CLK 320 or 330d coupe
Author
Discussion

jedwa115

Original Poster:

35 posts

220 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
CLK 320 or 330d coupe (E90)

Spending 13kish max, looking for sub 80k miler. The Merc seems to be a bit cheaper, mile for mile, year for year. Had several BM's, never owned a Merc.

Can't decide. Ultimately have to go drive both.

Anyone driven both? Views?




carl_w

10,668 posts

285 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
CLK320 is 3.2 petrol, right?

Had one of those and the fuel consumption was ruinous.

JREwing

17,547 posts

206 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
CLK320 CDI, I presume.

I'd take the Mercedes, if just for looks personally.

jedwa115

Original Poster:

35 posts

220 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
CLK 320 CDi - 80 miles on the mway every day means I am only looking at diseasals

Thinking the beemer is a more modern car and would be great, but a bit run of the mill. I do like the look of the merc

JREwing

17,547 posts

206 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
jedwa115 said:
CLK 320 CDi - 80 miles on the mway every day means I am only looking at diseasals

Thinking the beemer is a more modern car and would be great, but a bit run of the mill. I do like the look of the merc
If it's long distances on the motorway, I'd personally go for the Mercedes every time. A far more comfortable car. I would only go for a 3-Series if it has good lumbar support - which they never seem to.

anonymous-user

81 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
jedwa115 said:
CLK 320 CDi - 80 miles on the mway every day means I am only looking at diseasals
why a v6 will be ticking over maybe mid 30's against 40 mpg of the bm, seems pretty stupid.

Patrick Bateman

13,095 posts

201 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
The Spruce goose said:
why a v6 will be ticking over maybe mid 30's against 40 mpg of the bm, seems pretty stupid.
At N.S.L speeds? Behave.

As a combined average maybe.

crostonian

2,427 posts

199 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
Whilst I agree the Merc is a good looking car and a comfortable place to sit, it is an old car underneath from an era when Merc were far from their best, a 2002 car looks no different to a 2009 - great for the buyer of a £3k example not so great for the buyer of one at £13k. I would imagine the BMW will hold it's value better as another alternative have you considered an Audi A5?

.Flyer

434 posts

277 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
I own a 2006 CLK320CDI Sport, great car, nice and powerful, although I do find it running out of puff just when I need more. I've got a buckled NSF rim (due to be replaced, but AMG so not cheap) which is spoiling the enjoyment somewhat, but still a fast, comfortable car. The interior is super, very comfortable, especially with the orthopaedic seats (standard on the Sport).

I do a daily 80 mile round-trip commute as well, which is why I went to diesel (from a CLK320 petrol). Current average mpg over 14 months is 39.81.

There are times when I really love this car; driving back from Snetterton to Cheshire, using only A and B roads, late evening, light traffic, dry and sunny, gearbox in manual, completely in rhythm with the car ... fabulous.

No experience with the 330D although I was looking at them before getting the Merc.

anonymous-user

81 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
At N.S.L speeds? Behave.
.
check your facts bud 35-40 mpg at 70 mph is pretty normal.



Patrick Bateman

13,095 posts

201 months

Sunday 9th September 2012
quotequote all
The Spruce goose said:
check your facts bud 35-40 mpg at 70 mph is pretty normal.
Well the official combined figure, even for the older engine and an auto is over 40mpg. I know the official figures can be out (although they're not on my car) but if they can manage close to that combined you'll be getting a decent bit more at a cruise on the motorway.