What Car? Chalk and Cheese!
Discussion
Going to view 2 cars tomorrow at the same garage. Need to get one sorted so looking to buy this weekend ideally. Looking for some views and opinions on these. Both are around £10,500:
2007 (07) Civc Type R GT - 25,000 miles
2004 (54) Mercedes CLK 200 Avantgarde - 28,000 miles
Never driven either (until tomorrow). Similar insurance groups. I would expect the Type R to return alot poorer MPG.
Basically I'm looking for a reliable car, comfortable on the motorway but fun on the back roads. Never had a hot hatch before although have had a similar size car to the CLK; an e46 318 coupe. Although the insurance shouldn't really be an issue (I've got quotes), the MPG of the Type R goes against it.
I didn't do many miles last year but due to my job, I could be sent anywhere in the UK at the drop of a hat. I'm also not sure about the negative attention the Type R might bring (people stealing it, hassling me etc.). Is it as bad as reported?
Any advice?
2007 (07) Civc Type R GT - 25,000 miles
2004 (54) Mercedes CLK 200 Avantgarde - 28,000 miles
Never driven either (until tomorrow). Similar insurance groups. I would expect the Type R to return alot poorer MPG.
Basically I'm looking for a reliable car, comfortable on the motorway but fun on the back roads. Never had a hot hatch before although have had a similar size car to the CLK; an e46 318 coupe. Although the insurance shouldn't really be an issue (I've got quotes), the MPG of the Type R goes against it.
I didn't do many miles last year but due to my job, I could be sent anywhere in the UK at the drop of a hat. I'm also not sure about the negative attention the Type R might bring (people stealing it, hassling me etc.). Is it as bad as reported?
Any advice?
I doubt there's much in it MPG-wise. They'll both give somewhere around 30 if driven gently and considerably less if driven hard. The Merc will be a much better motorway cruiser but be rather dull on back-roads, the Honda will be the opposite.
I suspect the Honda will be more reliable and certainly less rust-prone.
I suspect the Honda will be more reliable and certainly less rust-prone.
Honda for me! That's the girly engine in the merc.
If your company sends you around the uk at the drop of a hat, surely you can claim the mileage back? In which case, does it matter that much as long as you don't lose money on the drive?
My dad had a 230 CLK which he drove like a chauffeur (actually he did work as a chauffeur for about 5 years) and got about 36mpg.
The Honda's the one that you'll take out for a spin, just for the hell of it.
If your company sends you around the uk at the drop of a hat, surely you can claim the mileage back? In which case, does it matter that much as long as you don't lose money on the drive?
My dad had a 230 CLK which he drove like a chauffeur (actually he did work as a chauffeur for about 5 years) and got about 36mpg.
The Honda's the one that you'll take out for a spin, just for the hell of it.
I ran a new 54 plate Merc CLK240 Avantgarde for 2 years and 30k miles. It was the first car I had ever had which never had a single fault of any description. Only needed one minor service in that time too I think. Changed it for a 911.
It was a lazy wafty barge, automatic gears, lights, window wipers and dipping mirrors along with cruise control, parking censors etc, all you had to do was steer it most of the time.
It was an excellent motorway cruiser, averaged about 27mpg but did more on a run. Not sure how the 4 pot supercharged engine compares but the V6 was pretty unobtrusive.
Nearly bought another one a couple of years ago but found my BMW the next day and preferred it. The Merc falls into the trap of being so technically capable that it's a bit dull but I still quite like them. Never had a Honda but had a ride in one and they are certainly very different to the CLK!
It was a lazy wafty barge, automatic gears, lights, window wipers and dipping mirrors along with cruise control, parking censors etc, all you had to do was steer it most of the time.
It was an excellent motorway cruiser, averaged about 27mpg but did more on a run. Not sure how the 4 pot supercharged engine compares but the V6 was pretty unobtrusive.
Nearly bought another one a couple of years ago but found my BMW the next day and preferred it. The Merc falls into the trap of being so technically capable that it's a bit dull but I still quite like them. Never had a Honda but had a ride in one and they are certainly very different to the CLK!
Can't comment on the refinement of the CTR as it's a long time since I've been in one, but personally I'd rather have a well regarded mid-sized hot hatch over a non-AMG Merc. They should both be reliable and practical, and I'm not convinced the CLK will have the same driver appeal. I'm sure it'd be a nicer place to be if you're wafting up the motorway, but I suspect the CTR would be far more rewarding during enthusiastic driving.
Very odd cars to choose from, in the chalk and cheese aspect that you've said. The CLK is a vry nice place to be, very comfortable, quiet, smooth ride etc. It will be much more suitable to any longer journeys and cruising at motorway speeds.
The earlier Type R was the one to go for really, find an 06 plate and you'll be laughing. The model you're looking at is widely accepted to be inferior in many ways largely due to the inferior suspension.
WRT to the CLK, I think you can do better than the 200 for that money. Personally (am biased) I would steer you towards the 320CDi - 225Bhp, 376 lb/ft, 155mph, 6.7s to 60 - yet will do 45-47mpg on the motorway and 40mpg in mixed driving if you take it steadily. It's not exactly sporty, a little heavy for that, however I've been pleasantly surprised many times on B roads and the like. Compared to the 320 petrol it's a no-brainer, the 3.2L petrol taking 7.9s to 60, less power, lot less torque and 27mpg.
In summary, you'd be better doing some more research and not just rushing out buying the first car you go to see, buy in haste, repent at leisure or something like that!
The earlier Type R was the one to go for really, find an 06 plate and you'll be laughing. The model you're looking at is widely accepted to be inferior in many ways largely due to the inferior suspension.
WRT to the CLK, I think you can do better than the 200 for that money. Personally (am biased) I would steer you towards the 320CDi - 225Bhp, 376 lb/ft, 155mph, 6.7s to 60 - yet will do 45-47mpg on the motorway and 40mpg in mixed driving if you take it steadily. It's not exactly sporty, a little heavy for that, however I've been pleasantly surprised many times on B roads and the like. Compared to the 320 petrol it's a no-brainer, the 3.2L petrol taking 7.9s to 60, less power, lot less torque and 27mpg.
In summary, you'd be better doing some more research and not just rushing out buying the first car you go to see, buy in haste, repent at leisure or something like that!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff