CLS 500 or CLS 320d

[mjwscorpio]

I can't make up my mind between the noise of the 500 with all the extras or a 320d. This is a head or heart moment. I'm not worried about running costs as it won't do many miles. Struggling finding the correct colour combination and it's now taken two months of looking every day. £12,500 budget. Any thoughts.

[fivepointnine]

I have the M113 5.0 in the CLK500, the motor is a work of art (besides changing out the spark plugs, I never want to do that again!) extremely reliable, smooth, sounds great and has loads of torque.

[r129sl]

If you're not worried about running costs and don't do too many miles, you'd be mad not not to buy the 500. It is better in every way than the diesel apart from economy. It is a thousand times more refined, the engine is unburstable with none of the niggles the V6 disease suffers, the power delivery is much more satisfying, it is faster, it makes a nicer noise, it won't filth up your hands at the petrol station, it is cheaper to buy (because the market is disease obsessed), cheaper to maintain, better specified as standard, the first purchaser may have been less budget-constrained so often there are more options... If mpg is not the issue, get the 500.

[anonymous-user]

If you're not worried about running costs, then I think you already know the answer.

My dad had a CLS320 CDI and then a 350 CDI and they are great engines, torquey and refined, for a diesel. But something tells me that the 500 will put more smiles on your face. The only issue is that there is likely to be far less choice when shopping for a 500.

[tobinen]

For the OP's budget and mileage I'd be looking for a facelift 500 with the later 388 hp motor. Forget the diesel.

[so called]

What sort of mpg does the 500 give ?
I only ask as I used my CLS320cdi for the drive down to Spain this year instead of my Tuscan.
If a similar situation developed for you, would you still be happy with the 500 mpg ?

[fivepointnine]

so called said:

What sort of mpg does the 500 give ?
I only ask as I used my CLS320cdi for the drive down to Spain this year instead of my Tuscan.
If a similar situation developed for you, would you still be happy with the 500 mpg ?

I have a CLK500, but the mileage should be very very close, I get around 24-25mpg on highway driving, and around 17-18mpg in the city

[kevinpsw]

As someone who dislikes diesels for the toxins they produce (I work in London, one of the most polluted cities) and because petrol drivers have to help pay for the lower road tax of diesels (CO2 nonsense, idiot politicians) I consider there to be only one excuse for having one. That you do so many miles you simply cannot afford to run a petrol car. Doesn't sound like that's you so go for the 500. Cheaper to buy, more reliable, better to drive, higher specification and so on. Any CLS of course is a handsome car, especially with AMG body kit.

388 bhp will be the best but then the penal £500 road tax kicks (06 onwards). I had the 306 bhp CLK500 a while back and it gave me not the slightest fault in almost 4 years. Now over 2 1/2 years in a W219 CLS63 and, touch wood, the only problem has been the sidelight bulb that has just gone. My experience of Mercedes has therefore been excellent.

[andy43]

I'd push the boat out a couple of extra k and go CLS 55.
7 speed gearbox can be marginal on the 500 - I don't know whether the later 388bhp cars have the same box as the earlier 500s though.
Afaik AMG went with a 5 speeder in the '55 as the 7 speed couldn't handle the power.