2001 Mercedes-Benz CLK Reviews - Page 2 of 2

2001 Mercedes-Benz CLK 200 K 2.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2001
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.0 Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 3 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
3.6 / 10
Distance when acquired0 miles
Most recent distance10000 miles
Previous carMercedes-Benz E-Class

Summary:

The gearbox is made out of Mecano

Faults:

Gearbox, clutch and flywheel replaced at 6,000 miles.

Cruse control stalk ceased to work, replaced, but still faulty.

Electric windows often automatically open when trying to shut.

General Comments:

I would never buy a Mercedes manual transmission ever again, they live up to their terrible reputation.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 10th October, 2002

2001 Mercedes-Benz CLK 320 Avantgarde 3.2 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2001
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 3.2 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired5 miles
Most recent distance700 miles
Previous carBMW 3 Series

Summary:

Reliable, fast and beautiful

General Comments:

This is one of the best cars I have driven for comfort and performance.

I would highly recommend the 320 over the 230 Kompressor.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 25th September, 2001

27th Sep 2006, 14:37

On paper the power and torque of the CLK 230K is close to the CLK 320. Why do you highly recommend the CLK 320 in comparison?

16th May 2007, 21:01

Because compared to V6's Turbo cars are high maintenance cars.

21st Jun 2007, 08:00

Sorry, a Kompressor is not a turbo, it is a supercharger. And, the 3.2 Daimler Benz engine is just straight, pure kinetic energy vs. supercharging a 2.3 litre engine which you are actually creating extra potential energy which is converted to kinetic energy - so you feel the stress as you accelerate.

I was on the Neurburgring circuit for an a.m. last week in my 186,000 km 1997 CLK 320. All the way from the Austrian border to past Frankfurt, I averaged 220 km/hr and when I paid and got onto the circuit I was drifting on the hairpins with my 1997 factory shocks and 16 inch rims and snow tires. If I converted to DTM standards, this car will kick the derriere of those M5 taxis any day. Yeah, I love my 320 and sneer at the Kompressor 230.

29th Jun 2007, 03:06

I converted the body of my 1997 CLK 320 to look like the 2001 AMG CL 55. The body tuning begins with a metal Mercedes logo worked into the front grille (got it off a salvage MB truck), and taking off the hood ornament and putting on a flat logo (got it off my wife's SLK and I got her a new one from the dealer).

Next, I converted the side rear view mirrors by adding signal lights using an after-market kit. I replaced the 16 inch rims with 18 inch AMG rims and low profile tires (this was the most expensive bit, but I got an AMG sticker out of it and legitimately claim at least some AMG aspects).

Next I had my exhaust pipe converted to a Y-joint and got a 2nd chrome cover on the second pipe (had to slice off a concave portion in the rear bumper). This actually messed up my 3.2 litre's performance, but what the heck, it looks like an old AMG CL now!

Average review marks: 6.8 / 10, based on 7 reviews