CLK 500 (388) or CLK 55?
Discussion
You .....in here......
cheers! Is that why nobody's responded?!! It's for Mrs S anyway, so I'm in no hurry to cough up! 
The CLK500 offers 95% of the capability of the CLK55, with sensible servicing prices.
My 500 is an 04 plate, so the less powerful 310bhp version, but it is plenty fast enough to keep up with traffic. The only downside to mine is the gearbox - it is a little lazy, but I think this was changed in the facelifted model.
My 500 is an 04 plate, so the less powerful 310bhp version, but it is plenty fast enough to keep up with traffic. The only downside to mine is the gearbox - it is a little lazy, but I think this was changed in the facelifted model.
If yours is 95% with the less powerful engine, what you've said makes a compelling case for the later car which has more power than the AMG. I did read an evo road test of the later car which claimed that the seats were some of the most uncomfortable they had experienced. So much so, it spoilt the car, which seemed very odd. No such criticism of the AMG seats I'm sure. 
Edited by slippery on Tuesday 13th September 09:45
The seats aren't so bad. Granted, they are nto the most comfortable in the world (that accolade goes to my old L322 Rangie), but I've driven some very long distances in complete comfort. They just take a while to adjust to a good driving position.
Driving wise, they are a typical Merc - extremely fast in a straight line, but not quite as confidence inspiring as, say, an M3 in the corners. However, for me, the relentless pull of the V8 is absolutely addictive. I often wonder why people are travelling so slowly on the autobahns when a gap opens up, as the acceleration from 70 - 120 or so is just incredible - there just seems to be no let up in how hard the thing pulls.
Driving wise, they are a typical Merc - extremely fast in a straight line, but not quite as confidence inspiring as, say, an M3 in the corners. However, for me, the relentless pull of the V8 is absolutely addictive. I often wonder why people are travelling so slowly on the autobahns when a gap opens up, as the acceleration from 70 - 120 or so is just incredible - there just seems to be no let up in how hard the thing pulls.
She had the previous shape CLK 320 convertible many years ago, which she liked, hence the interest. I suppose comfort is all a matter of opinion, so the only thing to do is go and try one. I am also considering a 335i conv and Audi S4 conv, which also occupy a similar price point. As I say, no hurry, the money only seems to burn a hole in my pocket when it's my car that's being changed! 
schmalex said:
the acceleration from 70 - 120 or so is just incredible - there just seems to be no let up in how hard the thing pulls.
I think this is why they badged the newer 5.5 as a "500" here (it's a 550 in the US). To keep a perception of a wider gap between it and the 55 than is perhaps the case. Or at least to pretend it's as wide as it was with the older 500 with 80bhp less and a slower gear box.
I would consider the CLK55 if it were one of the (rare) 2006 models that benefited from all of the facelift upgrades, but I would have to think hard because the CLK500 5.5 in Sport trim provides the AMG exhaust, pre-facelift CLK55 brakes, a rev-happy engine, and, importantly, the 7G gearbox.
Yes, the CLK is comfort orientated, but the improved steering and handling in the facelift really makes a pleasant difference whilst still retaining the comfort you'd expect. The CLK55 engine is also very linear - probably too much so, and the old 5 speed gearbox is extremely lethargic.
(I speak from experience of owning several CLKs).
Yes, the CLK is comfort orientated, but the improved steering and handling in the facelift really makes a pleasant difference whilst still retaining the comfort you'd expect. The CLK55 engine is also very linear - probably too much so, and the old 5 speed gearbox is extremely lethargic.
(I speak from experience of owning several CLKs).
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff