Adrian G

First, I'd like to say hi to everyone on this forum. Now onto my question...my wife and I are looking to purchase a 2003 or 04 or 05 CLK, probably the 320 model with the v6 engine.

I have started doing some research and it looks like the 2005+ models have a slightly different looking front end. Do they have any other features that the 2003 and 4 cars do not have? Was any year better/ less problematic then the others?

Also do these cars only come with an automatic transmission? Do any of them have a tiptronic transmission?

Basically we are looking for the most reliable daily driver.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.
-Adrian

FatTony001

Can't tell you about the V6,
but for the 55 AMG, 2005 is the best year! (coupe)

Because of all the little changes they made: Brake, Center console,
Bumper, Harmon Kardon sound system, quad exhaust and the MOST system

not sure: Suspension

da_guitarist

maybe you should repost in the non-amg w209 section? Everyone here is gonna tell you GET THE AMG!!! FEEL THE POWER!! And I agree!

MARTYMAR

Uhhh did you say reliable? Mercedes Benz cars are some of the most unreliable luxury cars money can buy.....sorry I had to be so blunt about it If money is no option and you really want a MB because of the logo then get yourself an AMG. Otherwise, any Chrysler car such as the Crossfire is basically a MB without the logo and would save you some thousands less I own both a Lexus IS 350 and a 2004 CLK 55 and my Lexus is by far more reliable. Just my 2 cents. Welcome aboard and good luck with your decision!

Adrian G

Thank you for your responses, and I'll ask a moderator to move this out of the AMG section.

Jaki

Just in case you do decide to go with the AMG route, I'm selling mine... here's the link to the sale thread:

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

M-bENZ

I agree....anyway the only difference that I can think right now from 03,04(CLK320) compare to 05 was the 05 has the NAV. system and the digital temp. control I guess...

M-bENZ

So what sup MARTY MAR??? I havent talk to u for along time ....hows your car doing ?? any new mod.??

Adrian G

My wife and I currently have the other Germany car as well as a Swedish car and an American car and all have been relatively trouble free. We are thinking of selling the American car for a CLK. As far as Japanese cars, we are not really intrigued by anything on the market right now…it seems like all their cars are either too small or too large or we don’t like the styling and most are front wheel drive…

I may have to rethinking my decision about buying a MB perhaps. As far as issues these cars have, are they the kind of things that will leave you stranded or just silly things that break?

JuicedMB

I bought a 04 clk320 in May wtih 34K miles. I was originally looking at 05 and 06 models, but the 04 had a price I couldn't refuse. From my investigation the 05 differences are:

Stereo is different in 04 1/2 - From Bose to HK
Either in 05 or 06 they changed the transmission to 7spd
Front end change in 06

I also have a car by the other German automaker and a Chevy SUV. None of my cars are probably as reliable as your Japanese vehicles. But I've never been stranded. So reliability is relative. I've taken the MB in once to replace one catalytic converter.

There have been owners of certain MBs that have explained pretty significant issues on this forum. So, do your homework and consider an extended warranty. Especially if it will be a daily driver like mine...

Good Luck

archony

I believe there were some changes to the dashboard in 2005. The 2006 six-cylinder changed to the 350 engine with a 7-speed transmission. It's usually better to get the newest year you can afford because there are improvements from year to year.

In the US it only comes with an automatic. The gears can be changed like a tiptronic by moving the gear lever left or right. Neither the 5 speed (pre-2006) nor the 7 speed are particularily sporting, but it is entertaining to downshift gears on occasion.

In the 35,000 miles I have been driving my '06 it has never stranded me and I only went in once for an unscheduled visit due to a noisy fanbelt spring. The CLK is reliable enough to be a daily driver.

mk4mike

Just use common sense.. set yourself a maximum price you want to spend and go and find the newset car you can with low miles. For example i just bought a certified clk500 from mb with 35k for $26,000. It's not highly spec'd i.e doenst have sat nav or push button start. But it has bose sound, xenons leather obviously not that crap immitation stuff mb are now using.. Also being a 500 it has the amg pack which is standard on all 500's.

There are deal's to be had, but after riding in my dad's sl500 there is defiantely a difference in quality between the clk's and the higher end mercs.. But it shows why you pay so much for the high end cars.

Clk's seem to suffer with electrical niggles, Already my car had a glitch with the passenger seat controls. Being under warranty mb replaced the computer chip and now its working fine.

That said, i am having a lot of fun with the new car. It handles very well around corners and i feel very confident in the cars performance and handling.

If you can find a cheap amg then go for it.. but bare in mind why people buy amg's its probably been on a track or thrashed most of its life. But the amg's do sound mean and have a lot of presence...

Hope this helps

djumblatt

Thought you should know that since I bought my CLK320 less than two months ago... its gotten nearly 28 MPG! city and highway driving too

djumblatt

Oops I meant 24 mpg...20 city 28 highway

Adrian G

Thank you for the feedback.

It looks like the 2003 or 2004 CLK 320 is what the budget will allow for. I actually prefer the V6 as gas prices are, well…

Naturally I'm leaning towards the 04 car since 1) it's newer and 2) it's not the first year of the new chassis.

What is everyone's opinion on the 3.2l V6 engine? Problems, recalls, any special maintenance, etc.

What about the transmission? Do these hold up well as the miles rack up?

Adrian G

24mpg combined is not bad for a 35000lb car. Most of our driving will be highway so hopefully I would see more.

djumblatt

The 320's are definitely fuel efficient considering that it is not really a slow car. Also, you said your budget makes you lean to the 320...the 500's are nearly identical in price right now...probably having to do with the gas mileage. I was deciding between 3 CLK's in the same price range, two were 500's. Dealers (especially wholesalers) seem quite eager to be giving them away. Gluck !

Adrian G

Have you had any issues with it so far?

trikoid

>Have you had any issues with it so far?

Yeah, the CLK500 eats tires because it's so much FUN!

Seriously, though, he's right about 500s being cheaper. My CLK500 (admitedly, it had high mileage) was cheaper than the CLK350s available for the same year.

Also, a CLK500 will cost more to maintain - more tires, more expensive 17" tires, plus more gas, and theoretically it should wear on the tranny more than the 350 since it has more torque.

Plus you might get whiplash easier since it's so fast, and you might attract more girls in bikinis than your wife allows.

But if I was going to go practical, I would have gotten a Toyota Solara. If it were me, I would never get a 320 because the Solara is almost as much car, but cheaper. The 500 costs more to maintain, but is more fun. Trade offs.

djumblatt

Not so far...only 2 months in though. Anyway, I woulda bought the CLK500 if given the choice. I am splitting the payments with my pops, so he had the final say

JuicedMB

When considering the total cost of ownership. Eventhough the 500s are going for the same price as the 320, one must consider gas prices and maintenance costs. You also have to consider how you plan to use the vehicle.

If I was buying a weekend only vehicle, then gas prices and maintenance will not be a big of a factor. But when you are using is as a daily driver, then those factors may play a bigger role in your decisions....

JuicedMB

Are you for real. Well to each it's own. The Solara may be a good car being a toyota and all, but with it being a front wheel drive car, the experience would never be as fun. Plus the styling is bland to me. I've driven one and they don't appeal to me at all. They don't age as well as the MBs.....

djumblatt

yea theres a bigger difference between a solara and a 320 and a 320 and a 500......

Eich

If you can trust the computer's mpg calculation, I regularly get 19-20 mpg in the "city" with my '04 CLK 500 - as long as I'm not hammering the throttle. I live in a relatively flat part of Northern Virginia, so I'm not going up a lot of hills.

On the highway between Northern Virginia and Western Pennsylvania to visit my parents, I typically get 25-26 mpg. Seems like there should be a bigger difference between the CLK500 and the CLK320 in terms of gas mileage.

I'm sure a bigger difference would be seen if both cars were driven with the gas pedal to the floor. But still, just a few mpg difference under normal driving conditions would not help convince me to purchase a 320 vs a 500.

Are any MB's doing displacement on demand - where a few cylinders can be shut down when they aren't needed ? I'd like to see what kind of difference that could make with fuel economy.

JuicedMB

The other thing to consider when looking at total cost is insurance rates. I'm not sure if there is any significant difference, but it may be something to investigate.

I think that you would be happy with either the 500 or the 320. If ultimately, you're looking for the sound and torque of a V8, then you should go on a get the 500. If that isn't as important as styling, then look at the difference between the AMG style on the 500 and the non-AMG style on the 320. Of course you can get the AMG kit for the 320, but that is extra work that you have to have done.

Do labor over it. Sometimes it is better to go with your first thoughts or what your gut is saying.