CLK 320 or 430
I've been reading the forum here for some time and I would like some opinions as you all seem very knowledgeable. I use to be a MB guy, then went to Porsche for a while and am now looking at buying a CLK. Trying to decide between the 320 and the 430; I do realize that the 430 will have more power/torque and perhaps feel a bit heavier. Not sure if the 320 will feel underpowered for me but honestly these are more cruising cars than what I'm use to. I would like some opinions on which would be better, and I'm assuming that the reliability of both are equal. Thanks in advance.
Ken
The 320 is plenty powerful for a daily driver, whereas the 430 is a bit too much for my taste. Where the V8 would make a big difference is at higher speeds after the electronics stop holding it back.
Both will make you happy.
I think the 320 is a great motor and would make a great car.
The motor in my CLK55 dominates the car and for me, that's why I was attracted to it. That and the sound of a V8 when you put your foot down. If you had a Porsche 928 then go for a V8 CLK. If you had a Porsche 944/968/boxster then the CLK320 might seem like a better balanced car.
You sound like you should be going for a 430 or even a 55!




The 320 is plenty powerful for a daily driver, whereas the 430 is a bit too much for my taste. Where the V8 would make a big difference is at higher speeds after the electronics stop holding it back.
Both will make you happy.
Last edited by insame1; Oct 5, 2016 at 08:07 AM.
Trending Topics
As for handling, Bilsteins and 55 springs will make a difference on a 430. The brakes on a CLK are surprisingly good. Good as in sixty to zero in a 2002 CLK430 taking 2 feet longer than a 2004 911 GT3. The 2002 CLK55 does it in 2 feet less than a 2004 911 GT3. No shock or spring combo will make a non-BS CLK handle like a GT3.
If anyone mentions fuel economy, below are 430 road trip numbers. And no, I didn't drive sixteen and a half hours straight. That's from So Cal to Reno and back. Cold starts, stops for food/gas, and a couple of days in Reno. I've got straight trips where I eclipsed 30 mpg for hours on end. Chappy's CLK55 used to get 28 on the highway. A 320 gets better economy, but at a cost.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
As for handling, Bilsteins and 55 springs will make a difference on a 430. The brakes on a CLK are surprisingly good. Good as in sixty to zero in a 2002 CLK430 taking 2 feet longer than a 2004 911 GT3. The 2002 CLK55 does it in 2 feet less than a 2004 911 GT3. No shock or spring combo will make a non-BS CLK handle like a GT3.
If anyone mentions fuel economy, below are 430 road trip numbers. And no, I didn't drive sixteen and a half hours straight. That's from So Cal to Reno and back. Cold starts, stops for food/gas, and a couple of days in Reno. I've got straight trips where I eclipsed 30 mpg for hours on end. Chappy's CLK55 used to get 28 on the highway. A 320 gets better economy, but at a cost.
That and I should revise what I wrote earlier - if the OP can find a Japanese spec CLK320 and copy the mods on the Jimmy's CLK, then he can drive all the 430's he wants, he's going to come back to the Williams-spec 320.
Is there any structural difference between V8 (430, not AMG) CLK and the rest of the series (6 or 4 cylinders)? I know about brakes, suspension or extras but how about the body itself?
That and I should revise what I wrote earlier - if the OP can find a Japanese spec CLK320 and copy the mods on the Jimmy's CLK, then he can drive all the 430's he wants, he's going to come back to the Williams-spec 320.
but I did place 3rd this past Sunday in Hiroshima. Thought I'd share my mileage as well. Hope it helps.







