C43 or CLK430

[Bulldog]

Hope you guys can give me a little push/help in the right direction.

I'm very undecided on which to go for, I was after for a while (over a year) a C43 estate, but after only looking a 2 roughish ones in a year and looking at a few C43 saloons I'm coming round to having a CLK430 instead as I love the coupes flowing roof line, my Mrs and children want a CLK430 cabrio.

Is there miles of difference between the CLK and the AMG, apart from looks is the AMG a different beast and more hard edged, firmer suspension, or is the CLK as gooder car ?

Cheers
Mark

 

[jaymanek]

I have a CLK 430 Coupe and a CLK 430 Cabrio here in stock!

Pop down if you want to try them for size.

 

[Will]

Depends on what you want really

C43 saloon or estates offer strong performance and all the AMG upgrades - engine, exhaust, brakes, suspension, wheels - plus the bodystyling, interior appointments etc.

The CLK430 coupé offers good performance and a nice V8 soundtrack, but they're not as powerful as the C43 V8. If you're looking at a cabriolet model it's worth noting that they're a bit slower due to the extra weight, and I'd think that chassis flex would make it overall less of a performance-orientated machine.

Like I say at the beginning - depends on what you want. A 430 cab is a nice open-top cruiser with a decent amount of poke, but it's a fair bit wide of an AMG.

There are literally a couple of 208 CLK55 cabriolets - maybe an option but not cheap and I guess the chassis would be showing it's limitations with the '55 AMG motor.

All of these are lovely cars in their own way, but you need to work out what you really want from a car

Will

 

[Bulldog]

Depends on what you want really

C43 saloon or estates offer strong performance and all the AMG upgrades - engine, exhaust, brakes, suspension, wheels - plus the bodystyling, interior appointments etc.

The CLK430 coupé offers good performance and a nice V8 soundtrack, but they're not as powerful as the C43 V8. If you're looking at a cabriolet model it's worth noting that they're a bit slower due to the extra weight, and I'd think that chassis flex would make it overall less of a performance-orientated machine.

Like I say at the beginning - depends on what you want. A 430 cab is a nice open-top cruiser with a decent amount of poke, but it's a fair bit wide of an AMG.

There are literally a couple of 208 CLK55 cabriolets - maybe an option but not cheap and I guess the chassis would be showing it's limitations with the '55 AMG motor.

All of these are lovely cars in their own way, but you need to work out what you really want from a car

Will

Thanks Will

I want the car to handle well and not float like a boat, I'm getting the feeling the CLK my well be not as sporty as I am after though it does look better than a C43.

 

[Will]

Hi Bulldog,

I wouldn't say that CLKs float like boats! Just trying to point out that a CLK430 cabriolet is less powerful, heavier and less rigid than a C43 AMG - it is after all an open top cruiser more than a sports saloon (or estate).

You've got to compare apples with apples IMHO - ie C43 against a CLK55 coupé really, or perhaps an Avantgarde CLK430 coupé.

What is most important to you - the performance and handling of an AMG saloon/estate or the style and enjoyment of a CLK cabriolet?

Will

 

[Bulldog]

I think the end of the day a CLK430n coupe is the best looking motor the cabrio is not my favourite but the rest of the family want the open top.

 

[Will]

Well then you need to decide - C43 AMG, CLK430 coupé or CLK430 cabriolet - each car has it's own appeal and are very different in their own ways

No idea where you are based but you could do a lot worse than pay Jaymanek a visit and see what you make of the two 430s that he has

I think you now know roughly what to expect of each car though.

Will

 

[KillerHERTZ]

Theres always the coolness of a coupe, but the practicality of a saloon.

One thing is certain, the interior of the W202 has far greater quality materials/Screwed together. that the W208

 

[Will]

One thing is certain, the interior of the W202 has far greater quality materials/Screwed together. that the W208

Sorry Karl but that just isn't the case, the interiors of the W202 and W208 in terms of quality are near identical - if anything I'd have said that a 208 interior had the edge.

I'm not biased at all - I have owned both pre and post facelift 202s and a 208

Will

 

[KillerHERTZ]

From my experience (brother owned a Facelift 320 Elegance for 3 years) the interior was shocking.

Around the stereo, heater controls, central trim you could see the plastic mould excess sticking out (not a result of the dash being removed), rear parcel shelf never stopped rattling, the armrests on the drivers door was wearing out, sun visors didnt sit flush, glove box didnt close level.
The rear ashtray lid is made from the same plastic as used to contain Mr Kipling cakes. The drivers electric window button graphics had worn out aswell - It was only 4 years old at the time with 50k on the clock.

Then, where do I start on the rust? Sure W210s, W202s rust, but regarding the W202 do you normally see rust appear after 4 years? maybe. Remember that the W208 was on of the 1st cars completely under the cost cutting DC.

I have also been in 2 other CLKs recently 1 pre-facelift, one not and nearly all the problems listed above were repeated. Dont get me wrong I do like the W208, nor do I think the W202 is perfect - ive had my fair share of problems myself! but regarding built quality its in a different league IMO

(Puts on flame proof jacket )

 

[Howard]

Hmmm ...

All of the problems you have mentioned above Karl are not in evidence on my car ( 80k miles ) .... admittedly mine is a designo interior , but i can't see it would make that much difference.

I do agree about the rear ashtray lid though , but who uses it ?

Sounds like your bros car was a lemon i'm afraid. You 100% sure that it had never been apart for whatever reason ?

What i have noticed , having owned a V6 and a V8 , is that the V8 models feel a lot more 'solid' , i'm sure they are built of the same parts , but the car just feels better put together and planted on the road.

Not just defending the CLK because i'm an owner , simply because what you mention above just isn't correct ( not in our cars anyway ) .

In terms of speed , power etc .... the figures say the CLK 430 is quicker to 60 ( not sure how true this is though ) than the C43 at 6.3 and 6.5 seconds respectively. Top speed is limited on both to 155mph.

C43 puts out 306 bhp and 410 nm of torque , CLK430 is 279 bhp and 400 nm of torque , so very similar.

C43 is 1470 kg kerb weight , and CLK430 is 1455 kg , so again , very similar.

C43's have a bit of a rep ( possibly undeserved ) for killing gearboxes , worth bearing in mind. The AMG will be the sportier drive though , having a different suspension setup to the CLK.

Drive an Avantgarde CLK rather than an Elegance as the Avantgarde setup is the sportier of the two , the Elegance can feel a bit wooly.

I would have a drive and see what you think. Both cars go like stink and had more than enough power for what you will ever need in the real world. I still shock myself ar times and i have been driving these for ages.

 

[Will]

From my experience (brother owned a Facelift 320 Elegance for 3 years) the interior was shocking.

Around the stereo, heater controls, central trim you could see the plastic mould excess sticking out (not a result of the dash being removed), rear parcel shelf never stopped rattling, the armrests on the drivers door was wearing out, sun visors didnt sit flush, glove box didnt close level.
The rear ashtray lid is made from the same plastic as used to contain Mr Kipling cakes. The drivers electric window button graphics had worn out aswell - It was only 4 years old at the time with 50k on the clock.

Then, where do I start on the rust? Sure W210s, W202s rust, but regarding the W202 do you normally see rust appear after 4 years? maybe. Remember that the W208 was on of the 1st cars completely under the cost cutting DC.

I have also been in 2 other CLKs recently 1 pre-facelift, one not and nearly all the problems listed above were repeated. Dont get me wrong I do like the W208, nor do I think the W202 is perfect - ive had my fair share of problems myself! but regarding built quality its in a different league IMO

(Puts on flame proof jacket )

Sorry Karl but I think your criticisms are a bit unfounded. The 208 CLK and 202 C-class were both being built at the same time and shared many components. Why would a CLK window switch be of poorer quality to that of a W202? It's beyond me

I've owned/driven/seen/worked on several 202s and 208s, your experiences are not the norm at all. I can think of criticisms for all cars, but for the 208 the interior wouldn't be on there!

If you want a properly made interior, you need to look at the W124/W140 era or before!

Will

 

[Gridlock]

In terms of speed , power etc .... the figures say the CLK 430 is quicker to 60 ( not sure how true this is though ) than the C43 at 6.3 and 6.5 seconds respectively. Top speed is limited on both to 155mph.

Don't know about the CLK430 but Autocar time for the C43 was actually (iirc) 5.8s, and 158 at the top end (limiter must have been faulty )

 

[Howard]

Got my specs from Ultimate Specs - Car Specifications & Picture Gallery & Blueprints & Forum , they are usually pretty accurate.

Manufacturers are in the habit of giving the press 'lightly breathed on' cars for the launches to get a good review ....

What does your handbook say for the 0-60 time for your C43 ? my CLK 430 one says 6.4 , so i guess the site might not be that accurate ! Pointless to argue over tenths of a second anyway , you or I will never achieve the figures quoted.

 

[Gridlock]

Merc quote 6.5, that's where that number comes from - it's very much a lie though, not sure why but the Germans are all cute about performance figures. Judging by a 350Z that I've played with (quoted @ 5.8s) 5.8 seems about right.

Evo timings:

 

[Howard]

On that basis then , should i revise the 0-60 for the 430 downwards ?

C43 booktime is 6.5 , its actually 5.8 ? so 0.7 seconds difference

CLK430 booktime is 6.4 - 0.7 seconds is 5.7 ? sound right ?

 

[Gridlock]

...and then round it down to "5 seconds" and job's a good 'un

 

[Howard]

We should go and work for MB !!

On a serious note , it might be fun to try this at some time .... it does feel faster than 6.4 if i'm honest.

 

[gaz_l]

Just to stick my oar in..

I think the 6.5 sec 0-60 time for the C43 sounds about right. Having previously been driving an Impreza (0-60 in 5.8 being pretty universally accepted, as tested in standard trim), the C43 wasn't as quick off the mark, mostly due to the autobox.

Now back in an Impreza, I still maintain in a drag race to 60 I'd be ahead of a C43. The Impreza is giving away nearly 100 horsepower, but it's 200 Kg lighter, manual and - most importantly - 4WD. If you've never driven one, you wouldn't believe how much traction they have off the line. First gear is gone in the blink of an eye.

Don't get me wrong, the C43 steps off the line pretty smartly, but loses the contest in the first second. Once it's moving, it'll reel in the Impreza - I reckon by somewhere between 70 and 80 the Mercedes would be past, and then it's game over for the Subaru .

However, neither a C43 or a CLK430 is a slow car. Horses for courses, really - would you prefer the tauter handling of a C43 or the enhanced comfort of a CLK? Both will be superb motorway cruisers (I do miss the C43's ride as I rattle and bump along in the Scooby), but by the same token both would be left for dead trying to keep up with an Impreza on a twisty B road.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd all have both

Cheers,

Gaz

 

[Howard]