Run Flat Tires/New CLK
05-04-03, 08:00 PM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Run Flat Tires/New CLK
5/4/2003. I am on the verge of buying an SC 430 or the new design of the Mercedes CLK, which will be available in June.
1. Any advice on getting the run flat tires? Most problems seem to be from a year or two ago. Have previous problems been resolved in 2003?
2. Any opinions on the SC 430 vs redesigned CLK?
Thanks
1. Any advice on getting the run flat tires? Most problems seem to be from a year or two ago. Have previous problems been resolved in 2003?
2. Any opinions on the SC 430 vs redesigned CLK?
Thanks
05-04-03, 09:55 PM
#2
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally I will suggest get the Run Flat Tires, they make the ride more harsh and make the car handling worst but RFT does make the trunk useful when the hard top is down, especially for ppl like me who drive with the top down a lot and always leave stuff like bag pack and books in the trunk. thats just me, other ppl probably have different opinion.
I love the new CLK and I was a owner of a pervious CLK. which CLK model you compare with the SC? Coupe or Convertible? 500 or 55? if you are thinking to get a CLK55 AMG you should wait for next year's supercharge V8 476hp model. In all Mercedes I will only choose the CLK55 Coupe (476hp) and SL55 over the SC430.
I love the new CLK and I was a owner of a pervious CLK. which CLK model you compare with the SC? Coupe or Convertible? 500 or 55? if you are thinking to get a CLK55 AMG you should wait for next year's supercharge V8 476hp model. In all Mercedes I will only choose the CLK55 Coupe (476hp) and SL55 over the SC430.
05-04-03, 10:20 PM
#3
Super Moderator
Dollar for dollar, no Mercedes SL's or CLK's are better than the SC430 as an overall package. To me, only the SL55 AMG or SL600 is more desirable over the SC430 if price is not a factor.
The SC430 is intended to be more of a luxury car than a sports car, so some might think the CLK would be more sporty, but so is the Mazda Miata. So you have to consider what your personal preference is. As an overall package, the CLK (C Class based) isn't in the same class as the much more luxurious and well equipped SC430, not to mention the difference in the quality and reliability reputation of the two brands.
The SC430 is intended to be more of a luxury car than a sports car, so some might think the CLK would be more sporty, but so is the Mazda Miata. So you have to consider what your personal preference is. As an overall package, the CLK (C Class based) isn't in the same class as the much more luxurious and well equipped SC430, not to mention the difference in the quality and reliability reputation of the two brands.
05-05-03, 11:53 AM
#4
I have an '03 SC430 that I purchased in 9/02. Before buying it, I waited for the introduction of the redesigned CLK (8/02). I had always loved the old CLK and was looking forward to the new one. Quite honestly, I was disappointed. I felt the old CLK had a clean design with nice presence. The new design (IMO) seems busy and kinda wimpy compared to the original. The front end is pretty, but the back end looks generic and the car looks foreshortened from certain angles. I never went as far as test driving, so I can't help you there.
Re: the runflats, I do have one of the models that has (or had) the latest runflats... Bridgestone Potenzas. Although they weren't bad, at the recommendation of several other ClubLexus members I replaced them with non-runflats at 11,000 miles. They were smooth riding on smooth roads... plain and simple. Potholes and railroad tracks were a nightmare, cornering grip was poor, and they transmitted enough shock into the cabin to cause roof and dashboard rattles. I used to cringe when I saw rough spots ahead in the road. I know quite a few other CL members defend them, but that's only because they've never tried non-runflats.
I've now put 700 miles on my Michelin Pilot Sports and couldn't be happier. The ride is smoother and the handling is improved. The rattles have also gone away. There is a trade-off... you either have to get a donut spare (which takes most useable trunk space when the roof is down) or go without. Since I now only use my SC a few days a week, I chose to forego the spare and carry a can of Fix-a-flat. I'll call Lexus Roadside Assistance if needed.
My impression of the car is that it is beautiful, extremely smooth, and impeccably built. Every time I get in, I'm blown away by the look of the interior, the smell of the leather, and the quality of the sound system. I would do it all over again!
DSeag2
Re: the runflats, I do have one of the models that has (or had) the latest runflats... Bridgestone Potenzas. Although they weren't bad, at the recommendation of several other ClubLexus members I replaced them with non-runflats at 11,000 miles. They were smooth riding on smooth roads... plain and simple. Potholes and railroad tracks were a nightmare, cornering grip was poor, and they transmitted enough shock into the cabin to cause roof and dashboard rattles. I used to cringe when I saw rough spots ahead in the road. I know quite a few other CL members defend them, but that's only because they've never tried non-runflats.
I've now put 700 miles on my Michelin Pilot Sports and couldn't be happier. The ride is smoother and the handling is improved. The rattles have also gone away. There is a trade-off... you either have to get a donut spare (which takes most useable trunk space when the roof is down) or go without. Since I now only use my SC a few days a week, I chose to forego the spare and carry a can of Fix-a-flat. I'll call Lexus Roadside Assistance if needed.
My impression of the car is that it is beautiful, extremely smooth, and impeccably built. Every time I get in, I'm blown away by the look of the interior, the smell of the leather, and the quality of the sound system. I would do it all over again!
DSeag2
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
