|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
230K vs 320
Hi,
Considering a 1999 CLK. Which engine would be more reliable long term? I love the V6, but for day to day use, both would be fine. Any comments from owners of these CLK models would be nice, in regards to their cars generally. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking on all the thousands and thousands of posts I've read, I can't recall even one negative post about the reliability of the 2.3 liter kompressor engine. Some have speculated on the long-term durability and replacement cost of the supercharger, but I don't think anyone has ever posted that theirs broke.
Regarding the M112 3.2 liter V6, they also seem to be very reliable engines with one exception - there have been a lot of posts on the rubber on the harmonic balancer pullies failing. The original part was replaced with a new one in 2000. If you buy the 320, I'd make sure to update the engine with the new part. If you do a search on harmonic balancer, there is a ton of information in the archives.
__________________
Paul S. 2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior. 79,200 miles. 1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron". |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a good thread:
M112 Harmonic Balancer Failure.. & Related Damage - Labor Estimate? and another: I bought a '00 E320. Questions about : Tranny fluid, engine oil, & harmonic balancer
__________________
Paul S. 2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior. 79,200 miles. 1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for your response, I'll take a look at the threads. Good to know the 230K is generally OK.
Cheers! |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|