Clk 350 or 500

[Finlandia]

Deleted the GG post and moved it here instead

Anyone have any owner perspectives on the w209 350 and 500 models? I used to have a w208 320 and it was about the best and most reliable everyday car I have had.
Are there any general problems, except for rust, what sort of real life MPG would I be looking at?

[shentodj]

My wife has a CLK500 and gets 20ish on a 15mile, mostly 40-50mph limit round trip commute.
When we use it for longer trips (France, fully loaded with luggage and family etc) still gets 22-25 on motorways (85-90 crusing).

We had a lot of trouble with electric roof when we got it, but it's been ok for a few years now since replacing all microswitches. Also, have had to replace 2 catalytic converters - I think both faults caused by the fact that it was very low mileage for it's age when we bought it.

Regards,
Shentodj

[r129sl]

I get 23mpg out of my r129 SL500, same motor as early w209 CLK500s. I doubt a 350 would be significantly better. Sometimes I get as much as 27. The 32v 500 must be a belter with 388bhp. I would always go for the 500 over the smaller 6. The cars are roughly the same size and weight so it takes the same amount of energy to move it around. Whether it is a 350 or 500 makes little as no difference.

[Finlandia]

Thanks guys, not too bad for a 5 litre V8, heck my T5 gives about the same

Basically I need to watch out for electrics and rust then.

[GlennT]

Our CLK 350 coupe is on a 57 plate so no rust issues. Running around locally we get 24mpg, but on motorway runs, usually at around 80ish I'm getting low 30's, pretty good for v6 fairly heavy car!