New to Forums and this is a repost from the new members section...
09-01-2014, 07:31 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company Car
New to Forums and this is a repost from the new members section...
All,
I have been perusing the forums avidly for just a few days now(long-timer) and got the courage to say hello. I have a few questions and need good feedback. I've tried do as much research in my area of interest prior to posting a hello and question. I am looking for a convertible (live near the coast) and have always been a fan of Mercedes in general. I am a big guy- 6'4" 240lbs.
I think I have settled on a 04-08 CLK 55 or 63 (forgive me as the body/chassis knowledge isn't there). Knowing myself, I would prefer the extra punch. Here are the questions:
1. What would be the threshold of miles that you would recommend keeping in mind the repair considerations?
2. Is one more reliable than the other and why?
3. Is there a specific year that is good or bad?
4. Will I even fit?
A sincere thanks to any and all answers/ posters- (I know some of these questions have been asked and I would like to try and consolidate that right here...
I have been perusing the forums avidly for just a few days now(long-timer) and got the courage to say hello. I have a few questions and need good feedback. I've tried do as much research in my area of interest prior to posting a hello and question. I am looking for a convertible (live near the coast) and have always been a fan of Mercedes in general. I am a big guy- 6'4" 240lbs.
I think I have settled on a 04-08 CLK 55 or 63 (forgive me as the body/chassis knowledge isn't there). Knowing myself, I would prefer the extra punch. Here are the questions:
1. What would be the threshold of miles that you would recommend keeping in mind the repair considerations?
2. Is one more reliable than the other and why?
3. Is there a specific year that is good or bad?
4. Will I even fit?
A sincere thanks to any and all answers/ posters- (I know some of these questions have been asked and I would like to try and consolidate that right here...
09-02-2014, 01:25 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
#1
The number of miles I personally would run up on a car are probably a lot higher than you would. I don’t have a threshold. I keep the car until I’m sick of it, and then move on. I do understand that some people cringe at the thought of spending a few thousand repairing an x-year old car, I just don’t fall into that category.
#2
The year cars you’re referring to are the W209. In stock form, the CLK55 is more dependable than the CLK63. WAY more dependable. Of course, the CLK63 is a lot more powerful, but you didn't ask about that, you asked about 'reliability'. There are issues with the 63. They are known issues and can be corrected with a few/several thousand dollars. Alternatively, someone may have already paid to have the work done. The CLK63 has an M156 engine. Early M156s have serious top end issues. Early as in through engine number #60658. Those are the last five digits of the engine number and this issue impacts all 63 engines through the early 2010 vehicles, so yes, EVERY CLK63 was impacted. The issues are (1) a little too much cam gear lash - which no one cares about, (2) bad camshaft buckets which cause some cam wear, (3) and defective head bolts, which can result in “moderate” to “oh my” repair costs. Those are relative terms. One person’s “oh my” is another’s ^#)~e$*!
#3
In my mind, none of the years are bad, some are just preferable. Usually the last of any production run is the best and this is no exception. I personally think the 2005 CLK55 is preferable to the 2004 and the 2008 CLK63 is preferable to the 2006 or 2007. The front brakes on a 2004 will be substantially less money than a 2005 or later.
#4
Way back when, Shaq wanted an SL. Yes, that Shaq. He was told to forget it, he wouldn’t fit. Plan B was a CLK cab, in which he did fit. Now it’s true, they had to move the seat rails rearward, but Shaq owned and drove a CLK. Shaquille O’Neal is 7-1 and weighs between 325 and 375, depending on the number of donut stores he’s hit in a given week. If he can fit, you can fit. The interior dimensions of a W209 are 42 inches of front leg room, 53.2 inches of front shoulder room, and 53.7 inches of front hip room.
Lastly, the CLK63 is a great car. Don't let a few repairs scare you off. Like I said, the work may have been done. If it hasn't, factor that into the sales price. The CLK55 is also a great car. You can't lose. Well, if the head bolt on a 63 explodes on the drive home you won't think "winning", but barring that, you can't lose.
The number of miles I personally would run up on a car are probably a lot higher than you would. I don’t have a threshold. I keep the car until I’m sick of it, and then move on. I do understand that some people cringe at the thought of spending a few thousand repairing an x-year old car, I just don’t fall into that category.
#2
The year cars you’re referring to are the W209. In stock form, the CLK55 is more dependable than the CLK63. WAY more dependable. Of course, the CLK63 is a lot more powerful, but you didn't ask about that, you asked about 'reliability'. There are issues with the 63. They are known issues and can be corrected with a few/several thousand dollars. Alternatively, someone may have already paid to have the work done. The CLK63 has an M156 engine. Early M156s have serious top end issues. Early as in through engine number #60658. Those are the last five digits of the engine number and this issue impacts all 63 engines through the early 2010 vehicles, so yes, EVERY CLK63 was impacted. The issues are (1) a little too much cam gear lash - which no one cares about, (2) bad camshaft buckets which cause some cam wear, (3) and defective head bolts, which can result in “moderate” to “oh my” repair costs. Those are relative terms. One person’s “oh my” is another’s ^#)~e$*!
#3
In my mind, none of the years are bad, some are just preferable. Usually the last of any production run is the best and this is no exception. I personally think the 2005 CLK55 is preferable to the 2004 and the 2008 CLK63 is preferable to the 2006 or 2007. The front brakes on a 2004 will be substantially less money than a 2005 or later.
#4
Way back when, Shaq wanted an SL. Yes, that Shaq. He was told to forget it, he wouldn’t fit. Plan B was a CLK cab, in which he did fit. Now it’s true, they had to move the seat rails rearward, but Shaq owned and drove a CLK. Shaquille O’Neal is 7-1 and weighs between 325 and 375, depending on the number of donut stores he’s hit in a given week. If he can fit, you can fit. The interior dimensions of a W209 are 42 inches of front leg room, 53.2 inches of front shoulder room, and 53.7 inches of front hip room.
Lastly, the CLK63 is a great car. Don't let a few repairs scare you off. Like I said, the work may have been done. If it hasn't, factor that into the sales price. The CLK55 is also a great car. You can't lose. Well, if the head bolt on a 63 explodes on the drive home you won't think "winning", but barring that, you can't lose.
Last edited by MarcusF; 09-02-2014 at 01:29 PM.
09-02-2014, 06:41 PM
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company Car
Marcus,
Thanks for being bold (and funny) and posting on the thread. Your feedback has helped narrow my selection criteria. Additionally FYI, this will be a garaged vehicle that is brought out on the weekends or when the weather is right. I will probably have this vehicle for a decade or two, and imagine I would put 2-6k miles/year on it.
I generally like newer and lower mileage vehicles as rule- (surprise right?). I want reliability but wow, the additional HP is staggering and more attractive than the reliability- based solely on your comment of "a few thousand dollars" for preventive maintenance. I did notice that the "growl" could be achieved on the 55~ which is nice...
So regardless if I go after the 55 or 63 (W209), I should probably get a mechanic to inspect it and also try to get a service record history (based on comments on other threads) and it would be more pertinent to the 63 versus the 55.
Guys/Girls: I'm trying to hit the target- not the bulls-eye on this one so if you have any suggestions- pile in.
A sincere thanks!
CAPEFEAR (NC)
Thanks for being bold (and funny) and posting on the thread. Your feedback has helped narrow my selection criteria. Additionally FYI, this will be a garaged vehicle that is brought out on the weekends or when the weather is right. I will probably have this vehicle for a decade or two, and imagine I would put 2-6k miles/year on it.
I generally like newer and lower mileage vehicles as rule- (surprise right?). I want reliability but wow, the additional HP is staggering and more attractive than the reliability- based solely on your comment of "a few thousand dollars" for preventive maintenance. I did notice that the "growl" could be achieved on the 55~ which is nice...
So regardless if I go after the 55 or 63 (W209), I should probably get a mechanic to inspect it and also try to get a service record history (based on comments on other threads) and it would be more pertinent to the 63 versus the 55.
Guys/Girls: I'm trying to hit the target- not the bulls-eye on this one so if you have any suggestions- pile in.
A sincere thanks!
CAPEFEAR (NC)
