many people. Case in point, the TNGA-F products where a lot these amateur writers/commentators don't do justice with reporting. Let alone their misreporting on several redesigns, which should very obvious otherwise to them and yet, people read their articles (watch videos) and trust it without question. Yet expect me as a private individual, to lay out all of my credentials and what I wore to bed last night, to prove I can be trusted. Thankfully, a chunk of people have common sense and know what's feasible. People on social media I don't even bother with. It's a jungle of rumor mills and ignorance.

I've gotten tired of trying over the past 8-10 years to convert other forum users and the automotive enthusiast public into being more skeptical and cautious against trusting automotive media so blindly. In wanting to encourage them to do their own research, to find answers on future models that the journalists are too busy to bother with.

In order to give light to my perspective and gain trust, I have put in a lot of effort to inform people as much as I can of past, present, and future automotive developments, to wean them of off dependence on lazy automotive media as a means to know what's happening down the road and use their own skillset to do independent research in places they'd never except to find insight early. That in itself can become so dangerous and unwelcomely time consuming, to the point of burning my bridges with other industry contacts if too many dots are connected.

I use forums as a medium, because it is much more lowkey than hopping in front of a webcam or microphone, to the point it puts a target on my back and burns bridges with insiders at other OEMs or Tier 1 suppliers, who might end up recognizing me. Working as I do now, I cannot be a vlogging commentator for job security reasons. As my father has always said, it is wiser to be behind the camera and getting profit/recognition, than in front of it and lose all semblance of privacy for cheap fame. I don't care for fame and neither does anyone in my family (at least of any substance). Those who often want fame, desire it for the wrong reasons and like many of us on here who are quite comfortable, we enjoy our privacy.

Like Wikipedia (to my chagrin), when someone googles certain subject matter regarding given nameplates, my online posts in different places will appear as search results via keywords. If I've already established a pattern of accuracy, that information can be more easily trusted by the smarter reader per my username over the next journalist, who half-assed their research or relying on a shoddily written Wikipedia article.

My latent goal is to influence the spread of the greater narrative on automotive historical fact from hidden corners. Plus provide insight on future developments, against misinformation being published at times by big name outlets. In simple words, I like everyone being on the same page as me and everyone else, if they aren't already and vice-versa.

I've considered starting my own automotive media company and information databases (similar to Wikipedia), to centralize content. However, I'd rather continue as I am working currently and hopefully promoted to executive management, after gaining more experience. If not, even higher on my own considering my background. Saying that it doesn't make sense why I am here and makes it questionable for you, I don't get the point and just see it as unwelcomely passive aggressive. I'm just about done posting on forums in most cases, since my commentary just doesn't make sense I guess and it's a copious waste of my time.