CLK performance figures

[Sbloxxy]

Hi everyone, I'm about to buy a CLK - I've just seen a 2002 (new shape) CLK 240 Avantgarde automatic. This car is to replace a Jaguar X-Type 2.0 diesel.
My concern is the performance: I'm having trouble finding any performance figures on the internet but the one commonly quoted is a 0-60mph time of around 9.4 sec. This sounds below par for a 2.6. However, I know its almost certainly not the whole story - I'm interested in the mid range acceleration times and the 0-100mph time as these tend to give a much clearer idea of the cars true performance. So has anyone got these figures or does anyone know of a website where I might get them?
I'd be very interested in hearing other owners experience of the CLK240's performance. I'm not really after neck-breaking acceleration (I've got a Boxster for that) but when I'm stuck behind traffic on the single carriageway A1, I want to be able to overtake quickly and safely.
I haven't actually bought the car yet, so I could wait til I find a decent CLK320 but this particular car has a nice spec and is really clean and tidy.
Any advice gratefully received.

 

[David Nock]

October 2004 MB sales literature quotes 0 to 62.5mph in 9.2 sec which is better. 170 hp at 5500 rpm. Top speed 147. Extra Urban consumption 38.2 mpg for auto. CO2 is 238 g/km.

 

[Brett]

I had a W208 CLK230 Kompressor and test drove a W209 CLK240 and thought it was a backward step. That said, I then got a 320 and found that slow too....

 

[A210AMG]

Hello,


Heavy car and an auto box with a relatively small engine (bhp wise..)= no fire works. The jag derv would probably 'feel' faster (my brother had the estate 2.0d for 80k miles...thats if it wasn't in the garage being fixed)

If you have the chance I would wait for a 320, much better suited to a heavy convertible and a nice sounding V6 to boot.

I would rather have a higher millage 320 than a low millage 240, as for fuel and tax doubt thats an issue??

 

[A210AMG]

Not sure if this link will work,


Its What cars site where you can compare 3 cars, Jag, 320 and 240

http://www.whatcar.co.uk/car-comparison.aspx

0-60 mph (secs) 9.8 8.2 9.7
Max speed (mph) 123 150 144
Town mpg 36.4 17.8 17.3
Out of Town mpg 60.0 34.9 34.0
Average mpg 48.5 25.9 25.2

 

[Sbloxxy]

Thanks to everyone for your replies .. I think you are all confirming what I suspected - that a CLK240 hasn't quite enough power to keep me happy. Fortunetly, I don't need to buy for another 6 weeks or so, which gives me time to look around carefully. I think the 320 is the one I'll settle for but I've seen a number of CLK500s which seem to be an incredible amount of car for the money...
Can they really be that much more expensive to run than a 240? I do hardly any city driving and tend to do longer runs on quiet rural A roads (joys of living in Northumberland), so I tend to get better fuel consumption than most people (my Boxster averages 30-32mpg).

The thought of a V8 is very tempting.

 

[Brett]

Thanks to everyone for your replies .. I think you are all confirming what I suspected - that a CLK240 hasn't quite enough power to keep me happy. Fortunetly, I don't need to buy for another 6 weeks or so, which gives me time to look around carefully. I think the 320 is the one I'll settle for but I've seen a number of CLK500s which seem to be an incredible amount of car for the money...
Can they really be that much more expensive to run than a 240? I do hardly any city driving and tend to do longer runs on quiet rural A roads (joys of living in Northumberland), so I tend to get better fuel consumption than most people (my Boxster averages 30-32mpg).

The thought of a V8 is very tempting.

On a long steady motorway run from Ardrossan to Fife I managed 27.5mpg for the trip. My long term average is around 20mpg. I'd expect a CLK500 to be maybe 2-3mpg better than my car. As you said, a lot of car for the money and the V8 soundtrack is glorious!

 

[moneyman]

I had a CLK 500 for last 11 months after swapping in the Boxster S. Based on 13000 miles have averaged 27.5mpg which was the same as the Boxster but no need to use super unleaded petrol.

Recent trip from Oxford to Kent mostly motorway got 33.1mpg

My car has the 7g tronic gearbox and this helps economy as I believe that it has lock up on the torque convertor in all gears.

The car has been a dream to drive. If you have a Boxster for fun then you have the best of both worlds. The handling on the Boxster was nothing short of remarkable. The CLK will eat up long journeys and I always get out feeling that I could have done the same distance again with no problem.

The CLK 500 is a lot of car for the money and a realtively rare beast as well.

Oh and did I mention the V8 sound track

 

[A210AMG]

Hello,


My ML350 (a 3.7 auto) does 25mpg on a run at 80-85 mph,

My dads 500SL on a run is doing 27-28mpg

I would think a CLK would be up there around 30 on a run, probably dropping quite a lot to high teens early twenty's round town.

Roof down with the v8 sounds you will forget that......

 

[jon_harley]

I rarely get 30mpg even on a long run in my CLK320

 

[Sbloxxy]

Well the time is fast approaching when I have to actually go out and buy something (my Jaguar X-Type is on Contract Hire and has to go back soon). I'm 99% percent certain it will be a CLK (though I test drove a used S320CDi yesterday - impressive but at 44, I'm still too young for one of those!)
I'm still surprised at how very close the fuel consumption figures are for all varieties of CLK (270cdi excepted). I know from experience that even a CLK 200K will slurp fuel if pressed reasonably hard.
This being the case, the CLK500 still gets my vote: it just seems such a lot of car for the money - am I missing something?

 

[Brett]

What is your buying criteria? How many miles do you do each year? Max age of the car? Lots of options...

 

[Sbloxxy]

My buying criteria is as follows: probably 15000 miles per year, mostly A roads, some B roads, next to no city driving. Must be automatic, must be smooth, fast and easy to drive (as I mentioned, I've already got a Boxster for going round corners too fast and scaring myself). Ideally I'd like to spend under £16K. Ultimately condition is probably more important than engine size. Already looked at a beautiful CLK240, wonderful condition and really nice spec (leather, park sensors, keyless go, elc sunroof etc etc) 35,000 miles by 1 owner with full service history,for sale at a dealer for £14495 - and I'm sure there's room for haggling. Most of the CLK270 and CLK500s I've seen have double the mileage for similar money. I could probably forgive that in a 500 simply because its a trade off for the extra performance.