jspbtown

I have read and read and read. I think I have a good idea as to reliability but I am not sure. I am not a luxury car newbie....I have owned a BMW 6 series, an X5, a Land Rover Discovery, A Jag, and a Porsche Cayenne so I understand maintenance and reliability issues.

I am contemplating a 2004-2005 CLK500, a CLK550 or even a CLK55 AMG. The cars I have been looking at have between 50-75k miles. Now I could also consider a CLK320 or CLK350 with probably the same miles.

I have read about the transmissions, the CPS, and other issues but my questions are:

1. Can I get 150k with routine maintenance on these cars?
2. Serious issues I should be looking for?
3. Comments about reliability?
4. Are usually most of the issues I have read about addressed by the time they hit this mileage?
5. Is an AMG with slightly higher miles a better choice than say a CLK500 with a little less miles?
6. Anything wrong with 2004-2005 model years? I rather like the older cars with lower average annual miles.

Like I said...I have read and read. I am really interested in reliability comments for the say 75k-150k mile range.

Appreciate the insight.

Yidney

You don't say if you are a DIY type. Makes a big difference. Yes, you can get 150k + miles. Many on here have cars with more than 200k miles. The 500s the 55 and the 550 are among the most reliable, as long as you get an '08 or '09 550. You should be aware of the so-called "balance shaft" issues with 350s and 550s (M272 and 273 engines), but it was an early problem and resolved by '08. Cars in the mileage range you are looking at are starting to develop some worn suspension bushings, but that goes back to the DIY issue. Anything can go wrong, but as sophisticated cars go, these are pretty reliable. Mine in the picture only has 63K miles, but as I have said several times, if I had bought an extended warranty when my factory warranty expired nearly 5 years ago, my covered claims would be exactly $0. That remains true.

Yidney

Also, since you are looking at the '04-'05 years, you should be aware of the pre and post "facelift" changes. Lots of posts you can read about that. Cosmetically, it basically changed the center stack and center console, but a host of underlying electronic changes came with it.

Anker

The best value may be a 2009 CLK. By then the balance shaft issue was resolved, but the price is depressed by all of the CLKs with the issue. Its also the last year before they discontinued it and made it the E class.

I agree completely with the previous poster that it nmakes a huge difference to the cost of ownership if you can DIY.

jspbtown

The 2008-2009 will be out of my price range for what I am looking to do. I will more than likely be in the 2004-2005 range.

Are there radiator issues with these years? Or if they haven't gone by this mileage are they all set? Is the balance shaft issue on the AMG cars as well?

I am definitely a DYI....of all the cars I listed I never had one in the shop for a non-warranty repair.

I will research these "facelift" changes.

Thank you.

Yidney

No balance shaft issues on the 55AMG. I think the radiator issue was earlier, but somebody may clarify when the switch was made.

Rudeney

If a 2008/2009 is out of your price range, then I think you need to look at something else. A good 2008/2009 CLK550 coupe should be under $15K (add a few $1000 for cabriolet). If that's out of your budget, then the routine maintenance and occasional non-routine repair will be out of your budget.

shadenfroh

Agree. Also, there's a reason there are a lot of these cars with said age/mileage. The owner doesn't want to do the bigger maintenance that's coming at him. At that age basically all rubber bushings/mounts have degraded.

jspbtown

What is this "routine maintenance" that is being referred to?

Appreciate the insights from all.

Yidney

Not sure what all Rodney is including in routine. Frankly, one of the biggest routine expenses on my car is rear tires. These cars eat rear tires. Mine are to the wear bars at about 13k miles. Luckily, that is about every two years for me, but if I drove a lot, that would start to get annoying. You may need to do an immediate tranny flush if you do not have documents that it has been done. Also, the 550 holds 9 quarts of synthetic motor oil, so with the proper fleece filter even a DIY oil change is not cheap. Some of the cars you are considering have two spark plugs per cylinder - although not a 550. Still, overall I can't say my car has been expensive to own. Again, it goes back to DIY. When my seat belt extender stopped working, I took the motor apart and cleaned it for free. When my front control arm bushings sprang a leak, I replaced the arms myself. I flushed my tranny myself, etc. Just those three things saved me at least $1,500 than if I had to take it to someone else. It adds up over time.

kb24forlife24

Get a 2008/2009 CLK550 and you'll love it--especially with a custom exhaust

sailorben

I've had two now. My first car was a CLK, that met a sticky end, and to replace that I bought another one. The facelift makes quite a difference, so I'd suggest looking at at least an 2005 vehicle. Both cars were on ~130k miles, with no major expenses that I know of in either of the cars' history.

Tyres are a pain, but that does vary a lot on the specific tyre and driving style. I only attained 8,000 on the rears since January, the fronts just so happen to be up for replacement too.

I've gone for the Michelin Pilot Sport 4s, a new tyre out this year that claims to attain higher mileage. Fronts £90ea., rears £130ea., the most expensive, but worth it, if they last as long, and perform as the reviews say. My father has the same tyres on his car(Quattro awd), and he's got about 15,000miles on 1.5mm of wear, which forecasts quite nicely, and he has a fairly heavy foot.

Anyway... great cars, but I'd look towards at least a 2005, for the interior facelift, and 2006 for the exterior lift, which does make the car appear a lot 'fresher'.

Rudeney

Routine maintenance would be the obvious things like oil and filter changes, but also things like transmission service, brake fluid changes, suspension parts, brakes, tires, and for the cabriolet, the inevitable problems with limit switches and hydraulic cylinders and hoses and the canvas.

jspbtown

Thanks guys. I appreciate the details.

Oil changes I can handle. My 645 uses 8.5 and I drive about 30k a year so I do them pretty regularly. And don't even talk to me about going through tires!

I think I am pretty accustomed to things like that. For what I am thinking I was more concerned about things going south and leaving me stranded.

MacVidMB-V8

This is why I got CLK but had planned to get na CL.

W215 forums are almost nothing but ABC woes now.

We have boring old steel springs and be very glad of that.

I've taken my CLK500 from 12K to 27K now. Pretty darn reliable I've replaced brake pads (front) and battery and rear tires.As a 2005 not may give tranny issues, but I haven't had any.

tw2

CLK550 would be the best but if you are looking at earlier examples I would definitely look at a CLK55 before the CLK500. More performance and maintenance is not much different. You might go through tires quicker. Of course brake components are more expensive and repairs can be more on AMG models in general.

The CLK55 is generally a very solid/reliable engine/transmission combo. I have had a few major repairs despite the car being meticulously maintained but that is quite unusual. 2003 is the most common year of 55, there are some 2004's but the 05-06 are rarer. The 05-06 also upgraded to quad exhaust and very expensive to replace two-piece brake rotors, in my opinion not worth it over the 03-04 unless it is a pretty good deal.

merceBENZ

I would add valve cover gaskets to regular maintenance.

Rudeney

For the 320/500 (M112/M113) engines that is true. These almost never leak on the 350/550 (M272/M273) engines. And if they do it's a much more involved job to pull those head covers.

But back to the OP's question...

I would not talk you out of a CLK as long as you know what you are getting into with an MBZ and can handle the repairs and maintenance. If you were just all excited about getting what was a $50K car for $5K and expected to take it to the dealer for service, then I'd say run away!

The good thing about the W209 is that it's based on the relatively low-complexity W203 - single battery, no ABC, SBC or Airmatic. It's fairly easy to work on and was rated as one of the most reliable MBZ products of its time.

I'd avoid these cars:

MY2005 CLK500 (early 722.9 transmission issues)
MY2006/2007 (early 722.9, plus balance shaft issues)
Any CLK63 (head bolt and valve lifter problems)

If you want performance, then the CLK550 (MY2008/2009) is the way to go. It beats the CLK55, even though MBUSA was very careful to obscure that in their literature so as not anger prior AMG buyers. Also, brakes on the CLK55 are much more expensive to maintain, so other than the AMG name, you aren't getting much for the extra cost.

But I think what bothers me most about your comments is that you want performance (mentioning the CLK55) but you won't spend a few thousand extra to get a MY2008/2009 car, which will be much more reliable. In the used market, figure about $1000 extra per MY, and maybe $500 difference between the V8 and V6 models.

merceBENZ

I find M113 as a very reliable engine and very easy to work on. So much space so I can easily stick my hands into it and do stuff instead of jamming them into the maze of parts and scraping them (hands). And I have small hands.

Rudeney

Yes, no doubt the M112 and M113 engines will likely go down in history as some of the best ever. Other than leaky valve covers and the occasional bad pulley, these engines just never had any chronic problems like the M272/M73. I believe those will also prove to be great machines, but the tarnish of the balance shaft and cam solenoids will be a big "asterisk".

I'm not sure about the newer M276/M278 engines. The M276 is probably going to prove to be very good as it's basically the same Chrysler's Pentastar V6, which is well proven. My wife's Jeep Grand Cherokee has the 3.6l Pentastar and it's been solid and powerful. I'm just very leery of the turbos on the M278, but only time will tell.

jspbtown

Thanks for all the input guys. Might be focusing in a bit.

2005 CLK320.....Shouldn't have a radiator issue or a balance shaft issue right?

Finicky top probably right?

Anything else to look at?

xsever

No, by then the Valeo radiators were changed with BEHR ones on the production line and the M112 engine in the CLK 320 does not have the balance shaft issue. 2005 is the most solid year for a CLK 320.

I've been driving mine for 2 years+ now and have had nothing major in terms of repair. Just wear and tear parts.

shadenfroh

Since 2005 is the life cycle impulse year, you may be lucky enough to find a car with the M112/722.6 power train, but with facelifted interior/exterior.

Now that would make some people jealous

jspbtown

Well I think I found one.

2005 CLK320
43k miles
2 owner and no accident history
White/tan

Going to take a look at it in a few days.

shadenfroh

White exterior with a tan interior? Sweet.