CLK500 vs. CLK320 Driving Comparison
08-20-2002, 02:51 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 C300 4matic
CLK500 vs. CLK320 Driving Comparison
I had a chance to drive a CLK320 this weekend, I thought it drove very well, but thought it could use more zip. Right now I’m seriously considering getting the CLK500. I have been unable to find a CLK500 to drive at any of the dealerships in my area. I would love to hear a comparison from anyone who has driven both models. I assume the CLK500 is a little stiffer ride because of the tires. Is the steering the same in both?
Thanks!
Michele
Thanks!
Michele
08-20-2002, 09:50 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an old Z, of course....
320 vs. 500
I have had a chance to drive both. I drove the CLK 500 over the weekend with a friend of mine who works for a dealer, and took a 320 out at the dealer with whom I order the car...
I have found that it pays to be persistent/annoying. Most dealers will let you drive whatever they have on the lot if you annoy them to the point of them possibly loosing another customer while tinkering with you...
Now, for the comparison...
The W209 CLK 320 has plenty of speed for me. It is suppose to be a half second slower than the W208 CLK 320, but you couldn't tell. The W209 was as quick off the line as the W208, but the W209 did seem to "die" a little right around the 55 mph mark, whereas the W208 still had some left.
Now, for the CLK 500...
WOW!!! As Ferris Bueller says "I highly recommend one if you have the means,,,"
It is fast...it felt faster that the W208 CLK 430!!!
In suspensions, I couldn't tell the difference between the 320 and 500. The 500 did "hurt" a little more going over pot holes, mainly due to the speed I was going
.
Even with the 17" shoes on the CLK 500 vs. the 16" shoes on the CLK 320, I couldn't feel much difference.
In comparison to the W208, the W209 is "softer", but defintely not "sloppy". It feels more like an MB. The steering is feels better, but I can't put my finger on why...maybe something with the new suspension.
I would recommend driving both, and, if you have the "means", get the CLK 500 (or maybe even wait for the 55).
I have found that it pays to be persistent/annoying. Most dealers will let you drive whatever they have on the lot if you annoy them to the point of them possibly loosing another customer while tinkering with you...
Now, for the comparison...
The W209 CLK 320 has plenty of speed for me. It is suppose to be a half second slower than the W208 CLK 320, but you couldn't tell. The W209 was as quick off the line as the W208, but the W209 did seem to "die" a little right around the 55 mph mark, whereas the W208 still had some left.
Now, for the CLK 500...
WOW!!! As Ferris Bueller says "I highly recommend one if you have the means,,,"
It is fast...it felt faster that the W208 CLK 430!!!
In suspensions, I couldn't tell the difference between the 320 and 500. The 500 did "hurt" a little more going over pot holes, mainly due to the speed I was going
.Even with the 17" shoes on the CLK 500 vs. the 16" shoes on the CLK 320, I couldn't feel much difference.
In comparison to the W208, the W209 is "softer", but defintely not "sloppy". It feels more like an MB. The steering is feels better, but I can't put my finger on why...maybe something with the new suspension.
I would recommend driving both, and, if you have the "means", get the CLK 500 (or maybe even wait for the 55).
08-20-2002, 10:02 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
My favorite quote from the recent August 2002 R&T review of the new CLK320/500:
"The U.S. gets two CLK models. At around $44,000 is the handsome CLK320 with its 3.2-liter, 218-bhp V-6, 16-in. alloy wheels and a claimed 0–60-mph performance of around 7.9 seconds.
For what might be the best- spent $6000 in the business, you can upgrade to the CLK500 and move up to the 5.0-liter, 306-bhp V-8, 17-in. AMG wheels, the AMG sport package, an aggressive-but-not-pushy appearance and just under 6.0 sec. to 60 mph."
http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/...?articleid=251
"The U.S. gets two CLK models. At around $44,000 is the handsome CLK320 with its 3.2-liter, 218-bhp V-6, 16-in. alloy wheels and a claimed 0–60-mph performance of around 7.9 seconds.
For what might be the best- spent $6000 in the business, you can upgrade to the CLK500 and move up to the 5.0-liter, 306-bhp V-8, 17-in. AMG wheels, the AMG sport package, an aggressive-but-not-pushy appearance and just under 6.0 sec. to 60 mph."
http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/...?articleid=251
08-20-2002, 10:27 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an old Z, of course....
Haven't we had this arguement before...
R & T didn't drive the CLK 320...they also have very bad math skills (What do expect from a bunch of BMW lovers?:p )
0-60 time for the 320: 7.4 seconds
Difference in base price: $43,900 vs. $52,200 plus a delivery charge on both...plus an additional $1,000 gas-guzzler tax on the CLK 500, but not on the 320....
KarlK:
Even though you seem to play for the other side (that's the W208 side), I am very impressed to your committment to forum...over 1,100 posts in one year
R & T didn't drive the CLK 320...they also have very bad math skills (What do expect from a bunch of BMW lovers?:p )
0-60 time for the 320: 7.4 seconds
Difference in base price: $43,900 vs. $52,200 plus a delivery charge on both...plus an additional $1,000 gas-guzzler tax on the CLK 500, but not on the 320....
KarlK:
Even though you seem to play for the other side (that's the W208 side), I am very impressed to your committment to forum...over 1,100 posts in one year
Last edited by Z-Dude; 08-20-2002 at 10:31 PM.
08-20-2002, 11:00 PM
#5
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Lean runner
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: CLK500 vs. CLK320 Driving Comparison
Originally posted by Mikalish
I assume the CLK500 is a little stiffer ride because of the tires. Is the steering the same in both?
I assume the CLK500 is a little stiffer ride because of the tires. Is the steering the same in both?
parking. My wife loves to drive it all the time.
Check my feet !
08-20-2002, 11:48 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
Originally posted by Z-Dude
Karl K:
Even though you seem to play for the other side (that's the W208 side), I am very impressed to your committment to forum...over 1,100 posts in one year
Karl K:
Even though you seem to play for the other side (that's the W208 side), I am very impressed to your committment to forum...over 1,100 posts in one year
Without question, the 208 AMG is the best car I've owned and driven.
My remarks re 209 CLK models relate to the photos, reviews and postings of my peers, plus my 3-D visual inspection of the 320 and 500 last weekend.
Till now, I have not sat in nor driven the new CLK. As soon as I do, I'll have a better idea about the "innovations", characteristic of the second generation CLKs. In 10 days I'll be test-driving the new E class. The E-500 really interest me, incl. Porsche's C4S, and the next gen C6 Vette.
I am not committed to any manufacturer. However, I must say that the MB quality of electronic components and service does not live up to my expectations.
Again, considering ALL factors, the 208 CLK55 AMG, - is the best car I've owned and driven!
