CLK-Class (W208) 1998-2002: CLK 200, CLK 230K, CLK 320, CLK 430 [Coupes & Cabriolets]

Hello everyone, new here looking into a CLK...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 11-15-2001 | 09:02 PM
  #1  
Francis K's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Livnoia, MI
Lexus LX450 (soon a Benz maybe)
Smile Hello everyone, new here looking into a CLK...

Hi everyone, how are you all? You have a very nice forum here with as it seems good people, almost identical to ClubLexus where I am a avid poster.

Well I am looking into purchasing somthing in the range of a CLK430 or a GS400. I currently own a Lexus LX450 and I am so sick of that fat pig it's not even funny, the car that is, not lexus. Okay, so I attend many car dealer auctions and everything rolls up dirt cheap and I would appreciate your guys help for the next time I go. Okay....
So what is the price range on a 1999 CLK430?

What is the difference between a 430 and a 320?

I would most likely opt for a coupe, is it all that bad in the winter?

What changes will I expect going from a Benz to a Lex?

Are there a range of aftermarket parts for the CLK, the Lex is a few ticks faster and I wouldn't mind changing that.

What should I look for when shopping for a CLK430...like options, possible issues.

Does it come with Navigation and HID lights?

Okay guys, I know that was a lot but I would really appreciate the help in not making another mistake like i did when I bought the LX. The Lexus expierence was great but I paid too much for a older generation model and I don't want to make that mistake again. Oh speaking of that is the 1999 CLK the same gen as the one for sale now? When will the new gen bow in? I am extremely well versed in all aspects of the Lexus, I just wanted some info on the Benz. Thanks again guys!

Last edited by Francis K; 11-15-2001 at 09:27 PM.
Old 11-17-2001 | 04:35 AM
  #2  
mbtech208's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
If you're happy with Lexus, why change? Have you driven an SC400 lately? They're outstanding cars, and I'd have to say that given the choice, I'd buy a certified used '99 SC400 over a '99 CLK430. I know I'm going to get a lot of grief for saying that given all the Benz drivers in here, but it's true.
Old 11-17-2001 | 07:48 AM
  #3  
karl k's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 1
From: Florida
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
SC 430 traded for CLK 55

I run into several cases here, where there is a new SC430 sitting in a MB showroom.

Owner traded up for CLK 55 for better handling, stability control, performance, space, and arguably looks and function...

Lexus has a great sound system and a "touchscreen" command system.

Go with what you can afford and enjoy!
Old 11-17-2001 | 09:42 AM
  #4  
Francis K's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Livnoia, MI
Lexus LX450 (soon a Benz maybe)
Thanks guys...

I am extremely happy with Lexus, but I've never expierenced a Benzo, well we'll see. Thanks again guys but can anyone answer that info I asked for? I'd appreciate it, thanks again!
Old 11-17-2001 | 10:41 AM
  #5  
sorlo's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,842
Likes: 0
From: Boston, MA and Hong Kong
E350, S320, Mini Cooper S
Cool

Hi Francis. The difference between a 320 and a 430 is around $5000. I have a 320 now and it is a great car besides I want more power out of it (get a 55 if you can). I live in Boston and the car is fine for winter, didn't have any trouble with it.
Xenon and navigation are option and these two are MUST with a CLK, it makes the car much nicer both inside and outside.
The 1999 CLK is the same gen. as the outgoing one besides for some minor changes such as different rims, blinker on side mirror...
Also, new generation of CLK is coming out in a year, so you might want to keep that in consideration.

Hope that helps!

sorlo
Old 11-17-2001 | 12:15 PM
  #6  
Ron's Avatar
Ron
Almost a Member!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
2001 CLK 320 convertible
320 vs. 430

Biggest difference is that the 320 gets about 20% better gas mileage than the 430. My friend's 430 gets around 16-18 combined; I get around 24-28, with +30 mpg on decent routes.

I don't know anything about the Lexus, but I can guarantee you the CLK is one of the most exclusive cars on the road, and I seldom see others. If you are going to use it strictly as a commuter car (yes, mine is my daily driver) I enjoy the 320 because of the better gas mileage. The 430 is faster but hey if you go 0-65 in 6 seconds instead of 7.3, then the thrill of getting on the freeway in 1.3 seconds less time is pretty pathetic. I don't race it around town, but it's still pretty damn zippy.

Now, here's the thing. If you can, definitely go for the convertible. You'll never regret it, and on a nice sunny day there's nothing better.

Good luck with your decision.
Old 11-17-2001 | 12:53 PM
  #7  
Francis K's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Livnoia, MI
Lexus LX450 (soon a Benz maybe)
Thanks for everything guys....

I appreciate all the help and opinions. Hey Ron, about the convertible part, well winter is about to begin here in MI and it's always bad so I don't think it would be a good idea, I think if I go for the CLK I will just keep it through march or so and then sell it to get myself a SLK for the summertime. But does anyone have any pricing on these cars...like how much each model year goes for with a certain amount of miles? Oh and what are some problems associated with the CLK, is it a reliable car, what should I look for when getting one from the auction?
Old 11-17-2001 | 12:53 PM
  #8  
karl k's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 1
From: Florida
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
CLK Research/Background

Francis:

Here are a couple of sites - Mercedes Benz & Edmunds - that might be of help.

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/containe...=clk_class_main

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1999/me...upe/prices.html

This will give you more than you asked for,- have fun!
Old 11-18-2001 | 03:56 PM
  #9  
Francis K's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Livnoia, MI
Lexus LX450 (soon a Benz maybe)
Thanks karl..

Very helpful. But okay CLK owners, honestly, is a CLK a reliable car, comparable to Lexus? And does the warranty cover basically everything like my LX? What are the warranty terms?
Old 11-18-2001 | 05:12 PM
  #10  
allenjdmb's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 51
From: Georgia
E 63S Wagon Renntech, E55 Renntech, SL65, SL 55 030, ML, bunch of old ones--they come, they go...
just FYI...

the differences between the 99's and the other years are not inconsiequential. They are substantial. The 2000> cars have numerous features that enhance value; specifically: prepaid service during the warranty period, SOS, TeleAid, information system in the instrument cluster, touch shift tranny, and a restyle in 2000. These things make a bunch of difference in the re-sale. Buying a 99 is fine, but you should buy it well under the price of a 2000 model. Good luck.
Old 11-19-2001 | 09:53 PM
  #11  
Ron's Avatar
Ron
Almost a Member!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
2001 CLK 320 convertible
Winters in Michigan

Hi Francis. I gew up in Detroit and it got damn cold in the winter; I used to freeze my a$$ off walking to school, too. So, I can bet you'd think twice about a ragtop. That said, the SLK is a totally different car than the CLK, unless you want to wait for the 2003 SL, which is nice but about $50,000 more than the CLK 430. I always thought the CLK hard top was more cramped than the cab, and when the top is down it's a sweet ride.

Good luck with your choice!
Old 11-19-2001 | 10:05 PM
  #12  
lee2375's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 5
From: Dallas, TX
W212 E63, Audi R8 4.2, Panamera S, Range Rover Sport GT
i think the quality is good on the CLK, but i'm biased as i don't like Lexus too much, or japanese cars for that matter. They seem so cheaply built IMHO. Don't take any offense to that, though, because my opinion is just that...my opinion.
Old 11-19-2001 | 10:47 PM
  #13  
mbtech208's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
I disagree with your opinion. In my experience, Japanese cars are of phenomenal quality, especially Honda and Toyota. One of my co-workers is an ex-Lexus technician, and he said customers would be furious if their Lexus leaked oil, even after 200,000 miles! I just fixed a 2002 C240 with a transmission cooler line leak, it had just over 1,000 miles on it. Job security for me, of course, but I would have been upset if that were my car. My Honda has been a bulletproof car, even after over 340,000 miles. Even the A/C still works. Mercedes really knows how to make a state-of-the-art automobile, but they've never figured out how to make a good air-conditioning system, or a good radio. On the other hand, in terms of long term reliability, nothing beats an old Mercedes diesel, particularly the 126 body style. I've seen those things hit 500-600,000 miles with no major engine problems.
Old 11-20-2001 | 12:21 AM
  #14  
karl k's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 1
From: Florida
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
To your list of Honda and Toyota I would like to add Acura.

Unfortunately, I never owned a Lexus, very luxurious but too comfortable, soft and quiet.

From the exterior design, I think the LS 400, the longtime flagship, takes first place. All of the others, hmmmmmmmm.
Old 11-20-2001 | 12:27 AM
  #15  
mbtech208's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
I'm sorry, I should have elaborated further. By Honda and Toyota, I meant Acura and Lexus as well. My mistake.
Old 11-20-2001 | 11:22 AM
  #16  
lee2375's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 5
From: Dallas, TX
W212 E63, Audi R8 4.2, Panamera S, Range Rover Sport GT
i didn't mean that they were bad quality, i just meant that jap cars don't really have that solid heavy feel like most european makes. For example, when you close the door, the doors feel light and cheap and when you slam the door the whole car shakes. The steel is thin, the frames are weak, they are heavily damaged in crashes, etc... If you work on Japanese cars all the time like I used to, then you know how easy it is to bend the frame or damage a front crossmember or something like that. Yes, the engine/trans can run for 250,000 miles, but the chassis can't last that long w/o falling apart.
Old 11-20-2001 | 11:23 AM
  #17  
lee2375's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 5
From: Dallas, TX
W212 E63, Audi R8 4.2, Panamera S, Range Rover Sport GT
Now please don't take any offense to my post guys, it's just my opinion!!!
Old 11-20-2001 | 09:29 PM
  #18  
mbtech208's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
I've replaced several subframes and structural crossmembers on Mercedes-Benzes too, even the tank-like 140 S-class. German metal bends just as easily as Japanese metal. And for that solid, heavy door-slam feel, slam the door on any new Camry, Accord, LS430, or Acura 3.5RL. Cars from Japan have come a long way. But I respect your opinion, and I say "To each his own"

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Hello everyone, new here looking into a CLK...



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 PM.