When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just replaced my 07' cab 4 months ago... The progression for me was to stick with the coupes (sort of) and got a CLS400. Loving it!
Very nice. My wife told me we need another 2 door like we need a hole in the head. She loves them but we have too many. A CLS400 4M sounds like a nice replacement. Did you get Airmatic with it? How reliable has it been?
Very nice. My wife told me we need another 2 door like we need a hole in the head. She loves them but we have too many. A CLS400 4M sounds like a nice replacement. Did you get Airmatic with it? How reliable has it been?
I did get the airmatic. I love the car. Others will tell you the back seat is a pain to get in and out... But coming from a clk getting in you own back door is like a new world. Lol. I have two young kids who get in occasionally so it's not a problem. I'll tell ya the biggest difference is all the electronics. Parktronic, massage seats, parking assist, all the customizing you can now do, etc. Funny going from the 3.5l in my old clk to the 3.0l turbo you get more HP and better gas milage at the same time. Only issue I've had in the last few months is an oversensitive parking sensor. Plan on taking care of it myself this summer.
I have a 2002 CLK55 with 125K on it. It runs great but I have spent about $5k on it in the last year. Mostly wear items but it all came around the same time. I have rust on the wheel wells, rocker panels...all the common places for this year. My girlfriend thinks I am insane but there isn't much out there these days that competes. I'm on the fence about fixing the rust. I have a good body man and plan on replacing the body panels and get a fresh paint job. It will be about $5k. I know its crazy because the car isn't worth $5k. I have looked around at CLK550 coupes and considering that....who knows. I feel like if I wanted to sell my CLK55 or trade it in, I'd get very little due to the rust....so I think about keeping it. Reality is, I am paying either way. If I sink $5k into fixing the body, that seems crazy. But if I buy something newer, its car payments, higher insurance etc. Plus if I bought a 2009 CLK550, that is now a 10 year old car which could require repairs.
I would do anything to have my CLK55 as it was when I bought it 11 years ago with 53K miles.
I also have a 2006 E55 with 78K on it. The CLK55 is more of a daily driver. Next car will probably be a CLK550, E550 couple, or SUV - either the GLK350 or ML350 / 550.
Sounds as though someone has a thing for their 55.... I totally understand. I have near 180k miles and I have 1 or 2 repairs a year that I can't do myself. I am some distance from having saved enough of my social security to buy a McLaren 570, but I could be convinced to get the new Corvette after a year or 2 of debugging. That would likely be an addition rather than a replacement as I plan to have the 550s engine rebuilt this fall/winter.... Me to crazy..... and in love......
The '05 320CLK is the wife's car. She regrets it's not manual. Being older, it's starting to require more love. Some suspension work & a driver's seat was the most recent. Time to start looking.
She's in love with the Lotus Elise, but thankfully those aren't made anymore. She liked the Porsche Boxter, but those aren't manual anymore. So its up in the air at this point. But with 140K on the odo, we'll be finding something soon.
Test drove a Porsche Boxster S 981. I think I found the CLK replacement. The wife loves it and that shocked me her daily driver is an ML. The CLK is aging very well. At least the post facelifted ones are.
The '05 320CLK is the wife's car. She regrets it's not manual. Being older, it's starting to require more love. Some suspension work & a driver's seat was the most recent. Time to start looking.
She's in love with the Lotus Elise, but thankfully those aren't made anymore. She liked the Porsche Boxter, but those aren't manual anymore. So its up in the air at this point. But with 140K on the odo, we'll be finding something soon.
This question was asked on the "other" MB group, and my answer remains the same.
Two seats (check), good looking (check), "reasonable" performance (check, oh yeah baby, check!). A bit awkward to get in and out of, and don't let the valet try to park it. Fuel mileage stinks, but that's not what we buy them for. You can actually buy one of these for (just) under $100K, but there is some upkeep cost, and they tend to be a bit thirsty.
.
As to replacing the CLK, I'm presently planning to keep it indefinitely.
That looks pretty cool, and is almost as old as a CLK lol.
I'm guessing the $100K versions probably need a lot of work, and that there is no way an average person is going to spend less than $100K per year on maintenance. Just a random guess on my part, though.
Ah, even though I love my CLK 350 I will likely, next year I think, go back to an older muscle car. I am finally of the age where I have time and some money to play with one, so would like to go back to a dream style car of my youth... and get back into a manual transmission. I will miss the luxury of my CLK and the ease of driving... who knows, maybe I'll keep her. The muscle car would be my daily driver though.
Numbers - A decent, flyable T-33 runs about $100K. Prices have been stable for the last decade since by far the largest expense for these is fuel, and until recently fuel was $5/gallon, which depressed the prices of the airplanes. It burns 375 gallons per hour at 450 mph, so about $3.50 a mile (at average Jet-A price of $4.25-ish a gallon), a mile goes by in 7.8 seconds. Range is about 650 miles, more if you add tip tanks. (Jet fuel is measured in pounds, I've converted to gallons for ease of comparison.) An hour's flight is going to cost $1,400 to $1,600 just for fuel, but remember, you went 450 miles in that hour. Maintenance is considered to be "not too bad", these are relatively simple airplanes. Allegedly, they cost less to maintain than a Learjet or Citation (Cessna, not Chevy ;-)
If you wanted to fly 30 to 40 hours a year, you're looking at probably sixty grand in fuel alone, but you'd have covered 27,000 miles and had a helluva good time doing it. Michael Dorn (Worf/Star Trek, wonder if he ever flew it in costume?) had one of these, there are a few in private hands here and there. Arthur Jones (who established Nautilus exercise equipment) had one, his wife inherited it after he died. There was also one sold at auction here a few years ago but the engine and airframe logs were utterly blank "So you're telling me this airplane has never been flown since 1954 when it was built?"
These are definitely toys for people with LOTS of disposable income . . .
Numbers - A decent, flyable T-33 runs about $100K. Prices have been stable for the last decade since by far the largest expense for these is fuel, and until recently fuel was $5/gallon, which depressed the prices of the airplanes. It burns 375 gallons per hour at 450 mph, so about $3.50 a mile (at average Jet-A price of $4.25-ish a gallon), a mile goes by in 7.8 seconds. Range is about 650 miles, more if you add tip tanks. (Jet fuel is measured in pounds, I've converted to gallons for ease of comparison.) An hour's flight is going to cost $1,400 to $1,600 just for fuel, but remember, you went 450 miles in that hour. Maintenance is considered to be "not too bad", these are relatively simple airplanes. Allegedly, they cost less to maintain than a Learjet or Citation (Cessna, not Chevy ;-)
If you wanted to fly 30 to 40 hours a year, you're looking at probably sixty grand in fuel alone, but you'd have covered 27,000 miles and had a helluva good time doing it. Michael Dorn (Worf/Star Trek, wonder if he ever flew it in costume?) had one of these, there are a few in private hands here and there. Arthur Jones (who established Nautilus exercise equipment) had one, his wife inherited it after he died. There was also one sold at auction here a few years ago but the engine and airframe logs were utterly blank "So you're telling me this airplane has never been flown since 1954 when it was built?"
These are definitely toys for people with LOTS of disposable income . . .
Interesting, thanks for the info. It's actually reasonable if you're a fairly high net worth individual. Given that I drive a CLK, I'm unfortunately not in that group!
I just added a 2015 SLK-350 to my garage, though I keep using my CLK since it is in pristine condition and runs really smooth (even at 125K miles)... I’ll eventually hand it to my son... I’ve had the 2007 CLK-350 for about 10 years and love it - I think these cars can last 250,000 miles easily.
I just added a 2015 SLK-350 to my garage, though I keep using my CLK since it is in pristine condition and runs really smooth (even at 125K miles)... I’ll eventually hand it to my son... I’ve had the 2007 CLK-350 for about 10 years and love it - I think these cars can last 250,000 miles easily.
Black 2004 CLK (w209) 320 Cabrio auto transm. "Elegance" trim; <br /> 2014 A180 black man.
What will be next after my W209/A209 black 2004 CLK 320 cabrio? Not an easy question after such wonderful ride...
I like the A209 lifestyle. It's now my daily ride. It's also a statement car without overdoing it. If my current 2004 CLK 320 decides to quit, I might go for another late years A209 or an SL (if I happen to see one with a reasonnable price tag, doubtful). I have tried both new MB topless models. Granted they look good. But I was somewhat disapointed. They aren't as luxury ride as the W209. I felt sitting in a "cheaper" car. Also not the same glamour with onlookers. My significant other with her Russian culture presses me to go for an SUV I might settle for a Range Rover Evoque Cabrio Porsche? Could be, could be. I have tried other topless rides from BMW, Audi. Not convinced. I also don't like the sugardaddy-look of a cabrio Bentley or Rolls-Royce
What will be next after my W209/A209 black 2004 CLK 320 cabrio? Not an easy question after such wonderful ride...
I like the A209 lifestyle. It's now my daily ride. It's also a statement car without overdoing it. If my current 2004 CLK 320 decides to quit, I might go for another late years A209 or an SL (if I happen to see one with a reasonnable price tag, doubtful). I have tried both new MB topless models. Granted they look good. But I was somewhat disapointed. They aren't as luxury ride as the W209. I felt sitting in a "cheaper" car. Also not the same glamour with onlookers. My significant other with her Russian culture presses me to go for an SUV I might settle for a Range Rover Evoque Cabrio Porsche? Could be, could be. I have tried other topless rides from BMW, Audi. Not convinced. I also don't like the sugardaddy-look of a cabrio Bentley or Rolls-Royce
Have you checked out the 2010-2011 E Class by chance? I've sort of regretted not looking into those more before I bought my 2008 CLK.
Regarding a Range Rover, my Mercedes is unreliable enough- I can't imagine a Range Rover lol.
2009 SL550 Roadster Diamond White, 2008 CLK550 Coupe Obsidian Black
That's a hard question. I've had my 08 CLK550 for about 5.5 years (good timing for this post lol). She's got almost 150k miles on her and runs great. After getting the SL, I thought I would just sell the CLK and be over with it. However, between not getting what I believe is fair for it (most I got offered was $4k and I asked as low as $6k) and realizing the SL is not so everyday friendly for me, I decided to keep the CLK. It's hard to let go since it does everything quite well (not the best at 1 thing or another imo, except the power/performance side in this engine variant). I looked into a facelift W212 E coupe, but I didn't like the following things:
1. The 350 was lacking in the torque department for me coming from the 550 (E550 coupes are pretty hard to find here and they go for a lot more than the 350s used; never looked into the 400s really, I would compare those more to the CLK500 performance wise).
2. The seats felt quite narrow for me compared to the CLKs. Even though they had nicer features like the 4-way lumbar and even the optional multi-contour, but the side bolsters on the bottom seat would bother my thighs because of the narrowness.
3. The visibility is reduced quite a bit compared to the CLK due to the lower roof-line and smaller rear window glass (also the rear seats have fixed headrests on the coupe, not sure on the convertible).
That little fixed glass in the back is kinda annoying but I think I realize the reason for it (I've noticed on the CLK coupe with all the windows down at hwy speeds when some friends have sat in the back the air going through would "flap" their seat belts. Not sure if anyone else has noticed this as well.
The E coupe is still a good replacement I believe for most if you are looking to "upgrade" your CLK. The tech inside is great (but I'm sure quite behind now compared to the current E coupe, but that's the electronics game). I've not driven the new E450 coupes, but the engine is quite nice on those (would actually compared it to the CLK550 performance wise).
Overall, I'm glad I've kept the car. I honestly appreciate somethings more about this car since getting the SL interestingly enough. I appreciate the simpleness yet refinement. I'm still so surprised how quiet the car is on the hwy. The SL roof also makes a lot of creaks and I feel it is amplified since it has the glass roof thereby not being as "solid". I noticed this previously on my friends 06 SL55 versus his cousins 05 SL500 that didn't have the glass for the roof.
It might sound petty but that little piece of glass at the end of the B-pillar (C?) annoys me enough to never consider an E coupe as a replacement.
Even more so because the convertible doesn't have it, and I don't like convertibles.
Ha ha, for some reason I was thinking there was an interior piece of glass in the coupe (which made no sense to me, but whatever!). Now I see what you guys are talking about.
Yeah, it's an odd look (the car looks too elongated or something) but it doesn't bother me to the extent that I wouldn't buy the car. I would only buy the 2010 or 2011, though, as the later V8 E Class coupe models all had turbos. I prefer N/A engines, since they are subjected to less stress (less compression, they run cooler, etc.) and there's less stuff to break.
04-09-2019, 07:56 AM
I totally understand. I have near 180k miles and I have 1 or 2 repairs a year that I can't do myself. I am some distance from having saved enough of my social security to buy a McLaren 570, but I could be convinced to get the new Corvette after a year or 2 of debugging. That would likely be an addition rather than a replacement as I plan to have the 550s engine rebuilt this fall/winter.... Me to crazy..... and in love......
I might settle for a Range Rover Evoque Cabrio 
