Mercedes CLK 1999 vs Chrysler Sebring 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 136 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 188 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Chrysler Sebring is a more dynamic driving. Mercedes CLK engine produces 5 HP less power than Chrysler Sebring, but torque is 2 NM more than Chrysler Sebring. Due to the lower power, Mercedes CLK reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mercedes CLK is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes CLK consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes CLK consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes CLK 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: | 580'000 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: | 8 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mercedes E klase, Mercedes SLK | 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. Chrysler Sebring might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Mercedes CLK is smaller. Mercedes CLK is 35 cm shorter than the Chrysler Sebring, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes CLK is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 320 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes CLK is 0.3 metres less than that of the Chrysler Sebring. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
Chrysler Sebring has
| |