I was at my dealership today, low and behold a new CLK just arrived. I checked it out... the interior was extremely bland, and the exterior was nearly identical to that of an Acura.

I wanted to give the new CLK a chance until I saw it in person. When you see this car in person, you can really tell the quality has gone downhill from the previous W208.

I am extremely disapointed, and the W209 will probably last three model years at the most, before it is completely redesigned to fix the mess that the Mercedes-Benz engineers have created this time around.

The three letters; CLK, really used to mean something, but now they are no more than just that; letters.

For a fully loaded CLK500, you're looking at roughly $60k, and it just isn't worth it for what you're getting.

I also was amazed at the enormous amount of plastic used in the car.

If I offended anyone who has a W209 on order, I apologize. These are just my impressions and opinions. Someone else may absolutely love the new look, and if that is the case, the car will be worth every penny you spend on it.

 

The new CLK may or may not be an improvement over the current model. One thing is certain though, the model is overpriced when one takes into consideration that it is based on a C Class chassis. Lower the price by ten grand so that it can compete with the lower priced Lexus models and Accuras and it fits rather nicely to fill a niche between the C Class and the E Class.
(In Europe where a CLK240 is being promoted, it is actually a reasonably priced car at less than $40,000.00)

Alternatively, D-Chrysler need only limit the supply and it will do OK as an exclusive model in the same way the current CLK has thrived because of relative scarcity. Assuming the cabriolet version gets the vario roof, the demand for it next Fall should fill the by then waning sales of the coupe. The rumored E Class Coupe will likely force D-Chrysler to make the next version of the CLK more unique in order to survive.

 

HHmmm so notes....a lot of plastic used, over priced and the interior looks like an Acura??? WTF?? I guess the W208 is the best CLK around?!

 

Also not to offend anyone who's expecting their 209 car, but I also had an order for the 209 and I'm glad I cancelled it due to these various things and the fact the new E55 will have 476 hp.

The new CLK500 with 302 hp is only slightly faster (if that?) than the current CLK430 due to the heavier body. It's also definitely not as aggressive looking as the 208 IMHO.

 

Was in the dealer this morning for about 2 hours and I really got to examine the W209's (two CLK500s - one black / one silver - and a CLK320 - black) very closely. All were being prepped for delivery.

The thing that I really noticed - the style Chrome on the bumper, chrome (more than the 208's) on the door handles, chrome around the windows....I didn't care for it IMO. Both the 320 and the 500 had the same chrome treatments. Maybe you only "lose the chrome" if you order the AMG.

The exteriors of the 320 and 500 are indistinguishable, with the exception of the five-spoke AMG wheels on the CLK500. The interior is all new (as you all know). The muscular "squat" of the 208 is gone.

The C-pillar is TINY, compared with the 208's (probably for improved visibility) and gives the appearance of a very thin, svelte car....but lacks a certain 'substance'.....the CD is only 0.28, if I recall. I must admit, from the side, it looks like a large Acura CL (previous body style).

For those who need "the latest, greatest" car, they will like the new 209. But to me, it has lost it's styling edge (from the sides and back) and has become, well, boring

 

Going for the M3 SMG. The biggest complaint is that Mercedes really did not bother with the performance of the clk500. Going to 300 hp and same 0-60 speed is not acceptable when you take into consideration that 20-30k cars are now reaching the 250-270 hp line. I mean this is a v8 for christ sake at least bump the hp to 350. The new m3 for example, is a phenomenal jump from speed and power since the old m3. Just my two cents.

 

I have yet to see it in person but my friend called from a dealership and could not stop saying how extremely ugly the new clk is. He said to never sell my 208 because it is destined to be a classic with the extremely ugly 209. He said he could not even find an angle that looked good (possibly the front but then naw). He is a BMW guy first but loves MB's and he seemed offended that MB would even release such an ugly car. He thinks it is a worse catastrophe than the new 7 series.

As for limited supply making the 208 a success, that may have something to do with it but IMO it is the best looking MB in a long time (maybe ever) and that is what drove the 208's sucess not limited availabilty. MB may sell these 209's if they limit the amount available but other than those I think the ones that sell will be to people that would buy anything that has MB on it and really don't care what the car they drive looks like.

I am sorry to offend anyone that may have picked one up in the past few days or has one on order this is all my opinion and from the pictures I have seen and the trusted judgement of my friend I could not keep quiet. To each his own (glad mines a 208).

 

My thoughts on this issue is I speculate that MBZ plans to keep the CLK "down stream" in order to keep a gap in the lineup for a E based coupe. Wether or not the "CLE" goes into production, or an E coupe sneaks in, MBZ appears to be scheming in this direction. I also speculate that the CLE came into the picture because MBZ would hate to see a theoretical "CE" create a potential redundancy with the CL...Especially if an AMG version is in the cards. Things are getting "intriguingly" complicated.

 

Definitely, I noticed that 3 months ago just looking at the photos. Now that the brochures are out, you can really tell. Way to much plastic used in the center console, they should have at least covered the center armrest cover in leather (same goes for the Eclass)....would have broke up the plastic theme a bit. The Eclass has a bit more leather/leather looking material on the doors.

 

Accord. what color interior do you see? Others have already said the stone and ash interior look plasticky but what about the charcoal? I am hoping that this will look better. Sigh, so many negative comments about the 320. Should I be looking for a another car after this long wait? Also, anyone like the black and blue interior trim option? My dealer says this is available for the 320's with the aluminum. She could be wrong though. Maybe this will make it look better? This would be with a black opal exterior.

 

I'm a bit perplexed that many seem surprised by the use of more plastics in the interior. While I concur that many manufacturers have gone too far in this regard, the application does seem mostly in good taste, and the improvements noted so far tend to offset the drawbacks. For example; the cupholders are not so good as the old; but the smaller leather-bound steering wheel with both power tilt and telescopic, is a significant improvement.

I concur that the styling is not as much of a statement as the old CLK 430, as they emulate the CL more, but is that really such a negative? The old car was based on the 'old' former C chasis; and is the reason it felt like a 'pan' construction when hitting bumps; something nobody has mentioned. The new one is extremely better (made a point to drive over railroad tracks yesterday just after delivery), due to the increased torsional rigidity.

So maybe we have a situation where the 'image' isn't quite so distinctive, but for those who put engineering ahead of merely style, it seems a considerably, if evolutionary, improvement. The sense of 'substance' while driving the new CLK500 is greater, not lesser, in about every way I can describe, and have had 430's (2) since the series first came out in late '98 as '99's. I don't regret getting the new CLK500, and frankly, find it much more fun and comfortable to drive (but on the other hand I'm only 5'6", so I do care about things like the wheel and seating position). Even the dash is more sophisticated, though I agree about the absurdly large clock, instead of it being a tach. However, you can select a readout of speed (and I think RPM's) on the digital display that is in the middle of the speedo, or anything you prefer. Not sure if it is only so in the command/voice module variants, but it seems to be a new-generation vehicle in this and so many respects.

Anyway, I have no regrets, and I had thought I would. Agree that the 208 will be a classic, but MB classics never appreciated much over the years (with a couple exceptions like the gullwing 300SL, so being up-to-date with new everything was more important to me, and I think they did a respectable job with the automobile).

 

To make a long story short; Mercedes-Benz is trying to hard to make the new CLK a "low-budget" version of the new SL, but they failed.

Safet, I had a CLK500 on order aswell; I cancelled it many months ago and ordered a C32 AMG. I'm glad I made that decision.

 

This situation could apply to the 2003 Viper as well......more daily driver features (like a dead pedal), better handling, more power, bigger wheels, better brakes, better construction. Overall, its going to be a better car in terms of refinement and performance. There is one thing Dodge missed the boat on, the looks. The new Viper looks like a combination of 5 different cars that are already out on the road. Its nice looking, but nowhere near as good looking, original, and outrageous as the outgoing model.

Can't win on everything I guess.

 

You got that right!

I saw the new Viper on Motortrend TV (it might have been Autoweek TV though). I tuned in a tad late so I didn't see the introduction of it, so I was unaware that it was the new viper up until the end when they gave the closing statements... I was shocked over what they had done to it!

 

Glad a couple mirrored my early feelings about the CLK500 here in Florida. Thought I was missing something, given the finesse of the new one is so improved subjectively at least.

The feeling over bumps and irregularities said so much more to me about it as a car, than the debatable styling. By the way, mine's black/charcoal; maybe that minimizes the plastic concerns some express, but every place I checked, improvements did seem to reflect a finessing or maturing of a popular car, that now becomes maybe a more serious, albeit still fun, car.

My dealership experience (not irrelavant to me) was terrfic, unlike a couple I've read about here. Peter McGinnis, MB Ft. Lauderdale; personally took interest in my CLK; very much appreciated.

Even the sales manager, David Arthur, did lots to accomodate the transaction; as did Travis the business mgr. (unique style) and Farrell in service; all of which are not exactly common behavior in these days of 'moving metal' car businesses.

Anyway, thought I wanted a new SL, but after 3 hours with the CLK500, I'm thinking it's really a better drive, and holds 4 people to boot, without being very pretentious. I suspect doubters will become believers once they drive it; focused less on the styling.

 

Just got back from a dealer, a white CLK500 on the showroom. The white CLK looked so cheap from any angle!!! So disappointed!!! The W208 CLK is so much more appealing and aggressive!!! Man, why did I sold my CLK430?!?!?! WHY????

Then they said... they have two black CLK on the back. One is a CLK320 and the other is a 500 cleaning up for delivery. I went there, I was SO suprise.... black exterior looked so much nicer. My eyes went BIG when I saw a black CLK500 seating next to a W208 CLK55. The W208 body suddenly seem outdated. Can't wait to drive my CLK500, 6 more weeks to go.

 

maybe a body kit on the w209 would help it look better. in it's current state, it looks like an acura. i think the only thing i like about it is the instrument cluster and the front headlights.

only time will tell if any body kits will "fix" its look.

 

just saw the new CLK320 at the dearship, a silver shade with with stone interior. the exterior and front seating area was fine (needs a body kit and/or 18" wheels or it will get lost in the parking lot), but the rear seating area was horribly bland - no wood, no metal, no nothing, just a monochrome sea of plastic & leather. not impressed. :o

 

Shoobie... any comments about the stone interior? Is the center armrest leather-covered or is it plastic too?

 

I can honestly say that I'm surprised at all of the negative feedback I've heard about the CLK500's. I know the point of the Internet is so people can complain, but c'mon. In my opinion, the 209 is better than the 208 in every single category. While I'm sure some are in love with the "classic" look of the 208, I for one think it looks horribly dated - especially side-by-side with a 209.

Don't get me wrong - a black CLK430 or CLK55 is a gorgeous car.. but hands down, I would take a 209 over a 208. What is wrong with you people? Granted the interior looks a little plasticky with a light-colored interior, but that's why you get charcoal. How in gods name are you going to complain about the 209's interior compared to the 208's?!?

... and I haven't even driven the car yet! I've heard it drives sooo much better than the 208. Do you guys work for BWM or something?

I really don't get you people.

 

i'm not sure - the car was locked. the dash was very nice, in contrast with the rear seating area.

 

You can basically see that it's plastic (no stitching of any sort), the lighter tones are more obvious because you can see the "grainy" surface better. I'm sure if one wanted, you could find a good local leather/vinyl upholsterer that could do it for a small fee.

Took this image from another thread....

 

The CLK 430 has no leather on the console or arm rest or dash board...just plastic.

Most people that cancelled the new car will generally say they're gald they did, and those who have not driven it will just critize the stlye, those that currently own a 208 will say the new one looks bad....some things never change.

I own an 01 Clk 430 I like the car but don't love it, the car could use more structural rigidity,more torque,lose the C pillars,gain rack and pinion while losing the antiquated recirculating ball steering,gain side curtian air bags etc etc etc the 209 has all this stuff,must drive like a dream, can't wait to try it.


RJC

 

RJC... you've got it exactly right. Reminds me of when the new SL came out; there were some who tended to lament the demise of the old; for a short while.

Just a day of driving the new CLK500, after my CLK430, which was good for what it was; and I'm impressed with the new one. It's got all the important things, and slight shortfalls of the old, very well fixed or updated (including the steering), and for sure, they left some cosmetic things to improve over the next couple years, but isn't that almost always the case?

Overall it's one of the best cars I've ever driven, and is very well 'taught'. The rigidity and the torque are more than enough for any sane driver, and everything is more refined over the prior model's. No buyer's (or seller's) remorse here; none at all.

 

Hey, Accord, C32 is no doubt a very fast car !
CLK500 is overall better except for less power.
I also notice this significant improvement MB has done well itself without AMG........... my opinions only.