Mercedes CLK 2003 vs Chrysler Sebring 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 262 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
| Mercedes CLK engine produces 40 HP less power than Chrysler Sebring, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Chrysler Sebring. Despite less power, Mercedes CLK reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 10.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mercedes CLK is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes CLK consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring, which means that by driving the Mercedes CLK over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes CLK consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 580 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: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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: | 440'000 km | 460'000 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 3 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes SLK | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Chrysler 300C, Chrysler 300M, Dodge Intrepid | |
| 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: | 4.64 m | 4.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Mercedes CLK is smaller, but slightly higher. Mercedes CLK is 28 cm shorter than the Chrysler Sebring, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes CLK is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 276 litres | 320 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
390 litres | no data | |
|
Chrysler Sebring has more luggage space. Mercedes CLK has 44 litres less trunk space than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes CLK is 0.2 metres less than that of the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`135 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
Chrysler Sebring has
| |