Dealer just met with factory rep for CLK and E class training....

Factory rep confirmed that the clk cab will come out next summer and have a SOFT top....the big news here, is that he said both 4 seater convertibles for next year will have soft tops wink wink....

would not say anymore than this, however its more than likely that he was referring to the CL (at least thats my guess and my dealers)....

other news is that we should see the new CLK AMG coupe by jan

 

perhaps by "both," he meant the 320 and 500?

 

oh, and if MB doesn't make the cabrio range all hardtop, then they should all be sacked immediately. compared to the soft-top, it's safer, more attractive and, practically speaking, has to save owners somewhat on insurance premiums. um, i forget to note that it's COOL, too. anyone care to disagree?

 

I dont think insurance companies will change their policy rates if it is a hard top or soft top. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the top will be on in the event of an accident.

I was looking at the SC and it appears that the rear seats are really small and do not have much of a head room with the convertible hardtop. That being said, the CLK is a bigger car and has more passenger space in the back. Does that mean the trunk will have to be bigger to accomodate the folding roof?

With the roadsters like the SL and SLK, people do not expect much trunk space. I dont think buyers of the CLK will want to compromise their trunk capacity to have the top down. Although the idea of a hard-top convertible on the CLK would be fantastic, I can see why MB may be opting for a soft-top. In my books MB has always managed to come up with ingenious technology so it will be interesting to see what becomes of it.

 

I believe that the new CLK cab will most likely have a soft top due to the significant increases in price range if hard top is the option. For example MB's SLK most noticable feature is its convertible hard top. Without it, it is just simply a two door C-class since the SLK and C-Class both shared the same engine. With its hard top, the price of the SLK bounce into the range of $40k or above. Secondly, why would MB make a convertible hard top CLK to compete with their current coupe when the convertible can be both a coupe and a convertible?....I personally would like to see the convertible hard top on the new CLK but from a logical business stand point, it would be more profitable for MB to make CLK with a soft top.

 

Some folks just like the soft top for whatever reason. Wouldn't it be interesting if MB introduced the old SL approach to the CLK and offered a removable hardtop as an option? As to more or less space with a folding hardtop, I can't say for sure whether this relates to the overall size of the car or the top configuration, but my '03 SL has more room in the trunk than my '99 CLK Cabrio.

 

logical business standpoint...

at $5k - $10k more than the coupe, the cabrio will be an entirely different price point, with either soft- or hardtop. but it'd still be the only nominal 4-seat cabrio in the line-up.

i don't have prices in front of me right now, and i don't have time to start going through them even if they were here. (i shouldn't even be posting now.) but i doubt that price sensitivity would be an issue. how many CLK cabrios do you think are going to make it here in the first place? the jump to the SL is a significant money leap; the SLK is a different animal altogether.

about the soft-top being a better profit-machine for MB, i doubt any of us here could know that. without looking at the promotional value of advertising an "all vario-cabrio line," we have to consider the unit cost of the system. wouldn't there be significant part-sharing from SLK to CLK to SL? wouldn't efficiencies-of-scale reduce unit costs? and what about keeping open the production line that spits out the soft-top?

i truly don't know that the cost of switching to the vario would yield any more or less profit per unit.

about insurance costs, my understanding is that the main loss experience of convertible-insurers is from vandalism or other damage to the soft-top. a hardtop would remove that loss and -- i can only assume this -- therefore eventually reduce the premiums.

it may be true that some people prefer the classic soft-top. i can't argue that. but that aside, the high-tech promo value of the vario in a line-up of high-tech, safety-centered vehicles makes much sense.

that said, i ca't believe the same MB geniuses actually made tele-aid an OPTION on C-class cars. i guess that's another STUPID move for another thread, right?

 

the problem w/ tele aid is that most people don't want it... but i digress.

i vote for a hardtop also. it would make the clk much more attractive than say, a porsche...

 

young,

thank you for your hardtop vote. i hadn't intended to poll, but...

regarding your digression, i suspect the only people who don't want tele-aid are those who haven't had need for it.

who actively want's ESP, thinks about it or even cares...until it works in a hairy situation. it worked for me; i don't want another car without it.

if MB effectively promoted the safety and security features, then people would want them. yes?

 

I also vote for the hard top....but just wait and see....they are going to make it with the soft top

 

a friend of mine from the past once told me that he made money by getting advice from a certain fellow, then doing exactly the opposite. he said it worked consistently.

perhaps if the globe-trotting, marlboro-smoking chairman oc D-C were to LISTEN to the people who buy the cars, then D-C would do far better than it is now.