Thoughts on this V6?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

fabes

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
2,868
Location
Southampton
Car
SLK55 & E400 Coupe
Not eBay, though it maybe on there, but thoughts on this one?

Used MERCEDES-BENZ CLC CLASS

I know the CLC is not an enthusiasts car, but this looks good and ticks lots of boxes for a nice 4 seater, Pano roof and a V6 soundtrack. I didn't know this edition existed

Was on eBay and AT with my BIL Saturday night 'just lookin'....

I just like it if I was looking for a cheaper car.....

Thoughts / experiences of these?
 
I would avoid any CLC / C-Class Coupe of that shape. They are not good/well built cars.

(No disrespect to any owners intended).

Stick to a standard W203 or W204 if budget allows.
 
It’s a 203 underneath it. Ain’t nothing wrong with that. I prefer the original shape though.
 

Attachments

  • 19D2394A-3F81-447B-BAC6-53F83A3D779F.jpeg
    19D2394A-3F81-447B-BAC6-53F83A3D779F.jpeg
    209.7 KB · Views: 13
I would avoid any CLC / C-Class Coupe of that shape. They are not good/well built cars.
Go on, tell us more?

NIce colour scheme on that car, reasonable mileage, and it has all my (very short) list of must-have toys. If I were looking for a Mercedes hatchback as an alternative to an estate, I'd go and see that.
 
I know of 2 people who have one, (one the original C Coupe) and another the CLC. I have been in both, asked to help repair them.

The C-Class coupe spent most of its time on a flat bed with electrical issues, the interior was appalling with rattles, trim scratched and faded and full of really shockingly cheap materials. Riddled with rust.
The CLC was slightly better but the Turbo went on it at 42k and that also had electrical issues also.

They are not good cars, a rock bottom time for Mercedes.

For £5k you could get a decent facelifted W209 CLK. instead.

EDIT: It seems I am not alone in thinking this:
Mercedes C320 Sport Coupe | Shed of the Week (check the comments) :)
 
Last edited:
She's quite a leisurely old girl isn't she, 0 to 62 in 8.9 seconds. Would have hoped it would be a bit quicker than that for a 2.5Ltr o_O
 
Id take this over that in a shot:

CLK Coupe: (You could no doubt get this for £6k)

CLK Convertable:
 
Id take this over that in a shot:

CLK Coupe: (You could no doubt get this for £6k)

CLK Convertable:

They just don't stand in the same street, chalk and cheese, just a no brainer in my view :rolleyes::)
 
As both are V6 petrols, do you have to be careful about engine number same as I had to check before buying my SLK280?
 
Never knew they put a V6 in those. The instrument cluster reminds me of a 2012 Vito work van I had though.
 
Can’t really see why a 203 coupe or 209 would be much different build quality wise?
 
Never knew they put a V6 in those. The instrument cluster reminds me of a 2012 Vito work van I had though.
One of the 2 KH linked to is a 280 V6, same as my SLK, the other is a V6 350, don't know if that version suffered the same problems as other V6 petrols. Engine number is required to investigate and get either "walk away" or peace of mind (as I got when buying my SLK280).
 
Can’t really see why a 203 coupe or 209 would be much different build quality wise?
I think these were made outside of Germany, (S America?) but when I had my 53 reg 220 coupe many years ago I must have got a Monday morning car as in the three years I had it I only had one trim issue, so I lucked in (although I did crash it in the snow)

The CLK's are lovely ( I had a 280 vert) but are 3 years older and bigger whist the space in the back of the CLC is actually quite good and the 2 tone interior looks better for me (I love Pano roofs which the CLK doesn't have)
Not changing mine, it was just a browse with my brother in law and red wine and as said above, I didn't know they put a V6 in these
 
I think these were made outside of Germany, (S America?) but when I had my 53 reg 220 coupe many years ago I must have got a Monday morning car as in the three years I had it I only had one trim issue, so I lucked in (although I did crash it in the snow)

The CLK's are lovely ( I had a 280 vert) but are 3 years older and bigger whist the space in the back of the CLC is actually quite good and the 2 tone interior looks better for me (I love Pano roofs which the CLK doesn't have)
Not changing mine, it was just a browse with my brother in law and red wine and as said above, I didn't know they put a V6 in these
I think modern MB cars are made all over the place to be fair. My GL63 was made in the US I understand, and has been one of the most reliable and best built of all MBs I have owned. I’m sure I remember 203 saloons/estates being built in different places too?

Just don’t understand why an M272 engined 209 (with known issues!) would be more reliable than a later model 203 coupé?

Early 203s had build quality issues, rust/electrics etc but that was not specific to the coupé, nor were similar age 209s much different. Later models of all variants were generally better but there are known engine issues etc which apply to any MB model that uses that type of power unit.
 
There are a handful of CLC's in my neck of the woods that I see regularly. Immaculate beyond even "showroom" condition. Don't know how the owners have managed it. I quite like them.
 
Can’t really see why a 203 coupe or 209 would be much different build quality wise?
The 209 was double the price new. There's a good reason for that. I had one 203 and three 209s for the same reason. Just as the CLS is better built than a CLK. Chalk and cheese.
 
The 209 was double the price new. There's a good reason for that. I had one 203 and three 209s for the same reason. Just as the CLS is better built than a CLK. Chalk and cheese.
Not really chalk and cheese though build quality wise. The 203 and 209 use the same basic chassis design/platform and share many components - engines, transmissions, electrical parts, steering, suspension, brakes etc. The price tag isn’t really relevant here - MB don’t make less luxurious/lower specced cars to a lower quality of build on the same chassis.

Sure a CLS is more luxurious and solid than a CLK - different platforms.

It would be like saying the CLS is better built than an E-class. Different design, same platform, same build quality.

Is an VW or Audi better built than a Skoda these days despite the differences in price? (certainly not on the components that are shared across models!) :)
 
Not really chalk and cheese though build quality wise. The 203 and 209 use the same basic chassis design/platform and share many components - engines, transmissions, electrical parts, steering, suspension, brakes etc. The price tag isn’t really relevant here - MB don’t make less luxurious/lower specced cars to a lower quality of build on the same chassis.

Sure a CLS is more luxurious and solid than a CLK - different platforms.

It would be like saying the CLS is better built than an E-class. Different design, same platform, same build quality.

Is an VW or Audi better built than a Skoda these days despite the differences in price? (certainly not on the components that are shared across models!) :)
Yes. The CLS is better built than an E-class. Being built on the same platform means nothing. More expensive models are finished to a higher standard. That's why the CLC is a rattling box and the CLK is a solid grand tourer.

If you don't believe someone who has lived with all if them, just take one of each for a decent test drive and you'll notice the difference.

Of course cheaper models are built down to a budget. That's business.
 
Not really chalk and cheese though build quality wise. The 203 and 209 use the same basic chassis design/platform and share many components - engines, transmissions, electrical parts, steering, suspension, brakes etc. The price tag isn’t really relevant here - MB don’t make less luxurious/lower specced cars to a lower quality of build on the same chassis.

Sure a CLS is more luxurious and solid than a CLK - different platforms.

It would be like saying the CLS is better built than an E-class. Different design, same platform, same build quality.

Is an VW or Audi better built than a Skoda these days despite the differences in price? (certainly not on the components that are shared across models!) :)



I don't think there is any difference in build quality as such. It's just the clk w209 (and the w208 for that matter) have certain model specific upgrades that make all the difference to perceived quality and driver enjoyment. The clk shares a steering wheel with the SL which is substantially nicer than the £hite CLC wheel. The double layer dash on the clk is more solid than the CLC dash. The door cards on the clk are much better quality (ever seen a missing speaker grill on a clk ????) The seats on the clk although looking very similar to the CLC ones they are not the same. The clk ones have a extra layer of padding and the vinyl and upholstery is harder wearing. The frameless doors on the clk shut a lot nicer than the tinny doors on the CLC. Imo the solid rear bulkhead also stops a lot of the body rattling that the CLC suffers.

I have always wanted a CLC (or c class coupe) as the hatchback is more suited to my life but every one I have ever driven (probably 10 plus !) has always seemed crap and I have ended up buying 4 clks even though the boot is a pain !!!!!!
 
I guess this comes down to how you define ‘better built’

In the context of this thread, it began with someone anecdotally referencing electrical issues, rust, turbo problems etc - which would be no better/worse on either 203 or 209 of comparable age. The level of luxury goes up of course in terms of ‘class’. A reasonable spec CLK is obviously more plush than a base model coupé, but it’s not exactly better built as a car IMHO. A CL or SL makes a CLK feel cheap, in the same way as a no doubt a Maybach does to an S-class. But of course no more reliable or better built when it comes to common electrical issues, engine problems etc.

But I struggle to see how a CLS is ‘better built’ than an E-class, everything being equal (model/engine/spec) - they are practically the same car! :)

And interior quality/specification doesn’t affect the reliability or build quality of the majority of the car which is after all a collection of individual parts, most of which are shared amongst many models. I guess I’m thinking of the build quality of the overall car, the nuts and bolts, and not just the choice of fitted steering wheel, seats or door cards etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom