Chrysler Sebring 2001 vs Mercedes CLK 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.7 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 262 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Chrysler Sebring engine produces 40 HP more power than Mercedes CLK, whereas torque is 22 NM more than Mercedes CLK. Despite the higher power, Chrysler Sebring reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mercedes CLK is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Sebring consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Sebring could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Sebring consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes CLK gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Chrysler Sebring) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes CLK) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Chrysler 300C, Chrysler 300M, Dodge Intrepid | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes SLK | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Sebring might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mercedes CLK 2003 1.8 engine: The most notable issue with this engine is the sticking of exhaust valves due to carbon buildup. Another significant problem is the unreliable timing chain, which can stretch by 100,000 km. Early symptoms of a ... More about Mercedes CLK 2003 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.92 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Chrysler Sebring is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler Sebring is 28 cm longer than the Mercedes CLK, 2 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Sebring is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 320 litres | 276 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 390 litres | |
|
Chrysler Sebring has more luggage capacity. Chrysler Sebring has 44 litres more trunk space than the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Sebring is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`990 | 2`135 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Sebring has
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |