ExMuscledriver

Hello

I'm looking to possibly buy a CLK 500 or AMG 55. I come from an American Muscle back ground owning a Camaro SS and a Monte Carlo SS.

I have a few questions about the CLK

How reliable are they?
Maintenance requirements, anything weird.
What is the real world performance?
Any upgrades and how much? Specifically exhaust. I see some with duals.

Thank you in advance.

Discgolfer74

As a former Camaro lover...

First Car: 1974 Camaro LT
Later: 1987 Camaro IROC 5.5
Then: 1992 Camaro RS
Planned: 20?? Camaro

...until I bought a CLK500. WOW! Power! Torque! Smoking Tires! IMMEDIATE Throttle Response! Everything a Muscle Car lover wants, plus a little luxury.

Don't believe me? DRIVE ONE!

Even Better... DRIVE AN AMG! You will NOT be dissappointed!

Stiggs

Go for the AMG. Of course I'm a little biased. MB claims W208 CLK55 0-60 is 4.9sec. W209 CLK55 0-60 is 5.0sec.

Car and Driver got 4.5sec for a 2004 CLK55.
Hope that helps.

ark1tech

I just got my CLK like a month ago. I also have a 2001 Mustang GT conv. with exhaust and lots of upgrades.. This mercedes is amazing.. Its so much better than I thought it was going to be.. I would definately get a CLK.. If you can get the 55.. My friend has one and its unbelievable.. Good luck!

trikoid

I used to have a '71 Corvette with 454 - it had more torque yes, but the Mercedes has more usable power. My wife calls it a rocket ship.

The Mercedes takes off the line like crazy, but my rear tires show it - 7K miles and down to the wear bars. Cha-ching! Just like everything on the Mercedes.

ExMuscledriver

How reliable are they? Are there any common issues to look for?

stormkenny3

too be honest electrical niggles seem to be what to look out for.


i haven't heard anything bad about engines. espically once they reach's 50,000 miles.

BelaMeca

I know that the Gmeters might not be 100%accurate,but.....
My best time was 4.74,that was after many atempts and warming up tires,and doing all this on a new stretch of asphalt,at sea level,on a cold day My Car has exhausts/catback and Greens.

Discgolfer74

I don't know of any "common" issues... A lot depends on the vehicle's history of use (or abuse).

The issues I'm dealing with were there when I bought it in April, but I woudn't say are "common":

-Reduce Oil Level (was told it was a sensor in the oil pan)
-SRS (happens when passanger seat belt had been recently used)
-License Plate Lights (replaced, and bruned out again, think there might be a short in trunk lid)
-Climate Control (only blows cold air into footwell)
-Brake Vibration on Right Front (car was in accident prior to purchase)

Just like any used car you buy, you'll probably find something wrong with it. If you shop wisely, you won't go wrong with a CLK. I recommend the AMG!

SoCalCLK

The CLK500 and CLK55 have the normally aspirated motors, no S/C. For me this means more durability in the long-run without having to worry about a Supercharger failure, or even lack of power due to overheating.

As far as the rest of the car goes, the tranny and suspension should be bulletproof, my only concern would be electronics/lights, etc.

Try and get one with an extended warranty, just in case.

You will love either car. Full of torque, comfort, just the right amount of sportiness and a great, solid ride.

Alexbenz

look at your pockets and see if you can afford a amg and then go for that but on the w209 there not too big of a difference between a 500 and 55 power wise.....

archony

As far as reliability goes they are probably both similar. It seems with the 2003 and 2004 CLK500 there is an issue with coolant getting into the trans and necessitating a rebuild. There is of course the little electric BS stuff that goes on and off: mirrors, seats, radio and so on. Radio and nav are upgraded from 2005 on.

Even if the horsepower numbers of the CLK500 and CLK55 are similar, they feel very different to drive; the engine, trans, seats, suspension and brakes are all upgraded on the 55 and much sportier. For that matter, the ride on the CLK55 is on the rough side for commuting but just great for the twisties. AMG parts will also cost more. It would be a good idea to try both.

SoCalCLK

Precisely. The CLK500 is rated at 302hp and the 2004 CLK55 is rated at 362hp, which is approximately 20% more. A 20% increase in HP is not a snall difference in power. If I had another 20% in returns in my portfolio, I wouldn't consider it small...

The AMG package is more that the sum of its parts. Engine, tranny, gauges, suspension, rims, body kits, etc. If you can get one, I highly recommend it!

b_lum81

I bought my 2004 CLK500 back in December and I love the ride. Lots of power, good off the line, gets a few looks as well.

Maintenance wise, this is the first benz I've owned and when I bought the car it needed its front rotors/pads replaced... Stupidly I went to the dealership and got them to do it for me and was charged $750 for it grr.. But I think the fact that I imported my car from the US into Canada, the canadian dealerships already didn't like me to begin with. None the less, I've now found a benz mechanic who does work on the side so any maintenance cost is quite a bit cheaper now then going to the stealership..

I've had a few glitches with the car since I got it. First being the parking brake, which was also causing a squeaking noise before braking, and second was the siren which decided to work at random. Other then that, it's been good and I don't regret getting it at all.

Jaki

If you're still looking for a CLK, I'm selling my CLK55. Here's the link to the original for sale thread:

https://mbworld.org/forums/mercedes-vehicles/251266-fs-2003-clk55-modded-very-clean-low-miles.html