CLK320 or CLK350
Discussion
Looking at a couple of cars, both convertibles.
The 320 is an 05 Avantgarde, 5 speed box, 55k and looks very tidy.
The 350 is a Sport, 7 speed box, 102k and looks almost as tidy. This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT. It doesn’t fall in the range for balance shaft gear issues but does for the solenoids.
Can anyone offer any advice on which should be the more reliable option?
The 320 is an 05 Avantgarde, 5 speed box, 55k and looks very tidy.
The 350 is a Sport, 7 speed box, 102k and looks almost as tidy. This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT. It doesn’t fall in the range for balance shaft gear issues but does for the solenoids.
Can anyone offer any advice on which should be the more reliable option?
nick1871 said:
Looking at a couple of cars, both convertibles.
The 320 is an 05 Avantgarde, 5 speed box, 55k and looks very tidy.
The 350 is a Sport, 7 speed box, 102k and looks almost as tidy. This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT. It doesn’t fall in the range for balance shaft gear issues but does for the solenoids.
Can anyone offer any advice on which should be the more reliable option?
The 320 engine and 5 speed box will be simpler than the 350 and 7 speed box. From what you say I suspect the 350 is something like an 2006 model and there's an element of them still be in the process of getting the engine, and possibly the 7 speed box right. I have read of problems with a plastic lever on the 350's variable intake. The 350 will probably use less fuel, but if it is a Sport then the ride on what I guess are 18" wheels won't be as good as what I presume are 17s on the 320. The rear subframe on the 350 could cost you thousands if you can't get Merc to contribute, but may be the 320 has the same issue and the MOT man hasn't spotted it. On the 320 I would take the engine cover off to check for cam/breather oil cover leaks (not expensive though) and any rattles or rasp from the exhaust could be the cats which aren't cheap. Perhaps also try and check underneath for any rear main seal leaks.The 320 is an 05 Avantgarde, 5 speed box, 55k and looks very tidy.
The 350 is a Sport, 7 speed box, 102k and looks almost as tidy. This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT. It doesn’t fall in the range for balance shaft gear issues but does for the solenoids.
Can anyone offer any advice on which should be the more reliable option?
Has the gearbox fluid been changed on either of the cars? If it has never been changed on the 102k 350, then I'd probably walk, as when I was looking at 320s there were a number of cars with 90k being sold for spares or repair because of gearbox issues.
I've been looking at these as I think they're rather nice, especially in Sport spec.
I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
trevalvole said:
The 320 engine and 5 speed box will be simpler than the 350 and 7 speed box. From what you say I suspect the 350 is something like an 2006 model and there's an element of them still be in the process of getting the engine, and possibly the 7 speed box right. I have read of problems with a plastic lever on the 350's variable intake. The 350 will probably use less fuel, but if it is a Sport then the ride on what I guess are 18" wheels won't be as good as what I presume are 17s on the 320. The rear subframe on the 350 could cost you thousands if you can't get Merc to contribute, but may be the 320 has the same issue and the MOT man hasn't spotted it. On the 320 I would take the engine cover off to check for cam/breather oil cover leaks (not expensive though) and any rattles or rasp from the exhaust could be the cats which aren't cheap. Perhaps also try and check underneath for any rear main seal leaks.
Has the gearbox fluid been changed on either of the cars? If it has never been changed on the 102k 350, then I'd probably walk, as when I was looking at 320s there were a number of cars with 90k being sold for spares or repair because of gearbox issues.
Thanks for this. Has the gearbox fluid been changed on either of the cars? If it has never been changed on the 102k 350, then I'd probably walk, as when I was looking at 320s there were a number of cars with 90k being sold for spares or repair because of gearbox issues.
The sport is a 57 plate, I’m not aware of either having had the gearbox oil changed but haven’t enquired too far yet. The subframe is a tricky one to judge like you say, it depends on who tests it and what they deem to be usual surface corrosion or something more. The 350 is priced right and a fair bit cheaper than the 320 even though it’s newer, the 320 is overpriced.
They are both local so I guess I need to see them and take it from there.
cologne2792 said:
I've been looking at these as I think they're rather nice, especially in Sport spec.
I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
I’m sure the diesel is good but I’m drawn to a smooth silky V6 petrol on these! I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
cologne2792 said:
I've been looking at these as I think they're rather nice, especially in Sport spec.
I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
The 350 slk is a great car, sounds lovely, plenty of power.I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
Nothing I didn't like, auto gearbox was something I didn't learn to use properly, but great when I finally did.
Headlights were poor though, unless Xenon...
Partner had a 320 CLK but suspension seemed remote and I just didn't feel confident in it. Looking at MOT history after selling it I can see why.
Still think CLK's look amazing, black/dark blue/grey with silver AMG wheels for example.
BlimeyCharlie said:
cologne2792 said:
I've been looking at these as I think they're rather nice, especially in Sport spec.
I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
The 350 slk is a great car, sounds lovely, plenty of power.I know the D word is controversial and probably useless if you live in a city, but the 320 petrol is rather outperformed by the 320 cdi.
It's has more bhp, Hillarious torque, a better 0-60 and uses considerably less fuel and being a V6 sounding rather nice at the same time.
The 350 looks incredible and I'm now heading for a 350 SLK instead. Very decent performance and surprisingly good running costs.
Nothing I didn't like, auto gearbox was something I didn't learn to use properly, but great when I finally did.
Headlights were poor though, unless Xenon...
Partner had a 320 CLK but suspension seemed remote and I just didn't feel confident in it. Looking at MOT history after selling it I can see why.
Still think CLK's look amazing, black/dark blue/grey with silver AMG wheels for example.
I've never driven a 7G equipped Mercedes but nearly everyone that has seems to be of the opinion that they're very good.
I'm still thinking.
The facelift cars are a nicer drive, and the 350 engine & 7G combination are an improvement in drivability, performance, and economy (remember the 350 has an extra 50bhp) over the 320 era drivetrain.
The only real consideration for me would have been the balance shaft range, but you're clear of that, so I'd go for the 350. It'll do 200k with regular maintenence.
The only real consideration for me would have been the balance shaft range, but you're clear of that, so I'd go for the 350. It'll do 200k with regular maintenence.
psychoR1 said:
That's lovely!I'm not against the idea of the 7G but It's the combination of 3.5 V6 and manual box I'm looking for.
As far as I understand you can't have that combination with the 305ps V6?
How worried should I be about the balancer shaft issue on the earlier cars?
After having purchased a W208 CLK320 when it was 3 years old (took ages to find a non-black interior), it has just kept on going with minimal mechanical trouble, so therefore it has continued in daily use. Now 22 years old, so that must be some sort of recommendation for Mercedes cars.
Might be pushing luck now, so have been wondering about a 2023 E300e as a replacement. Probably very unusual, but I have read about an early E-Class hybrid being scrapped at only 8 years old, due to battery failure. After having a 22 year old car, hearing about the scrapping at 8 years story, has rather put me off PHEVs and EVs. It seems that you cannot even continue to drive with the petrol engine alone. Apparently the engine will not start, when the hybrid battery is shot.
Our OP is not asking about the W208, but my own experience of cabin noise might also be relevant to the W209.
OEM Pirelli tyres were appalling. Annoyingly, they lasted a very long time. The V6 petrol engine is so quiet, that road noise is the dominant sound. Needed head ache pills!
Then had two sets of Dunlop Sport Maxx (68db) much better, but have recently changed to Michilen Primacy 4 (also 68db).
The 68db readings are external tests, but there must be something else different, because the cabin road noise is now noticeably even further reduced from the Dunlops. A bit late, but the quietness inside the car is now as it always should have been.
Interesting that there should be such a huge difference between various tyres on the same car.
Just a suggestion, but seems to be an easy fix, if you consider your Mercedes should be 'limousine' quiet.
Edited by Dewi 2 on Friday 18th February 12:24
eddy77 said:
Rotten rear subframe is a four figure repair bill. Factor that in if you are tempted by the 350.
As a clk350 sport owner I can assure you that a good one is a lovely thing to own. Had mine for 7 years and still enjoy it.
Does the 209 suffer from this? It's a common issue on the 204 and some other models, but I've never heard the 209 mentioned.As a clk350 sport owner I can assure you that a good one is a lovely thing to own. Had mine for 7 years and still enjoy it.
mwstewart said:
eddy77 said:
Rotten rear subframe is a four figure repair bill. Factor that in if you are tempted by the 350.
As a clk350 sport owner I can assure you that a good one is a lovely thing to own. Had mine for 7 years and still enjoy it.
Does the 209 suffer from this? It's a common issue on the 204 and some other models, but I've never heard the 209 mentioned.As a clk350 sport owner I can assure you that a good one is a lovely thing to own. Had mine for 7 years and still enjoy it.
OP said:
This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT.
trevalvole said:
I can't say, but I think the above posters, including me, were picking up on this in the original post:
Ah! Thank you - I had missed that.OP said:
This one has an advisory for corrosion on the rear subframe on the last MOT.
The problem is those advisroies as quite subjective, as mostly all CLK subframes at this age are exhibiting some rust, so it would warrant further inspection.
It isn't the end of the world to put a complete subframe in it e.g. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324834738398?hash=item4... That's £200 of labour at my local garage to swap. The original diff is maintained to maintain the correct ratio for the installed gearbox.
No shortage of CLKs out there however, so there's always another one.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff