Thinking of getting a CLK coupe, are they any good?
Discussion
I recently traded in a 320 coupe which I bought new in '07. I did 60k miles in that car and it was the most reliable I've ever owned. It quite literally didn't suffer one single problem in the 5 years I owned it, apart from having the wheel studs replaced under warranty due to rust, which is a known MB problem.
It had a decent turn of speed and is a great mile muncher, allowing you to arrive still fresh after a long days driving. Best journey I did in that car was leaving the Dordogne at 08.30 and arriving home in Kent by 7.00 pm the same day having driven 615 miles. We still felt fresh enough to drive out for a meal that night!
Room in the back is fairly limited for 2 adults, making it difficult for some to get in and out, although this is easier if you roll down the rear windows, funnily enough. I had Distronic on mine, which I would recommend. It makes motorway journeys even less stressful. Handling is quite good and it can be hustled along B roads with some enthusiasm.
Watch for surface corrosion on the top of the bonnet slam panel in front of the radiator. The bonnet seal rubs on here and can trap salt/damp, which causes the problem. It's a very minor gripe though. Overall, I loved the car.
It had a decent turn of speed and is a great mile muncher, allowing you to arrive still fresh after a long days driving. Best journey I did in that car was leaving the Dordogne at 08.30 and arriving home in Kent by 7.00 pm the same day having driven 615 miles. We still felt fresh enough to drive out for a meal that night!
Room in the back is fairly limited for 2 adults, making it difficult for some to get in and out, although this is easier if you roll down the rear windows, funnily enough. I had Distronic on mine, which I would recommend. It makes motorway journeys even less stressful. Handling is quite good and it can be hustled along B roads with some enthusiasm.
Watch for surface corrosion on the top of the bonnet slam panel in front of the radiator. The bonnet seal rubs on here and can trap salt/damp, which causes the problem. It's a very minor gripe though. Overall, I loved the car.
Edited by P.Nott on Tuesday 30th October 10:27
More of a cruiser compared to the BMW 3 Ci, i briefly had a 500 model and they are great, quite cheap now too.
Otherwise, go for the 320 in Avantgarde trim, it's best all rounder IMO. Don't be tempted by a cheaper 240 model (or worse still a manual 240) as performance is average compared to a 320, while economy/running costs are similar.
Otherwise, go for the 320 in Avantgarde trim, it's best all rounder IMO. Don't be tempted by a cheaper 240 model (or worse still a manual 240) as performance is average compared to a 320, while economy/running costs are similar.
I have a 2004 model although it is the 270 diesel.
It is an excellent long distance car, effortless on the motorways, very comfortable and can also be hustled along suprisingly quickly on the back roads although perhaps not quite as refined as you might imagine around town. As has been mentioned the auto is the one to go for. One thing to note is despite having a five speed box, in normal mode it only uses the top four gears (economy?)giving a rather disconcerting feeling when leaving junctions until you get used to it. For quicker first gear getaways you need to engage sport mode.
The boot is a decent size and the rear seats fold for larger loads. Personally I think the rear seats are very good for a coupe.
The CLK is a heavy car that handles reasonably well all things considered but the price for it,s nimbleness (is that a word?)is a healthy appetite for tyres and brake pads. They are also prone to warping the front discs if driven with gusto.
It is a well equipped car, (mine is the Elegance if that makes a difference) but make sure everything functions as some electrical issues can be difficult to identify and expensive to fix.
If I was buying the same model again I would go for a petrol.
Good luck with the search.
It is an excellent long distance car, effortless on the motorways, very comfortable and can also be hustled along suprisingly quickly on the back roads although perhaps not quite as refined as you might imagine around town. As has been mentioned the auto is the one to go for. One thing to note is despite having a five speed box, in normal mode it only uses the top four gears (economy?)giving a rather disconcerting feeling when leaving junctions until you get used to it. For quicker first gear getaways you need to engage sport mode.
The boot is a decent size and the rear seats fold for larger loads. Personally I think the rear seats are very good for a coupe.
The CLK is a heavy car that handles reasonably well all things considered but the price for it,s nimbleness (is that a word?)is a healthy appetite for tyres and brake pads. They are also prone to warping the front discs if driven with gusto.
It is a well equipped car, (mine is the Elegance if that makes a difference) but make sure everything functions as some electrical issues can be difficult to identify and expensive to fix.
If I was buying the same model again I would go for a petrol.
Good luck with the search.
We had a 2007 CLK 320cdi, effortless mile muncher for 3 years, stable secure and fast, no reliability problems at all, we put 90,000 miles on in 3 years, seriously competent car, i remember the time we drove from Wilts to Mull of Kintyre in 10 hours, and arrived feeling fresh and relaxed. Incredible car. Once of the reasons I now own a SL55.
Princeof wheels said:
One thing to note is despite having a five speed box, in normal mode it only uses the top four gears (economy?)giving a rather disconcerting feeling when leaving junctions until you get used to it. For quicker first gear getaways you need to engage sport mode.
I've got a C270CDi and you're doing it wrong. 
C is comfort (from time to time MB refer to it as W for Winter) and S is standard.I drive gently and really only use mine for long distance cruising but I wouldn't dream of driving it in C, it just dulls the whole thing too much. It stays in S all the time. You won't get the disconcerting feeling at junctions then (it's still shift down to first though even if you do start in C and need to pull out firmly, but it does it with an un-Mercedes like jolt).
To the OP - watch for rust - I don't think CLKs of that age are galvanised and MB won't fix it anymore and Google the Valeo radiator issue, it's still cropping up on cars of that age.
Thanks Deva Link. You are of course right.
I was just trying point out to the OP that if they are are new/unfamiliar with this model then when in 'C' the car can feel a little slow to get away which can be unnerving when pulling out into moving traffic. Driving the car in 'S' does, as you say eliminate that issue.
You can as you say when in 'C' be firm with it and give it a boot full to engage first but following the rather unMercedes like clunk comes the even more unMercedes like squeal of tortured rubber from the rear tyres. Best to keep it in 'S', at least around town.
As well as the rather heavy tyre wear, front suspension bushes and ball joints should be checked and broken front coil springs are not unheard of although this could be just a diesel model issue. Maybe someone with a wider knowledge base will comment.
Just to add, I am not a marque expert these are just observations from my experience with the CLK.
I was just trying point out to the OP that if they are are new/unfamiliar with this model then when in 'C' the car can feel a little slow to get away which can be unnerving when pulling out into moving traffic. Driving the car in 'S' does, as you say eliminate that issue.
You can as you say when in 'C' be firm with it and give it a boot full to engage first but following the rather unMercedes like clunk comes the even more unMercedes like squeal of tortured rubber from the rear tyres. Best to keep it in 'S', at least around town.
As well as the rather heavy tyre wear, front suspension bushes and ball joints should be checked and broken front coil springs are not unheard of although this could be just a diesel model issue. Maybe someone with a wider knowledge base will comment.
Just to add, I am not a marque expert these are just observations from my experience with the CLK.
My GF has a CLK 220cdi sport(56 plate) and I have a 57 plate 320d coupe sport.
Her car is so much more comfortable, a far softer and more relaxing drive.
It looks great in black and with the sports trim, although they are not as common as M-sport BMW models.
The car still looks fresh - when parked next to mine, they both look like expensive and modern coupe's.
The downsides - the fuel consumption is terrible on hers ~30mpg vs ~42 on mine. I can't comment on whether the V6's are as poor vs. BMW's straight 6's.
Only available as an auto (although this does suit the car very well, so probably not a downside).
The interior looks a lot cheaper than the 3, and is starting to show it's age a little in it's design - but still far from an unpleasant place to be.
The 3 feels so much better put together than the MB.
Overall, for the price it's a fantastic car. It's probably unfair to compare it with the 3 as it was a far newer model, but it's probably as close a competitor in looks and performance as you can get.
Another thing to consider is reliability - I had a '03 MB (E55 AMG) and it spent a large amount of time back at the dealers being repaired - thank god for the warranty. The age of cars you're looking at are in the notorious bad build quality years of MB.
Just to add, I am certainly far from a BMW fanboy - I was the one who convinced her to get the MB!
Her car is so much more comfortable, a far softer and more relaxing drive.
It looks great in black and with the sports trim, although they are not as common as M-sport BMW models.
The car still looks fresh - when parked next to mine, they both look like expensive and modern coupe's.
The downsides - the fuel consumption is terrible on hers ~30mpg vs ~42 on mine. I can't comment on whether the V6's are as poor vs. BMW's straight 6's.
Only available as an auto (although this does suit the car very well, so probably not a downside).
The interior looks a lot cheaper than the 3, and is starting to show it's age a little in it's design - but still far from an unpleasant place to be.
The 3 feels so much better put together than the MB.
Overall, for the price it's a fantastic car. It's probably unfair to compare it with the 3 as it was a far newer model, but it's probably as close a competitor in looks and performance as you can get.
Another thing to consider is reliability - I had a '03 MB (E55 AMG) and it spent a large amount of time back at the dealers being repaired - thank god for the warranty. The age of cars you're looking at are in the notorious bad build quality years of MB.
Just to add, I am certainly far from a BMW fanboy - I was the one who convinced her to get the MB!
We had an 02 52 320 Avantgarde. One of the most competent cars I have ever owned. Blended luxury and sportiness in a way that BMW never seem to be able to achieve. Very smooth and quiet on the motorway and effortless in town. We did have a few niggling electrical issues with the car. I would recommend it.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff