CLK 55 AMG - any owned one?
Discussion
Dear All,
I'm considering one of these for motorway bashing (fairly regular London to Cornwall trips) and wondered if anyone had any particularly good or bad experiences from ownership?
Love the sound and look for something torquey and relaxing to drive down but which is good enough to be a bit of fun when I'm down there.
Thanks,
Giles
I'm considering one of these for motorway bashing (fairly regular London to Cornwall trips) and wondered if anyone had any particularly good or bad experiences from ownership?
Love the sound and look for something torquey and relaxing to drive down but which is good enough to be a bit of fun when I'm down there.
Thanks,
Giles
Yep - I have had my CLK55 AMG from new in July 2003 and won't change it. They are fantastic cars. Lots of people take issue with Mercs because they are heavy and use auto boxes but while little can be done about the weight (unless your name is 2skiddy on here 
) the gearboxes can exploit the car to the full and you will never run out of power (but you will run out of fuel).
If you are doing very long runs make sure you get one with distronic - LASER/RADAR assisted cruise control. I wouldn't be without it for very long runs.
As you can tell I am a bit of a fan of these cars. Some people don't like the sat nav because you can't do full post code addresses or stepped itineraries but these are small points for a car that gives so much.
Put aside funds for rear tyres regularly ie 8K miles and track it if you want.
) the gearboxes can exploit the car to the full and you will never run out of power (but you will run out of fuel). If you are doing very long runs make sure you get one with distronic - LASER/RADAR assisted cruise control. I wouldn't be without it for very long runs.
As you can tell I am a bit of a fan of these cars. Some people don't like the sat nav because you can't do full post code addresses or stepped itineraries but these are small points for a car that gives so much.
Put aside funds for rear tyres regularly ie 8K miles and track it if you want.
Giles993 said:
Thanks Pete - very useful.
I'll be running a Porsche 993 alongside it so I'm used to tyres (3,000 miles on my last set!).
What MPG do you get on a run?
Are the buttons on the wheel rim one side for up and the other for down or is it the rocker switch in the wheel body on the right?
The best I get is, I think, about 24MPG on long motorways runs and the worst for road driving is about 12MPG in rush hour London. I am sure my trip computer suggests I have averaged about 18mpg. I'll be running a Porsche 993 alongside it so I'm used to tyres (3,000 miles on my last set!).
What MPG do you get on a run?
Are the buttons on the wheel rim one side for up and the other for down or is it the rocker switch in the wheel body on the right?
The buttons are left side to change up and ride side to change down. But I hardly ever use them. The gearbox has three modes - fully auto, manual (for using the buttons or the stick) and tiptronic. I find the tiptronic best for me - you hit the stick left to change down and right to change up or hold it left to let it find the correct gear. In this mode it will hold the gear you have selected up to the rev limiter (which you can't see on the dial because it lets you go all the way round
) before changing up. The seats are very comfortable - I've driven to the highlands, the Ring, Barcelona et. al. and never had back ache even after 8 solid hours in the car.I don’t know whether you have taken a test drive yet but would recommend it.
I ran a 2005 CLK 55 Convertible for around 4 months last year.A great car-a relaxed cruiser on the motorway if need be or can be driven at a brisk pace around country lanes just as well.Good power delivery from the V8 and also a lovely but muted exhaust note with the roof down.
Just had 1 scary moment-I went round a fast bend at the limit of adhesion and hit a bump in the road just after which activated the rollover protection.
Just had 1 scary moment-I went round a fast bend at the limit of adhesion and hit a bump in the road just after which activated the rollover protection.
Giles. I have a 2000 55AMG, on a easy run 70 to 80 mph, I can get an amazing 32mpg, pushing on abit 80 to 90mph its down to 28mpg. On a recent trip to Scotland driving very fast and doing lots of overtaking on the single carriage ways it did 24mpg. Around the doors I'm doing 14 to 16mpg. I too also have 993.
David
David
I've got a a 2003 CLK 55, which I really like. On a long run I get around 25mpg whilst keeping up with the faster traffic. If I stick to 70 it eventually ends up showing about 28mpg, which is pretty impressive. Round town it shows 12 - 20 mpg driving fairly gently. Short trips will have it down to 10mpg if it's always warming up.
After my last E46 M3 one thing I particularly like is it's nice to drive gently as well as pressing on. Having said that it can be surprisingly quick, very little can keep up with foot to the floor acceleration. It's also nice to get let into traffic, which didn't happen much in the M3.
To be fair, it's possibly not the ideal car if you're into hanging it out on the corners, It'll play ball up to a fairly good point but push too hard and it starts to feel heavy, overpowered and a touch loose. Drive within it's limits though and I doubt you'll be dissappointed, especially if you've got a 993 for when you feel like really pushing on.
I guess my only issue is the way the dealers seem to find expensive stuff to do every time it goes there (even though nothing of note has ever gone wrong with it), but that's probably true of most cars like this (it certainly was of the M3). I'll be taking mine to a specialist from now on so hopefully this won't be too much of an issue.
After my last E46 M3 one thing I particularly like is it's nice to drive gently as well as pressing on. Having said that it can be surprisingly quick, very little can keep up with foot to the floor acceleration. It's also nice to get let into traffic, which didn't happen much in the M3.
To be fair, it's possibly not the ideal car if you're into hanging it out on the corners, It'll play ball up to a fairly good point but push too hard and it starts to feel heavy, overpowered and a touch loose. Drive within it's limits though and I doubt you'll be dissappointed, especially if you've got a 993 for when you feel like really pushing on.
I guess my only issue is the way the dealers seem to find expensive stuff to do every time it goes there (even though nothing of note has ever gone wrong with it), but that's probably true of most cars like this (it certainly was of the M3). I'll be taking mine to a specialist from now on so hopefully this won't be too much of an issue.
sjj84 said:
Interesting stuff, what electrical problems did you have on yours? Was it a W209 model? Any other warrenties worth having other than a mercedes one?
If you had the choice again, which would you go for knowing what you now know?
I had a W209 and also W208 CLK 430. If you had the choice again, which would you go for knowing what you now know?
I probably had every electrical problem known to man, luckily it was all covered under warranty apart from the engine mounts which were worn in just three years!!!! The W208 wasn't as bad but still bad and my fathers 2003 S600 lights up like a jackpot machine when you gun it.lol
When the CLK worked it was great but like all the later Mercedes I owned it was not an enjoyable ownership experience. You must go for the Mercedes Warranty! The CLK is rarer and is probably faster in a straight. M3 is the more focussed car but has imo a stigma attached to its image.
All the following is just my opinion, based on having owned both an e46 M3 and a CLK (both coupe)...
The CLK is noticably faster in a straight line, but less good round corners. The low end of the engine is great and the transmission is usually pretty good at figuring out what you want to do even if you don't use manual mode. The M3 needs revving to the sky to get much performance but has better handling at the expense of a significantly harder ride.
Fuel wise the M3 may be slightly better (definitely better round town) but there's not much in it.
I agree that the CLK is slightly less well built than the M3, this is most noticable in the interior which has lower quality plastics that tend to scratch rather easily.
My M3 had just over 40k on the clock when I sold it, it was a two owner manual car (full history) that had been owned by me since 20k. The gearbox was on it's last legs despite my having treated carefully. This was confirmed by the dealer who described it as 'notchy' with a glint in their eye. It also suffered persistant misfires when cold which apparently they all do (making the SMG transmission a bit of a joke if you live in town and do lots of short trips, you can't declutch to let the engine sort itself out). The engine required careful warming up and always left like if you used it to the limit you were asking for trouble. This was confimed by a recall to change the clamshell crankshaft bearings and (anecdotally) a number of engine failures. A number of M3 owners have put thier cars on rolling roads and found they don't make the advertised power, certainly mine never felt close to 330+ bhp (especially compared to the CLK). I believe the M3 CSL is a different kettle of fish incidentally, they tend to make the advertised power or better.
Maybe I have been lucky but my CLK has suffered none of the electrical horrors so far, apart from a failed seat heater, which will be £500 of so to sort at an independant.
My feeling is that the engineering of the CLK is probably as good as the M3, and certainly less stressed. I have read of a number of people clocking > 150K in '55' mercs with the 5 speed auto without engine or transmission issues and these are mostly supercharged cars, so my theory goes that the less stressed normally aspirated drivetrain in the CLK should last pretty well. Famous last words there probably.
Character wise you could hardly have two more different cars, the M3 is highly strung and racy (but with poor brakes), the CLK more relaxed, kind of pipe and slippers but with a big stick if you see what I mean. Both are good cars in their own way.
Hope this helps, it's all IMHO of course.
The CLK is noticably faster in a straight line, but less good round corners. The low end of the engine is great and the transmission is usually pretty good at figuring out what you want to do even if you don't use manual mode. The M3 needs revving to the sky to get much performance but has better handling at the expense of a significantly harder ride.
Fuel wise the M3 may be slightly better (definitely better round town) but there's not much in it.
I agree that the CLK is slightly less well built than the M3, this is most noticable in the interior which has lower quality plastics that tend to scratch rather easily.
My M3 had just over 40k on the clock when I sold it, it was a two owner manual car (full history) that had been owned by me since 20k. The gearbox was on it's last legs despite my having treated carefully. This was confirmed by the dealer who described it as 'notchy' with a glint in their eye. It also suffered persistant misfires when cold which apparently they all do (making the SMG transmission a bit of a joke if you live in town and do lots of short trips, you can't declutch to let the engine sort itself out). The engine required careful warming up and always left like if you used it to the limit you were asking for trouble. This was confimed by a recall to change the clamshell crankshaft bearings and (anecdotally) a number of engine failures. A number of M3 owners have put thier cars on rolling roads and found they don't make the advertised power, certainly mine never felt close to 330+ bhp (especially compared to the CLK). I believe the M3 CSL is a different kettle of fish incidentally, they tend to make the advertised power or better.
Maybe I have been lucky but my CLK has suffered none of the electrical horrors so far, apart from a failed seat heater, which will be £500 of so to sort at an independant.
My feeling is that the engineering of the CLK is probably as good as the M3, and certainly less stressed. I have read of a number of people clocking > 150K in '55' mercs with the 5 speed auto without engine or transmission issues and these are mostly supercharged cars, so my theory goes that the less stressed normally aspirated drivetrain in the CLK should last pretty well. Famous last words there probably.
Character wise you could hardly have two more different cars, the M3 is highly strung and racy (but with poor brakes), the CLK more relaxed, kind of pipe and slippers but with a big stick if you see what I mean. Both are good cars in their own way.
Hope this helps, it's all IMHO of course.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff