Mercedes CLK coupe
Discussion
I had the older model W208 in 320 guise, and while it didn't set your heart racing, it was very competent and utterly reliable, mine was even spotless of rust. Filled with toys, that actually worked as well, and very comfortable to cruise around in, easy 35mpg at 80mph and around 28 mixed.
gleeman said:
Never driven one, but the interiors of that generation of Mercedes are pretty cheap and tacky feeling.
I have to disagree - the interior on the two I owned felt hewn from granite. One pre-facelift, and one facelift. They are fantastic cars, excellent in fact, just enjoy them for what they are and don't expect any sporting pretensions.I still keep hanging my nose over a 63 cab every now and then. I'd have another CLK in a hearbeat.
mwstewart said:
P.S. I assume from the power figures OP that you are looking at the 280 or 350 petrol? I seem to recall the first of those engines (MY05) suffered potentially catastrophic balancer shaft issues.
Can you stretch to a 320CDi?
Was it not the early 350 that would dump its oil or something? The 320, if old and not nearly as powerful as the newer engines, is great and it can take many miles without issues.Can you stretch to a 320CDi?
Finlandia said:
Was it not the early 350 that would dump its oil or something? The 320, if old and not nearly as powerful as the newer engines, is great and it can take many miles without issues.
All I remember is an issue with the balancer shaft; I'm not sure about the specifics.The 320 is as you say - bulletproof, and perfectly refined. The downside is of course the power/economy mix; I don't think the running costs are much different to the 500.
My mother has a CLK 320cdi and it seems pretty decent, quick and returns 40-45mpg. Of course all undone by the gearbox s
tting itself and costing £2k, which I believe is a common problem on this era Merc. I wouldn't go near one.
As mentioned the interior looks quite nice visually, but does feel a bit cheap and not very ergonomic.
tting itself and costing £2k, which I believe is a common problem on this era Merc. I wouldn't go near one. As mentioned the interior looks quite nice visually, but does feel a bit cheap and not very ergonomic.
I was looking at these the other day. I like them and seem to be good improvements on the early CLK with rust etc.
This looks good value for a 500
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2014...
This looks good value for a 500
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2014...
I currently have a 2003 CLK320 Avantgarde.
It's plenty powerful for day to day but its not a sports car, its a Cruiser. That's the first thing to note. If you go in with that in mind you'll enjoy the car.
It's pillar less, so in my eyes looks fantastic with all the windows down, and with the sunroof open its really means it not worth having the cabrio version.
Ignore the person who said its from the crap era, Its not, mine has no rattles or squeaks from the interior (96,000miles)
I get about 21 mpg about the town (suburbs) and on the motorway with cruise on at 75 it's about 37 mpg.
The seats are very comfortable, the avant-garde models have 3 memory position electric seats. the rear is 2 separate seats not 3 so take that into account it's a 4 seater only.
Common issues on these are the centre cats failing, I had this on mine, had them removed for £100 with new pipework in place, not an MOT failure to have them removed.
Other than that I've not had any issues at all to date and am enjoying the car. Normally I keep my cars about a year. but I've not even thought about changing this as for the price I cant think of anything in the same league
It's plenty powerful for day to day but its not a sports car, its a Cruiser. That's the first thing to note. If you go in with that in mind you'll enjoy the car.
It's pillar less, so in my eyes looks fantastic with all the windows down, and with the sunroof open its really means it not worth having the cabrio version.
Ignore the person who said its from the crap era, Its not, mine has no rattles or squeaks from the interior (96,000miles)
I get about 21 mpg about the town (suburbs) and on the motorway with cruise on at 75 it's about 37 mpg.
The seats are very comfortable, the avant-garde models have 3 memory position electric seats. the rear is 2 separate seats not 3 so take that into account it's a 4 seater only.
Common issues on these are the centre cats failing, I had this on mine, had them removed for £100 with new pipework in place, not an MOT failure to have them removed.
Other than that I've not had any issues at all to date and am enjoying the car. Normally I keep my cars about a year. but I've not even thought about changing this as for the price I cant think of anything in the same league
Thanks for all the responses, to the chap who suggested the cdi, I don't do the miles to make a diesel worthwhile.
I am just idling thinking about replacing my car at the moment. Yes it would be the 350 or 500 petrol, pre 2006 to avoid the VED jump. I am not sure that the 500 is worth it for the 30bhp increase over the 350. Later 500's had another 80bhp I believe but are more expensive to buy as attract the bigger VED rate.
To those saying it not a sports cars, do you mean it's no sport car compared to a boxtser, orbit sports cars compared to a contemporary BMW 330i coupe?
I am just idling thinking about replacing my car at the moment. Yes it would be the 350 or 500 petrol, pre 2006 to avoid the VED jump. I am not sure that the 500 is worth it for the 30bhp increase over the 350. Later 500's had another 80bhp I believe but are more expensive to buy as attract the bigger VED rate.
To those saying it not a sports cars, do you mean it's no sport car compared to a boxtser, orbit sports cars compared to a contemporary BMW 330i coupe?
Edited by jimmy156 on Wednesday 16th July 22:31
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff