Been looking at some in the auto trader has anyone owned one or driven one ive been looking at a 2 door manual and it looks tempting especialy with the charger on it.Its for the missus not me lol

 

Slow, shit on fuel, dear to insure, horrible to drive and if it does what my mates does and snaps the timing chain which seems quite common its new engine time.

There cheap for a reason.

 

My wife's had one !
Not great on fuel , but superb All round cars .
Drive very nice if you get a good one .
Roof is brilliant and makes it a pleasure to drive in the winter !

I would have another any day !!

Our was a 230 auto with 60k

 

What nonsense. I have the SLK with the 230k engine its a great car. More Class than any Ford could muster its been 100% reliable & a joy to drive. As for insurance its peanuts exactly the same price as my Rover 25. You should try owning one & not jumping to knock a car you know nothing about.

 

This one is a manual apparently rare.Its on 123 thou with service history up to 98 thou and loads of receipts for work done this year.

 

Watch out for rust!

 

Its also a Avantgarde which I forgot to mention is that like a ghia lol its a hard top not a soft top

 

I presume that's the W208 version been a 230k? I had a couple of the 209's CLK, a 320 and 350 and they were both nice enough cars. A bit clonky on the front end when things wear away but fine to drive, good on fuel and not the slowest cars in the car park.

The boot 3rd brake light was a dumb idea. I'm not sure how a manual box would compare as I had auto's but I do remember people saying with the parking foot brake next to clutch is something you have to get familiar with.

Avantgarde is on par with sport spec from memory. My only preference, which is just that is, I much prefer the 209's as they look more modern, but then again I also think the merc badge looks better in the grill instead of the aircraft gun sight on the bonnet.

Oddly enough never had a problem with the older higher mileage 320 but the latter 350 wasn't as nice to drive and felt slower AND had rust coming through on the wings and rear arches.

 

Avantgarde is what Titanium is at Ford.

 

OP asked about a CLK, not an SLK. You should try reading before jumping to defend a car you know nothing about

 

The idea has gone out the window anyway its a 4 seater and we need a 5 seater.

 

And I think Rod was fully aware of that, defending not the car but the engine, as it was the main target for criticism.

 

Not really, no. The engine was only really one point of criticism. Cost to insure, cost on fuel, "horrible to drive" are relevant to the CLK as a car, not just the engine. Although I haven't weighed them personally, I'd wager a CLK weighs more than an SLK. So if both cars have the same engine, the CLK will be worse on fuel, thanks to the weight. Handling; different chassis, weight, set up, etc, means comparing a CLK to an SLK is pretty dumb. Insurance might well be more expensive on the CLK than the SLK - I suppose it depends which is the more stolen car, which is involved in more accidents, and which has been written off more. Seeing as Rod doesn't insure a CLK, I don't think talking about the cost of SLK insurance is particularly relevant either.

So, um, yeah. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

My father has an 02 clk 200k and as said above it's very sore on petrol about 22-24mpg, uncomfortable to drive, parts are very expensive and it's rusting like mad, front wings, rear arches and around the button on the bootlid, it has more rust than my '95 Granada

 

I worked for merc for 3 years and drove them on a daily basis I hate them the engines have loom failures very comman very comman oil going from cps into the loom, horrid to drive and engines sound like crap hoovers! IMO