champaigntaste

Background

I plan to purchase a new vehicle this summer or fall. I am trying to limit the cost of the new vehicle to no more than $58,000 and have narrowed my new vehicle choices to a Mercedes E or CLK series automobile. Our other vehicle will be our 2001 BMW X5 4.4.

I live in a location where roads are relatively flat, straight and in mostly good condition. Potholes exist, but are rare. Surfaces susceptible to tramlining are nonexistent. We get snow, but not in great quantities. The last four or five years we have averaged only a handful of snows each year where the accumulations resulted in the roads not being cleared relatively quickly. Temperatures can dip below zero, but this has been rare, especially in the last four or five years.

I drive at high speeds, but usually in a straight line without hard cornering. I typically only push the limits of the vehicle when swerving to avoid objects or accidents when that becomes necessary. The new vehicle will probably average about 15,000 miles a year. I estimate that 4,000 - 5,000 of the 15,000 mile average per year will be one or two long trips. About 90% of the time, there won’t be more than two people in the vehicle.


No BMW

While I have enjoyed my current and previous BMW automobiles and have received excellent service from our local BMW dealer, you will notice a BMW isn’t one of my options. I drove a new BMW 530 with the sport package and really liked the handling, in fact better (but not overwhelmingly so) than either Mercedes. From an exterior perspective, the BMW 5 series looks are growing on me but neither my wife nor I like it as well as either the E or CLK Mercedes. The Mercedes interior appearance and layout seem much better than the BMW.

The only BMW in my price range I would consider is the M3 coupe with the premium package. The leather and interior layout in this vehicle are much more to my liking than the new 5 series and the performance and handling are excellent. There was a time this would have been my dream vehicle, but tastes change and it seems my wife and I now give more weight to luxury than performance.


Mercedes E or CLK

I have driven an E320 CDI and a CLK320 without the appearance package at my local Mercedes dealer. The local dealer also has a small number of gas E320’s and E500’s, some with 4MATIC, but no CLK500’s. They don’t move a lot of cars so they keep a small inventory.

The E500 with any options gets outside my target price range, so any E series would need to be limited to the E320 (gas or CDI). The 4MATIC seems like a nice-to-have, not something I really need where I live. The E320 CDI seems like the best E series alternative from a performance and cost perspective, although my wife is a little hesitant because of concerns about diesel availability on trips. There is also the fact that we can probably pick up a 2004 gas E320 easier and with a greater discount than a 2005 E320 CDI.

The CLK wins the family vote from a looks perspective. Like the front-end, the lack of a pillar and the interior without the need for a leather upgrade. The CLK500 looks better than the CLK320; although I’m not sure I don’t like the 2005 CLK320 wheels better than the new CLK500 AMG wheels. The CLK500 is obviously faster than the CLK320 and I assume also handles better than the CLK320. If we decide to get either CLK we would take advantage of the upgrades it receives in the 2005 model year.


Questions

I have a few questions for readers of the forum (and yes, I have done searches and read numerous posts related to the questions I am about to ask – I’m just looking for input one last time).

1. The E320 CDI will have substantially cheaper fuel costs than the gas E320 or CLK models and its performance seems generally better than the gas E320 or CLK320. Most owners and people who have driven one offer favorable comments, although some feel it is noisier than its gas counterpart. It seems like the best E series choice if I can convince my wife a diesel is okay. Other than the lack of their availability and any significant discounting versus the gas model, are there any real negatives to the E320 CDI versus the gas E320 given my location’s climate and driving conditions?

2. If I decide to purchase an E320 the 4MATIC seems like a nice to have rather than something I really need given my local driving conditions and it also rules out the CDI. Is there something about the 4MATIC I may be missing? What impact does the 4MATIC have on acceleration, handling or ride (I know gas mileage is affected negatively by 2 MPG)?

3. If I decided to get a gas E320 with the premium package and can find one with colors and other options I like, it would appear that purchasing the 2004 is my best option financially given the changes in 2005 pricing and the dropping of covered maintenance. What kind of discount (if any) am I likely to get as the 2004 model year closes out?

4. If I decide to purchase an E320 I plan to update the wheels and tires from the stock 16 inch rims. Note that most E320’s I have seen on lots within 150 miles of my area have Continental ContiTouringContact or Michelin Energy MXV4 Plus tires. I am leaning toward 18 x 8 AMG Double Spoke or ASA ST4 rims with Pirelli PZero Nero M+S 245/40 18 tires all around. My primary reason for different wheels is to improve the appearance of the vehicle without lowering the car or making suspension changes. How will performance, handling and ride be affected by this combination? Any other comments?

5. I haven’t had the opportunity to drive the CLK500 and my only option to experience that first hand is to drive two hours to a dealer that has one. I am hesitant to drive one at another dealer unless I was seriously considering purchasing it from them as that seems somewhat dishonest to me, so I will first ask forum readers who have had the opportunity to compare the two vehicles a few questions. I have read that the CLK320 does not handle as well as the CLK500. How much handling improvement on the CLK320 would occur with the appearance package wheels / tires, which become standard in the 2005 model year? If the CLK320 has the new wheels / tires, is it noticeably inferior to the CLK500 from a handling and ride perspective? Manufacturer stated 0-60 performance shows a substantial improvement from 7.4 to 5.7 seconds by moving from the CLK320 to CLK500. The big question I need to answer for myself is whether that extra performance is worth $9,000. Any comments from individuals who have driven both cars in terms of how noticeable the difference is in every day driving? Any other comments?

6. What kind of discounts off MRSP could I expect if I ordered a 2005 CLK320 or CLK500? From a price perspective, is it better to order one or find one on a dealer lot that is (or is close to) what I want?


The forum has been a great resource to me thus far. Thanks in advance for any information you are able to provide.

MB-JIM

I have the 05 CDI so I am rather prejudiced in favor of it but the CLK could be a fine car for you. I had two of the previous CLK's a 320 and 430. They were fun to drive but the 430 had quite a lot of road noise and had a harsh ride. The 320 was quiet and rode well but certainly wasn't a performance car.
When the current CLK came out I had one ordered but cancelled when I drove a demonstrater at the dealer. I simply didn't think the steering was sharp. On the other hand I believe the 05 CLK's have the improved steering which is on the 05 C Class. I drove the C320 and was really impressed with the steering response. I'm looking forward to trying the CLK and if it is as good as on the C320 I drove, I might order one. To me they are really sharp looking cars which can be ideal if most of your driving is with only one passenger. They, of course do have a comfortable rear seat.
Back to the CDI - It's a great automobile that does just about everything well. There have been E Class issues but hopefully they aren't deal breakers.

RohithT

18's will have an affect on ride comfort. However, I don't think it will be too much of a negative. For me, the rule I use is +1 over the largest oem size offered is fine, so long as that largest oem size is comfortable enough (hope that makes sense). 17's are standard on certain versions of the E320 I believe, so going up to 18's shouldn't be uncomfortable at all. Unless you're really sensitive, that is.
The fuel savings are substantial with the CDI, as are the performance benefits apparently, but you have to ask yourself how much cheaper can you get a gas 320 for? And how long do you expect to keep the car? Fuel savings are great, but if you're spending several thousand more to get the more fuel efficient car, it will take you many years (roughly guessing about 4-5 per $1,000) to realize those savings. You probably won't get that money back when you sell the car, either, as the CDI's resale value is probably similar to that of the regular's.

If I were getting an E320, I would get the 4matic. I think it's a great asset dynamically.

If your local dealership is unable to get a CLK500, I really don't see anything wrong with going to another dealer to test drive one. Buying a car without test driving it first doesn't seem very smart to me. You're going to be spending tens of thousands of dollars on this car- it's not right to do any part of it blindly. And it's not your fault that you would have to go somewhere else to drive the car- the local dealership should stock at least one, I feel.
And you don't have to lie about it. If you feel bad that you're giving the impression that you might buy from them, be up front about it. You should still get enough seat time to tell whether the difference in price between the CLK320 and the 500 is worth it (

Now, if I was in your position, I would get a CLK320 without the appearance package (I prefer wood trim to metal) and then buy a set of 18's, especially since you have an X5 for the hauling duties and you said that the car won't see more than 2 people very often (and your 90% figure seems awfully low, I'd say for me, it's 95+% with 0-1 passengers)

champaigntaste

I don't want to give the impression that I would purchase a CLK500 without driving one. I just wanted a little more information before a test drive. I would never get a car without driving it first. That is one of the things that makes me nervous about ordering one (even if you drive a like model), although I recognize you can always refuse an ordered vehicle if there are any problems.

I would also prefer the wood trim on the CLK320, which I thought was standard for the 2005 CLK320, along with the appearance package wheels from 2004 with some other changes. I got this information out of a Mercedes CLK MY2005 FAQS document. A recent post in the CLK forum seems to contradict this. The aluminum finish may be a carryover before a complete cutover to the new model year. I really don't know.

RohithT, could you elaborate on the advantages of the 4MATIC?

Thanks to those who have responded thusfar.

lig

You haven't done your homework. j/k

I am driving an '03 E320. If I had my way - I would have preferred an M3 - but I autocross often and hit the track on occaision. If luxury is more important - then the E would suit you well. It's light years better looking than the new 5 series and the interior is nicer as well.

I wouldn't go for the 4Matic if it doesn't snow very often where you live - it makes a heavy car even heavier - hurting performance and fuel economy.

I have 18" AMGs on the car and the ride is substantially unchanged. I was expecting a bit more harshness but it's really quite comfortable.

If 58K is your budget - you might be able to get a deal on an E500. In March '03 my car went for ~3K under MSRP.

I haven't driven the CDI but the performance is impressive by all accounts.

Lots of choices for that kind of $$$...

Performance bang for the buck - the CTS-V is pretty impressive. Too bad it is so homely.

I wonder if there are any leftover 540s? A used M5 would be killer too...

Good luck!

BoSoxFan

I can't help much with specifics since I don't know the cars but as far as the 320cdi is concerned, forget everything you have seen or heard in the past about diesels. These newer European diesels are a totally different breed. I've driven many different rental diesels in Europe, even a BMW 7xx one time a couple of years ago. For the most part, they are as quiet as a gas engine (inside anyhow), fast off the line, and have no turbo lag.

As far as working with different dealers so you can arrange a test drive: I bought a car once from a dealer several hundred miles away and never even visited the dealer since I did a European delivery. Be up front and tell them that you will buy from whoever gives you the best deal but you want a test drive. Don't worry about getting service from a local dealer even if you buy the car elsewhere.

Barry45RPM

If you like the "feel" of performance & acceleration, and the E 5 is out, the 6 cyl E is an excellent alternative. However to get the 4 matic because it would be "nice to have", is the wrong reason to lug around all the extra weight. Weight takes engine power to haul around. You have to weigh "performance" versus 4 matic. I live on Long Island NY & do not have 4 matic. It is not necessary in my opinion. Most people call in a "snow day" & stay home & play, immediately after hitting the supermarket when the weatherman predicts 2 inches of snow anyway... unless you're a cop or a doctor, or someone who MUST be at work or else, choose your options for how you will like to USE the car. Everything is NICE to have, but a budget dictates choosing wisely.

BoSoxFan

I must agree with Barry45rpm. There is supposedly a slight performance advantage in the AWD but I'll never even exploit all the performance in the 2WD. I use our Camry or Explorer on snow days but it's more because I'm afraid of all the nuts out there who don't know how to drive in snow than I am of getting stuck. We don't get that much snow in Virginia anyhow.

jyg e500 maybe

despite what people post 320 cdi is still a desiel , still has desiel clatter, there is still a delay in acceration, yes is is quick, but it does run out of steam. if you are a desiel fan, you will love this car, if not you will not.

Fastbuck

I disagree. I was not a diesel fan, but now I'm a convert. Sure there is a difference between gas and diesel, but the negative aspects are not significant. Keep in mind too that my benchmark was my super-smooth BMW i6 530.

BoSoxFan

I don't know about the 320cdi but with my E500, there is more lag from the "drive-by-wire" trying to find the right gear than I have experienced with most of the turbo diesels I have driven.

Fastbuck

I beleive that is exactly what the issue is with the diesel too. If you use the steptronic feature on the tranny then there is no lag. It goes like the proverbial brown stuff off a shovel!!!!

RohithT

I have to disagree with the general opinion of the 4matic. True, it does add extra weight, but it's not that much, apparently. The E320 rwd wagon according to MBUSA weighs in at 3966 lbs, while the 4matic wagon variant comes in at 4043 according to autoworld.com. I see no reason why there wouldn't be a similar weight difference in the sedans. But I do admit that there is efficiency lost in the drivetrain.
Yes, even if snow isn't a big factor, I find awd to be show its true worth whenever the road's damp. Traction control is great, but on a rwd/fwd car, if one of the drive wheels slips, you're going to be slowing down until it can hook up again. awd cars just keep going (unless 3-4 wheels are spinning, then you really should just slow down).
So the question you have to ask yourself is whether the decreased efficiency and 77 lbs is a greater disadvantage than the safety and performance advantage that awd gives (awd's performance advantage isn't in straight lines, of course, it's when the road starts to twist and turn; that one Passat commercial springs to mind). I don't think the advantages are de minimus, though you're free to conclude otherwise.

Also, have you considered a used car? I've seen plenty of good condition recently off-lease E's and CLK's available. You can get a great deal getting a car like that. My cousin just bought an late 2002 S-Type V8 with less than 8,000 miles for under $40,000. Getting a similar deal on an E500 would be tough, but there's no harm in checking. I don't know if you live near SoCal (your saying you get a bit of snow makes me think you live in the Carolinas or Tennessee maybe), but Penske Motocars in West Covina has a couple CLK55's with low mileage (under 15,000, i believe) for about $50-53K.

Barry45RPM

Bear in mind the number of problems people had with '03 Es, and the fact that Nav wasn't available.

champaigntaste

I wasn't suggesting the 4MATIC was something I actually wanted. I was looking for insight from owners or individuals more familiar with the feature to give some indication of whether it would really offer that much advantage to me given my location's driving conditions. Also, whether it had negatives such as decreased performance in some area.

In terms of getting something used, I think if I want an E series I would want a recent build given some of the comments of forum members, and if I got a CDI I would obviously be looking at something new. I think if I pursued the CLK I would also want something new as well, given some of the changes planned for the 2005 model year.

Given some of your comments, I guess there is a possibility I could get a E500 for $58,000 if a dealer discounted one something like $3,000, which apparently some people have been fortunate enough to get.

Again, thanks to those posting, your comments are appreciated.

BoSoxFan

When I ordered my E500, my salesman tried to downplay the 4matic saying that we don't get enough snow in Virginia to warrant an AWD. But, to me, the advantage of AWD in a high performance car is exactly the situation you describe - much better control of each wheel under the most challenging circumstances. It's different in an SUV or true off-road vehicle which is what most people are thinking of when they hear AWD, even the people who should know better such as high performance car salesmen. IMO though, the advantage of AWD is slight as I stated in an earlier post because the E has such superb performance already. But, it really comes down to the kind of driving you do. Nonetheless, my first preference was for 4matic and that is the way I initially configured the car until the sales manager said that he would take almost $5,000 off sticker for my close to fully loaded E500 2WD but would take nothing off of a 4matic. That made the decision real easy.

lig

I have to disagree with you on the merits of 4wd for high performance vehicles.

Big difference dynamically between a Porsche C2S and a C4S. The 2wd car is much more fun to drive. The 4wd versions understeer more and feel less responsive.

I would venture to say - if 4WD was the ultimate - you'd see it in the Enzo, the McLaren F1 - Carrera GT etc...

kort677

obviously you haven't driven one or you'd know that your statement is entirely false, at cruising speeds the cdi is QUIETER than a gas e 320, and is rated to be slightly faster, now go get a clue before posting again!

jyg e500 maybe

I will agree at hyway cruise speed car is quiet. but a speeds driving around town,and at idle. your know you are driving a desiel . the clatter is there. drive it up a hill, you will hear what I hear. each to his/her own, Its not the car for me.

BoSoxFan

Interesting! I wonder if someone like Road & Track has ever done a side-by-side comparison.

lig

Can't speak for R&T - but I've had the good fortune to have been able to drive both. (not at the same place/time though to be fair)

The cars had a very different flavor.

Given a choice between fwd and awd - no question. But rwd IMO is better than awd unless you are always driving in inclement weather.

The additional weight and the effect on the steering feel doesn't really make up for the fact that the front wheels are being driven.

It would make fun test drive day to do the experiment yourself - or find a bud who owns one or both.

RohithT

I remember reading an article in one of the big auto mags saying that a Miata was more fun than a M roadster because you can get that feeling of being at the limits with a Miata far more often and easily than with the M- a Miata at 9/10's is like an M at 7/10's, or something along those lines. Driving a car well beneath its limits typically isn't much fun, I think. That may be the case with the rwd vs. awd Carrerras, though I really haven't the slightest clue as I've never driven a Porsche.
BoSoxFan- your points are valid, but I still think that the awd gives enough to warrant it. But it's what works for you. However, when you toss the pricing equation into it, there's no way in the world I would pass up $5K of savings. And if you're not interested in 4Matic, don't worry about it. It is an expensive option, and if it's not of as much importance to you as it is to me, you'd be better off spending your money on something you are interested in.

I was at the dealer today because I wanted to check out the new CLK's- the 2005 cab's are already at the dealer, the coupes aren't. I don't think the interior upgrades are all that much. The only thing I noticed was the new climate controls and the slightly different glove box door. Are there any other differences? The changes aren't anywhere NEAR as dramatic as the changes in the C-Class, though. Buying used is a big leap of faith, of course. You pay a premium for new, but the piece of mind is often worth it.

Just a note- I drive an E500 fairly regularly. However, after driving an E320, I don't think you would be much worse off with that car (especially after factoring in savings on the sticker and at the pump). While it's not going to snap your neck like the V8 can (and will until you get used to the overly touchy, completely non-linear, yet powerful brakes), but I think it handles a bit better than the E500, since it's less nose-heavy. Just a thought.