Looks like a Mercedes, feels like a Honda

Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but first impressions do count for something.

I am currently looking for a replacement for my BMW 740, preferably a car that will provide a similar driving experience while addressing some of its shortcomings. Mercedes-Benz came to mind for several reasons: Quality, styling and driveability. The make has a reputation for quality and customer care that BMW cannot seem to match. Mercedes has also taken a more conservative stance with its styling than it's Bavarian competitor. (I feel that the styling trend of the new BMWs is atrocious.) I also love the way that the premium German automobiles handle the road.

I wanted a smaller car than an S-class, but one with a little more style than the E-class. I was attracted to the CLK almost immediately. The 2003 and 2004s have been restyled to eliminate the chunky look of the previous versions with nothing but positive results for both the coupe and the cabriolet. It looked like an automobile of obvious quality, yet with understated elegance. Exactly what I was looking for.

The exterior finish of the car was excellent, nothing less than what I would expect for this type of a car. The CLK 320 coupe runs a bit under $50K while the cabriolet is about $8K more. The CLK 500 starts at about $58K and the CLK 500 cabriolet runs to somewhat under $70,000. I thought that the extra $8,000 was a bit much to pay for a feature that I would only use on weekends, so I ruled out the cabriolet. I'd rather have the V8 in the 500, but I was not sure that it would be worth the extra cost in taxes and insurance. I figured that I would try out the V6 first and if the power proved to be inadequate go with the CLK 500.

Upon driving it, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of power. At no time did the car seem to labor or require a premature downshift, even while passing other cars on the freeway. It did not have the excess power of the BMW M3, but it did well enough nevertheless. I didn't sense any problems with the handling of the car, but I was not able to explore this as thoroughly as I would have liked. The car was noisier than I cared for. There was an unpleasant amount of road noise and the engine note reminded me of a four cylinder car. This would be not be the case with a CLK 500, but no matter what the engine, a car of this class should have a better insulated passenger compartment.

I found myself increasingly distracted by aspects of the car unrelated to driveability. The first thing that I noticed was the driver's seat. Although the seat was 10-way adjustable, no amount of adjusting could make me feel as if I were sitting in anything other than a hard, plastic chair. The feeling was so persistent that I frequently touched the seat with my hand to make sure that it was covered in leather. While driving the car, I became increasingly aware of a feeling of claustrophobia. I finally traced this to the proximity of the windshield to my face. It reminded me of a Honda Civic that I'd driven in Europe. Like that car, I found myself pushing the seat away from the windshield even though my legs had to reach for the pedals. I also found the control placement distracting. The seat controls are high upon the door, the mirror controls are obscured behind the steering wheel and the cruise control is an afterthought above the turn signal stalk. I was constantly switching on the cruise control as my fingers brushed it while operating the turn signals.

The speedometer is centered behind the steering wheel and has a blue digital display. It shows the current mileage, but that information is obscured by other extraneous data that forces you to spend a little too much time looking at it. The radio and climate control were located in the center console. The switches were nearly identical in both units and looked far too complicated to operate without a manual. The Bose stereo system was very good. It was superior to the Harmon-Kardons used in the BMWs, but still not up to the systems installed in the Infiniti and Lexus automobiles. A flip-up document holder is located between the seats. It seemed awfully small until I realized that there was a cup-holder located beneath it. The whole document compartment flips to the side to reveal it. It's a neat gadget, but there are better ways to install a cup-holder.

The rear seats of the CLK are small, but that is to be expected for a car this size. I am 6-1 and found myself to have sufficient headroom, but my legs felt cramped behind the hard plastic rear of the driver's seat. There was also the same sensation of sitting on a hard plastic bench that I experienced while driving the car. The worst part was trying to get out of the car. The front seat could not be moved far enough out of the way to allow me to escape. It finally cost me a twisted back to get out. Afterward, I promised to never get myself into such a predicament again. The rear seat of a CLK should only be reserved for small people and children.

All in all, I did enjoy the CLK. It had good power and handling and was less ponderous than an S-class Mercedes or 7-series BMW. However, I believe that a $50,000 car should be more comfortable. Hard seats and tinny engine noise are features reminiscent of cars costing half as much. When you factor in that the cost of maintenance is going to reflect a $50,000 car, a less expensive car would be a better choice. A CLK 500 would be faster and provide a better sounding engine, but will cost nearly $10K more and be just as uncomfortable. There is just something missing in the CLK that I experienced with the older Mercedes-Benz automobiles. I would rather save the premium that I would have to pay for a CLK and purchase a Lexus or Infiniti with similar features.