Addiction2

I had an SL for 14 months and drove a loaner 4 of those months. I also found the entire electronics suite (gps, stereo) to be poor. And the interior doesn't really pop for me either, I much prefer the SC interior. Exterior as much as I like the SC an SL trumps it everyday and twice on Sunday.

rogers2

That's a SL interior pic not a CL. Plus the SL picture you post doesn't even have a wood package.

norman52

This thread started out about comparing a SC430 to a CL. Two totally different cars as the CL isn't even a convertable. Then it moved on to a CLK which seemed to bore everyone so it moved on to an SL. That photo is a 2008 SL and it does have just a hint of wood by the gear shift.

Baby ///M3

I have both cars so I'll chime in:

In terms of performance:

The Mercedes CL feels/sounds like a freight train in full throttle (probably because I have aftermarket quad exhausts and Sprint Booster installed). It's fairly quick but it's obviously heavy. The transmission's downshift is more noticeable and is not as smooth as the one on the SC430.

The SC430 feels more like a floating magnetic bullet train. It's very quiet and yet, feels just as fast as the Mercedes when it gets up there. Without the Sprint Booster on my CL, I find the SC430's throttle more responsive and breathes easier on highway speed. But its suspension is relatively soft and it doesn't turn with as much confidence as the CL.

In terms of comfort:

The CL's leather feels like alligator skin compare to the SC430's, which I find to be extremely soft and thin. I find the Lexus leather to be a bit more comfortable but it's also a lot more difficult to maintain and may eventually crack earlier than the Mercedes' one. The CL interior is more lavishly equipped and obviously has more toys and buttons than the SC430 does. Both cars probably have as much wood as any living person can withstand, unless you're from the 15th century.

The CLK and E classes' interiors are completely different from the CL class. It's hard to explain but if you've ever sat in these cars, you'll understand. For those who mentioned the words such as plastic, boring, or no wood, they probably sat in either a CLK, E or C class. These are not comparable to the CL and S models.

In terms of look and reliability:

It's purely subjective when it comes to the look. Obviously, a car can't look good on the street if it's in the shop all the time. If it weren't for the fact that I've already suffered from enough shocks about Mercedes' reliability, I could've sworn that my CL is haunted. Its electronic just does little weird things that no scientific mind can ever explain.

The SC430 appears to be bullet proof and its top (whether closed or not) is simply gorgeous. Other than the electronics and suspension, the Mercedes CL's motor and transmission are also very reliable.

In terms of functionality:

Everything on the SC430 is easier to use/understand/navigate than the CL's unit, which is also nice but regrettably, useless when you're driving unless you have at least 3 eyes. The only thing that's worse is probably the I-drive unit you see on the newer BMWs.

The SC430's Mark Levinson unit is as good as the CL's Bose unit. Unless I am becoming deaf, I find these two units to be very comparable and are both equally impressive. If you like to attend Star War conventions, then you'll love playing with the CL's electronic components.

The cup holders on the CL are slightly more useful than the SC430's, even though both are capable of short circuiting the entire center console if you drive more aggressively than a grandma. I find the seat belts on the SC430 very difficult to grab from the get go, perhaps my lack of gymnastic ability has something to do with it.


For weekend and leisure purposes, it's a toss up between these two cars for me. For daily driving, the SC430 is definitely a better choice. The Mercedes CL, on the other hand shines when it comes to important business meetings and transporting discriminating clients (and perhaps girls).

Jon