vivianlove

I second that

AMG make quality engines not Mercedes Benz

Don't get yourself confuse!

Accord

The sole reason I cancelled the order on my CLK500 was because the car was hard on the eyes, in my opinion.

I don't care if it had the interior amenities of an S600, I would still go for the C32 over it for the sole reason I stated above.

Shine, I saw pictures of your car... it did look good, just not my style.

calboy

Regarding the plasticky interior, I think it is the same with all the newer benzes. My family has a 2001 E430 and a 2002 E320 in stone and ash and I can say they both look plasticky. The center console, armrest and dash are all plastic. Unfortunately, the plastic just looks like plastic instead of leather and the leather is pretty disappointing as well. I currently own a camry of which I personally think the leather seating and dash, armrest etcetera are better looking and feeling.

LILRAJA

i am with you. Geeez, is it that bad??? I can't wait to see the car in person and give my 2cents. The clk w208 was a great car and i think people were expecting a whole lot more on the next one. I do see the price increase and people not being happy about it. But i guess that's why they have other models that might suit you guys better like a c32 or e55. Trust me nothing can be as bad as the new 7 series....

LIL Raja

ghova

Today I had my chance to see the clk in person, and I can honestly say I DON'T LIKE IT! That's just my opinion. It just looks like it blends in with all the other cars on the road. The dealer had two of them sitting next to the 208. To me the 209 doesn't make the 208 look dated, but it makes it look more manly. Even the salesman didn't like it because it doesn't have a unique look to it. He also said that more women than men have been interested in the vehicle. If I were in the high speed lane driving a Pinto and this vehicle approached be from the rear I wouldn't move. It just doesn't have that left lane fear factor. The 209 is still a Mercedes, but not the one for me. The SL is now the official BEAST of Mercedes. That's just my opinion, even if you think my opinion sucks.

karl k

Saw 6 new CLKs at the Ussery outdoor lots -- for the first time in 3-D. One was sitting already on their used car lot, with premium mark-up!

John, I do share your disappointment, they do look plasticky and SL wannabes. However, they look smaller than the 208 models.

To me, looking at the front of the 209 CLK - it looks like the MB entry $25,000 C-Coupe, with peanut lights.

The rear looks like the Taurus, Acura CL (ok, I'll stop here) -- just copy-cat -- nothing original/unique, just plain vanilla/bland!

What also surprised me was the MSRP for the CLK 320s. One had a total of $45,000, another 320 had a total of $53,000 w/keyless entry +++.

The sides looked like they were in an accident: Pushed-in!

The new CLK just does not have the presence of the first and original design.

Having said that, I have NOT sat in one, nor driven the new model. The interior should be more comfortable and spacious; the ride and handling superior to the 208...we'll see shortly.

Accord

Karl, I agree with every single thing you just said.

Safet

The clk w208 was a great car? What did they disappear off the face of the planet? Some of us have 208's and like them better than the 209's. I saw the 209 in person. Single reason why I cancelled my 209 order (and I was top of the line for this past week's delivery date) was because of it's IMHO god-awful looks, which only darker colors can conceal (it looks decent in black.) and I'm glad I cancelled my order.

And you mention price increase? Who cares for 2-3 extra thousand when you're buying a $60k car? If you do you shouldn't be buying a $60k car.

What's up with BMW with those wicked designs too? As for the CLK or any other car, when I buy a $60, 70, 80, 100k car, I don't want it as a "make-do" car where the car will make do and you have to accept it because "it's the new S-class" or "it's the new 7-series" or "it's the new CLK".


I think I'll pass on this generation CLK and stick with my "original" 208.

Accord

Safet, well said.

The sad thing is, most people will be buying a W209 CLK just because it's the "new" CLK. Nomatter how ugly the W209 CLK is, people will still flock to their dealerships to order one for the sole reason of it being the second generation of CLK's.

I think BMW did a MUCH better job of carrying over the old 7 to the new 7 than Mercedes-Benz did with carrying the W208 over to the W209.

I cancelled my order on a CLK500 for the same reason you did Safet. Even the new CLK55 complete with the AMG body kit is an eye sore in my opinion.

500AMG

Just for curiousity's sake. How originial was the W208? To me it always looked like a 2 door E class...albeit slightly lower. Don't get me wrong, I love the old Es and CLKs and I love the direction the W211 E is going. Many of the posts to the negative about the W209 have come from W208 owners and they have been gripes about losing originality (ie. looks like a C-coupe or SL wannabe). I never thought the W208 was original and I don't think the new one is original. It takes cues from the C, SL, & CL (no more E class cues though ). I still think the 209 front looks like an SL and not C-coupe, but that's just me.

BTW. I believe the 209 looks smaller because of the lower hood lines...the 5 pictures Shine posted recently of his 209 show this nicely (especially the 208/209 comparison pic).

Accord

W209 CLK:



C-Coupe:




As you can see, there is zero difference aside from the headlamps being clear.

500AMG

You wouldn't happen to have a front shot of an SL? I would love to see the comparison. The C-coupe lacks the hood lines and the grill is completely different. The headlights are also "taller" on CLK. The hood lines are cues taken from the SL...looks to me it's a merger of C-couple and SL styling. The SL's lights are more "tilted out" ala the W211, but it looks like MB's engineers wanted to treat the CLK as a hybrid.

Brian Yee

As an owner of the "old" version, I'd rather be mistaken for an "E" than a "C" anyday. In my humble opinion it's the owners of the new model who are in denial of where MBZ is going with it's positioning and look relative to the lineup. To drive the point home, I speculate without pretention that many of us can afford to purchase or lease anywhere in the product line, hence the lack of validation to the "sourgrape" theory submitted by another poster. Accord's visual proof is difficult to refute.
As for me, I will avoid the new CLK like the plague and have decided to replace mine with an E55 when the time comes. No sour grapes here, thank you.

Accord

Brian, that's the thing. The headlamp design on the C-Class sedan is very different from that of the C-Coupe, and in my opinion, it looks much better. If the new CLK had the headlamp shape from the C-Sedan rather than the C-Coupe, I think the front end of the W209 CLK would look a lot better and make up for it's atrocious rear end.

LILRAJA

safet,
i have yet to see the new w209, so i really can't comment too much on it. i love the w208, but wasn't too crazy about the performance and handling of the car. So i opted for a 5 speed car (330ci in my case). From what i read the new clk500 is very nimble and handles well. So i was looking into that. Next, as for the price increase. I am not too happy with it. Why? cuz now it's too close to a 911 range. If i were to get a clk500, i would need all the goodies and the price would be like 66k or something. That is too close to 911 price range. And I am having second thoughts and thinking about spending the extra 10-15k for the 911. I have been also hearing about this plastic being used too much and that is another thing i have to check for myself. Basicly, i really have no merit to discuss w209 since i have not seen it or driven it.
I don't know, i might just opt for a used clk430 myself. But before i do so i need to test drive the new w209.
As for BMW design- please don't go there. I am about to throw up regarding the 7 series and now coming z4. I bet the next 5 series is gonna be ugly dog itself.

lil raja

Brian Yee

Accord, I agree 100% with your comparison, though I don't think it would offset the "atrocious" rear end. I also "worry' when a MBZ salesmanager/best bud tells me he likes the driving attributes, aside from the fact that it is in his own words, "butt ugly"...:p :p MBZ could have done great things with the 209, but as I've deduced, they needed to sacrifice it to "positioning".

Benzo

I couldn't disagree more. I wasn't even planning on trading in my 2002 CLK430 until I drove the CLK500. I have spoken with three people who are past W208 owners that now have there W209 and they are ecstatic.

I will admit that even when I first say my CLK500 at the dealership- prior to delivery- I came here and posted an unfavorable review. Sice driving it and getting more used to the design I love the car.

To say something like: "The sad thing is, most people will be buying a W209 CLK just because it's the "new" CLK. Nomatter how ugly the W209 CLK is, people will still flock to their dealerships to order one for the sole reason of it being the second generation of CLK's", I think is a little silly as it isn't constructive and bordelines hints of jealousy in a childlike manner. But then agaion, that is just my opinion as you have yours.

Accord

Benzo, it is good that you're happy with your CLK500. Like I said before, everyone has different opinions. My opinion is the CLK500 is not the prettiest thing on the block, and your opinion is that the car is stunning. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I had a CLK500 on order, but cancelled it after viewing more pictures of it and coming to the conclusion that is definetly not the car for me. After finally seeing the new CLK in person, I am glad that I cancelled it and ordered a C32 AMG.

I assure you that I am not jealous.

karl k

That's debatable, - but one thing is for sure:

ALL cues are from within the MB family for the original CLK!

Today, the new CLK takes it's cues from the outside of the MB family of cars:

Volvo, Acura, Taurus, Hyundai...

Wildbill

I have to agree with Accord (John).

The new CLK looks more like the C coup. The width of the new CLK just looks too narrow. The concaved-in appearance around the door does not help either. This may be O.K. for a small car like the C coup, but for a larger car like the new CLK, this makes the W209 look emaciated.

On the other hand, the new SL with its wider proportion just shows power and in-your-face aggressiveness. The new CLK by no means commands that kind of presence.

500AMG

I think the pictures speak for themselves. The front end undoubtably looks like and SL and not the C-coupe. Look at the hood lines, grille, as well as headlights. I don't see the C-coupe at all. As far as the back and sides are concerned, they are not flattering and are somewhat bland. The debate I was raising was about the front, which is what the pics were comparing. I saw the SL500 and CLK500 in person for a side by side comparison and what I thought then is what I think now, they are extremely similar. I, however, did not see the C-coupe and CLK500 side by side so I didn't know what to think. Now after seeing pics, the comparisions can easily be made. As far as the plasticky interior, the only MBs with leather dashes are the CLs, SLs, and S600 (note,not S500 according to MBUSA's website). I didn't check every single AMG model, although the E55 & CLK55 didn't list leather dash as the description for the CLs, SLs, and S600 did. I didn't see more plastic used in the 209 compared to the 208. The 208 had a plastic dash, plastic door trim, and plastic armrests. I guess one would think a new model may include more leather, but MB seems to think that should be reserved for cars whose base MSRP is $85,000+

Accord

500AMG, to a Mercedes-Benz enthusiast, one can easily see that the W209 shares attributes from BOTH the R230, W203 Coupe, and the W211. In reference to the rear of the car, it does infact look almost exactly like an Acura CL. There was infact a side by side comparison posted on these forums a few months ago, and they were nearly identical.

Now, to the average joe driving on the road who knows not the first thing about Mercedes-Benz; the W209 will not turn their heads. The W209 looks like just another ordinary car. The only people who will be able to pick the W209's out of a crowd are Mercedes-Enthusiasts and some salesmen.

The W208 is easily distinguishable, and will definetly turn heads. The W209 is just another average car and will not turn heads.

The general uneducated public will most likely be more familiar with the C-Coupe rather than the SL. When they see a new CLK on the road, they are more inclined to think it is a C-Coupe rather than anything else. Infact, a salesmen at my dealership who I was talking to said that he has had many people confuse the C-Coupe with the W209 CLK. The SL has a low, sleak, wide, aggressive look. The W209 CLK looks like it is very high off the ground (even the sport package equipped CLK's) and it looks extremely narrow; just like the C-Coupe, therefore one will be inclined to associate it with an C-Coupe rather than an SL. The only thing noticeable attributes that the W209 CLK shares with the SL, is the headlamp design, which is strikingly similar to that of the C-Coupe. Aside from the headlamps, the W209 has C-Coupe and Acura CL written all over it.

500AMG

I agree with you about the layman/enthusiast difference. The only reason I ask questions here is that I like to hear the enthusiast's opinion. My mother, who by no means is an "enthusiast" thought the CLK looked very much like the SL and she also saw the side-by-side in person. I guess the only way to solidify my opinion about the CLK is to take a more in-depth look in person, which I will do tomorrow at my dealer (2 hours away ). I'll ask him to give me side-by-sides on all 3 cars. It's often too difficult to form one's own opinion from other's opinions...which is what I'm trying to do now. Easier to just spend a good deal of time and see for myself . Opinions from others' opinions are kind of like hearsay, which is why it's not allowed in court I guess :p

Oh I should add, thank you all for your wonderful insights! I want to also thank John and all the other moderators for the wonderful forum. The best way to make decisions is to hear both sides...often times we can be blinded by ignorance. Criticisim is the best way to uncover faults that you may see after the big check is written!

Brian Yee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HdS500
[B]
Really? You think that the CLK looks like a c coupe. Dude are you blind, stupid or just jealous?


If you haven't read John's comments regarding the headlamp similarities, please do so as your evaluation of the car is rather myopic in nature. I/we are commenting on the ENTIRE car, not just the front end. Though I do agree with your choice, this being the only visual highlight worth mentioning as it's only favorable attribute. It is not only I who think it looks like a "C" coupe, and I can assure you that none of your remarks apply to me. BTW, I assume your remarks also apply to our moderator, Accord?! Look at HIS line up...Get my drift??

stefanbates

I wanted to buy a new German coupe/small saloon (as it was a private purchase I needed good residual values). The shortlist was:

Merc CLK320 (maybe C320)
BMW 330Ci
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro (or TT, but too small)

I drove variants of all of them I went for the CLK320 even though it was the most expensive. The interior is the closest thing to an Audi TT and the exterior is very elegant. So what if it looks like a Volvo; that Volvo looked great...

Each to his own but the new CLK looks and drives so much better than the old. In fact I'd choose a C320 over a BMW 330i too.