CLK 320 vs CLK 230k real cost of ownership?

[drainaudio]

Hi all,
Drove a couple of very pristine C-Class cars today but as might have been expected for someone looking to come from a Cooper S they just felt a little sedate - then I drove a CLK320 Sport

Well the CLK is a model I've always liked and with prices for excellent low mileage examples recently plummeting (aprox £6.5k) it's looking like the best choice.

I'd also like to drive a 230k (love Superchargers), but the 320 is such a sweet engine and although I'm not usually in favour of auto boxes in this car it just feels so right - sounds lovely too.

I'm assuming both cars are generally mechanically similar so as long as they come with FMBSH and additional invoices all should be ok.
Fuel, tax and insurance seem fairly similar and are pretty much on a par with my S to be honest.

The real concern for me is the cost difference of the 2 engines long-term.
I'm familiar with the expense of 12 spark plugs and labour cost, but then the Supercharger of the 230k could be expensive to fix. What about the cats? I've heard they can be problematic and expensive (2 on a 230k 4 on a 320?).

What are the experiences of other owners and what sort of money is involved in maintaining one of these properly - I'm probably looking to use a dealer (if necessary) for A and B services (to keep the Mobilo Life) and use a good indie for all other work.

The thought of cruising down to Sth France in the CLK put a huge smile on my face this afternoon..

Thanks, Geoff..

 

[colechelle]

try to help a tad geoff, i just parted with a c320 which i loved!!! mate of mine has a slk 230 komp, his does about 24-28 mpg, my old c,class used to be around 30-32 mpg, the v6 is a much smoother engine and never seems to have to work! the 230 always seems to be reving, must have teir 1 warranty, i always go on about it but i know it works and as you say you keep the mobilo life, if i had a choice the 320 al day long!!!

 

[jibcl500]

320 no contest.

jib

 

[drainaudio]

Thanks for the replies guys..

The way I've researched it thus far it seems the 320 is a very smooth and fuel efficient engine which lacks the mechanical complexity of the Kompressors.
As the 320 doesn't have to work very hard it seems there is very little in terms of fuel consumption between the 200K, 230K and 320.

My Cooper S currently averages aprox 24 Mpg, so in theory fuel costs running the 320 aren't going to be a lot different - or am I deluded?

I've had a rather astonishingly rude trader send me a rant via email today after I declined buying a CLK200 from him on the basis that I felt it was underpowered.
Among the expletives (yes can you believe it) he tried to tell me that the CLK320 is considered to be a "dog" that is a terrible seller based on it's inability to get more than 16/18 Mpg.

Anyone wish to comment?

Thanks, Geoff.

 

[whitenemesis]

24mpg from the Cooper!

Get the 320 and enjoy the MB experience

But don't go near the trader that sent the email, plenty out there happy to sell

 

[drainaudio]

24mpg from the Cooper!

Yes..
Unfortunately the Cooper S is a thirsty little beast that somehow encourages you to have a heavy right foot - that said running costs are pretty low (other than fuel).

I do like it (a lot), drives like a grown-up car and has all the toys - bit on the small side though........and I wouldn't trust it without the BMW extended warranty......which is a pain to have to shell out for.

Unfortunately with the price of a really good 98/99 CLK320 being somewhere around the £6.5k mark and the Cooper S currently advertised at £15,495 (and getting a lot of interest) it just seems like a disproportionate amount of money invested in 4 wheels and some metal when you compare the two.

Cheers, Geoff.

 

[PaulMdx]

mate of mine has a slk 230 komp, his does about 24-28 mpg, my old c,class used to be around 30-32 mpg, the v6 is a much smoother engine and never seems to have to work! the 230 always seems to be reving, must have teir 1 warranty, i always go on about it but i know it works and as you say you keep the mobilo life, if i had a choice the 320 al day long!!!

I can confirm the stats for the SLK 230K and it does rev a fair bit. Unless the insurance was much higher, given the choice again I would have bought an SLK320.

What's this tier 1 warranty?

 

[brandwooddixon]

Fuel economy will take a big hit if most of your driving is around town - probably achieve about 18/19 mpg. On the motorway you'll be looking at high 20's or low thirties even when travelling at speeds which cause plod to take an interest.

Heck if my E430 can manage 28mpg on British roads then the CLK320 should prove more economical. BTW travelled to the Auvergne last year, managed 485 miles before getting scared about low fuel only to find that still had 11.5 litres left in the tank. That was cruising at 130kph on the French motorways.

 

[Smeagol]

My '99 CLK 320 has averaged almost 28 mpg over the 27k miles that I have owned it. Best has been over 33 mpg on a long, mainly motorway, journey. On such trips motorway cruise speed are about 85mph. Have not found any real improvement by slowing to about 75mph, so have reverted to the slightly 'more illegal' speed.

 

[jon_harley]

he tried to tell me that the CLK320 is considered to be a "dog" that is a terrible seller based on it's inability to get more than 16/18 Mpg.

He was, at the very least, misinformed. In my CLK320 I get 21-24mpg around town and on the long, empty autoroutes in France, on 97 or 98 fuel, around 30mpg.

 

[ozbod1]

my 51 reg clk 320 has averaged 30mpg since i owned it, combination of town and motorway driving.

 

[DougCLK320]

I get a realistic 27 to 28 mpg overall, commuting into North London and up to 33mpg on a motorway run. Top down its slightly worse unless I use the wind deflector.
I have never regretted getting the 320 V6 - it makes the car even more 'special'.
Doug

 

[100%Bitch]

I think that if you're seriously worried about the cost of running a CLK then you should go for the 230K. If you're nopt that seriously worried then go for the 320, it'll be worth it.

 

[PeterCLK]

I've done 70k in mine from new. Average 28mpg- mixture of motorway A road and back roads. By far the best car I've ever owned. Engine is just getting run in. Also like the suspension set up. 2004 cars onwards best for usual reasons.
Few problems I've had have all been electrical - esp. the electric steering wheel which raises and lowers each time you get in/out of the vehicle.
Go for the 320.

 

[RoyDavis]

Ive got the C320 which im guessing would be the same engine as the CLK and ive just been on a trip down to newquay from reading, averaging 30mpg down there and 20mpg on the way back, i did boot it a little on the way home though!! I dont find that mine really drinks that much fuel and i guess it comes down to driving habbits also, i do tend to have a heavy foot! but the engine is so smooth and its lovely for just cruising around and you also have the power there when needed, it never feels like its really being pushed no matter how hard you do try to push it!
All that said i haven't owned it long enough to comment on maintenance but im hoping with a good strong engine as it is then hopefully not much should go wrong!

 

[MB Novice]

You have probably made your purchase by now but if not then my advice is that the real cost to you of not buying the 320 will be the loss of the joy which it will give you regardless of fuel issues. The 230 is just not powerful enough and growls and groans and just does not have the sweet feel and sound of the 320. Buy a car for your soul, not your pocket.

 

[avsdoyle]

I've done 70k in mine from new. Average 28mpg- mixture of motorway A road and back roads. By far the best car I've ever owned. Engine is just getting run in. Also like the suspension set up. 2004 cars onwards best for usual reasons.
Few problems I've had have all been electrical - esp. the electric steering wheel which raises and lowers each time you get in/out of the vehicle.
Go for the 320.

I think this is a configuration option in the Settings setup/

 

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Hi,
I have the 230K Sport I have to say that I struggle to reach 30mpg even on a run. Usual figure is more around 28. If the 320 has twin exhaust's things will more than even out at replacement time though!

 

[PeterCLK]

I think this is a configuration option in the Settings setup/

Thanks, but the thing stuck in low position. the whole motor etc was replaced under warranty.

Peter

 

[nunja]

I know it is very late on in this thread, but having bought a CLK 320 sport a few months ago, I am surprised at fuel consumption figures given on here.
It is a 99 model, petrol. Normal running around on A and B roads is av.33 mpg
On a long run (400 miles) I got 38 mpg. If I have it in the W setting I get 30mpg
I do not have a heavy foot but with the power on tap I dont need it!

Regards
Nunja