Hi im new to the CL range after previously owning a CLK and an SL and im wondering if the reviews i read in parkers guide are true with regard to the performance figures. It says that the 2002 CL500 was significantly quicker than the early 500 and that the early 600 offers no performance advantage over the 500. Is this correct ? There are lots of versions of early 500's early 600's and the 02 on 500 and i dont want to go for an early version 5 or 6 and find it a bit sluggish. There are some nice AMG spec cars at reasonable money whats the best to go for ?. I would like black or silver with AMG if possible.
Are these cars reliable if maintained properly ?
The full monty 55 models are a different car i know but i dont want to go to that extent.
Well the quick answer is that you should try to get the newest and the least run car you can. So a 2002 is usually better than a 2001. If the 2001 was barely used then you may have a bargain on our hands. They boh look the same (in terms of years) so that is not much different and in terms of performance, you will probably not notice the difference between a 500 to a 600 (unless you are a racer or something).
Relaibility has been a issue with these cars but as long as you get a CPO with extended warranty, you should not have an issue.
I got my 2002 CL500 last week for under 40K only had 40K miles and CPO with entended warranty (until 2010 or 100K miles). To me, I got a steal. I could have gotten a newer car with less miles but not CPO so that was a deal breaker.
You are not going to go wrong with either as this is a great car and you are GOING to pay, these are not cheap cars.
Linear Mode
