2003 CLK55 W209 vs CLK55 W208: Reliability/Maintenance/Price

[AMG_BENZ]

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.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[Chappy]

What is your budget?

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by Chappy

What is your budget?

The top would be around $12,000. I probably can reach to $15,000.

[AMG_BENZ]

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.

[Chappy]

Not much difference b/w the two cars from a reliability standpoint. Make sure you have a thorough PPI completed prior to purchase. Good luck!

[betrezra]

It will help if you can turn wrenches, or find a good ind mb mech.
Goodluck

[elijah]

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.

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by elijah

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 read somewhere that a W208 CLK55 weights lighter than the W209 version. The W208 version goes 0-60mph in like 4.9 seconds, which the W209 version goes in 5.1 seconds.

You probably spanked the W208 in the long run.

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by Chappy

Not much difference b/w the two cars from a reliability standpoint. Make sure you have a thorough PPI completed prior to purchase. Good luck!

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.

[Linda7463]

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.

[Nachtsturm]

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.

[elijah]

Originally Posted by Nachtsturm

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.

Thank you for confirming the obvious b/t 208's and 209's & yes I have an 03 and ran accross the valeo problem. If not taken care of it will be costly. In my case I had to buy a brand new ECU, the fan adapter and of course a brand new fan. Not all 03 but many out there have had this issue.

[elijah]

To the OP, look for an 05!! Or settle for an 04 if you don't want/need the quads.
04's and up have bigger & better brakes.

[Nachtsturm]

Originally Posted by elijah

Thank you for confirming the obvious b/t 208's and 209's.

Not that obvious if the OP is asking.

Originally Posted by elijah

To the OP, look for an 05!! Or settle for an 04 if you don't want/need the quads.
04's and up have bigger & better brakes.

I believe the 04 and 03s have the same brakes. 05 received the upgrade.

[elijah]

Originally Posted by Nachtsturm

Not that obvious if the OP is asking.



I believe the 04 and 03s have the same brakes. 05 received the upgrade.

05 is what I meant to say

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by AMG_BENZ

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.

Call the local MBCA President and ask.

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by elijah

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.

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"

[MarcusF]

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.

[Kevwood]

Good lesson Marcus.

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by Nachtsturm

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.

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.

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by MarcusF

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.

Logically, that should explained for the acceleration. It's really weird when I try to understand the gearing ratios. Generally, we know that the lower number of gearing ratios, the faster acceleration. However, this is not true for some cars. Your calculation shows me the big different for the torque, 323 ft-lb different between W209 and W208 at the first gear.

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.

[Nachtsturm]

Originally Posted by AMG_BENZ

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.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...standard=false

This looks great. Still have a soft spot for the W208.

[Gylles Smyth]

Originally Posted by AMG_BENZ

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.

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.

[AMG_BENZ]

Originally Posted by Gylles Smyth

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.

Yeah, that's probably the main purpose to upgrade from W208 to W209 for CLK55. It upgrades the appearance and horsepower, but the performance stands a little bit better. That is why there is a CLK63 when you wish there is a better performance than CLK55.