When having a clear out goes pear shaped. A209 320

[fabes]

I would add that in the two years I had my 09 reg 280 sport, I found no scuttle shake or the like. Indeed, it was better than my 57 reg Saab 93 vert which I had for 5 years, in the category of 'composure'.

It needs the sport body kit to look it's best imho (like the black one on the first post) and deffo need the wind deflector. Had one also in the Saab and it's a miracle of dynamics up to and past 70mph, albeit you lose the rear seats.

Tax can be a killer though (mine was) and a factor in swapping it out for the e class coupe 3 years ago, which isn't going anywhere.

A great summer (or winter) bit of fun and in sports trim one of the 'prettiest' cars out there, still.

 

[Nat]

I would add that in the two years I had my 09 reg 280 sport, I found no scuttle shake or the like. Indeed, it was better than my 57 reg Saab 93 vert which I had for 5 years, in the category of 'composure'.

It needs the sport body kit to look it's best imho (like the black one on the first post) and deffo need the wind deflector. Had one also in the Saab and it's a miracle of dynamics up to and past 70mph, albeit you lose the rear seats.

Tax can be a killer though (mine was) and a factor in swapping it out for the e class coupe 3 years ago, which isn't going anywhere.

A great summer (or winter) bit of fun and in sports trim one of the 'prettiest' cars out there, still.

I found Saab to be the worst for scuttle shake although I had the classic 900t and an early 9-3 soft tops. Unsure what the 57 plate is like. Look nice enough.

Tax on these 2006 through to about 2009/10 (?) is just plain dumb. It really is making them been turned into future boat anchors before there time :-(

 

[fabes]

The Saab I had was by no means bad, but it did have the odd creak from interior trim. It wasn't as heavy so it wasn't as planted as the CLK.

Remapped, to around 260bhp with a huge increase in torque meant it was a helluva lot quicker than the V6 280CLK though and it coped with it, which if the chassis was prone to scuttle, it wouldn't have.

The CLK is more refined though and with a V6 in it sounds much better.

Madness on the tax though and it's a turn off for many (albeit it is only £250 more than most alternatives.....)

 

[JB052]

If I understand correctly the tax changes apply to cars registered after 23rd March 2006
Can someone confirm what the CLK 320 tax costs were before and after that date?

 

[PhantomF4]

They certainly polish up nicely (our 2003 Elegance)

 

[Nat]

Straight through an MOT today with only a small advisory - anti roll bar dust cover. Quite pleased with that. It does need a clean.

 

[Nat]

If I understand correctly the tax changes apply to cars registered after 23rd March 2006
Can someone confirm what the CLK 320 tax costs were before and after that date?

Pre 23/03/2006 is now £340 or something like that. I don't think there is any or many 2006 320s as the 280/350 replaced it. I did find that post 2006 that some 280's were the cheaper tax and some were higher due to the emissions. Confusing isn't it?

 

[JB052]

Thanks for the update Nat, I ended up purchasing a 2006 CLK-280 which as you indicate was about £350 to tax when paid monthly as it was after the March cut-off point.

 

[Nat]

Thanks for the update Nat, I ended up purchasing a 2006 CLK-280 which as you indicate was about £350 to tax when paid monthly as it was after the March cut-off point.

Nice one