BMW 523 I Auto or Merc CLK 230?!

givyjoe81

So new job = new loan = new car! I plan to rid myself of my canyon red punto asap and these two are what im looking at, opinions on which represents the better buy would be most appreciated.

Have done some research on whatcar and it would seem that the beamer is the better option? On looks id got for the merc but lower mileage etc on the bmw has me thinking otherwise.

Here they are: Merc http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/Mercedes-Benz/CLK-230/car/985437/

BMW http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/BMW/523/I-AUTO/1047273/

Advice much appreciated.

michaelanthony

I had a 96 523i and it was a very nice car but the engine was weak and the car was slow. It also drank a litre of oil a week. So be careful when you buy older ones like this.

givyjoe81

michaelanthony wrote: »

I had a 96 523i and it was a very nice car but the engine was weak and the car was slow. It also drank a litre of oil a week. So be careful when you buy older ones like this.

A litre a week?! Where was it goin?! Leak? As regards slow, i drive a punto so a go cart prob be a step up as regards power!

RobAMerc

the beemer will be nicer to own and drive. the merc will be alot quicker but kill you on insurance

givyjoe81

RobAMerc wrote: »

the beemer will be nicer to own and drive. the merc will be alot quicker but kill you on insurance

Believe it or not the insurance is practically the same, literally withing a few euro's. Have checked out both on quinn, but may go with some else as i actually will give a s*it if this one gets wrote off.

DaveM-sport

Suppose the fact that the 523 is still a 2.5 makes the insurance similar...

Friend of mine had a 323 and it was a cracking car, wasn't much difference between it and a 325 in terms of performance either.... especially when he re-mapped it:D

sk8board

Its got to be the beemer.

Unless you new job is as a drug courier, in which case those alloys on the CLK are a must

Eoin

DaveM-sport wrote: »

Suppose the fact that the 523 is still a 2.5 makes the insurance similar...

Friend of mine had a 323 and it was a cracking car, wasn't much difference between it and a 325 in terms of performance either.... especially when he re-mapped it:D

Remapping the petrol BMW engines doesn't always help that much. A couple of guys on bmw-driver.net got their e46 coupes remapped. One guy just didn't like the way it felt after, and another guy had it dyno'd after and he had actually lost some BHP.

A 523 engine of that age may be affected by the NIKASIL issue - I was going to go for one, but went for a 525 instead. It has about 15 BHP more than the older 2.5 engine, and only about 10 less than the 528. Thirsty as f*ck though.

RobAMerc

DaveM-sport wrote: »

Suppose the fact that the 523 is still a 2.5 makes the insurance similar...

The Merc is a 2.3 supercharged coupe - I am very surprised its even in the same ball park to be honest

givyjoe81

RobAMerc wrote: »

The Merc is a 2.3 supercharged coupe - I am very surprised its even in the same ball park to be honest

Fairly sure i got the specs right when stickin in the details on quinn, in fact just stuck em in there again and they both come in round €1600. Thing is when i stick in the merc for business too it add's 400 yo yo's to price but only about 100 to beamer?! WTF!

DaveM-sport

Ya, the Nikasil bore can be quiet a problem on some models.

Strange, most petrol BMW engines that I have known to be re-mapped have had significant improvements
Take a 318iS for example... 136bhp up to around 150 and huge gains in low down torque.
The 323 that my mate got re-mapped came up to 182 or 188 iirc.

Anyway, that's a story for another day...
Not too keen on the colour of the merc in the link or it's alloys to be honest

I have a friend of mine that is selling his 523 actually. It's the dark blue colour and has all leather and M5 kit on it etc...
Might be abit too gangster for your tastes though as it has 19" Breytons and tinted windows...

michaelanthony

givyjoe81 wrote: »

A litre a week?! Where was it goin?! Leak? As regards slow, i drive a punto so a go cart prob be a step up as regards power!

It definitely wasn't leaking onto the ground. I don't know where it went. Probably it was burned.

Mr.Diagnostic

The Merc is probably a nicer car but the BMW would be cheaper to run and more reliable. In general either are ok. As mentioned the one thing to be careful about is the BMW nikasil issue. This can be checked easily enough. Any dealer can tell if the engine has been changed or not from the VIN.

givyjoe81

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

The Merc is probably a nicer car but the BMW would be cheaper to run and more reliable. In general either are ok. As mentioned the one thing to be careful about is the BMW nikasil issue. This can be checked easily enough. Any dealer can tell if the engine has been changed or not from the VIN.

Errr... Just one Q! What is the nikasil issue?! The VIN?!

Ferris

Nikasil was a low resistance coating that some manufacturers used in the cylinder bores so that they could machine to tighter tolerances. The problem was that the high sulpher content in petrol in the UK and the US caused the coating to break down, allowing oil past the piston rings == blown engine.

For me it would be the CLK because of the better residuals and the fact that you're young. I don't like that wine one tho, there should be a selection of CLK's that are not selling at the mo so buy the best you can afford.

JHMEG

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Errr... Just one Q! What is the nikasil issue?! The VIN?!

Nikasil was used by BMW in the manufacture of their engines, and it killed them in their thousands.

Are the alloys in the Merc genuine? They look like Wolfrace with Merc centres stuck in.

Both cars are really for older gentlemen. Would you consider something a bit younger?

Eoin

Specifically, lower quality fuel killed the engines. More info here. If you can get the VIN of the car you are looking at, then put the last 7 characters in this site - www.realoem.com and it will tell you the engine number that was installed in the car, which should help narrow it down.

I'm biased, but I don't think they are old man cars.

unkel

Just to clear up some misinformation about the BMW Nikasil issue. As Ferris said, this issue only occurred if dirty (high-sulphur) petrol was used long term. This was a problem in the USA and the UK (North sea oil) only! The rest of Europe typically used low-sulphur middle eastern sourced oil. Nowadays all petrol is low-sulphur (even in the USA)

The Nikasil bore linings in the 6-pot BMW engine were replaced by Alusil from April '98. The above car does not have a Nikasil issue

As for choice of the two cars - what does OP want in a car?

The CLK is elegant and stylish. Beautiful design in the classic Mercedes-Benz coupe tradition. The compressor (supercharger) will give it more torque than the BMW at lower levels, so it will be a more relaxed drive. More comfortable than the BMW too. It will probably keep its value better. And it's a coupe

The BMW is a good looking saloon that is excellent to drive (no other car of its generation even comes close). Fine 6-pot engine too. The BMW is likely to be more reliable and cheaper to own

Both are in the worst CO2 category, so if you want to import one, VRT now is a bit cheaper than after 01/07/2008

michaelanthony wrote: »

I had a 96 523i and it was a very nice car but the engine was weak and the car was slow. It also drank a litre of oil a week. So be careful when you buy older ones like this.

There were obviously serious problems with that engine, maybe Nikasil indeed. UK import, I presume? Did you have the car checked out by a mechanic?

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Just to clear up some misinformation about the BMW Nikasil issue.

Everybody knows someone who has been touched by the BMW Nikasil issue. I personally know two people who suffered losses because of it.

eoin_s wrote:

I'm biased, but I don't think they are old man cars.

Not old man cars, well not the Merc anyway, but neither are really cars for 20-somethings.

Eoin

unkel wrote: »

This was a problem in the USA and the UK (North sea oil) only! The rest of Europe typically used low-sulphur middle eastern sourced oil. Nowadays all petrol is low-sulphur (even in the USA)

The Nikasil bore linings in the 6-pot BMW engine were replaced by Alusil from April '98. The above car does not have a Nikasil issue

Richie_rfv had the same problem on an Irish version that was never imported from the UK.

While it's probable that the car doesn't have the Nikasil block, it's not an absolute guarantee. Here's a relevant section from the link I posted earlier - the emphasis is mine.

The M52 is not as easy. The E36s (3-series), E34s (5-series) and E39 (5-series) are affected. E30s, E46s, E28s are not. But not all the 6-cylinder cars are affected either. The early ones had the M50 (no VANOS) engine, and late ones had the M54 (double VANOS) motor. It is only the single VANOS M52 units that were affected (and then not even all of them). The effect of VANOS is to lower the revs at which peak torque is produced. On the M50, peak torque is produced at 4,700 rpm (2.0 and 2.5 litre). On the M52, maximum torque is produced at 4,200 rpm (2.0 litre) or 3,950 rpm (2.5 and 2.8 litre). On the M54, peak torque is produced at 3,500 rpm (2.0, 2.5 and 2.8 litre). Look at the peak torque figures in the Owner’s Handbook and your question is answered.

Once one has established that the engine is an M52, the next stage is to work out whether it has Nikasil liners or not. Steel liners were introduced into production at Week 10 in 1998, i.e. March 1998. Cars built before then will have Nikasil liners; but that is not the same thing as saying that cars sold after then will have steel liners - cars can sit around for a while, and it is the build date that is critical, not the date on which the vehicle is put into service. Contrary to certain information, the engine code change from "S6 3" to "S6 4" did not coincide with the move to steel liners and therefore not all "S6 3" cars are Nikasil. Whilst it is probably safe to assume that any car sold during 1999 or later is safe from the Nikasil issue, my advice (to be on the safe side) has to be to be very wary of any M52 and check the block material with BMW before buying it.

JHMEG wrote: »

Not old man cars, well not the Merc anyway, but neither are really cars for 20-somethings.

I think the M-Sport models don't look as old man-ish - but then again I only have 14 days left in my 20s, so maybe I just bought one in advance!

unkel

eoin_s wrote: »

Richie_rfv had the same problem on an Irish version that was never imported from the UK

Perhaps his car was driven / filled up a lot in the UK by one of the previous owners? Or dodgy petrol supplier? Or getting cheaper petrol in the North at the time? Nikasil does not exist on the continent.

In relation to the enigine, you are right. It could be that it was produced in early '98 and that the car was not registered until '99. Unlikely, but possible.

JHMEG wrote: »

Everybody knows someone who has been touched by the BMW Nikasil issue

It was a huge issue, especially in the USA. The problems start well outside of normal warranty periods, but because of consumer power in the USA, BMW had to come up with extended 100,000 mile / 6 year warranties and they had to replace many engines free of charge. UK owners weren't so fortunate. I haven't a clue what the whole saga cost BMW but I'd wager it was a 9-figure sum

givyjoe81

JHMEG wrote: »

Nikasil was used by BMW in the manufacture of their engines, and it killed them in their thousands.

Are the alloys in the Merc genuine? They look like Wolfrace with Merc centres stuck in.

Both cars are really for older gentlemen. Would you consider something a bit younger?

Im a little confused as to why they are only for older gentleman?! Us young folk like nice cars too!

As regards other posts colour not a big issue for me, the interior is though, think it's rather stylish on them both but afaik the beamer is gone at this stage and judging from pics of merc its been up for sale for a while (leafless trees in background!) Have seen a couple of similar BMW's but dont like the black interior.

As for what im looking for its gotta be CLK230 or similar model or perhaps another five series, these cars because well they look the business, leather upholstery, automatic and thats about it really, oh and under 10k!! I have my work cut out?!

This nikasil problem would really put me off the five series though, for me that's a serious implication for its reliability, even though i hear the clk has silly niggly issues with electronics etc.

Oh cheers to the dude for the link to check out the vin number.

Tails142

00 528i automatic owner here.

As unkel said its only pre march 98 cars that had nikasil issues. Also, I have had my car a year now, got it serviced last august, need to get it done again, oil change etc but I've been checking the levels quite often and they havent budged an inch.

In terms of the BMW or Merc, the Merc will be slightly more comfortable due to softer suspension, but the BMW will be a better car - there are many reviews from the 90's calling the 5 series BMW the best mid-size executive car around. I've never driven a merc so cant compare but if the reviews are anything to go by you're onto a good one.

As to that particular BMW you have picked out, I dont like the rims and the headlights are not standard, the angel eyes came into effect with some other minor changes in late 2000, and pre 2000 car with angel eyes will either have new lenses, which might not have the auto head light level feature (i.e. cheap ones off ebay) or cheap rings which sit into the original headlights to create the effect, but these burn out after a few months (I know, I've had two sets). You can get the OEM angel eyes from hella, but they're €2000, so something to consider.

If I was you I'd go for the beamer though, mercs are old men cars

G-Money

I wouldn't mind a BMW myself. I didn't really think I would consider one but recently I have begun to come around to the idea. I'm no petrol head so I know flip all about cars, I just like how the 3 series looks. I've no idea how they drive compared to a Merc or anything else for that matter.

Also when it comes to reliability I've no idea what they are like. That Nikisail issue or whatever it is called sounds a bit dodgy though.

Regarding the insurance, a mate of mine recently bought a 99 Merc. I think it was a C class or something, I'm not sure. Anyway it is Group 12 I think which sounds expensive but when he got his insurance quote it was between £200 and £300 sterling fully comprehensive. I'm not sure what it would be in euro and of course he's living in the North, but granted it was still a LOT cheaper than I or he would have expected. He is with Quinn Direct btw. So it might not be so expensive down south either.

E92

The Nikasil problem only affects 320i, 323i, 328i, 520i, 523i, 528i, 728i, Z3 2.0 and 2.8 built between 96 and week 10 in 98(i.e. any BMW with the M52 engine, the non VANOS one, M52s with VANOS don't have this problem and are designated M52TU), as well as early 90's 530i, 730i, 540i, 740i and 840i(i.e. any BMW with the M60 engine).

All other BMWs are on the whole reliable save the overheating when they get old and of course the turbos on the 320d built between 02 and 04.

Mr.Diagnostic

There is quite a bit of misinformation here on the nikasil issue.

For the purposes of the subject of this thread, i.e. buying a 5 series that was sold in 98/99 then Nikasil could be an issue. Nikasil did effect cars sold in Ireland. Any 5 series sold in the UK or Ireland up to 99 with the single vanos M52 engine could suffer. (The V8’s were effected too).
At this stage most of the cars that are likely to give trouble have done so but every now and again one will surface. Due to the cost of repairing them it is worth checking before purchase.
In my opinion, if any car has an engine with nikasil coated bores then it is worth walking away from.

alpina

Bought a new 523 in '97 held it for seven years & not an issue with it, absolutely fantastic car then traded against new five and to this day have times I miss it, whoever bought it got one clean car, only had 49, 000 done. Can be thirsty if driven on the max but worth it every now & then really good to handle.

If was my choice 523 all the way! had a merc before the 5 and only comparison I could give, the merc felt as if had no soul, don't ask me what that means but to drive & not necessrily at speed, the Beemer always felt more involved. Good luck with your choice, both good cars so will be down to personal choice, likes/dislikes.

G-Money

Is there any way to know when you go to see a BMW if it has the Nikisail issue or is it something that you'd need a mechanic to check out?

Also, what's the story about the turbo issue on cars made between 02 and 04?

alpina

As you can not see it ( I would guess, could be wrong) this is where your FSH will come into play, if there was an issue it should have been documented or even noted on the service manual, ie. extra work stamps maybe, spark plugs, oil, engine bay state & appearance, mostly if there was alot of work carried out you would notice something, if unsure though, walk away.

Tails142

Just buy a 99 or newer if you're worried about nikasil.

In my opinion any 98 car or older, at 10 years of age, would have shown up the nikasil problem already if its going to.

Eoin

grandmaster wrote: »

Is there any way to know when you go to see a BMW if it has the Nikisail issue or is it something that you'd need a mechanic to check out?

If it has the NIKASIL lining then you would need a compression check carried out, probably by BMW.

grandmaster wrote: »

Also, what's the story about the turbo issue on cars made between 02 and 04?

If you're referring to BMW turbo issues, then it's on the 320d 150bhp engine.