KnightRider

There are 4 engines in the pricelist with roughly the same power, however it is achieved very differently in each case. 0-100 km/h acceleration is identical. The cost is gradually elevated like I've listed them. For someone in a market for that kind of power and performance that's an amazing selection!

CLK 200 K - Eu 35.264 (petrol supercharged)
R4 1.796 cc, 163 HP and 240 NM

CLK 200 CGI - Eu 36.424 (petrol direct injection)
R4 1.796 cc, 170 HP and 250 NM

CLK 240 - Eu 38.222 (petrol normally aspirated)
V6 2.597 cc, 170 HP and 240 NM

CLK 270 CDI - Eu 38.918 (turbodiesel)
R5 2.685 cc, 170 HP and 400 NM

jff2k

I think it's just because the different fuel, there is a Diesel and a 2.4 liter V6

CLK 200 Kompressor/supercharger:
average fuel consumption: 8,6 l/100km/h
CO2-Emission in (g/km)3: 206
Acceleration 0-100 km/h [s]: 9,3
---
With a completely new developed 4cyl. engine.
---

CLK 200 CGI:
average fuel consumption: 7,9 l/100km/h
CO2-Emission in (g/km)3: 190
Acceleration 0-100 km/h [s]: 9,2
---
first time: a patrol direct injection 4cyl. engine by MB, with low CO2-emmisions.
---

CLK 240:
average fuel consumption: 10,8 l/100km/h
CO2-Emission in (g/km)3: 259
Acceleration 0-100 km/h [s]: 9,2
---
well, it's a V6 with more displacement some people love V6...
---

CLK 270 CDI:
average fuel consumption: 6,7 l/100km/h
CO2-Emission in (g/km)3: 178
Acceleration 0-100 km/h [s]: 9,2
--
that doesn't need an explanation - it's a Diesel! For the European market, because of the high taxation!
---


well, it's hard to say, why Mercedes builds a CLK 200 Kompressor and a CGI, although the CGI is better than the Kompressor... maybe people won't be sure to buy a completely new engine...
better sound? *sfg*

Pissman

The article below explains the differences between the 200 Kompressor and the 200 CGI better than I could, and why Mercedes needs both engines in the range...

http://www.4car.co.uk/jsp/main.jsp?lnk=220&storyid=1536

Hope this helps

jff2k

i sum up the link above:

The new CLK 200 CGI engine - it stands for (stratified) Charge
Gasoline Injection - complies with the forthcoming EU4 emissions
rules. But the engine needs 98-octane, sulphur-free fuel to
work properly, and that's readily available only in Germany,
Austria and Switzerland!

Biside this fact, 98-octane fuel is much more expensive and highly
taxed. All of which discourages the public from turning to the
more energy-efficient high-octane fuels that future ultra-clean
cars will need. Many modern cars with adaptive engine
management systems run more efficiently on super unleaded,
but the cost turns motorists away. Sulphur-free fuel is
essential if carmakers are to build cars able to average less than
140g/km CO2 emissions across all sales by 2010, a figure to
which they are committed under the Kyoto Accord on
greenhouse gases.

---
COMMENT:
So Mercedes-Benz produces the CLK 200 Kompressor just because the more economic car - CLK 200 CGI - is to expensive in fuel!!

Well, in Germany one liter 91-octan fuel costs about 1,00 Euro, 95-octan fuel nearly 1,06 Euro, 98-octan more than 1,10 Euro (1,00 Euro = 0,92 USD) - In Switzerland 95-octan costs about 0,90 Euro and 98-octan about 0,95 Euro...
---

the end of the 4car text:
And if the CLK 200 CGI is a guide, an ultra-clean direct-injection
car can still provide a lively drive. The engine is very smooth, it
responds crisply and powerfully to the throttle, and apart from an
occasional slight hesitancy when switching from lean to power
modes it feels just like any other good, powerful engine. It needs
to be revved to give its best, but the supercharger's whine is
subdued and the whole experience is very civilised. Lean-burn
economy with great driveability. Fuel permitting, the future is
looking good.