clk320 vs 330ci
05-20-2003, 08:23 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'14 A6 3.0 TFSI
In my opinion...
I see many people are mentioning the CLK500, but you're comparing the 320 with the 330. Personally I'd go with the 330. I think you're getting a better value with the 330 consider the performance/ride/drive of the two vehicles. You can't beat the styling of the CLK, and it shows in the price. I really like the ride and drive of the 330, but I live in the country and actually have the chance to use the handing on a daily basis. The seats are very comfortable (opinion). I like seats that wrap around me. Plus they upped their warranty to 4-year/50k scheduled maintenance. BMW service deptartments don't have rave reviews though. If I had 10k more, I would've bought the 330Ci over the C230 I'm getting now. Don't care for the 325, not enough guts, plus it's about 4k more than the C230 I'm getting and my car has more equipment. Go figure! Now if you WERE comparing the 500 to the 330, I'd say go for the 500. The 320 is lacking power. Need the 3.7 unit from the ML. Just my thoughts.
05-20-2003, 11:25 PM
#27
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 CLK500
My wife has a CLK500 and I have a 330i. Two completely different cars. Mine is a stick, hers only comes with auto. The way I see it...if you want a stick: go with the 330, if you want an auto trans: go with the MB.
I feel that BMW's steptronic is weak, whereas, MB trans is very good for being automatic.
I feel that BMW's steptronic is weak, whereas, MB trans is very good for being automatic.
05-22-2003, 08:24 PM
#28
Having had a 330Ci previously, BMW's Steptronic is better than the automatic in my CLK 430 or CLK 500. The BMW auto transmission is programed to blip the throtle on a downshift, for smoothness. The CLK 500's auto transmission does not. Score one for BMW.
05-22-2003, 10:23 PM
#30
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clk 500
mbtogonow
mark335 says
"there's alot more power with the 500,... that's not to say that the 330 has no power. i thought it had decent power."
The CLK500 may have much more hp but that doesn't translate to it having "a lot more power" (i.e., faster). According to Car and Driver:
CLK500: 0-60=5.7s
BMW330Ci: 0-60=6.1
mark335 now says,
mb have you driven both cars??? or at least sat in both cars while they are fully accelerating??? i wrote "POWER," not hp or speed. if you look at the articles, the 6.1 time refers to a manual tranny, thus there is going to be a difference in 0-60 times. mbs are autos.
try driving both with auto trannies, then you'll notice what im talking about.
by the way, power does not equal "i.e. faster."
fyi, its better to talk from experience rather than talk about what youve read.
mark335 says
"there's alot more power with the 500,... that's not to say that the 330 has no power. i thought it had decent power."
The CLK500 may have much more hp but that doesn't translate to it having "a lot more power" (i.e., faster). According to Car and Driver:
CLK500: 0-60=5.7s
BMW330Ci: 0-60=6.1
mark335 now says,
mb have you driven both cars??? or at least sat in both cars while they are fully accelerating??? i wrote "POWER," not hp or speed. if you look at the articles, the 6.1 time refers to a manual tranny, thus there is going to be a difference in 0-60 times. mbs are autos.
try driving both with auto trannies, then you'll notice what im talking about.
by the way, power does not equal "i.e. faster."
fyi, its better to talk from experience rather than talk about what youve read.
