Hey guys. I've been lurking for awhile, and the knowledge gained on this forum has been great. I just test drove a 99 996 this weekend. I was not really impressed. My 04 CLK 500 seemed to have more responsive steering and braking. The 996 really looked cheap inside. The 996 had a nicer engine sound and acceleration. Is my assessment way off?

Thanks

 

CLK having more responsive steering and braking? I think that's a *little* off. I had a CLK430 and added an AMG suspension and exhaust afterwards and it didn't feel anywhere close to the 996 now.

You're comparing a 2004 car to a 1999 car, so interior might be a little different in comparison, especially since MB is more of a luxury car and the 996 is more of a sportscar.

The CLK's stock suspension makes it feel REALLY floaty, even the for both the W208 (1st gen) and W209 (2nd gen) chassis. I can't imagine the CLK feeling more responsive than the 996, any year 996.

 

I would say so. If you honestly are comparing those two cars, just stick with the CLK. It will be more to your satisfaction.

996 should have much more responsive steering and, most likely, braking. 996 can look cheap inside depening upon option package. 996 could have a nice engine sound but the CLK 500 should have better straight line acceleration IIRC.

 

+1

Not everyone is made for 996. As my friend Bill says, "That's why they make chocolate and vanilla."

-td <- not in DC

 

Thanks for the input

 

Not sure that is quite true. Unless of course the guy next to me didn't kow how to drive an automatic

My wife and I were "challenged" by a CLK500 once and probably the one time I took the bait. The guy driving had his wife/girlfriend/etc in the pax seat as well so I just had to give in. Needless to say he was NOT faster so I backed off when we started creeping up toward triple digits and was a coupe lengths ahead of him.

Not saying I blew his doors off, but rather he was "almost" as fast as a 996.

Anyway, the cars are ENTIRELY different. The 996 is built for a different type of driving as well as consumer.

 

Wow, you guys are having problems with 6 second 0-60 cars? Are y'all sure you aren't getting the CLK500 confused with a CLK 55AMG?

 

Not sure what the HP was for the 2004 but the new model is a 5s car. By the way, I didn't have "problems" with him. I am pretty happy that I wasn't "beat" considering I was in my CAB!

 

1.) First of all we must say that early 996 interiors were not very good as latest production units. In fact if you compare in 996 a full leather interior to a plastic one, there is great quality difference.
Mercedes Benz is a high level car constructor, so may be possible to find the interior of your car better than the early 996 from '99.

Here you can see a pic of the interior of my 996. Watch it and tell me what you think about it:




2.) 911 is well known as best brakes in the world. A 996 has very good brakes, and so much powerful than Mercedes.
But we don't know how the brakes, suspension and tires were exactly.

3.) The handling of a 911 is very different to a 50/50 % weight car as your Mercedes. Mercedes is more easy to drive fast.

4.) A CLK 500 is a powerful car. 5.0 liter.... a good torque .....
996 3.4 l. 300 BHP .... It depends on your own point of view, but a 996 Carrera is not a supercar , all of us know it.

 

I've had both a CLK 320 and a CLK 500. Loved the 500 and had it for about 5 months after I got my C4S. It has gobs of torque and is more practical if you need to put people in the back seats (but not by much!). Winter handling was OK with the right winter tires. I was thinking of buying out the lease and keeping it after I got the Porsche, but I found that every time I'd go to grab a set of keys, it was always the C4S and the CLK500 just sat there getting dusty. The Porsche is just such a sharp instrument and communicates the road so much better. The CLK started to feel pudgy and soft every time I got behind the wheel and the automatic-only option never made me too happy. The C4S with the AWD is also a better winter car than the MB. The Porsche quickly becomes an addiction and I can't ever imagine not having a least one in my garage...it's the benchmark by which all other cars are judged IMHO.

 

LOL u mean the clk500 that had like insane lease deals due to poor sales due to benz wanting to unload them?

can't belive this is even being discussed

 

what about the ??550*? Some guy rolled up next to me with his temp tagged two door har top 550* (not sure what the car is exactly not a MB guy) and pointed his finger ahead and raised the eyebrow. I declined as the road was busy and not really into that anyway. Seemed stupid "racing" a sedan.

 

The new 5.5L Engines from MB are powerful. They now have 4-valves per cyl instead of the old-school 3-valves per. The *550 has I believe 380hp with 390ft-lb torque, N/A V8. This is all straight-line though.

 

I drove a friend's CLK 500, it's an insulated pig - felt like I was driving a Chevy or something - sure, it had some torque...but the steering is beyond numb, tons of body roll in corners, mushy brake pedal...yecch.

Like most MBs, it's a nice looking old man's car that you can't even buy with a stick.

 

Mercedes don't have 50/50 weight distribution.

I do somewhat agree that Mercs do have better interior. My Porsche don't have a leather package so it looks a bit cheap. My daily driver E46 M3 has better interior than my Porsche.