Mercedes CLK 2000 vs Mercedes CLK 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Mercedes CLK 2000 and Mercedes CLK 2003 have the same engine power, but Mercedes CLK 2000 torque is 10 NM less than Mercedes CLK 2003. Mercedes CLK 2000 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 9.1 | |
| Mercedes CLK 2000 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK 2003, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes CLK 2000 could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 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: | 4.57 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mercedes CLK 2000 is 7 cm shorter than the Mercedes CLK 2003, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes CLK 2000 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 276 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 390 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes CLK 2000 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mercedes CLK 2003. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`020 | 2`135 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
| |