w209 320 v. 200 Kompressor coupe

[51315]

Is the performance vastly different between the two - engine quietness - reliability - petrol consumption. Which would you rather have? Difficult for me to decide as never driven either - but I did have a 270 CLK which impressed me greatly.

 

[sonic]

The CLK200K has the 1800cc 184BHP M271 engine, which some have timing chain sprocket issues about about 80K miles. Google M271.
We have owned 2 SLK200K's the performance is adequate, but the CLK is heavier. Didn't have any problems with either, but fuel consumption was never better than 32mpg.
I have not driven a W209 320 but its the M112 engine with 215 BHP, I believe the M112 has been a good engine. That is the one I would be looking at.
I also had a CLK270CDI did 115K miles in it, & I was very impressed with it. We used it for several years to tour Europe in the summer, over 50mpg & cheap diesel.

 

[MBDevotee]

320 is a million times better.

Sounds better, bulletproof reliability, smoother (much) not too much difference economically.....

Night and day, no comparison - get the 320

Because you are worth it...

 

[grahamcol]

I have a 209 coupe, a 220 diesel. I love the 209 styling and its features etc. However l would like the 320 engine. Trouble is l don't think the 320 is available in the improved facelift model. Unless l am mistaken that is.

 

[DSK]

I'd personally go for the engine that has the better reputation for reliability. As you mention the Kompressor, I'll assume we're talking 320 petrol (these came in a 320 diesel variant also), I'd take a 320 as they generally seem strong and have been around a long time.

You don't mention budget so, for something to ponder, this model also came in a 350 petrol, 500 petrol, 55 AMG petrol (I know they did a 63 AMG as well), personally I think the larger capacity petrol engine models seem better value in my eyes.

I was looking for a CLK270/320 for a while a couple of years ago as a spare car for family members to use (rather than lending out any of my personal ones). Many looked nice on top but, a few I looked at and others further away I ran MOT checks on had reports of rear subframe corrosion that made me end my search and grab a Lexus 250.

 

[Wighty]

I have the E320cdi and the CLK200 . Yes you can’t compare the two engines they are so different . Massive torque on the 320cdi , however the 200 is a nice engine just nowhere near as quick . I have done 10’s of thousands of miles in France (in the 200) drifiting along back roads or stuck on cruise at 80mph for 10 hours and I still think it’s a pretty nice engine ,despite the M271 known issues.
If you meant a 320 petrol , ignore everything above

 

[51315]

I have the E320cdi and the CLK200 . Yes you can’t compare the two engines they are so different . Massive torque on the 320cdi , however the 200 is a nice engine just nowhere near as quick . I have done 10’s of thousands of miles in France (in the 200) drifiting along back roads or stuck on cruise at 80mph for 10 hours and I still think it’s a pretty nice engine ,despite the M271 known issues.
If you meant a 320 petrol , ignore everything above

Yes, I should have said, I did indeed mean a petrol 320. And that seems to be the overall consensus. So thanks everyone. Hugely helpful.

 

[LostKiwi]

The M112 engine is bulletproof, smooth, quiet and refined.
I've had 3 cars fitted with the M112 engine and not regretted any of them. Still have one of them with 162k miles on.

For that reason the 320 all day long.

 

[MBDevotee]

320 petrol is in the facelift too, then went 350 petrol.

But if you won’t do huge miles go 500. Bit more money, but gotta love the V8