Mercedes CLK 2003 vs Chrysler Sebring 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 310 NM | 188 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is more dynamic to drive. Mercedes CLK engine produces 77 HP more power than Chrysler Sebring, whereas torque is 122 NM more than Chrysler Sebring. Thanks to more power Mercedes CLK reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.9 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Chrysler Sebring is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes CLK consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes CLK could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes CLK consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Chrysler Sebring gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 480'000 km | 370'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML, Chrysler Crossfire | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler PT Cruiser, Mitsubishi Eclipse | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes CLK might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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`185 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
Chrysler Sebring has
| |