Thinking about buying a CLK 2003-2006

ollieo

So I'm thinking about buying a CLK 2003-2006ish

I always liked them and see them as a bit of a luxobarge to me at the moment.

Any advice on models to avoid or known problems with these cars.

Any opinions or advice is much appreciated thanks.

commited

What engine are you looking at?

I have a 2003 CLK270 which is great, has averaged nearly 40MPG (calculated) while I've owned it. It's comfy, swallows up motorway mileage all day long and has a good turn of speed. Electrics can be a bit interesting, I have a new door lock on order.

Overall, I'd recommend it 100% as long as you go in with your eyes open. Check everything works and that there is little/no rust.

ollieo

commited wrote: »

What engine are you looking at?

I have a 2003 CLK270 which is great, has averaged nearly 40MPG (calculated) while I've owned it. It's comfy, swallows up motorway mileage all day long and has a good turn of speed. Electrics can be a bit interesting, I have a new door lock on order.

Overall, I'd recommend it 100% as long as you go in with your eyes open. Check everything works and that there is little/no rust.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm undecided on what engine, I'm hoping people here will know if any of the engines are one to avoid. I'm open to diesel or petrol and the difference in insurance from a 1.8 to a 2.6 is 50euro although I know tax is 600 more as well as lower MPG with a 2.6 petrol.

Couldn't get a quote online for a 2.7 diesel so not sure if there will be much of a difference one way or the other.

Nuw

In a Merc from that era, the engines to go for are the V6 petrol, the CLK 240 (2.6L), or even better 320 (3.2L) if you manage to source one. Both are generally reliable, awesome to drive, relatively cheap to run. You can expect between 20 and 30 MPG from them (might get lower if city driving), and the bigger engine is the easiest on the juice (mainly due to the fact that its peak torque is lower on the rev range (around 3000 rpm if I'm not mistaken, compared to around 4500 for the 2.6).

The 4 cyl will fare better in that department but can be troublesome...

The diesels I have no first hand experiences, but heard only good things about the 2.7L mentioned by Commited. But diesels would be out of place in such a car imo (especially the smaller one), but that's just me

166man

The CLK200 realistically is the pick or the range. 184bhp for the post 2005 models (160bhp for pre 2005), as well as 1.8 tax and circa 30mpg.

The 4 cylinders have been known to have an appetite for timing chains, but I'm assured from my mechanic that its a relatively simple job to replace them.

Autobox is the only way of course.

Check electrics etc and for rust. Apart from that they're pretty solid I think. I prefer them to the equivalent BMW/Audi.

Nuw

The post 2005 2L Kompressor is indeed a nice engine, I simply find it more suited to the C-Class coupe (which is actually a pretty awesome car to drive) than to the larger CLK. Let me put it this way, if it was me looking for a luxobarge I'd go with a CLK V6, and if the money didn't allow for it, I'd probably look at the smaller C coupe, which also a very nice cruiser (for its size) and is quite more nimble (as you'd expect), but also cheaper to run.

OP should you be interested in a C coupe, check for the same things (Mercs from that era pretty much all suffered from the same things), so rust and electrics are the two big ones. As to the rest, it's like any car reaching its 10-15 years, check service history etc...

ollieo

Thanks for the replies lads, much appreciated, I'll keep an eye out and see what comes up.