imran

Issue # 1
Hi...visitor from Bimmerboard (roadfly). I've had a 97 540/6 for the last 4 years and it now has 122k on the clock. I've always loved the shape of the CLK and am looking for a change maybe. I asked my independent mechanic (who, by the way services both MB and BMW) whether I should keep mine or get a CLK 430. He said to stay away from the MB cause in the 90s and early 2000s, MB really did a poor job w/ reliability and that BMW was actually more reliable. If I do get CLK it would probably be and '00 to '02 with around 50-60k. What kinds of problems can I expect over the next 60k miles (I drive about 20k a year)...spent about $2,500 on the bimmer last year ($2k for AC and misc suspension parts) and am looking forward to another $2k right now for full suspension/brake job. Sorry for the long winded message, but I'm just trying to figure out how many problems I may have w/ the CLK.

Issue 2
Handling and performance - if anyone here has owned or driven a 540/6, please compare the performance (acceleration, responsiveness etc) and the handling (suspension feel, road grip, cornering ability, etc) of both cars...

Thanks alot guys.
Imran

MarcusF

I’ve driven the E39 540 and it’s a very nice car. If memory serves me the 540 didn’t pull as hard as a CLK430. All 540/6’s are Sports, right? If it is a Sport, and that $2K is going toward replacing blown OEM EDC struts/dampers (and they’re due because the original nine-year-old oil in the OEM shocks turned to mayonnaise a long time ago), then the CLK430 will definitely handle better than what you’re driving today. The 540 handled great when new, but 4000+ pound cars don’t stay glued to the pavement with blown suspension bits. Rather than looking for an unbiased opinion on handling, I’d recommend that you go to a dealer and take a CLK430 on an extended test drive. Compared to my RX-7, my CLK430’s a pig, but one’s a sports car and the other a GT. Lastly, we are talking about a coupe, right? If you're looking at a convertible, there's no comparison between that and a 540 Sport.

clkal

the 540 didn't pull as hard as a CLK430? LOL. i don't think so. I have owned these exact same 2 cars at the SAME time. My 97 540i automatic pulled WAY harder than my 99 CLK430. It probably has a faster 1/4 mile time. I really can't say that either car is more reliable, in my experience, because both cars have had their share of small problems....probably due to the fact that they were first year model cars. The 97 540i had numerous electrical problems...one of the sensors (i forgot the name...some type of crank positioning sensor or something like that) went bad on me one day as I was driving on the freeway, and my car just shut off...bad stuff. ALL 4 power windows had problems....cd changer, etc etc. The CLK430 has it's problems as well....02 sensors, MAF, sunroof jamming, sun shade jamming, squeaking everywhere. Both cars , even though one is a coupe and the other is a sedan, are pretty nice looking cars, however, the CLK definitely is more sleek. They are also right around the same price range now....around the $15-20K range.

MarcusF

The first year e39 autobox pulled way harder than the CLK430? It could be that I’ve got it all wrong, and your 4000+ pound 282 HP first year E39 540iA was a real BEAST. I've been wrong before, the Edmunds spec sheet on the CLK430 is wrong, the Edmunds spec sheet on the 540iA is wrong, . . . . . . wrong, wrong, wrong. The guy would be better off with a new Sequoia.

imran

I'm wanting to compare 6 speed 540s to the CLK 430

clkal

wow. we got ourselves another "magazine stat" guy here. Whatever edmunds prints, it HAS to be true. That's why the M3's are ALL faster than the CLK55's right? It has to be because EDMUNDS says so.....LOL. Your a joke, dude. Respond all you want. I'm not wasting any more of my time w/ magazine stat newbies like yourself.

MarcusF

I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, but you’re right, I am a "magazine stat" guy. I write technical articles for automotive publications. BTW, please, tell us all how Edmunds acquires their performance numbers. Do they use their own test equipment, or do they use the numbers in the press kit. And if they use the numbers from the press kit, why is it that BMW supplied such high numbers? Those numbers are available to any member of the working press at www.press.bmwgroup.com I know your time is precious, and you can't afford to waste it, so dispatch a minion to check it out and report back to you.



But rather than digress, if you as an ex-owner of a 4000+ pound first year E39 feel it’s a much faster car, that’s all that matters. Case closed, the guy shouldn’t even consider a CLK.

NYCLK 430

The 97-98 540I Auto was not nearly as beefed up as the 99+ where they changed everything around, beefed up the torque converter, the 97-98 540 Auto is sort of a dog, 0-60 is 6.5 at best, as opposed to the later model auto's where it was as good as 5.8.

Reliability, seems to me the CLK's are built a lot more solid. BMW's always have some funny problem. Back in the day, when I was obsessed with the 540IS, I wound up going with the GS 400 just because of the horrible reliability stories from real people that I knew, not magazines or online reviews. I'm on my 2nd CLK 430 now, and havent had a problem yet.

IMHO- Pre 01 5 series bmw's are ugly as sin now, it needs the angel eyes, the body colored molding, led updated tails, better paint colors and nicer wheels of the 01+ models.

The CLK however, has stayed very appealing, due to MB not being trigger happy with some crazy updated version half way into the W 208 CLK run. Also, the C 240 coupe look of the W 209 helped the W 208 stay appealing as well.

Performance wise, when I had my 2K2 Maxima 6 speed, I'd beat 540 6 speeds all day long. Granted it was lightly modded, but still I just kind of expected more out of the BMW's, I expected them to be real deal highway monsters. The CLK 430 pulls pretty damn nice, I walked a GS 400, but to tell you the truth, I kind of wasnt even expecting it. I'd say the 99+ 540IA and 97+ 540 6 speed compared to the CLK probably pull about the same.

imran

Including the Mteknic front spoiler, angel eyes, blacked out trim, and ACS type III wheels...here's a pic (if it works)

<IMG SRC = "http://members.roadfly.org/imran/540.JPG" WIDTH=640 HEIGHT=480>

NYCLK 430

Your car looks great, I dont know if your like my father, who needs to drive a manual and doesnt really count an automatic car as something he'd like to own. If your not, I suggest you take a random well kept CLK for a nice test drive. The only way to really know, is to see for yourself. I'd say if you had this BMW for such a long time and were fine with the expenses, you shouldnt have any problems owning this car. In other words, in my opinion, worst case scenario, it will still be at least as reliable as your 540, most likely much better.

ThrillKill

↑↑ ↑↑