There was a review on the CLK500 in the Car and Driver magazine so what i will be saying isn't my opinion, but rather word for word of what the magazine stated. For those that have the magazine look on page 15 in this months issue.
Here it is:
__________________________________________________ __
JAPANESE-STYLE MERCEDES
It is my opinion that the new Mercedes-Benz CLK500 is not lovely. It is generic and derivative in the Japanese direction. The taillight section looks very "Camry," and the headlight modules have that sort of cartoon-animal goofiness one sees in the Celica(I believe I once saw that front end described in these pages as an "angry rabbit"). The lower nose spoiler looks like it could have come off a Mitsubishi what-you-have. And what about the CinemaScope silliness of the little cylinders within the headlight module? Very "Nissan."
The bump up in horsepower and the change to rack-and-pinion steering are, of course, good news, but why can't one buy a Mercedes that still looks like a Mercedes? Why are "German" carmakers trying to look so Japanese lately? Mercedes seems to be falling into the same sort of wind-tunnel-induced blandness that so many other carmakers are succumbing to.
Brian Wollard
__________________________________________________ __

I just don't know what to think about this article guys!? Some points are true but then again don't you think they're going a bit too far with the Japanese part? What are your opinions?


DOMINIC

 

well maybe u should that thumb up his anus.. what does he know?! bias SOB.. maybe its cuz he cant afford one so he is writing something to bash it....:p

 

What is that guy talking about? The clk looks just like a mercedes. It looks almost exactly like a C class and SL and E. If im not mistaken, didn't car and driver praise all of those cars? It takes cues from all these cars. So it is very mercedes like and un-japanese. What idiots.

 

The CLK is definately a Mercedes. I like to think of the CLK as a Mercedes buffet. You can get a little piece of all of them. Some like to think of it as a glorified C-class. There is definatley truth to that. However, to say it looks *Japanese* is ignorant and not very analytical.

I personally can fault Mercedes for 2 things with the CLK class:

1) They have not developed an individualistic image for the CLK like the other classes have. I don't want to start another flame war here, but I don't believe the CLK ever had individualism. When it was first introduced, it did not have styling that deserved a new *class* name. More or less, it looked like a 2-door E. Don't get me wrong, the car was a damn fine one. Very aggressive and muscular (especially the 55). I just don't think they wanted to spend the heavy R&D, but they did want to introduce a nice luxury coupe. It made sense to model the exterior after a tried and true E class. Add some nice wheels, aggresive flairs and slide skirts and you've got an amazing car.

2) In a valiant attempt to spark some sort of individualism in the CLK, Mercedes redesigned it. They made it look more in-line with their other coupes and roadsters. I think they succeeded in that respect, but they borrowed WAY too much from the C-class. The goal was to make a luxury coupe; instead, it could be considered a C-class coupe. If Mercedes wants to make a new class, they have to give it its own flavor. To make a car that is virtually bits and pieces of other models, now mainly the C, is somewhat saddening.

Now, that said, I still believe the CLK is one of the best cars in its class, as long as you don't mind owning a car that borrows much from a *cheaper* MB class. You still get great build quality, nice leather & wood, a fast engine (the 500), and a fun drive. Those are all strong positives IMO and outweigh the fact that it's a lot like a C (which is NOT a bad car, contrary to what some ppl may say ).

If you've read this far, please reply and add/bash my points. I'd love to hear some more perspectives.

 

That C&D piece is drivel. I assume it was in their hoary old "counterpoint" section. That section has always read as though it was written by an ****-retentive movie critic, who hates everything. The person's 5 seconds of fame so to speak. Where are the constructive criticisms, the alternatives offered where a feature is dismissed? That person probably would never buy a Mercedes-Benz. Must be a BMW guy

If C&D were serious about analysing the car's styling, they should hire a professional designer to do a detailed styling analysis.

I think the CLK is beautiful and dignified. That's more than can be said about most cars these days.

What did the other C&D hacks write about in counterpoint?

 

I like the CLK, but I can see where that author is coming from. And, I'm not alone, others that I know also feel that the CLK, while nice looking, has a certain, bland, "Japanese" look to it. Particularly the back end.

C&D isn't the first, and won't be the last, to make those observations. The observations are made because there is at least some degree truth to them.

(BTW, not everyone who writes anything remotely negative about a MB is a "hack." Get over it).

(Also, like I said, I like the CLK - it may very well be my next car).

 

I agree a lot to what 500AMG said. There is not crisp unique model positioning to the CLK, and its not individual enought to create its own MB class. Too much borrowing from other MB models. On this respect, the 208 did a better job than the 209.

Prior to CLK, MB did their small coupe as a two-door version of their mid-class 4-door. The 300CE from W124, the C280 from W123, and in the 70'ties, their had a 2 door from their mainstream 4-door. These 2-door coupes had identical front and rear to their 4-door counter parts, with just a different middle (i think its called greenhouse). In my opinion, these three was all great looking cars, with a clear identity. MB should have continued on that line and make a two door E-class, but instead they did the CLK. If MB wanted to do the coupe a little different to the E-class, they should have done what BMW did on the 3-series coupe where all its body pannels are different, but its still un-mistakenly a 3-series.

But i do enjoy my 209. The C-class chassis is a great one (no regrets), and i appreciate each item for what its worth rather where it came from. As an example, i love the gear selecter borrowed from the C-class, but i don't like the steering wheel borrowed from the SL. I don't care that the steering wheel came from a car 2-3x the price than the gear selector.

Cheers

 

maybe it is because the japanese companies are trying to stand for better competition by designing their upcoming car leaning in more of a european fashion to lure more buyers.(exterior design)
that is why ppl all think mb is going down the path of japanese cars.


i know this is my bias opinion but oh well....
i also thought the japanese fellows were all very hardworking ppl but they lack originality and creativity........but damn are those ppl smart or what... they will formulate what is in the existing market and exceed it by bring the product to another level ... but of course the new products(cars) will have their own badge on

 

The 55 looks just like the 430, how would it look especially muscular??

 

The wheels (specifically on the 55 cab.) were awesome. Made the car look more aggressive to me.

 

You put it a bit more harshly than I would have, but I can’t really disagree with you. Overall, the car mags’ reviews aren’t worth much to me. Pictures and the occasional performance stat are where they provide the best value for me. The rest is just entertainment value – most notably C&D’s recent review of the 2003 Viper – hilarious, but not sure it would stop me from buying one if I wanted to. When it comes to their subjective opinion on a specific car or comparo, it is basically useless to me. Concepts like bang-for-the-buck, aesthetics, “driving enjoyment”, et al have completely different meanings for me as they do for C&D, R&T, etc. Generally, the cars I have purchased for myself have had mediocre reviews, yet I have been quite satisfied with them. Much more so than the highly-acclaimed Honda econo-boxes I was presented with during my teen years. Anyway, when it comes to cars, food, wine, clothes and people, I usually don’t trust anyone’s opinion but my own.

This is coming from someone that backed out on a 2003 CLK 55, so I have not taken offense to their review.

 

People, people, calm down...

That little excerpt from Car & Driver is from the "Backfires" section. In other words, it's an opinion letter from a reader, in this case, a guy named Brian Wollard from San Diego, California. It is NOT from a C&D article.

 

An actual review of the CLK500 is from the October 2002 issue of Car & Driver: "The two-door hardtop: Still sexy after all these years."

Highs: ****pit fits like a tailored sport jacket, thrilling horsepower at the touch of your toe, and you can expand the trunk when you need to get practical.'

Lows: Automatic trans tries to guess your next move, pouts when it guesses wrong; ordinary-looking brake calipers behind revealing wheels.

The Verdict: A hardbody head turner in aero-dramatic tights.

Here's the link: CLK500 Review

 

The guy who wrote that article is a hard on! Everyone is allowed their own opinion and judement, however if the CLK 500 or 320 look Japanese, then I guess every Mercedes looks like a Japanese car to the idiot that wrote the article. Please get me his name, I want to write a letter to someone so stupid and blind, it is not funny! All MErcedes share common traits, especially the rears and front taillights! The brilliant silver colors and everything else that makes a mercedes a mercedes! Japanese, I think not. My nissan Maxima is a Jap car, front wheel drive sucks, good car, but not a mercedes!

My CLK 500 is unbelievable, it is so exhilerating to drive. I have never had one person tell me that the car is ugly or Japanese looking. Someone who says this usually is jelous!

Ciao,

"The Don"

 

I base my cruel but fair assessment of the writing skills of C&D reviewers on decades of mis-spent time in my youth, when I used to read that mag. Their writers were pretty shabby. I'm pretty sure they're worse now. Much US "automotive journalism" is sycophantic rubbish - the British magazines are a fair bit more objective and the quality of analysis and writing is far higher, particularly in CAR.

For the record, I don't like Mercedes any more than the average person does; my first automotive love is French cars Mercedes comes a distant second.

 

It's unfortunate the Maxim Magazine style of writing has spread to many other magazines as well. It may be entertaining to read, but it's garbage nonetheless. Though I still believe Automobile magazine is well written, and one of my favorites to read.

The best car my parents said they ever owned was their 1983 Peugeot 505. I grew up in that car (from when I was two until we sold it when I was 11). I had quite the sentimental attachment to it...it was very tough seeing it go. But all things must pass, and now my parents swear by the C220 I now drive. They just bought a 2003 Jaguar S-Type, but they are already saying they will go back to a Benz after it.