98/99 CLK 320 vs CLK 230k - real costs?

[drainaudio]

Hi all,
Drove a couple of very pristine C-Class cars today but as might have been expected for someone looking to come from a Cooper S they just felt a little sedate - then I drove a CLK320 Sport

Well the CLK is a model I've always liked and with prices for excellent low mileage examples recently plummeting (aprox £6.5k) it's looking like the best choice.

I'd also like to drive a 230k (love Superchargers), but the 320 is such a sweet engine and although I'm not usually in favour of auto boxes in this car it just feels so right - sounds lovely too.

I'm assuming both cars are generally mechanically similar so as long as they come with FMBSH and additional invoices all should be ok.
Fuel, tax and insurance seem fairly similar and are pretty much on a par with my S to be honest.

The real concern for me is the cost difference of the 2 engines long-term.
I'm familiar with the expense of 12 spark plugs and labour cost, but then the Supercharger of the 230k could be expensive to fix. What about the cats? I've heard they can be problematic and expensive (2 on a 230k 4 on a 320?).

What are the experiences of other owners and what sort of money is involved in maintaining one of these properly - I'm probably looking to use a dealer (if necessary) for A and B services (to keep the Mobilo Life) and use a good indie for all other work.

The thought of cruising down to Sth France in the CLK put a huge smile on my face this afternoon..

Thanks, Geoff..

 

[mb240]

My car is quite close to the 320 apart from a few AMG-specific things like discs that are done on servicing.

I would say that the NA V6 is probably going to be more reliable long term, not that there is anything bad about them, but the M112 engine (and it's derivative the M113) are rock solid TBH - same one was in my E240. I also drove a 180k and 200 and was never fully convinced of the 4-cyl MB engines really (just my own opinion, the cars and autoboxes fit better with the bigger engines I think).

Tyres for me: ~€700 for 4, every year
Last Service was new pads all around, new front discs, fluids changed, and the rest (nothing unusual) and it was €1400 I think, including two hours of labour at €60/hr. On the E240 I had the cost of the same service was around €700 as discs were cheaper. Replacement cats are around €1200 I think, although I never had to replace them. The equivalent UK£ costs would be around 65%-70% of that (e.g., discs were UK£200 each, or €300 here)

I would say €3k/year would easily cover all basic maintenance on them. I would not think that there would be a big difference except maybe a few hundred, probably related to the B-service 60k plug change more than anything else.

Go for the CLK! Although I am biased (I am hitting the road for Germany in two days, and looking forward to a good long drive in it )

 

[buccal]

Hi,

I've had my clk 230k for 2 1/2 years. IMHO the 230k is the wrong engine (far, far to coarse) . 320 suits the car much better, regardless of the expense.

Alex

 

[buccal]

and the V8 changes the nature of the car completely...........

 

[gbjeppm]

I have W208 320, fabulous engine, and I can get over 30mpg on a longish run. Around town I reckon somewhere in the low twenties.

Service wise, well its got 12 plugs rather than 8, otherwise I would think the costs are similar.

I personally would pick the V6 everytime over the 230 kompressor.

 

[C240Sport97]

and how is the search going?

and the V8 changes the nature of the car completely...........

 

[buccal]

and how is the search going?

On hold while the CLK is in the body shop. Have picked up a runner in the meantime, pics to follow this week............

 

[tbnguyen]

I have a 320 CLK and the journey from home to work and back is about 7 pounds a day. Its about 18 miles a day and its a mixture of backroads and dual carriageways.

 

[drainaudio]

Thanks for the replies guys..

The way I've researched it thus far it seems the 320 is a very smooth and fuel efficient engine which lacks the mechanical complexity of the Kompressors.
As the 320 doesn't have to work very hard it seems there is very little in terms of fuel consumption between the 200K, 230K and 320.

My Cooper S currently averages aprox 24 Mpg, so in theory fuel costs running the 320 aren't going to be a lot different - or am I deluded?

I've had a rather astonishingly rude trader send me a rant via email today after I declined buying a CLK200 from him on the basis that I felt it was underpowered.
Among the expletives (yes can you believe it) he tried to tell me that the CLK320 is considered to be a "dog" that is a terrible seller based on it's inability to get more than 16/18 Mpg.

Anyone wish to comment?

Thanks, Geoff.

 

[BTB 500]

To a large extent fuel consumption (especially stop/start) is based on the size/weight of the vehicle rather than engine size. For my R129 the difference between the 320 and 500 is only 2.2 mpg on the extra-urban cycle (30.7 vs 28.5), and 2.8 mpg overall (22.6 vs 19.8).

A CLK is surely a bigger and heavier car than a Mini, so I would expect it to use more fuel (whatever the engine).

 

[Flyer]

I've had my 99 320 Sport from new, in September 1999, and my average fuel consumption is 29.75mpg. That's not driving Miss Daisy! Pretty good I'd say.

Mechanically it has been excellent, only recently (at 105k miles) has it let me down, which turned out to be a crankshaft position sensor (fixed by the excellent Mr Walker).

Servicing since May 2001 (company maintained before then) amounts to £2143.02, mechanical repairs £868.97.

Bodywork is a concern, so check carefully for rust. Other than that, it's a great car and highly recommended

 

[drainaudio]

I've had my 99 320 Sport from new, in September 1999, and my average fuel consumption is 29.75mpg. That's not driving Miss Daisy! Pretty good I'd say.

Mechanically it has been excellent, only recently (at 105k miles) has it let me down, which turned out to be a crankshaft position sensor (fixed by the excellent Mr Walker).

Servicing since May 2001 (company maintained before then) amounts to £2143.02, mechanical repairs £868.97.

Bodywork is a concern, so check carefully for rust. Other than that, it's a great car and highly recommended

Thanks for those figures, sounds very promising..

Aprox 30Mpg would be fine in my book as would servicing/repair costs of aprox £1000 per year.
I would be extremely pleased..

I hope being very selective and getting a car with great history, sub 60k and a full inspection by a MB specialist prior to sale that I will end up with a vehicle as reliable as yours has been..

I think an immediate gearbox and diff fluid service would be a good idea as soon as I take delivery of said vehicle - any other items you guys would have looked at?
I know about the 60k spark plug change and will negotiate this into the sale.
All other fluid changes should I assume be in the history.

Cheers, Geoff.

 

[gbjeppm]

I've had a rather astonishingly rude trader send me a rant via email today after I declined buying a CLK200 from him on the basis that I felt it was underpowered.
Among the expletives (yes can you believe it) he tried to tell me that the CLK320 is considered to be a "dog" that is a terrible seller based on it's inability to get more than 16/18 Mpg.

Anyone wish to comment?

Thanks, Geoff.

I would say that the W208 200 would be much harder to shift than a 320, so he is talking cr*p. As for average MPG, mine is currently showing 25.3 over the last thousand miles.

 

[wemorgan]

My CLK320 gives me 30-35mpg. Tyres are £60 each, servicing £200-£400.

I may be wrong on this, but I would say the V6 engine is less stressed than the 4 pot, so will have better longevity.

 

[FNG08]

Well although i ended up buying a C200K sedan, i did go down the same thought process as you by seriously considering a 99 CLK. I test drove both engines you are and although the 6 is smoother in the way it delivers its power, i found the supercharged 4 more fun.

from my experience i found there was more torque lower in the revs with the 230K which excited me, hence my decision on a c200k instead of a 240/320.

food for thought... i started looking into a supercharger kit for the 320 which would be best of both worlds, but you trying to save money not spend too much of it...LOL

 

[Roadie]

Does anyone know the actual book MPG of both the 320 and the 230? I currently have a 320 Sport which I absolutely adore but was thinking of changing it to a 230 convertable. If there isn't much in it then I may just upgrade to a 320 convertable.

Oh and does anyone also know why the 230 is on average more expensive to insure than the 320? for me its a minimum of a £100 more expensive.