The really underrated CLK 500 (388)
Discussion
Hey
Some of you guys will know me as the guy who couldn't make up his mind what car to buy so ended up buying nothing
Anyway just really wanted opinions and info on this particular model.
The CLK 500 (388), I think it was available from 06+ while the CLK 55 turned into the CLK 63 (very rare).
Right tell me about it?
How does it compare to the CLK 55 of 03 to 06?
Why is there hardly any information on it?
From what I could find so far it is badged 500 but carries a 5.5 engine.
Has 388 bhp. Which is 21 hp more than the CLK 55 03 to 06 and more torque I think.
The old CLK 500 had 306 hp.
Has 7 speed gearbox too.
So performance wise how does it compare?
Is it a better buy?
Essentially I guess you are getting a newer, faster, more refined car of the CLK 55.
Is it AMG engine?
Thanks
Some of you guys will know me as the guy who couldn't make up his mind what car to buy so ended up buying nothing
Anyway just really wanted opinions and info on this particular model.
The CLK 500 (388), I think it was available from 06+ while the CLK 55 turned into the CLK 63 (very rare).
Right tell me about it?
How does it compare to the CLK 55 of 03 to 06?
Why is there hardly any information on it?
From what I could find so far it is badged 500 but carries a 5.5 engine.
Has 388 bhp. Which is 21 hp more than the CLK 55 03 to 06 and more torque I think.
The old CLK 500 had 306 hp.
Has 7 speed gearbox too.
So performance wise how does it compare?
Is it a better buy?
Essentially I guess you are getting a newer, faster, more refined car of the CLK 55.
Is it AMG engine?
Thanks
Hi Mike,
Did you see the Evo review?
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2030...
I know a guy who has one and he loves it. That said, he's not really a car guy and just enjoys the straight line speed I suspect.
The CLK55 might have a bit more character but the face-lifted CLK is likely to feel more modern.
Can any car with a big V8 ever be bad???
Did you see the Evo review?
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/2030...
I know a guy who has one and he loves it. That said, he's not really a car guy and just enjoys the straight line speed I suspect.
The CLK55 might have a bit more character but the face-lifted CLK is likely to feel more modern.
Can any car with a big V8 ever be bad???
It's a very rare car, not many were sold and this is why there is so little information about them.
They probably didn't sell well because a CLK/E500 would often step on the toes of the CL/SL/S class market.
Never driven a CLK500, but have driven a CLK63 and its an awesome piece of kit, especially in convertible form. It is a very fast car but it feels its age because of the gearbox which is nowhere near as good as a modern day AMG 'box. I'm not sure what the 7-speed box in the 500 is like but for cruising around I'm sure it is smooth and refined.
They probably didn't sell well because a CLK/E500 would often step on the toes of the CL/SL/S class market.
Never driven a CLK500, but have driven a CLK63 and its an awesome piece of kit, especially in convertible form. It is a very fast car but it feels its age because of the gearbox which is nowhere near as good as a modern day AMG 'box. I'm not sure what the 7-speed box in the 500 is like but for cruising around I'm sure it is smooth and refined.
Hey mate
Yes I did see that review, thats pretty much only UK review out there that I could find.
The 55 AMG probably does have more character but the way I see it you would be in a newer, more refined and modern and possibly faster car at the expense of some character. Not sure if this is right.
Wish there was some head to head test with the two.
Have you driven/been in one?
Yes I did see that review, thats pretty much only UK review out there that I could find.
The 55 AMG probably does have more character but the way I see it you would be in a newer, more refined and modern and possibly faster car at the expense of some character. Not sure if this is right.
Wish there was some head to head test with the two.
Have you driven/been in one?
I have an ML with this engine, which is also very rare. Very quick, but it doesn't feel or sound like an AMG version, it just feels like a very fast version of the standard car. I suspect that the CLK would be much the same. I'm not saying it's a bad car, far from it, it's just not an AMG. I'm tempted to do an exhaust upgrade, just to turn up the volume slightly.
02joe said:
It's a very rare car, not many were sold and this is why there is so little information about them.
They probably didn't sell well because a CLK/E500 would often step on the toes of the CL/SL/S class market.
Never driven a CLK500, but have driven a CLK63 and its an awesome piece of kit, especially in convertible form. It is a very fast car but it feels its age because of the gearbox which is nowhere near as good as a modern day AMG 'box. I'm not sure what the 7-speed box in the 500 is like but for cruising around I'm sure it is smooth and refined.
What 'box are you referring to in your comments?They probably didn't sell well because a CLK/E500 would often step on the toes of the CL/SL/S class market.
Never driven a CLK500, but have driven a CLK63 and its an awesome piece of kit, especially in convertible form. It is a very fast car but it feels its age because of the gearbox which is nowhere near as good as a modern day AMG 'box. I'm not sure what the 7-speed box in the 500 is like but for cruising around I'm sure it is smooth and refined.
I bought a 2006 CLK 500 with the 5.5 litre six months ago and love mine! Not that sporting even though mine is an Avantgarde rather than Elegance (i.e. slightly more sporting set up). Very quick - especially over 60 MPH. Under that speed traction is an issue 
A real wolf in sheep's clothing - mine has been debadged so looks like a CLK 200.
Love V8 noise is very addictive and would struggle to go back to a V6 or anything under 5 litres. The fuel economy is no where near as bad as people would suggest. Never see an average less than low 20's MPG. Mostly 24-26 MPG and very much on par with my old E46 BMW 330i. In fact regularly see 30+ MPG on the motorway.
Very comfortable and a great cruiser plus a dragster when you want to have fun
Any questions then just ask!
B_T_S
A real wolf in sheep's clothing - mine has been debadged so looks like a CLK 200. Love V8 noise is very addictive and would struggle to go back to a V6 or anything under 5 litres. The fuel economy is no where near as bad as people would suggest. Never see an average less than low 20's MPG. Mostly 24-26 MPG and very much on par with my old E46 BMW 330i. In fact regularly see 30+ MPG on the motorway.
Very comfortable and a great cruiser plus a dragster when you want to have fun
Any questions then just ask!
B_T_S
02joe said:
In the CLK63 I drove (2007) it had a 6-speed automatic with paddle shifts. In comparison with modern AMG 7-speed transmissions it felt slow and unresponsive.
My CLK63 is from 2007 and has the 7 speed auto - you might be confusing it with the CLK55. The 7 speed shifts pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as some of the DSG and PDK boxes.
Brian_the_Snail said:
I bought a 2006 CLK 500 with the 5.5 litre six months ago and love mine! Not that sporting even though mine is an Avantgarde rather than Elegance (i.e. slightly more sporting set up). Very quick - especially over 60 MPH. Under that speed traction is an issue A real wolf in sheep's clothing - mine has been debadged so looks like a CLK 200.
Love V8 noise is very addictive and would struggle to go back to a V6 or anything under 5 litres. The fuel economy is no where near as bad as people would suggest. Never see an average less than low 20's MPG. Mostly 24-26 MPG and very much on par with my old E46 BMW 330i. In fact regularly see 30+ MPG on the motorway.
Very comfortable and a great cruiser plus a dragster when you want to have fun
Any questions then just ask!
B_T_S
Would you say its a better buy than the CLK 55 AMG 2003 to 2006? A real wolf in sheep's clothing - mine has been debadged so looks like a CLK 200. Love V8 noise is very addictive and would struggle to go back to a V6 or anything under 5 litres. The fuel economy is no where near as bad as people would suggest. Never see an average less than low 20's MPG. Mostly 24-26 MPG and very much on par with my old E46 BMW 330i. In fact regularly see 30+ MPG on the motorway.
Very comfortable and a great cruiser plus a dragster when you want to have fun
Any questions then just ask!
B_T_S
02joe said:
I can assure you it was. I just got my facts wrong!
But you described the 'box as rubbish compared to a modern AMG 'box, which suggests that you have driven an AMG with a different 'box to the one in the CLK63...and I am curious as to which other AMG model you drove for that comparison. Can you elaborate?MikeM3Power said:
Would you say its a better buy than the CLK 55 AMG 2003 to 2006?
I was looking for a very fast cruiser that I could use every day and wasn't too old. The CLK500 represents good value - mine was under £11k with 38,000 miles and a 56 plate. Difficult to get a late/ low mileage CLK 55AMG for that money.B_T_S
Brian_the_Snail said:
MikeM3Power said:
Would you say its a better buy than the CLK 55 AMG 2003 to 2006?
I was looking for a very fast cruiser that I could use every day and wasn't too old. The CLK500 represents good value - mine was under £11k with 38,000 miles and a 56 plate. Difficult to get a late/ low mileage CLK 55AMG for that money.B_T_S
slippery said:
Brian_the_Snail said:
MikeM3Power said:
Would you say its a better buy than the CLK 55 AMG 2003 to 2006?
I was looking for a very fast cruiser that I could use every day and wasn't too old. The CLK500 represents good value - mine was under £11k with 38,000 miles and a 56 plate. Difficult to get a late/ low mileage CLK 55AMG for that money.B_T_S
I have seen one 57 plate, 68k, coupe though but least its pillarless and thats at 10k.
Edited by MikeM3Power on Wednesday 1st May 13:05
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff