2003 CLK55 W209 vs CLK55 W208: Reliability/Maintenance/Price
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
2003 CLK55 W209 vs CLK55 W208: Reliability/Maintenance/Price
I know that W208 CLK55 is quicker at the acceleration due to the less weight. However, I don't know much about W209. I am looking at the 2003 W209, because the price is very close to the excellent condition of W208 CLK55. The only good thing is that the W209 has the modern looking.
I really like that 2005 CLK55 with the quad exhaust tips, but the price range is out of my reach. Do you think the 2005 price will fall soon in the next few months?
Can you tell me the difference in the reliability/maintenance between those cars?
So far I know the problem with W209 is the transmission contaminant. However, I still need to know more.
I plan to drive a CLK55 for my 70 miles round trip daily driving.
I really like that 2005 CLK55 with the quad exhaust tips, but the price range is out of my reach. Do you think the 2005 price will fall soon in the next few months?
Can you tell me the difference in the reliability/maintenance between those cars?
So far I know the problem with W209 is the transmission contaminant. However, I still need to know more.
I plan to drive a CLK55 for my 70 miles round trip daily driving.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
No one wants to answer my questions. It looks like there is no concern about the reliability/maintenance for it. The issue is very minimum, as far as, you do the same for the Service A and Service B maintenance. That's a good news.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 4
From: EURO Style
Euro Cars Only
Who told you the 208 is faster than a 209? That is a lie!
I smacked two clk55's (208) in my 209 this year with worn out rubber so I disagree with your first statement.
Other than that i cnt answer any of your Q's since ive never had any interest in the 208.
I smacked two clk55's (208) in my 209 this year with worn out rubber so I disagree with your first statement.
Other than that i cnt answer any of your Q's since ive never had any interest in the 208.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
You probably spanked the W208 in the long run.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Dubai Tuner Gives the Mercedes G-Class An Entirely New Look
Verdad Gallardo
Six Gift Ideas Your AMG Loving Dad or Grad Will Cherish
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
I know a mechanic from family's friends. He's a good mechanic, but he fixes many cars from different brands. I don't know if he is the right one for the PPI, since he probably isn't familiar with Benz.
Newbie
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
BMW
No one wants to answer my questions. It looks like there is no concern about the reliability/maintenance for it. The issue is very minimum, as far as, you do the same for the Service A and Service B maintenance. That's a good news.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
The W208 is lighter, but the W209 has more power 342 vs 362. I had a w208 with a tune and filters, while my w209 does have headers, it clearly outperformed my w208 at the track. And the track conditions were perfect for the W208, when I took my w209 I was driving into a 30mph headwind.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 4
From: EURO Style
Euro Cars Only
The W208 is lighter, but the W209 has more power 342 vs 362. I had a w208 with a tune and filters, while my w209 does have headers, it clearly outperformed my w208 at the track. And the track conditions were perfect for the W208, when I took my w209 I was driving into a 30mph headwind.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
Not that obvious if the OP is asking. 
I believe the 04 and 03s have the same brakes. 05 received the upgrade.
I believe the 04 and 03s have the same brakes. 05 received the upgrade.
Last edited by Nachtsturm; Dec 19, 2011 at 12:29 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,734
Likes: 65
From: Hotlanta
AMG
For the PPI, would you do that to a local MB dealer? I am very new with the MB community, so I don't know about any trustworthy indy MB specialist in my local. Any tip to find a good one?
I know a mechanic from family's friends. He's a good mechanic, but he fixes many cars from different brands. I don't know if he is the right one for the PPI, since he probably isn't familiar with Benz.
I know a mechanic from family's friends. He's a good mechanic, but he fixes many cars from different brands. I don't know if he is the right one for the PPI, since he probably isn't familiar with Benz.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,734
Likes: 65
From: Hotlanta
AMG
Lol....I wasted the volvo-esque W209 porker with my 208 full tank of gas running 87 octane, trailer hitch and 225s in the rear. Come to think of it, I was in winter mode too....
"Nuff said"
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,784
Likes: 84
From: SCV SoCal
2002 CLK430
In addition to the increased compression ratio, doesn't the W209 have a 3.06 rear versus the W208's 2.82's?
Since the sole reason for gearing is to multiply torque, lets look a little closer, shall we? Those who didn't sleep in class know where this is going.
The 209 and 208 CLK55 both have a 3.59 first gear, and both engines are rated at 376 pound feet of torque (although one is at 3K RPM and the other @ 4K). However, thanks to the rear, the 209 has an overall first gear ratio of 10.9854 versus the W208's overall ratio of 10.1238. Tossing aside drivetrain losses (which is probably the same for both cars anyway), max torque at the tire in first gear for the 209 is 4,130 pound feet. The W208? 3,807. Right about now the weight doesn't seem so big a deal.
But wait, there's more . . . . . . . .
If anyone thinks the 209/208 55 comparo sounds like a big difference, the seven-speed equipped CLK63 has a 4.38 first gear, an overall first gear ratio of 11.607 and 465 pound feet of torque to play with. Yeah, that's right: 5,397. And to think, somebody thought we didn't need a CLK63 coupe stateside.
Since the sole reason for gearing is to multiply torque, lets look a little closer, shall we? Those who didn't sleep in class know where this is going.
The 209 and 208 CLK55 both have a 3.59 first gear, and both engines are rated at 376 pound feet of torque (although one is at 3K RPM and the other @ 4K). However, thanks to the rear, the 209 has an overall first gear ratio of 10.9854 versus the W208's overall ratio of 10.1238. Tossing aside drivetrain losses (which is probably the same for both cars anyway), max torque at the tire in first gear for the 209 is 4,130 pound feet. The W208? 3,807. Right about now the weight doesn't seem so big a deal.
But wait, there's more . . . . . . . .
If anyone thinks the 209/208 55 comparo sounds like a big difference, the seven-speed equipped CLK63 has a 4.38 first gear, an overall first gear ratio of 11.607 and 465 pound feet of torque to play with. Yeah, that's right: 5,397. And to think, somebody thought we didn't need a CLK63 coupe stateside.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
The W208 is lighter, but the W209 has more power 342 vs 362. I had a w208 with a tune and filters, while my w209 does have headers, it clearly outperformed my w208 at the track. And the track conditions were perfect for the W208, when I took my w209 I was driving into a 30mph headwind.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
If you look at the magazines, the w209 and w208 are fairly close, with the edge to the 209.
They are pretty reliable though, 2003 had the valeo radiator prob. Try to find an 04, but at 12k, I can not see you getting a nice example at all. I would take a excellent w208 over a high mileage ok W209. JMHO.
Back in the summer, the W209 CLK55 price was much higher than now.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
In addition to the increased compression ratio, doesn't the W209 have a 3.06 rear versus the W208's 2.82's?
Since the sole reason for gearing is to multiply torque, lets look a little closer, shall we? Those who didn't sleep in class know where this is going.
The 209 and 208 CLK55 both have a 3.59 first gear, and both engines are rated at 376 pound feet of torque (although one is at 3K RPM and the other @ 4K). However, thanks to the rear, the 209 has an overall first gear ratio of 10.9854 versus the W208's overall ratio of 10.1238. Tossing aside drivetrain losses (which is probably the same for both cars anyway), max torque at the tire in first gear for the 209 is 4,130 pound feet. The W208? 3,807. Right about now the weight doesn't seem so big a deal.
But wait, there's more . . . . . . . .
If anyone thinks the 209/208 55 comparo sounds like a big difference, the seven-speed equipped CLK63 has a 4.38 first gear, an overall first gear ratio of 11.607 and 465 pound feet of torque to play with. Yeah, that's right: 5,397. And to think, somebody thought we didn't need a CLK63 coupe stateside.
Since the sole reason for gearing is to multiply torque, lets look a little closer, shall we? Those who didn't sleep in class know where this is going.
The 209 and 208 CLK55 both have a 3.59 first gear, and both engines are rated at 376 pound feet of torque (although one is at 3K RPM and the other @ 4K). However, thanks to the rear, the 209 has an overall first gear ratio of 10.9854 versus the W208's overall ratio of 10.1238. Tossing aside drivetrain losses (which is probably the same for both cars anyway), max torque at the tire in first gear for the 209 is 4,130 pound feet. The W208? 3,807. Right about now the weight doesn't seem so big a deal.
But wait, there's more . . . . . . . .
If anyone thinks the 209/208 55 comparo sounds like a big difference, the seven-speed equipped CLK63 has a 4.38 first gear, an overall first gear ratio of 11.607 and 465 pound feet of torque to play with. Yeah, that's right: 5,397. And to think, somebody thought we didn't need a CLK63 coupe stateside.
I went through many different reviews and specifications, the CLK55 W208 is between 4.9 to 5.0 seconds from 0-60mph. For the CLK55 W209, it's between 5.2 to 5.0 seconds. I think it really depends on the drivers who test drove it. Probably, the W209 got bad tires for the acceleration, or bad weathers. I didn't look up what tires and weather they used.
I'd believe the actual drivers here talking about how much faster W209 is than the W208, since that are the real evidences. Marcus's calculation nails the coffins, that W209 should be faster.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
Yeah, I have to agree with you about the W208 for my budget. However, I plan to buy one at least more than a month from now (approximately late week of January to February). So, it's possible to find a nice W209 for lower price. I can even wait longer if I still don't see one I like.
Back in the summer, the W209 CLK55 price was much higher than now.
Back in the summer, the W209 CLK55 price was much higher than now.
This looks great. Still have a soft spot for the W208.
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
Likes: 6
From: Kirkland, Washington
In the Market
I went through many different reviews and specifications, the CLK55 W208 is between 4.9 to 5.0 seconds from 0-60mph. For the CLK55 W209, it's between 5.2 to 5.0 seconds. I think it really depends on the drivers who test drove it. Probably, the W209 got bad tires for the acceleration, or bad weathers. I didn't look up what tires and weather they used.
I'd believe the actual drivers here talking about how much faster W209 is than the W208, since that are the real evidences. Marcus's calculation nails the coffins, that W209 should be faster.
I'd believe the actual drivers here talking about how much faster W209 is than the W208, since that are the real evidences. Marcus's calculation nails the coffins, that W209 should be faster.
Not that I could top Marcus' tutorial, but I would question the quoted acceleration times for the W209. Car & Driver, which has no objection to abusing drivetrains and therefore usually clocks the fastest 0-60 times, cited a 4.7 second time for their 2003 W209 CLK55 test. Road & Track went a little easier on the car and turned a 4.9 second time, and Edmunds, who drove it like they paid for it, turned in a 5.1 second time. Mercedes' official claim for the car was a 0-100 km/h time of 5.2 seconds, which would jive with a 0-60 time of just under 5.0 seconds.
My simpleton approach would be to say that better gearing down low and 20 additional horsepower at the high end basically offset the W209's couple hundred pounds of additional mass, and any difference in acceleration between the two is probably academic and not something you'd notice in real world driving. Any difference in performance between the two cars pales in comparison to the difference in appearance.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
None
Not that I could top Marcus' tutorial, but I would question the quoted acceleration times for the W209. Car & Driver, which has no objection to abusing drivetrains and therefore usually clocks the fastest 0-60 times, cited a 4.7 second time for their 2003 W209 CLK55 test. Road & Track went a little easier on the car and turned a 4.9 second time, and Edmunds, who drove it like they paid for it, turned in a 5.1 second time. Mercedes' official claim for the car was a 0-100 km/h time of 5.2 seconds, which would jive with a 0-60 time of just under 5.0 seconds.
My simpleton approach would be to say that better gearing down low and 20 additional horsepower at the high end basically offset the W209's couple hundred pounds of additional mass, and any difference in acceleration between the two is probably academic and not something you'd notice in real world driving. Any difference in performance between the two cars pales in comparison to the difference in appearance.
My simpleton approach would be to say that better gearing down low and 20 additional horsepower at the high end basically offset the W209's couple hundred pounds of additional mass, and any difference in acceleration between the two is probably academic and not something you'd notice in real world driving. Any difference in performance between the two cars pales in comparison to the difference in appearance.
