CLK 320 vs 230K

[wemorgan]

I've had my 1998 CLK320 for a few weeks now and I'm enjoying every moment of it. The effortless overtaking is especially satisfying.

It’s left me wondering how different the performance is in the 230K. From the basic statistics there seems to be little difference between the two.
Does having the supercharger give more mid-range torque, or is it just a more efficient engine?

 

[Rose Chap]

I've had my CLK 230 since 2005 and I like its get up and go and zoominess (technical expressions) and the whoooosh of the supercharger.

However, I seriously doubt it's any quicker than a 320 (it has slightly less power after all), and as for it being more efficient, that may be the case if you drive everywhere off boost, but frankly lifes too short for such restraint, hence my average mpg is around 25 to 27, with very early 20s around town.

Under the more delicate right foot of my fiance however it's regularly in the high 20s early 30s, but from anecdotal evidence on here, that seems to be what most 320 drivers get anyway.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd definitely consider the 320, but only if the spec was right.

What I really wish is that I'd gone for the 430!

 

[wemorgan]

If I were to guess I'd say:

230K Sport with 6 speed manual would be the sports car
320 Elegance Auto would be the more GT type cruiser car

 

[television]

If I were to guess I'd say:

230K Sport with 6 speed manual would be the sports car
320 Elegance Auto would be the more GT type cruiser car

That engine in yours is an all time great,,if you ever get rattly CATs take them out problem solved,, any coil pack issues don't come up much these days.

 

[gbjeppm]

I have not driven the 230k, but all I can say is that I love the 320 V6, just the right mix of power versus smoothness. And I get 31mpg on a long run.

 

[wemorgan]

It's one of the smoothest engines I've felt, even when at 5000rpm it delivers the popwer with minimum fuss.

 

[vijilants]

The c230k is far noisier....when you put your foot down , you know it's there . The 320 is super smooth.

If you are getting 31mpg, there is nothing in it really as far as fuel consumption is concerned.

The only other difference is the c230k is cheaper to maintain.

 

[mikevernon]

I bought one of the original SLK 230Ks in 1997 and thought that the engine really let the car down. It wasn't especially rough or especially noisy, but it just felt unsophisticated and was never a pleasure to drive hard. A few years later I bought a used SLK 320 which was far nicer. The engine is much smoother and quieter and has a pleasantly sporty exhaust note when pushed hard.