Is the CLK320 The One To Go For?

[SAABfan]

Am hoping to pick up a CLK 320 and need a bit of advise about whether this is the best engine option to go for, as a friend mentioned that the supercharged 230 models can be a bit unreliable. :???: What do you guys think?

I have a SAAB 900 turbo (hence username), which I'll probably keep, but have always wanted a CLK and as they seem to be very affordable at the moment.

Any advice to a merc newbie would be greatly appriciated.

 

[jberks]

in terms of pure reliability then yes the 320 is better than the 230. The superchargers can give trouble, though they're generally ok.
The benefit of the 230 is insurance and economy whilst giving similar performance.

 

[type49]

Nothing wrong with the 320 engine. If it's the old shape (208) make sure you have a good listen for any signs of the cat converters breaking up. Rev slowly between idle to about 2000rpm & back down again. Also with the engine stopped, have a good look at the crank pulley. It is two pieces bonded together. Some are known to break up & could damage the front engine casing. You will see very minor cracks but you will know if it's falling apart.

 

[Benzman]

I have owned a 1999 CLK320 and a 2004 CLK320 - both coupes, both Avantgardes and both good. The later model handles a little better but suffered from constant door rattles and still not fully fixed by the dealer. The problem lies in the fact that the later model does not have a B pillar.
The V6 is a very sweet engine. It is best described as rapid rather than quick but it is a magnificent grand tourer.
I average about 26 / 27 per gallon.
No mechanical problems. Had a couple of minor electrical hiccups.

 

[SAABfan]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

26-27 miles per gallon is not that bad - think I only get about 29 with the SAAB.