w209 clk 500 or amg 55...12k budget

[GM182]

Hi
thinking of taking the plunge on my first merc and pretty mu h wanted a clk55 cab but there aren't many about and I'd be able to get a younger clk500.

I've noticed that the torque on the standard v8 is a pretty healthy 340lb/ft so would i really miss the extra of the amg version, especially if i had the amg trim?

the other choice would be a good r129 sl and keep some sort of hatchback for daily duties...or (dare i say it a 335i is also on the radar).

any opinions welcomed.
cheers

[BUG4LIFE]

I'd like to hear peoples opinion on this too, the difference between a 500 (be it CLK, CLS etc) and 55AMG...with regards to cost of owning, performance, fun, sound?!

[74merc]

The later 500's have a 388bhp 5.5 litre engine which are more powerful and more economical than the NA 55 AMG engine. They might be the best bet as you wouldn't be paying any AMG tax.

[GM182]

I did see a 388bhp one for sale a couple of weeks ago for £12.5k which I thought looked pretty tasty. Sold fairly quickly too.

[BUG4LIFE]

There's a couple of non-AMG kitted 500's on AutoTrader now but maybe they look a tad too subtle without the kit...especially the exhaust?!

Just found this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuPmC2Pnz78 - don't want your 500 to be too refined though [be it CLS, CLK etc], you want to know you're driving a V8 - though I guess that's the difference between AMG and non-AMG?

Edited by BUG4LIFE on Tuesday 29th April 14:08

[kevinpsw]

I had a 306 bhp CLK500 for nearly 4 years before I went for a CLS 63 AMG. It is a worthy car, and mine gave me no trouble at all, but it wasn't very sporty to drive. On the positive side, the CLK hasn't dated in the way that, for instance, the C and E classes of that age have, and it still looks like a nice car. However, without the AMG kit, it doesn't, in my opinion, look special enough. A CLK 63 AMG will still be too expensive and they are quite rare. There are a good few 55s around. If I hadn't needed the 4 doors, I would have found a CLK 55, albeit in the coupe guise.

So it depends what you want, an excellent value for money cruiser or something more lively. You'll pay extra for the latter (I think £12k should be possible for a 55 convertible) but it'll maintain its value better; a future classic I believe.

There is an AMG tax if serviced through main dealers but the difference at specialists is not significant. AMG front brakes for a 63 are very expensive but not so for a 55. Obviously the AMG's fuel consumption is worse than the 500 but mpg is of no consequence unless you plan to do starship miles. Note that a 06 onwards CLK500 will be the £490 tax bracket, not that £200 a year should be something to base a decision around either.

I took a risk on a private no warranty purchase for my CLS and, touch wood, I have had nothing other than servicing over 2 years except for a minor electrical fault that I fixed myself and a damaged brake sensor cable. A Merc Tier 1 warranty will be expensive, even if you can get one. Most aftermarket warranties probably aren't worth much. Think about doing what I do and bank the cost of a Tier 1 each year just in case disaster strikes.

So my AMG experience has been a very positive one that I would recommend to others. If you do buy the 500, you'll get a sinking feeling in your stomach every time you see an AMG. Just so you know.

[GM182]

kevinpsw said:

However, without the AMG kit, it doesn't, in my opinion, look special enough.

Yes, I think I'd have to have the factory AMG kit if it was a 500

kevinpsw said:

If you do buy the 500, you'll get a sinking feeling in your stomach every time you see an AMG. Just so you know.

I suspect you may be right.
That specialness is what I think is lacking in the 335i as well, no matter how fast a re-mapped one might be

[vinnie83]

Do remember that the CLS, E, CL, SL and S class had the supercharged engine in the 55 AMG whereas the CLK didn't.

So if you could consider a CLS AMG then the difference between a 500 and the 55 is immense!

The difference between the non supercharged and supercharged 55 is huge too.

[kevinpsw]

"Do remember that the CLS, E, CL, SL and S class had the supercharged engine in the 55 AMG whereas the CLK didn't."

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. In fact, the 5.5l 500 engine might even be more powerful than the 55 AMG. But it is not just about power with AMG.

What you say probably explains why the CLK 55 to 63 price differential is greater than for the CLS equivalents. Not convertible obviously but CLS 55 with 100k+ mileage can be had for £12k nowadays. It too should become collectable in time and appreciate in value, if of course you own it long enough (5+ years)!

[vinnie83]

kevinpsw said:

"Do remember that the CLS, E, CL, SL and S class had the supercharged engine in the 55 AMG whereas the CLK didn't."

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. In fact, the 5.5l 500 engine might even be more powerful than the 55 AMG. But it is not just about power with AMG.

What you say probably explains why the CLK 55 to 63 price differential is greater than for the CLS equivalents. Not convertible obviously but CLS 55 with 100k+ mileage can be had for £12k nowadays. It too should become collectable in time and appreciate in value, if of course you own it long enough (5+ years)!

Do try a 55K engined car (supercharged) and you will be amazed at the difference. The E55 I had a few years ago didn't feel any slower than my 997 turbo, and I just got an SL55 last Friday - testament to how great those engines are.

I don't think you'll want to go back to the N/A cars after (as good as they were when released)... the 55K engined cars can not only keep up with modern metal, but slaughter it!

And I'm picking mine up on Friday with hopefully close to 600bhp, and it didn't cost as much as you would think!

[Foliage]

Last year I was looking at w209 clk350, clk500 and amg55.

In the end I plumped for the clk320cdi in the amg sport spec. Due mainly to the significant reduction in running costs & cost (I paid 10k for a 2007)

If your looking at clk500 make sure you go for the sport, not the avant-garde or elegance as the sport is the variant with the AMG wheels, flappy paddles and a raft of other stuff (body kit, spoiler etc). Ive no idea if it looks the same as the w209 amg55.

ETA - From Wikipedia - Finally there is also the "Sport" (UK only) - an 'AMG' version from factory for the 280 V6 petrol, 220 4 cyl diesel and the 320 V6 diesel (though not an AMG engine) trimmed (including 18" AMG alloys and wider rear track, suspension set-up, sport/tiptronic/manual gear options, body styling, paddle shifts, sports exhausts, etc.) and made available from 2005/06.

So Ive no idea what the spec of the clk500 will be.

Edited by Foliage on Friday 2nd May 12:15

Edited by Foliage on Friday 2nd May 12:15

[vinnie83]

Foliage said:

Last year I was looking at w209 clk350, clk500 and amg55.

In the end I plumped for the clk320cdi in the amg sport spec. Due mainly to the significant reduction in running costs & cost (I paid 10k for a 2007)

If your looking at clk500 make sure you go for the sport, not the avant-garde or elegance as the sport is the variant with the AMG wheels, flappy paddles and a raft of other stuff (body kit, spoiler etc). Ive no idea if it looks the same as the w209 amg55.

ETA - From Wikipedia - Finally there is also the "Sport" (UK only) - an 'AMG' version from factory for the 280 V6 petrol, 220 4 cyl diesel and the 320 V6 diesel (though not an AMG engine) trimmed (including 18" AMG alloys and wider rear track, suspension set-up, sport/tiptronic/manual gear options, body styling, paddle shifts, sports exhausts, etc.) and made available from 2005/06.

So Ive no idea what the spec of the clk500 will be.

Edited by Foliage on Friday 2nd May 12:15

Edited by Foliage on Friday 2nd May 12:15

My ex got a CLK220cdi sport - it looks miles better than the standard CLK, which IMO is now showing it's age.

Think of it as a Mercedes equivalent of M-sport to BMW.