Last post on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM
You are in the Mercedes-Benz CLK
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class, Coupe, Convertible
#93 of 102 Re: Mercedes 2009 CLK 350 Vs. 2009 BMW 328i [lorinj3]
Jun 18, 2009 (11:48 am)
I also posted a similar msg right before you about my interest in 2007 CLK-350. After extensive research and comparison, I have reached the following conclusions:
(1) MB CLK-350 has rather poor resale value as compared to a comparable Bimmer 328 coupe. I believe this is mostly due to the bad reliability record reported by Consumer Report magazine in recent years even though MB has made some progress in late models.
(2) The interior materials used in CLK are relatively cheap. This is not to mention that its engine, including most MB models, emits a constant pulsing noise from the purge valve for recycling the exhaust. According to my local dealer mechanic, he said that is a normal noise that you have live with. What a crap coming from MB if you ask my opinion!
(3) Even though the CLK-350 has 260+ HP (or 40+ more HP than 328), it feels lethargic and the steering is numb comparing to the 328 coupe.
(4) The CLK-350 fuel economy is rated at city/freeway 17/25 while the 328 is 19/28 mpg.
So the bottom line is that the 328i out runs, out corners CLK with better fuel economy and has higher quality interior. The only area where the CLK outshines 328 is its cabin space and comfort. If I care about them, I would simply buy a sport sedan instead of coupe.
#94 of 102 Re: 2007 CLK 350 purchase advise [dhsieh9]
Jun 20, 2009 (7:32 pm)
I think you are misguided if you are comparing a Porshe Cayman to a Benz CLK. I have both, a 2007 Cayman (non-S) w/ 19 inch wheels, and a 2007 CLK350 cabriolet, 25000 miles/premium sport pkg . The CLK drives like a pillow after getting out of the Cayman even with the CLK in "S" mode! Also, the Cayman is a mid-engine sports car which create a huge difference on handling/performance/grip! This is not to say the performance of the CLK is not good, but this is not apples to apples. Finally, although very smooth, the 7 speed transmission in the CLK creates some hesitation on agressive acceleration (as if the car has to think of what gear it is in). However, I must say that the CLK is fun to drive once you get use to it, but it is very weighty on the front end and braking cannot compare to the mid-engine Porsche. With respect to reliability, I rate both very high. I've also owned the MB 300D, C220, ML320, and ML350 with no problems that MB did not take immediate action to fix and MB road service is second to none! So for a smooth sporty-luxury ride, I take the CLK, but for agressive/performance driving, I opt for the Cayman! Oh yeah, and don't forget the head turns...my Cayman wins that one 8 out of 10 times!
#95 of 102 Re: 2007 CLK 350 purchase advise [mean_porsche]
Jun 20, 2009 (8:02 pm)
Maybe this is not the right forum to continue this thread, I end up buying a 2007 Bimmer 328 coupe as my everyday car over the MB CLk 350 (Cayman is my weekend joy ride) since the performance gap between Cayman & CLk is simply too wide in my opinion. Nonetheless if it is my wife's decision, she would definitely go for the CLK since it is drop-dead gorgeous.
Another observation I have is that the Bimmer is simply amazing for everyday use. It seats 4 and the back seat space is pretty decent. Its suspension is not as hard and stiff as Porsche. Even with its front engine/read drive, it manages to deliver so much fun. I am really happy to own these 2 cars since they give me a perfect balance between everyday use & weekend drive.
#96 of 102 MBZ Performance chips
Jun 30, 2009 (10:26 am)
Hey there, I read about these on another site. Has anyone installed them? If so, what are the pros and cons? Heard that the acceleration is much better and adds approx. 40 hp.
#97 of 102 CLK Coupe width
Jul 15, 2009 (1:48 pm)
Does anyone know if there is a narrower MB than the CLK? The 350 Coupe is 68.5" Wide.
Are there any other models narrower than 68"?
#98 of 102 New CLK 350 Engine Noise
Sep 26, 2009 (10:28 pm)
Hi all...I just bought a new 2009 CLK 350 Grand Edition and i have a wierd problem.I start the car up and drive for awhile then park it...after the car sits for a few hours and i start the car up and the engine make a knocking sound for a few seconds then goes away.This is the only time i here the noise.The dealer is telling me do not worry about it and MB knows about this from other cars with the same problem but they do not have a fix yet.Does anyone else seem to have this problem.What could it be?Should i just return the car because i think there is a engine problem and do not want to have a new car that they might have to do major work to.Thank you and have a great day!
#99 of 102 Extended Warranty Help For CLK 350
Feb 15, 2010 (12:02 pm)
I just purchased a Certified 2007 CLK 350 with 18,500 mi. My factory warranty will expire in the middle of 2011. I am interested in purchasing an additional 2year Mercedes Warranty, however my dealer quoted me a price of #1,999.... The price seems a little high... Does anyone have any feeling on this price or on a good Warranty program..
#100 of 102 Re: Extended Warranty Help For CLK 350 [vinnyg713]
Feb 27, 2010 (4:39 am)
Hey Vinny, Vinnie here! I just bought a certified '07 CLK 550 and I bought the MB extended warranty for $2k (I wrapped it into the 1.9% financing). I bought the cabriolet and figured the warranty was worth the price. My brother-in-law had to replace an HID light on his X5 and it cost $400!! I've seen several forum posts about replacing oxygen sensors on CLKs; I don't know how much that costs, but I'm sure it's not cheap.
As this is my first MB, $2k is worth the peace of mind for me.
Jun 25, 2010 (10:25 am)
Can anyone offer suggestions on installing my XM Sat Radio into my '06 CLK350? I am unable to locate an antenna adapter to mate the two together.
#102 of 102 Re: Extended Warranty Help For CLK 350 [vinsuz]
Aug 14, 2012 (10:20 pm)
I have a 2006 CLK 500 and I purchased 3 years of Extended Care Warranty after the factory warranty expired and I'm glad that I did, because it indeed paid for itself. I paid approximately 3,000 for the warranty and I had covered repairs that totaled about $5,200, which included transmission shifting problems and replacing the motor mounts. I live in Los Angeles and the roads have a lot of potholes that take their toll, plus the CLK500 is a bit heavy with its larger engine and heavier chassis because of the beefed up convertible model. The convertible is actually quite a bit heavier than the coupe.
Now in Nov 2012, my extended "Easy Care" Warranty is expiring and they are calling me to extend it again. I currently have driven 61,000 miles and they quoted me an amazingly expensive price of $8,600 for 3 years more of coverage at their top level. They also have lesser coverage options that exclude electrical problems and only cover major components like drive train and engine and leave out A/C, Navigation GPS, convertible top, airbags, electrical & wiring, etc. I understand that older cars are likely to have higher repair costs, but its a tough pill to swallow if I am going to pay $8,600 for Extended Care warranty (w/ $500 deductible) on a car that is now only worth $20.000. I think the warranty is transferable, which should help increase the resale value quite a bit, especially by making the new buyer feel less fearful of incurring major repair costs. Has anyone purchased one of these later extended warranties? I wonder if I should get it or not, and just save the $8,600 and pay for any repairs out of my own pocket? Personally, I'm leaning towards skipping the extended repair coverage. While I currently have only a $100 deductible, which I would like to have again, but the cost would be astronomical.