A 500 for someone... £4100

[Pentoman]

I'm looking for some sort of commuting car to replace the 190 2.5-16 I'm selling.

I need to spend more money on something less thirsty. But, I keep coming back to this thing. What do we think? Has anyone owned or driven one? Apart from fuel costs are they sensible to run? Are they quick or are they geared for touring like an S-class/SL?

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/used-cars/mercedes-ben...
2003 CLK500 5.0 306bhp.

Does this generation rust? I know that the 2003 SL rusts (rear wings which are the only steel panels) but what about this the Mark II version of the CLK?

It just seems modern enough, simple enough (no air suspension or ABC I believe) and cheap enough that you can't go too far wrong with it.

[kevinpsw]

I had a CLK 500 for almost 4 years. Mine was built in 03 but registered in 04. It was virtually fault free. Apart from servicing, I had a minor gearbox leak and some bushes at the front were worn (probably due to speed bumps). True, I only did 24k miles and the car had done just 60k when I sold it in 2012. Maybe there are more problems if the car has done 100k plus.

I saw no signs of rust. Fuel economy was about the 24 mpg that Mercedes claim. Performance is good enough but this is no M3 equivalent.

One issue to note, a 03 will likely have a [Vaneo] radiator. These can leak coolant into the transmission fluid leading to a big bill. Actually, as the cars get older, it is probably possible to get a second hand gearbox or torque-converter relatively cheap if disaster strikes. I had a auto-fluid radiator added so that the fluid no longer passed through the bottom section of the main radiator (cost about £200).

CLKs still look quite smart. They haven't dated in the way that the equivalent C and E classes have.

The AMG body kit on the link is very worthwhile - it looks better than mine did. You might want to upgrade the wheels to a later AMG set for a more up to date look.

[Pentoman]

Thanks for that. Would you recommend it then? It's hard to know with things like this because they are so rare. It's not the more common full-fat AMG and it's not the more common 320cdi etc. Very difficult to judge.

[kevinpsw]

Not that rare but you would need to travel a bit to view a few, especially with the AMG body kit which is not common on a 500.

If you can live with the fuel costs over the diesel, no question, go for it. It will be much better the drive than an oil burner, certainly at that price level, which is most likely the 280 (somewhat agricultural). Why bother with a 320 petrol for an extra 3 or so mpg, have the V8 instead. 200s are too under-powered by the way.

Just do the normal used car checks, FSH etc, then, if its bodywork is ok, grab yourself what would have been a £45k+ car when new.

[AC43]

Pentoman said:

Thanks for that. Would you recommend it then? It's hard to know with things like this because they are so rare. It's not the more common full-fat AMG and it's not the more common 320cdi etc. Very difficult to judge.

I've had an E500 for last four years which also sits between the soot chuckers and the AMG.

That engine is in a relatively low state of tune, very smooth and pretty much bullet proof.

Like all Merc's it would be good to see evidence of gearbox fluid change at some point in its life.

Need to check all electrics (not a major issue, just costly to fix).

Bushes and lower ball joints take a battering. On my C Classes they'd be shot after 20k (London speed bumps...._

Earlier CLK's could rust like crazy but I think you're out of that phase with that one (I have a perfect 2000 C Class, a collander-like 99 one and now have a perfect 2005 E class).

[r129sl]

I've got 233,000miles on that engine and it has been bulletproof so far. It gives me 23mpg, generally driving too fast and with a fair bit of time in traffic. So a vote for the motor here.

I like the 209 CLK for all the reasons nobody else does: it is discreet, unaggressive-looking, refined and not at all sporty.

I have never seen a rusty one.