VAHAGN MB

what ever happened to the great CE class MB used to make in the 90's,, I loved that model,, Are we supposidly driving the CE class of the present time,? Is the CLK the CE replacement? Does anyone know if MB has plans to bring back the CE, THat was the hottest mercedes made. What do you guys think,, Imagin it now,, Like a 2 door E class,, that would look very hot,, They should bring back the CE!!! the CE320, CE500, CE600, and the CE55 amg,, that would be great.
What ever happened to those years,,, cars were cars back then,

RohithT

Well, either the CLK is the CE's replacement, or the CLS is. Anyone know how the CE was priced? Same as the E? Above? Below?

Guest0001

I think the CE500 was way above 70,000 as it was actually based on the E Class platform. Very nice car. But expensive. CLS should be the next heir.

RohithT

$70K? Wow, wasn't that about what the SEC560 was priced at in the late 80's, early 90's? I believe that car was based off of the SEL (which has become the S-Class). I didn't realize that the SL (the SEC's successor) jumped up in price that quickly

Guest0001

yeah, but this was a time MB really made a solid product and did not really have heavy competetion from Japanese cars so their cars were super high priced. Well worth the money though. The 124 coupe was definitely a classic

Chappy

Here's mine....

Chappy

The W124 300CE was introduced in the U.S. Market in 1988 with the M103 12-valve 3.0 liter inline 6. It made 177hp and sold for about $55,000.00. Historically, the 300CE was about $10,000 more than a similarly equipped 300E sedan.

In 1990, Mercedes-Benz put in a M104 24-valve inline 3.0 six producing 217hp, which sold for about $57,000.00. Each year, the price went up a little. The sticker on my 1991 300CE was just under $60,000, but I did not have heated seats, metallic paint, ASR, or a CD changer....those options would have pushed the sticker over $65K. With this engine, the car could reach a top speed of 149mph and was equipped from the factory with z-rated tires.

In 1992, a Sportline Option was offered.

Beginning with model year 1993 (for the U.S.), a 3.2 liter 24-valve inline six (same 217hp, but increased torque) was installed in the 300CE. In 1994, the name was changed to E320 coupe. Prices were over $60,000 MSRP at this point. 1993 was the first year of the cabrio which listed over $80K! FWIW, the 560SEC was priced over $80K too.

Unfortunately, Mercedes-Benz never put a V8 into the W124 coupe. But, AMG did! However, the cost on those (in 1990-1991 dollars) was about $175,000.00

I still enjoy my CE. It serves as my daily driver and has now covered just over 193,000 miles. Still runs very strong and looks great

clkhunting

Wow! There's been a lot of deflationary pressure on the Benz...

CME4BENZ

Yes, the CE was/is a great car. My 91 has only 106,000 miles and is running great. MSRP was $56K. As Chappy suggested the only V8 powered CE was the AMG "Hammer" conversion. This was before MB purchased AMG.

A new CE would be great. Unfortunately I don't think MB will ever make one.
I would consider a CE500 built on th W211 chassis. Not going to happen. As a dedicated "coupe guy" (and I mean a true 2-door hardtop, not the fixed rear window/B-pillar coupes that most companies are selling) I geuss I will just have to go with a nice CL500 when it is time to replace the old CE.

CME4BENZ

Cabernet red with Palamino leather. Stock except 16 X 7.5 Wheels and 215/55/16 Yokohamas.

calboy

Are you sure it is based on the e-class platform/chassis? It looks a little small to be....

VAHAGN MB

see ,, they were pillarless back then as well,, nice very nice,, well
i hope MB brings the CE back to life,,that would be a true E CLASS
2 DOOR coupe,, the clk is a bit smaller to be considered the ECLASS
with 2 doors,

Chappy

CE was based on the E-Class chassis. The reason it was so expensive is that they actually shortened the sedan chassis to make the coupe and the process was reportedly labor intensive.

The CLK is based on the C-class chassis.

VAHAGN MB

i dont htink the CLK is on the same platform as the C,, the clk is a bigger car,, it is a much wider car than the C class,, i think the CLK has a different chassis all together,, i also asked a MB guy , he told me the same thing,
also,, it does not make sence,, 30K for a C class..50K for C class with 2 doors,, thats kind of odd

Guest0001

There is about a 6k difference between a C320 and CLK320 similarly equipped. 44k vs 50k.

CLK320 infact a half second slower in performance. You pay more basically for pilarless design and panache to the CLK name. Marketing 101. I would take a 500 but other wise the ill take my C320 over clk.

VAHAGN MB

so how come the inside of the CLK is Wider,, and more room in the back,, similar to an E class, the C class sedan is very small inside,, how come the dash is similar to the E class,, I think the C class coupe is the hatch back they have

Guest0001

I think you are misunderstanding something. Its BASED on the C class. Like a modified version of a C-Class. The CLK is longer, but not wider. The center console is identical to the C (biggest thing I disliked in the CLK). The room is not that big a difference. As you know, Even Harris said this, 90% of the mods and suspension can be interchanged from the C to CLK. Only the instrament cluster appears to look E class-ish in the CLK.

VAHAGN MB

i think u need to go sit in a clk ,, the c class is allot smaller inside,, trust me
my friend has a c class and ive rented a few myself,, it feels allot smaller than my clk,, I think any CLK owner will agree with me,,

Guest0001

Ive sat in a CLK 50 times before making my decision man lol. I didnt see a big difference. im not a huge dude either so its minimal. If i wanted a large car id get something else.

RJC

Man thoses tires look dry! I know you have a new 209 on the way but come on man...


I had a 92 300CE, pearl black with dove gray leather. 92' was the last year for the 3.0 24v engine which had a 7000 rpm redline, what a great smooth and powerful engine. The car was $62,000 new.

RohithT

Sure this is way off topic, but what the hell

CLK vs. C dimensions (in inches, from MBUSA.com)

CLK C E
Length 182.6" 178.2 189.7
Wheelbase 106.9 106.9 112.4
Width 68.5 68 71.3
Front Track 58.9 58.8 61.4
Rear Track 58 57.6 61.1
Height 55.4 55 57.2

As you can see, the CLK differs from the C in every dimension by only a half inch of less, save for overall length, but is smaller by several inches than the E. The identical wheelbases make it fairly obvious that the CLK and C are related.
So what does this all mean? Only that one of the great things about design is how easily it can deceive your eyes.

I've driven both the CLK and the C, and I think the C is more 'airy' relative to the CLK (few if any cars this small actually feel airy), but the CLK is a whole lot more comfortable. The cars were both '04's, and I was really dissappointed with the C's ride and handling, but thought the CLK drove great (power was fine on both). They really didn't feel like they were based off the same vehicle. Hopefully the '05 C-Class updates remedied the interior and handling issues the '04 C that I drove had (granted, I didn't drive the sports version).

Guest0001

Yeah stock C class is very boat like. Sports pkg one is better but not by much. Suspension is wayyyy to soft. I agree the CLK ride is more refined but handling on both was about the same imo. any benz has crap handling, even amg owners complain about there cars.

Holson

I really want a 300CE-24 or E320 (E320 would be the first choice for its updated looks, and Much better stereo)

that blue black (black pearl) with Carlsson 1/6 wheels is gorgeous!! They look really aggressive with big wheels, lowered stance, and elegant with all its windows down

Guest0001

that one with the black wheels is butt ugly

samwzhang

Here's my take on C-class, CLK-class and E-class drawn from my actual experience:

C-class is a small entry level luxury sedan with the lowest price tag among the three. Its styling and console design resembles that of the CLK-class but the similarities end there. The thing about C-class is... It does not really "feel" like a Mercedes-Benz, for everything's so “normal” in this car. Handling’s mediocre, ride is consistent and nothing exciting, car feels light weighted, and door closes with a cheap plasticy sound... even the interior leather appears flimsy. Far less prestigious brands offer cars bearing all these characteristics.

CLK-class does offer a more refined ride. Driving over small obstacles, you can really feel the improved structure rigidity. The quality of interior is improved over that of the C-class in places such as seats and woods. Just like the E-class, chrome finishes were applied virtually everywhere wood exists. The handling is sharper than both C and E-classes but still may not satisfy true sports car enthusiasts. For one thing, when go through sharp corners, the car has a lot of body rolls which may scare anyone who intends to push the car to its limit.

The thing is, if you are looking for the most "expensive" driving experience of the three, CLK would have to be the pick, for it feels like such a heavy car! Even if you choose the AMG model, you can still feel the weight beneath you. This maybe a good thing, since weight inspires more confident cornering and high way stability, however inevitably gas mileage and performance would suffer. CLK's ride, in many ways, resembles that of the SL-class.

Being dimensionally larger then the C-class, the CLK class actually feels smaller inside. Folded backseats would help the luggage capacity a bit, but it's still the least roomy of the three. For this reason, if one is used to huge American coupes such as the old Cadi, the ride in CLK will surely disappoint.

This is where E-class scores. The car has ample shoulder room and luggage space for folded back seats come standard on all E-class models. My only complaint would have to be the leg room in both front and rear seats. But then again only long-wheel-base S-class may truly satisfy me on this issue. The interior material feels richer than that in the C-class, many controls are chrome finished giving the interior a shaper look. But that is all there is. The handling of E resembles that of the C, to put in an extreme way "boat like". Ride is nothing special on the models without airmatic. The whole car feels light-weighted and shaky. Bear in mind the "shakiness" may not be the case for all E-classes, although both of the E-classes I drove, one wagon, one sedan, had quite a bit of shaky noise coming from the front console.

In some way, I much prefer the tightness and nimbleness of C-class over the E-class. But in the end, driving a Mercedes-Benz is much more about luxury and image than drivability. That is why E-class, with its “big-car-appeal”, gets my vote of the two sedans.

The CLK-class, with its distinctive drivability, justifies the extra cost over its platform sharing C-class counterpart. I would not be surprised to see a CLK costing 10-20k over the E-class, had it had the same dimensions and tech toys of the E. Such a thing has already appeared, namely, the CLS-class. Although its classification as either a sedan or coupe is still widely argued, there is little doubt that CLS serves to fill in the gap between CLK-class and CL-class.