cancel my clk320 for nissan 350Z ???
12-21-2002, 08:32 AM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its a mercedes......
The Z will be faster and cheaper though, but much less luxurious. It all depends on what you value more...luxury or performance. Only you can decide that. One thing to consider is the Infiniti G35...am I wrong or is that pretty much the 350Z with some more luxury goodies? You may like that more...of course, there is the CLK500 
12-21-2002, 09:30 AM
#5
Super Member
Go buy a mass-production 350Z and within 1 year you car won't have exclusivity or be special anymore. Because every Tom, Dick and Harry on road will have one. Japanese cars are like fashion, it will be out of style or season sooner than you think. Go buy a 350Z and I will bet in couple of years you will be back. I will stick with BENZs for life especially the AMGs.
John
John
12-22-2002, 01:36 AM
#6
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clk 500
drove the 350z, typical nissan. not impressed with the interior. car only had 800 miles, but the interior seemed several years old.
350z imo is not much faster.
if youre only looking for speed, think about an m3. looks and performs much better.
350z imo is not much faster.
if youre only looking for speed, think about an m3. looks and performs much better.
Trending Topics
12-23-2002, 01:40 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by e_one09
I would pick CLK320 over Nissan 350Z anytime. By the way, has anyone seen the 350Z advertisement called "The Run"? It was one hell of a great show.
I would pick CLK320 over Nissan 350Z anytime. By the way, has anyone seen the 350Z advertisement called "The Run"? It was one hell of a great show.
12-23-2002, 04:57 AM
#10
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
if you want more speed and still want to have some sort of luxury, the G35 coupe is a far better choice than the 350Z.
But then again, CLK320 is a Mercedes-Benz.
But then again, CLK320 is a Mercedes-Benz.
12-23-2002, 05:33 AM
#11
should i cancel my order for nissan 350Z ?
...............Cancel both.
................Place an order for a CLK350. You get better performance more HP and exclusivity at the same time, but yopu don't pay the $60,000 for a CLK500. The new CLK320's where just a bad bad bad idea.
Ted
...............Cancel both.
................Place an order for a CLK350. You get better performance more HP and exclusivity at the same time, but yopu don't pay the $60,000 for a CLK500. The new CLK320's where just a bad bad bad idea.
Ted
12-23-2002, 05:59 AM
#12
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
should i cancel my order for nissan 350Z ?
...............Cancel both.
................Place an order for a CLK350. You get better performance more HP and exclusivity at the same time, but yopu don't pay the $60,000 for a CLK500. The new CLK320's where just a bad bad bad idea.
Ted
should i cancel my order for nissan 350Z ?
...............Cancel both.
................Place an order for a CLK350. You get better performance more HP and exclusivity at the same time, but yopu don't pay the $60,000 for a CLK500. The new CLK320's where just a bad bad bad idea.
Ted
12-23-2002, 07:29 PM
#14
there's no word on when or will the 350 model came and replace the 320.
............Yes, they do not want to affect the the sale of the W209 CLK 320 that are already in production. The CLK 350 is rumored to be out in the summer of 2003 as a 2004 model.
Ted
............Yes, they do not want to affect the the sale of the W209 CLK 320 that are already in production. The CLK 350 is rumored to be out in the summer of 2003 as a 2004 model.
Ted
12-23-2002, 09:52 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi S4
Dont cancel for a 350Z... like another person said, if you want a performance car thats classy and wont look like crap in 3 years, get an M3. They are beautiful and you can get the SMG tranny.
12-24-2002, 12:03 AM
#16
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
there's no word on when or will the 350 model came and replace the 320.
............Yes, they do not want to affect the the sale of the W209 CLK 320 that are already in production. The CLK 350 is rumored to be out in the summer of 2003 as a 2004 model.
Ted
there's no word on when or will the 350 model came and replace the 320.
............Yes, they do not want to affect the the sale of the W209 CLK 320 that are already in production. The CLK 350 is rumored to be out in the summer of 2003 as a 2004 model.
Ted
I know that MB will replace the ML320 to ML350 though. It's also possible that the E320 will be changed.
all rumor btw.
12-24-2002, 12:36 AM
#17
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: California
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLK320 (w209)
There is always something nice(r) coming next year, or the year after. BTW, i read somewhere that they will not put the 3.7L in the CLK but a brand new 4-valve 3.0L (or 3.2L). This might explain why they didn't put the 3.7L in from the beginning .... it will never be. Same apply to the new E-class
I cannot understand why you would compare the 350Z and 320CLK. If HP is a top priority, the 320CLK is indeed a lousy choice. ..... it's all about priorities.
Cheers
I cannot understand why you would compare the 350Z and 320CLK. If HP is a top priority, the 320CLK is indeed a lousy choice. ..... it's all about priorities.
Cheers
12-24-2002, 03:09 AM
#18
I cannot understand why you would compare the 350Z and 320CLK. If HP is a top priority, the 320CLK is indeed a lousy choice. ..... it's all about priorities.
.............the 350Z and the G35 were developed to compete with BMW 3 series and mercedes CLK. HP is not really the issue but performance is the issue. The CLK 320 actually has the same HP that it always had, but because it now weighs more the performance dropped. Comparing the 350Z or G35 to a CLK 320 is legimate. It is similar to comparing the S class to the Q45 or Lexus LS 470. If not, then what car would you compare the CLK 320 to? You can bet that when the G35 and 350Z were being developed Nissan was looking squarely at the CLK market. If you buy a CLK 320 without the extras such as comand and voice recognition phone and partronics etc, then driving the G35 to me gives you a much better driving experience than the CLK320. I do not know about the 350Z because I have not driven it yet. If you added the extras to your CLK 320, then the price which is already $10,000 more than the G35 or 350 Z rises considerably. Nissan really did do there home work.
Ted
Ted
.............the 350Z and the G35 were developed to compete with BMW 3 series and mercedes CLK. HP is not really the issue but performance is the issue. The CLK 320 actually has the same HP that it always had, but because it now weighs more the performance dropped. Comparing the 350Z or G35 to a CLK 320 is legimate. It is similar to comparing the S class to the Q45 or Lexus LS 470. If not, then what car would you compare the CLK 320 to? You can bet that when the G35 and 350Z were being developed Nissan was looking squarely at the CLK market. If you buy a CLK 320 without the extras such as comand and voice recognition phone and partronics etc, then driving the G35 to me gives you a much better driving experience than the CLK320. I do not know about the 350Z because I have not driven it yet. If you added the extras to your CLK 320, then the price which is already $10,000 more than the G35 or 350 Z rises considerably. Nissan really did do there home work.
Ted
Ted
12-24-2002, 03:21 AM
#20
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
I cannot understand why you would compare the 350Z and 320CLK. If HP is a top priority, the 320CLK is indeed a lousy choice. ..... it's all about priorities.
.............the 350Z and the G35 were developed to compete with BMW 3 series and mercedes CLK. HP is not really the issue but performance is the issue. The CLK 320 actually has the same HP that it always had, but because it now weighs more the performance dropped. Comparing the 350Z or G35 to a CLK 320 is legimate. It is similar to comparing the S class to the Q45 or Lexus LS 470. If not, then what car would you compare the CLK 320 to? You can bet that when the G35 and 350Z were being developed Nissan was looking squarely at the CLK market. If you buy a CLK 320 without the extras such as comand and voice recognition phone and partronics etc, then driving the G35 to me gives you a much better driving experience than the CLK320. I do not know about the 350Z because I have not driven it yet. If you added the extras to your CLK 320, then the price which is already $10,000 more than the G35 or 350 Z rises considerably. Nissan really did do there home work.
Ted
Ted
I cannot understand why you would compare the 350Z and 320CLK. If HP is a top priority, the 320CLK is indeed a lousy choice. ..... it's all about priorities.
.............the 350Z and the G35 were developed to compete with BMW 3 series and mercedes CLK. HP is not really the issue but performance is the issue. The CLK 320 actually has the same HP that it always had, but because it now weighs more the performance dropped. Comparing the 350Z or G35 to a CLK 320 is legimate. It is similar to comparing the S class to the Q45 or Lexus LS 470. If not, then what car would you compare the CLK 320 to? You can bet that when the G35 and 350Z were being developed Nissan was looking squarely at the CLK market. If you buy a CLK 320 without the extras such as comand and voice recognition phone and partronics etc, then driving the G35 to me gives you a much better driving experience than the CLK320. I do not know about the 350Z because I have not driven it yet. If you added the extras to your CLK 320, then the price which is already $10,000 more than the G35 or 350 Z rises considerably. Nissan really did do there home work.
Ted
Ted
12-24-2002, 05:32 PM
#22
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E320
I challenge any of you to drive these two cars back to back.
There is no comparison. Don't get me wrong, the 350Z is decent and fast, but the handling, quiet, excitement, luxury, etc. of the CLK is in a totally different class. And.....although the CLK is a bit slower, the torque curve is substantially better and they both feel about as fast.
Try it.
There is no comparison. Don't get me wrong, the 350Z is decent and fast, but the handling, quiet, excitement, luxury, etc. of the CLK is in a totally different class. And.....although the CLK is a bit slower, the torque curve is substantially better and they both feel about as fast.
Try it.
12-24-2002, 06:16 PM
#23
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Mercedes SLK350
i have
the z is sooo much faster. its pickup from standstill is nothing compared to the clk (meaning it's much better than the clk.) personally i think the 320 is very very slow. plus, the z just looks sooo bad ***. the 320 is much more elegant. really depends on which one you want. they are in completely different leagues. the z is for performance , the 320 is for crusing. the z is to drive fast on the tracks, the 320 is to drive down the street and pick up chicks. it does have three more seats. and cost 20k more.
the z is sooo much faster. its pickup from standstill is nothing compared to the clk (meaning it's much better than the clk.) personally i think the 320 is very very slow. plus, the z just looks sooo bad ***. the 320 is much more elegant. really depends on which one you want. they are in completely different leagues. the z is for performance , the 320 is for crusing. the z is to drive fast on the tracks, the 320 is to drive down the street and pick up chicks. it does have three more seats. and cost 20k more.
12-25-2002, 03:24 AM
#24
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: California
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLK320 (w209)
I wonder how the Nissan would hold up to real life long term fast driving.
I lived in Germany 1989-96, putting ~100K miles on a 300CE. Plenty of autobahn driving at ~200kmh (125mph) cruising and over. What impressed me the most was the condition of the car, and i wouldn't have sold it unless i moved to the US. It still felt almost as new. On long journeys, driving for hours at 5000rpm, having to frequently break hard down to 60mph for those dammed trucks pulling out in front of you, without the breaks going soft, and then accelerate up to cruising speed again, put a lot of stress on the car. Never had a major repair.
I doubt many cars can take that high speed long term punishment than an MB and some other well known cars.
Maybe its me, but i can't see a major reason to desire more HP than a 320 for US driving. If i was living in Germany, I probably would buy a 500 for the 100mph+ acceleration up to cruising speed (and the breaks!!!), but then I'm not a red light racer, but i do like high speed driving which i cannot practice in US, never. Actually, my only wish is for the 320 engine to be smoother. If the 2.6L was offered in the US and it was smoother (and cheaper), i probably preferred that one.
As for the Nissan, well, its not for me.
Cheers
I lived in Germany 1989-96, putting ~100K miles on a 300CE. Plenty of autobahn driving at ~200kmh (125mph) cruising and over. What impressed me the most was the condition of the car, and i wouldn't have sold it unless i moved to the US. It still felt almost as new. On long journeys, driving for hours at 5000rpm, having to frequently break hard down to 60mph for those dammed trucks pulling out in front of you, without the breaks going soft, and then accelerate up to cruising speed again, put a lot of stress on the car. Never had a major repair.
I doubt many cars can take that high speed long term punishment than an MB and some other well known cars.
Maybe its me, but i can't see a major reason to desire more HP than a 320 for US driving. If i was living in Germany, I probably would buy a 500 for the 100mph+ acceleration up to cruising speed (and the breaks!!!), but then I'm not a red light racer, but i do like high speed driving which i cannot practice in US, never. Actually, my only wish is for the 320 engine to be smoother. If the 2.6L was offered in the US and it was smoother (and cheaper), i probably preferred that one.
As for the Nissan, well, its not for me.
Cheers
