Couple SC430 vs CLK430 questions....
12-09-03, 01:43 AM
#1
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: CHICAGO
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple SC430 vs CLK430 questions....
I am looking at buying a new car....I really would prefer a coupe to a sedan such as LS, GS, or S class. That basically leaves me 3 choices....CL500 which is prob. more than I want to spend right now, the CLK430 and the SC430. I have my SC400 now and really like it. What are your thoughts on the CLK versus the SC? It appears the SC430 has absolutely no back-seat room at all. Granted, I dont think it is really designed for passengers. My only other issue is from what Ive heard that the SC's resale value isnt that great, while the CLK is among the best out of 9-10 luxury cars I compared.....I really would prefer to stay with Lexus, but unfortunately the downsizing of the SC size wise may force me elsewhere....but thats why I am asking you guys, you own one and will offer honest opinions.
12-09-03, 04:58 AM
#2
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjr24,
I just bought my SC430 about a month ago. I was going through the same questions...CLK vs SC430. I owned a RX300 Silversport before. I did my comparisons. Here are some of my thoughts:
1) I am a 28 yr old female with no kids. The CLK sounded great in case we were to have a baby, then it would fit a baby seat. That to me was the biggest plus on the CLK.
2) The CLK430, add in the options that I would want (navigation etc)...would end up costing more than the SC430.
3) Have you test driven the CLK with the top up? Anytime you have a ragtop, the wind noise is much greater. A hartop is so much better.
4) I don't know how long you plan on keeping your car but maintenance on the CLK is going to be a lot more expensive.
5) The CLK is more of a sedan not as sporty.
Those factors led me to purchase the SC430 and I am totally happy with it!
I just bought my SC430 about a month ago. I was going through the same questions...CLK vs SC430. I owned a RX300 Silversport before. I did my comparisons. Here are some of my thoughts:
1) I am a 28 yr old female with no kids. The CLK sounded great in case we were to have a baby, then it would fit a baby seat. That to me was the biggest plus on the CLK.
2) The CLK430, add in the options that I would want (navigation etc)...would end up costing more than the SC430.
3) Have you test driven the CLK with the top up? Anytime you have a ragtop, the wind noise is much greater. A hartop is so much better.
4) I don't know how long you plan on keeping your car but maintenance on the CLK is going to be a lot more expensive.
5) The CLK is more of a sedan not as sporty.
Those factors led me to purchase the SC430 and I am totally happy with it!
12-09-03, 10:29 AM
#4
Pole Position
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CLK430 is no longer in production.. They stoped making them and I am not a big fan of the new shape CLK 500, I like the e class. Why would u buy a car thats not current 
12-09-03, 11:03 AM
#5
Pole Position
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My wife has an SC430 and I have ridden in a friend's CLK430. To me, the SC430 is a lot more luxurious car, both in ambience and in ride quality. The back seat of the SC is not as useful, but it's a long way from "useless".
12-09-03, 06:19 PM
#7
It's the new BMW 645Ci convertible. Not my cup of tea, to begin with, plus I'll NEVER own another ragtop.
Then there's the price: pushing 80 grand fully optioned. Looks just like a 3-series inside. Wheels are the same size, 19 inchers (optional), but different sizes. Standard tires are RFs, but contrary to somebody's comment that they were the same size as ours, they aren't: 245-45-18s.
The MB 430 V8 (4.3) was replaced by a larger 5 liter to remain competitive in the HP wars, hence the name change: CLK500 (E500, ML500, etc). It happens to be a new model this year too. Again, no way I'd own another ragtop again; too many drawbacks: VERY expensive to insure (for obvious reasons), needs a lot of maintenance, and VERY noisy. I also don't like MB interiors; look cheap.
Good evening.
Then there's the price: pushing 80 grand fully optioned. Looks just like a 3-series inside. Wheels are the same size, 19 inchers (optional), but different sizes. Standard tires are RFs, but contrary to somebody's comment that they were the same size as ours, they aren't: 245-45-18s.
The MB 430 V8 (4.3) was replaced by a larger 5 liter to remain competitive in the HP wars, hence the name change: CLK500 (E500, ML500, etc). It happens to be a new model this year too. Again, no way I'd own another ragtop again; too many drawbacks: VERY expensive to insure (for obvious reasons), needs a lot of maintenance, and VERY noisy. I also don't like MB interiors; look cheap.
Good evening.
Trending Topics
12-10-03, 12:42 PM
#8
Lexus Champion
Just my 2 Cents as a former SC430 owner...
CLK 430:
-Better handling than the SC430. I drove one before purchasing the SC.
-Much more spartan interior than the SC430. Sound system isn't even close.
-Noisier because of the ragtop.
-More attractive than the new CLK (IMHO). Has more presence. I can certainly understand why you would go for the old style.
CLK 500:
-Beautiful interior.
-Not crazy about the style as mentioned above. Like the SC or old CLK better.
-I've read quite a bit lately about quality control issues with the new M-B models. I believe most are related to the new technology incorporated into the new models.
-Noisier because of the ragtop.
SC430:
-Quiet
-Unbelievable sound system
-Beautiful inside and out
-Reliable
-Great (but not immediate) power
-Steering and handling could be tighter (if you're a car enthusiast)
-Resale was great on my trade several months ago
Perhaps the biggest issue I found with the SC430 is that of the stiff runflats that affect ride and handling. If you replace them with non-runflats, you must either install a spare tire kit (which takes most of your top-down trunk space) or rely on Fix-a-flat (which ruins your tire sensors). If they've come out with a better runflat, the issue has been resolved.
If you're looking for something with a littler more room, you should definitely check out the Infiniti G35 Coupe as SexySC recommended. To me, it is the modern interpretation of the first-gen SC. No convertible though.
Good luck in your quest!
DSeag2
CLK 430:
-Better handling than the SC430. I drove one before purchasing the SC.
-Much more spartan interior than the SC430. Sound system isn't even close.
-Noisier because of the ragtop.
-More attractive than the new CLK (IMHO). Has more presence. I can certainly understand why you would go for the old style.
CLK 500:
-Beautiful interior.
-Not crazy about the style as mentioned above. Like the SC or old CLK better.
-I've read quite a bit lately about quality control issues with the new M-B models. I believe most are related to the new technology incorporated into the new models.
-Noisier because of the ragtop.
SC430:
-Quiet
-Unbelievable sound system
-Beautiful inside and out
-Reliable
-Great (but not immediate) power
-Steering and handling could be tighter (if you're a car enthusiast)
-Resale was great on my trade several months ago
Perhaps the biggest issue I found with the SC430 is that of the stiff runflats that affect ride and handling. If you replace them with non-runflats, you must either install a spare tire kit (which takes most of your top-down trunk space) or rely on Fix-a-flat (which ruins your tire sensors). If they've come out with a better runflat, the issue has been resolved.
If you're looking for something with a littler more room, you should definitely check out the Infiniti G35 Coupe as SexySC recommended. To me, it is the modern interpretation of the first-gen SC. No convertible though.
Good luck in your quest!
DSeag2
12-17-03, 10:37 AM
#9
Rookie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing a SC430 to a old body clk is a very odd comparsion.
The SC blows the CLK430 out the water in EVERY aspect. The CLK430 is outdated and even if you found a loaded 430, why spend 44-49k on a car that was just completly redesigned? You might be able to compare a CLK500 cab to a SC430 and get somewhat of a good competiton.......sorta.
A CLK500 equipped with standard options of a SC is going to cost you proabably 62+ depending on availability and your greedy dealership price inflation. Its harder to get and it just looks so damn ugly. The CLK looks like a C class coupe. Mercedes isnt going in the right direction with the new CLK.
A good comparsion for the SC430 will be the upcomming BMW 645i cab
The SC blows the CLK430 out the water in EVERY aspect. The CLK430 is outdated and even if you found a loaded 430, why spend 44-49k on a car that was just completly redesigned? You might be able to compare a CLK500 cab to a SC430 and get somewhat of a good competiton.......sorta.
A CLK500 equipped with standard options of a SC is going to cost you proabably 62+ depending on availability and your greedy dealership price inflation. Its harder to get and it just looks so damn ugly. The CLK looks like a C class coupe. Mercedes isnt going in the right direction with the new CLK.
A good comparsion for the SC430 will be the upcomming BMW 645i cab
12-17-03, 10:54 AM
#10
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but the BMW is going to be WAY more expensive isn't it?? I thought close to 80K!!!?? Is that right?? If it is, then it certainly is not something to compare the SC to. The performance numbers I read said it was 0-60 around 6.0 sec. I'm sure it handles great, but not for an extra $15-20K!! Just my two cents.
Doc C
Doc C
12-17-03, 11:36 AM
#11
Rookie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc:
The 645i may very well be in the 70s or low 80s but it is compared to the SC430. Look at the roadsters/2+2's compared to the SC430.
XK8/XKR, SL500, XLR, even the 911 cab. All of these are well over 70-100k BUT are compared to the SC430 (see motor trends comparison in the Oct and Nov issue)
The SC is your lower priced mid-large body convertable. In my opinion, not to be compared with a CLK. Would you compare an SC430 to a 330ci or even a M3ci? I would hope not. The CLK320/500/55 cab is compared to a 325ci/330ci/M3ci
I think your doing a cost comparsion, not a car comparsion.
The 645i may very well be in the 70s or low 80s but it is compared to the SC430. Look at the roadsters/2+2's compared to the SC430.
XK8/XKR, SL500, XLR, even the 911 cab. All of these are well over 70-100k BUT are compared to the SC430 (see motor trends comparison in the Oct and Nov issue)
The SC is your lower priced mid-large body convertable. In my opinion, not to be compared with a CLK. Would you compare an SC430 to a 330ci or even a M3ci? I would hope not. The CLK320/500/55 cab is compared to a 325ci/330ci/M3ci
I think your doing a cost comparsion, not a car comparsion.
12-18-03, 04:45 PM
#13
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're looking for something with a littler more room, you should definitely check out the Infiniti G35 Coupe as SexySC recommended. To me, it is the modern interpretation of the first-gen SC. No convertible though.
12-28-03, 07:47 PM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: CHICAGO
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trolling?? I have 200 more posts than you (not to mention you dont even own a 430)......wake up. If I knew everything I needed to know, why would I bother asking this.....you guys are the ones who own the SC430, thats why Im asking.
Last edited by mjr24; 12-28-03 at 07:47 PM.
12-28-03, 09:46 PM
#15
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triggaice,
You're right. Automotive journals have thrown the SC in with the SL, XK,etc. I think the SC is every bit of car that those are. What I meant by my last post on the 645 is that I don't think a car that costs that much more with the same 0-60 numbers is a comparison for someone who has 60K to spend on a car. It has a ragtop and I just couldn't justify the price difference. Auto companies make it difficult for head to head comparisons and try to place vehicles into niche areas where they compete with vehicles with lower and higher price tags. The BMW is a great car I'm sure. And I'm sure it handles great. Every one of those magazines have given the SC the best value title in all the comparos I have read. I love the SL styling. Do I love it $30K more than the SC?? No. When the SC 430 first came out, the initial comparison made was directly against the CLK. They were competitively priced and I saw several articles that compared just those two alone. So, going by your criteria, (using magazine articles as a foundation for what should be compared) I would definitely say the SC 430/CLK 320/500/550 comparison is valid. At the time, the SC 430 was considered a slightly better vehicle simply because the CLK was in need of an update. It has that now and probably is as good or better than the SC. Who knows??
Doc C
You're right. Automotive journals have thrown the SC in with the SL, XK,etc. I think the SC is every bit of car that those are. What I meant by my last post on the 645 is that I don't think a car that costs that much more with the same 0-60 numbers is a comparison for someone who has 60K to spend on a car. It has a ragtop and I just couldn't justify the price difference. Auto companies make it difficult for head to head comparisons and try to place vehicles into niche areas where they compete with vehicles with lower and higher price tags. The BMW is a great car I'm sure. And I'm sure it handles great. Every one of those magazines have given the SC the best value title in all the comparos I have read. I love the SL styling. Do I love it $30K more than the SC?? No. When the SC 430 first came out, the initial comparison made was directly against the CLK. They were competitively priced and I saw several articles that compared just those two alone. So, going by your criteria, (using magazine articles as a foundation for what should be compared) I would definitely say the SC 430/CLK 320/500/550 comparison is valid. At the time, the SC 430 was considered a slightly better vehicle simply because the CLK was in need of an update. It has that now and probably is as good or better than the SC. Who knows??
Doc C