Well, we all estimate value to us in a different way. Just look at the price of the CLK 320 or the E320.

Personally, I don't think the $4150 price difference is that bad considering you're getting 215HP vs 168HP. That's about $88 per HP. I've seen many people on this forum pay much more to mod their cars.

Also, it doesn't surprise me about the coupe. It's just not as popular as the sedan, so I would expect to pay less of a premium on the higher model. Especially since this is a discontinued (in the US) model.

 

If it was just the C240 vs. c320, I'd agree. But with the C230 in the mix, as well as the CL203's C230 and C320, the W203 C320 is very pricey for an extra 27HP over the C230SS. I'm not saying its a bad car, I just don't think it would be on my list at its current MSRP.

 

True for that power diference it does seem a little more worth it. Then again the C240 power is enough for me, since it is a luxury sedan and in that arena power and quickness are really not what most people are looking for. Since the only sedan I would be buying in a C Class would be a 4Matic I would pick the C240 or the C320 and save my $4300 for a rainy day! Not comparing to the E Class or CLK well for there price point I better not see a 168Hp engine in it. Then again they sell quite nicely in Europe where people do not care about power as much and are more concerned with fuel economy. Either way Myself I could not justify the extra expens for the C320 Sedan over a C230 or C240 Sedan! Even less over the Cheaper C230 Sedan since it would have an even larger price gap compared to the C320 than the C240 has. And not much more power and the C320 has worse fuel economy! So now that $5-6 K diference is for 26 more ponies and more money spent on gas!

 

Looking at pricing, an equally equipped C240 costs $3,730 less, and an equally equipped C230 costs $5,740 less (prices from MBUSA). Now don't get me wrong, the C230 sedan is a great deal. IMO, it's priced to compete with the BMW 325 and other entry model luxs. But I would still rather have a 6 cylinder over the 4. I like the way a 6 sounds, feels, and runs versus the Supercharged 4. If it was just a pure power thing, then that would be different. But then, I probably would not be getting an MB anyway. The CL203's are priced to sell since the demand on these cars is much lower.

 

http://www.fastdrive.org/mercedes/c_320cdi_c_350_2.php

check out more info






















Mercedes-Benz C 320 CDI and C 350 Part 2

 

I didn't mean so much as comparing, but rather justifying the difference. A CLK 320 is basically a C class coupe. Yet the CLK 320 (comparably equipped) costs $45,970 compared to the C320 at 39,350. Is that car really worth $6,620 more? The E320 (comparably equipped) costs $49,220, or $9,870 more than a C320.

 

Actually I do not think the CLK320 is priced right either, but that is me. If they started say at $40K instead I would say yes. I only say that since in the US the CLK320 is the bottom end one and performance wise is about the same as a C230K coupe or sedan. So it really should not be compared to the high end C class C320, not counting AMG's. That is like the price increase between a CLK500 and a CLK55! I would love the AMG goodie's and all but I can not justify the price increase for the bump in power above the 500! 300 to 369 is not really that much when you look at other AMG models in the lines. Like the bump in power of the C55 or C32 over the C320, more than a 100Hp bump for the AMG! Same with the E500 to E55, you get a nice 169 Hp bump there. But with the CLK you only get roughly 70Hp for the bump in price. Now I realize there is more to an AMG than the engine alone, but come on they do not have that great a handling stock compared to say BMW and there M series. But then again people buy BMW's for handling and MB's for the more luxury ride and handling! But somedays with some models I think MB is shooting themselves in the foot in the US market. I see a hell of a lot more M's than I do AMG's! Of course I see a hell of a lot more BMW's than MB's as well. Hence why one of the many reasons I picked an MB over the BMW!

 

I agree with you on the price of the CLK, but my point is that value is measured differently by different people. Some may say the coupe is worth the extra money.

I disagree about comparing the CLK320 with the C320. Although the CLK320 is the bottom version CLK (in the US), it shares the same engine as the C320.

Well, bottom line for me is that I think the extra cost of the C320 over the C240 and C230 is worth it for what you get.

 

Oh don't get me wrong Rev, I measure it that way as well. Say for the price of a CLK55 compared to an E55, I would take the E and it is not much more than the CLK. But yeah it all depends on if I think it is worth it when I am looking. Personally I love the CLK and want a CLK55 but everytime I compare to the CLK500 I just say to myself why would I get the CLK55? Yeah I want all the AMG goodie's but is it really worth it to spend the extra over the 500 on that model. Well I am an *** so I would spend the extra but that is just me!

 

Personally, I'd rather have the C55 over either of the CLKs.

 

I haven't priced the C55 vs the CLK55, but given a choice, I'd prefer the CLK, even though the C55 is the same car now, but with two more doors. I just prefer two doors. Cleaner lines, lower roofs, fast back roofs. But compare the CL203 320 to the CLK320, I'd take the CL203 if I was spending my own money. The CLK isn't that great a car to justify the extra, what, 20K, for a trunk. Both look nearly identical from the front, and are the same mechanically. I actually prefer the C-Coupe's profile, the new CLK has too much Honda accord in its tail.

I just think that when the prices get this astronomical there should be a definate payoff...either in residual value, driving experience, performance, or in styling. Here there definately isn't.

 

I agree in part with you. However, I think you're looking at the price difference the wrong way. Part of the difference in price is that the CL203 is priced low to sell. It's a low demand vehicle that has been discontinued in the US, and it's price reflects that. Based on price and value for the dollar, I would probably get the CL203 C320 over the CLK320 as well. However, I much prefer the look of the CLK over the C coupe. Given the choice between the CLK55 and the C55, with money not being an object, I would probably choose the CLK55. However, with money being an object, then I would easily choose the C55. The C55 starts at around $56,600, and the CLK55 starts at about $72,300. Even though I like the CLK look better (in an AMG), I don't like it $15,700 better!

 

The c320 cdi engine is similiar to the audi 3.0 v6 tdi, but only 3.0 and not 3.2

-the same hp 225, less torque in the audi 510 in MB(limited 450,because of quattro), same 2 intercoolers, same piezo tecnology, same geometry v6,and same engine materials.

Bmw only 218bhp and in-line 6, but new 535d twin turbo, 275bhp!!!!

Diesel is so wonderfull