1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK Reviews - Page 3 of 3

1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired50000 miles
Most recent distance62000 miles
Previous carAcura Integra

Summary:

Replaces a girlfriend quick

Faults:

Trunk light broke at 61,000 miles.

License plate light broke 61,000 miles.

Passenger seat started squeaking. I just lined it with felt and it stopped.

General Comments:

This car is the best car ever built. I not only get 27+ miles per gallon, but its quick and looks great. It's a total babe magnet.

The only problem is that maintenance is expensive when it needs to be done. Luckily for me, my car rarely needs to go to the shop except for a few electrical problems.

Oh yeah, you can't beat the turning radius on this baby.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th March, 2004

1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK Cabrio Elegance 430 from France

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 430 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired29000 kilometres
Most recent distance45000 kilometres
Previous carBMW 5 Series

Summary:

Powerful and comfortable multi-use vehicle

Faults:

There were some creaking noises in the car. Most have disappear after 3 days at the dealership, but although I do not get any shudder shake, there is still the odd rattle that I find annoying in such a car. I get less rattles in my wife's Golf Cabrio.

General Comments:

Superb looking car. Very comfortable, even for 4 people. Like the power delivery of the V8, as well as its sound. I use it a lot with the top down, even when it is cold outside, thanks to the heated seats and the wind deflector.

It is not meant to be a sport car (some people think that two doors equals sport car for some strange reason. It is a supremely comfortable powerful car to drive from Paris to Saint Tropez on a whim.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th September, 2002

1999 Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 3.2 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 3.2 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance36000 miles
Previous carMercedes-Benz C-Class

Summary:

Nice soft GT car for the middle aged man or woman

Faults:

Only minor faults, dash lights not working, interior trim poor e.g. badges falling off!

General Comments:

Whilst a good GT, the car can feel quite stodgy at times.

Acceleration can be a bit 'lumpy' as the autobox kicks down.

Handles well, I have never really felt that I wasn't 110% in control, very predictable.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 24th January, 2002

16th May 2007, 20:49

If this is such a good car then why the "Sad Face" emoticon?

Your review is misleading genuine buyers.

19th Dec 2007, 11:12

I think that's because he said he wouldn't be willing to buy another Benz. Funny to me since he does point out that it's a good GT car. To me they are one of the best deals out there for comfort, refinement and performance in a stylish body.

Average review marks: 7.6 / 10, based on 8 reviews