JBrady

This has to be the best place to ask these questions:

My GF wants to buy a CLK.

When did the body style change?
On ebay the 2003's have the earlier headlights where the 2004s are the new design. Here on the forum it lists the 209s as 2003 models. Confusing.

What years were the most reliable and least?
Were the 208s better/worse then the 209s?

What is the best choice for used car warranty?

Thanks everyone in advance.

RJC

Having had 3 W208's and 2 W209's I can say the build quality of the W208's seemed a bit better to me and the body style was also better, but the 500 has a much stronger engine and when all four windows are down showing off the cars pillarless design the W209 looks pretty darn nice. I hear the new CLK is due out for MY2009. I would avoid the first model year of either body style. Maybe try and find a low mileage Star-Marked W208 CLK55 and get the best of both worlds.

Eich

2003 was the first year for the W209 Coupe.

I believe 2004 was the first year for the W209 Convertible, meaning the 2003 'vert is a W208.

JBrady

Thanks for the responses guys.

One concern I have had is the legendary Mercedes quality seems to have been very much in question lately. I am not sure how long and to what extent. I want her to have a highly reliable car especially since being a used car purchase with maybe no available factory warranty.

So, the convertible gets the 209 upgrades in 2004 vs 2003 for the coupe... that is odd.

Was there that much difference in the basic car for the change or was it largely cosmetic? IOW, would a 2004 convertible be more worrisome than a 2005 or is the reported quality more of a concern in the later years?

Frisco

There was a pretty big general recall of E, SL, and a couple of the other lines in 2005 or so, and the CLK was not included in that big recall but took a pretty healthy depreciation hit right when it happened. I got my car in the first shipment back in 2002, and there really haven't been any major issues other than the transmission being replaced under warranty at 40k miles (due to faulty coolant lines into the tranny housing). People on this forum have reported a variety of small, largely nuisance problems, but the big issue to look out for is the transmission issue. Have you looked up the recall / service bulletins on the cars you are looking at to see what the known issues are?

pcohen15

I just purchased an '04 CLK 500 cabrio, with a build date of 12/03. I was fortunate to have the entire service history of the car, and the only issues were the third brake light and a faulty seat belt presenter. Both covered by warranty.

My caveat is that the car only has 32,000 miles on it, so there may be gremlins waiting down the line. But I'll buy an extended warranty once the factory coverage expires to cover wear and tear and failure issues.

I was also able to give the VIN to my local MB dealer before I purchased the car, and learned that any and all applicable service issues had been taken care of or checked.

Eich

IF I'm not mistaken, it could cost a lot more for an extended warranty if you wait until after your factory warranty expires.

My 2004 CLK500 has only 24k miles and I just recently purchased an extended warranty and was told that it's more expensive to purchase after the factory warranty expires.

moondust

I made enquiries about an MB extended warranty about 6 months after my factory warranty had expired. I was given a ridiculous price, which MB justified by saying that they had to examine the car from top to bottom - in far more detail than a full service. I decided to carry that risk myself....

Eich

Also, MB won't sell extended warranties for cars older than 2005.

pcohen15

I should have been more clear. I plan to buy the extended warranty (not from MB) about one month before my factory warranty expires.

I have three quotes from the largest warranty companies for bumper-to-bumper, wear and tear plus failures repairs for anywhere from three to five years, and they are in the $1700 - $2000 range.

I received quotes from Warrantydirect.com, Warranties4wheels.com, and aaautowarrnty.com. The quotes I received were for my vehicle with 36,000 miles on it.

Eich

I see.

If you want "true" "Bumper to bumper" coverage, make sure the policy you sign lists what it DOESN'T cover. Not what it does cover. I've not come across a plan for $1,700 that I would consider "Bumper to bumper". I think that term gets used far too loosely when it comes to aftermarket warranties.

One of the biggest things that goes wrong with these CLK's is the radiator leaking coolant into the transmission, requiring a replacement of the radiator and transmission. Most aftermarket warranties I've seen in that price range, won't replace the radiator.

Search this forum for posts by Toog4me. He convinced me to call a specific person at Continental warranty to get the best coverage that is most like the factory warranty. I don't know if my warranty is the best there is but what really made me feel good about it was that it lists specifically what it DOESN'T cover. Anything not on that list IS covered.

pcohen15

Great advice, Eich. I will be extra thorough when the time comes. I also just requested a quote from Continental. I would appreciate a PM with the name of the person at Continental to whom you spoke. I did most of my research before buying the car and relied on Consumer Reports and other studies of aftermarket warranty companies that I found ion the Web. But your real-life experience is worth a lot. Maybe as much as a radiator.

Eich

PM sent pcohen15.

I don't think it's any secret as Toog4me posted it in another thread. But it seems the best person to speak to is Kenny Hilton @ Continental Warranty. (888) 244-0925 X2615. Call him after 3 P.M. PST.