CLK 350 vs 500
Discussion
Hello all,
I started a thread in GG about the CLK but thought i would post here for some more detailed info about potential problems etc. I have set up email alerts on autotrader etc. as there aren't that many of these cars about.
I am thinking about either a CLK 350 or 500 to replace my ageing alfa, probably around 2004-2006 vintage to avoid the post '06 tax hike.
Is there much of a performance difference between the two? on paper its only about 30bhp but this may not tell the whole storey.
What is the 7 speed auto like? how does it compare to the 6 speed auto in the C-class of the same age?
I have heard of balancer shaft issues on some of the 6 cylinder engines? I am tempted to not pay too much attention to this, if you research any car online there will always be horror stories (cambelts on alfa TS engines, RMS issues on porsches etc) but is there anything in particular to look out for?
TIA, James
I started a thread in GG about the CLK but thought i would post here for some more detailed info about potential problems etc. I have set up email alerts on autotrader etc. as there aren't that many of these cars about.
I am thinking about either a CLK 350 or 500 to replace my ageing alfa, probably around 2004-2006 vintage to avoid the post '06 tax hike.
Is there much of a performance difference between the two? on paper its only about 30bhp but this may not tell the whole storey.
What is the 7 speed auto like? how does it compare to the 6 speed auto in the C-class of the same age?
I have heard of balancer shaft issues on some of the 6 cylinder engines? I am tempted to not pay too much attention to this, if you research any car online there will always be horror stories (cambelts on alfa TS engines, RMS issues on porsches etc) but is there anything in particular to look out for?
TIA, James
Cant comment much but I have a 2006 C350 with the 7G box.
I had no complaints with the gearbox, it was very smooth and quote good fun using the Tiptronic function. It also made it quite economical.
It was a lovely engine, just needed to sound better IMO. Had a decent turn of speed but then I was coming from an M5 so it was always going to feel slower.
I had no complaints with the gearbox, it was very smooth and quote good fun using the Tiptronic function. It also made it quite economical.
It was a lovely engine, just needed to sound better IMO. Had a decent turn of speed but then I was coming from an M5 so it was always going to feel slower.
StarmistBlue400 said:
Cant comment much but I have a 2006 C350 with the 7G box.
I had no complaints with the gearbox, it was very smooth and quote good fun using the Tiptronic function. It also made it quite economical.
It was a lovely engine, just needed to sound better IMO. Had a decent turn of speed but then I was coming from an M5 so it was always going to feel slower.
Thanks for the info, how is the speed of up/down shifts using the tiptronic? Is it paddles behind the wheel?I had no complaints with the gearbox, it was very smooth and quote good fun using the Tiptronic function. It also made it quite economical.
It was a lovely engine, just needed to sound better IMO. Had a decent turn of speed but then I was coming from an M5 so it was always going to feel slower.
Would love a 55AMG, and they are within budget. But i think maintenance costs (brakes, tyres, srvicing etc) would end up being too much for me.jimmy156 said:
Thanks for the info, how is the speed of up/down shifts using the tiptronic? Is it paddles behind the wheel?
Would love a 55AMG, and they are within budget. But i think maintenance costs (brakes, tyres, srvicing etc) would end up being too much for me.
On mine it was just buttons behind the wheel. Shifts were quick, Especially in sport mode (sometimes called standard). It would hold onto the gears a lot longer. It was so quiet you didn't realise how fast you were going. Would love a 55AMG, and they are within budget. But i think maintenance costs (brakes, tyres, srvicing etc) would end up being too much for me.The 55 AMG is far, far cheaper to run than subsequent AMGs such as the 63.
Tyres are no bigger than on lesser CLKs, I think the brakes were also far cheaper than the 63s and were possibly shared with more 'normal' models. The engine in the 55 shares far more parts with other Merc V8s than the 63 that followed, so I understand servicing is also very reasonable.
The big costs I would imagine are items such as the exhaust and possibly any AMG specific body parts.
My CLK63 was not what I'd call an expensive car to run. Rear tyres (P Zeros with correct rating) were around £200 each and I didn't need to touch the brakes. I had a B service carried out at MB for something like £380. It was generally as thirsty as expected, but surprised me on a few longer steady runs where it wasn't that bad - think mid 20's mpg if you're running at 70mph.
Don't be put off by the running costs of the AMG, they feel much more special and the marginal extra annual cost will be worth it.
Tyres are no bigger than on lesser CLKs, I think the brakes were also far cheaper than the 63s and were possibly shared with more 'normal' models. The engine in the 55 shares far more parts with other Merc V8s than the 63 that followed, so I understand servicing is also very reasonable.
The big costs I would imagine are items such as the exhaust and possibly any AMG specific body parts.
My CLK63 was not what I'd call an expensive car to run. Rear tyres (P Zeros with correct rating) were around £200 each and I didn't need to touch the brakes. I had a B service carried out at MB for something like £380. It was generally as thirsty as expected, but surprised me on a few longer steady runs where it wasn't that bad - think mid 20's mpg if you're running at 70mph.
Don't be put off by the running costs of the AMG, they feel much more special and the marginal extra annual cost will be worth it.
74merc said:
The later 500s had a 388BHP 5.5 litre V8 which is meant to be more economical than the 5.0 litre. I can't remember exactly when it was introduced, but it would probably be in the higher tax band.
Yeah i have seen these, these would be worth the extra tax, more powerful then the CLK55! But i think being newer they will be out of budget for the moment!Interesting comments re: running a 55AMG. My mileage will be around 8-10k next year i would imagine, so fuel consumption nor a major concern. I think i would spend too much time worrying about a big bill being thrown up, even if this is unlikely to happen.
I would be coming from a 156 2.0 which has cost me quite a lot in being fixed, in the last few years (not this year so far, touch wood) probably upwards of 1k a year in various repairs and servicing, but all in small chunks. Things like tyres are £75 a corner, not £200 a corner! I realise all three of these cars (350, 500 and 55AMG) will be a step up in some costs compared to what i am used to, but i am hoping the car will prove more reliable!
I had a 156 V6 that expired on me about 3 months ago and i replaced it with a CLK500 W209.
so far it has been utterly reliable, (my round trip to work is 80miles), and the fuel cost are about the same........oh and its bloody quick, (306bhp version).
i also looked at 350s but they only came out a few months before the tax band change and i didn't see one i liked on an 05 plate.
so far it has been utterly reliable, (my round trip to work is 80miles), and the fuel cost are about the same........oh and its bloody quick, (306bhp version).
i also looked at 350s but they only came out a few months before the tax band change and i didn't see one i liked on an 05 plate.
55 AMG fuel costs for 8000 miles is likely to be from £2100 to £2500 or beyond which may be a consideration.
The most I have seen is 27.9 but that was absolutely leisurely, cruise controlled and rigidly sticking to the limits. More often than not, on a run, I get about 24.5 and even that is at a relatively slow pace. In town, about 18 is common, rising to 21 but not a lot more.
To put it into perspective, my GT3 could average 69mph at 36mpg. The 27.9mpg above was at an average of 60mph. Weight and a big engine I guess.
If you are really looking at doing that kind of mileage, I think you would do better looking at something a bit more modern with slightly better mpg figures.
The most I have seen is 27.9 but that was absolutely leisurely, cruise controlled and rigidly sticking to the limits. More often than not, on a run, I get about 24.5 and even that is at a relatively slow pace. In town, about 18 is common, rising to 21 but not a lot more.
To put it into perspective, my GT3 could average 69mph at 36mpg. The 27.9mpg above was at an average of 60mph. Weight and a big engine I guess.
If you are really looking at doing that kind of mileage, I think you would do better looking at something a bit more modern with slightly better mpg figures.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff