The biggest difference I noticed was the braking. I had to push really hard with the 996, and stopping distance was longer,and there was more shaking, than the CLK.

 

That's not normal... go drive a few more cars, and if you can swing it try looking for a 2002 or better, if not a 99 or 00 car should not act like that.

 

Shouldn't do that, so something is wrong with that car. I know from experience that the brakes are better in the Porsche than in the CLK500.

 

there's something wrong with the 996's brake, maybe the brake fluid is too old.

 

I said before in this thread that we don't know the wear of that 996.
Old brake fluid... wear shocks, old and glassy tires...
These items could cause a longer brake distance.

Porsche brakes are quite good because they are strong and have high resistance to fade

 

Riad, why 02 or better?

 

They made significant changes to the exterior, interior and up'd the HP... nothing wrong with the 99-01, I had an 01 C4 for 3+ years but if you can swing it it's definitely worth looking at the 02+

 

If you're not sure, buy both

Two very different cars. The CLK500 is my daily driver ... as Phil said, bags of torque - Road and Track had this as a 5.3 0-60 car (or something like that). You can very easily light up the tires if you want. Great cruising car, good in rush hour traffic, etc. Not a p-car though.

The Targa gets out on sunny days and w/ends - "Porsche, there is no substitute"!

 

Intelligent election.
I had a BMW 3 series E46 Coupe na dit's was fantastic in daily driving, but Porsche changed my way to understand the feeling of driving

Do you like driving? Yes, Porsche ... of course

 

Wow 5.3 are you sure about that? AMG's are rated at 5.0 or 5.1, I guess 60hp isn't what it used to be.