German Car Forum

BODY - (including subcategories) - A5 (571 p), CLK (572 p)
TRAVELLING COMFORT - (including subcategories) - A5 (685 p), CLK (692 p)
ENGINE & TRANSMISSION - (including subcategories) - A5 (754 p), CLK (733 p)
DRIVING DYNAMICS - (including subcategories) - A5 (705 p), CLK (582 p)
ENVIRONMENTAL/COSTS - (including subcategories) - A5 (358 p), CLK (344 p)

TOTAL SCORE - A5 (3073 p), CLK (2923 p)

The new AUDI A5 gets the victory. Its driving dynamics and the famous engine adjust the comfort by the sport chassis and the 19" rims more than. The Mercedes CLK is recommended however as comfortable long-distance car. The cultivated diesel engines of the two rivals earn extra praise in view of the good road performances and the low fuel consumption, because they offer benefit without regret.


AUDI A5 3,0 TDI quattro / Mercedes CLK 320 CDI
Unloaded weight (work) 1740 1720
0-100 km/h (s) 6.2 7.0

Intresting note. This carmag says the CLK has better interior materials and feels more solid than the Audi. 175 p for A5 and 178 p for CLK.

Translated with babelfish:

Shows the A5 a few weak points with quality and materials: Through isolates gro? Spaltma? during the inside paneling, a wobbly light switch, missing clear lacquer on the hood inside and the something n?tern working T?erkleidungen f?t the A5 here in seeming a little behind the CLK to.


PS Autobild also said gave the 3er Coupe better score in interior materials than A5 in their comparison. Has Audi been sloppy with the interior in A5?

I would like to believe them but i can't.

Anyway Mercedes already downgraded the plastic quality and the design in the new C class so the new CLK will obviously be worse than A5.

There's a good chance that the interior isn't up to Audi's normal interior perfection, where BMW's 3-Series and Mercedes CLK have both stepped up there interior quality imo!

There is also a good chance that the journalist wasn't wearing his contact lenses.

That could be another reason! Poor interior build quality and materials are fairly easy to spot, I just don't see it!

maybe Audi didnt pay them enough

You don't see quality. You feel it with your hands.

When you are in an Audi you don't have to test it for quality cause for the money there is simply nothing close.

The A5 kills the "old" CLK in terms of looks, both outside and in......

That's not totally true, the new C-Class has gotten a bad rap before any of us read are first review because the interior had to many cheap looking plastic components!

Ohhh "cheap" is such a strong word. I would call it "less-classy", the interior in the new C looks very functional but the quality in in NO way dissapointing. Just about all the buttons are made of high quality plastic or the usual rubbery/plastic material common in Audis.
With a nice interior combo it does look more classy though:

Don't get me wrong, I don't share the whole "Poor Quality Materials" BS when it comes to the C-Class, that's why I said it recieved a bad rap. You'll find that all my remarks in regards to the new C-Classes interior are positive!

like i said in the 3er vs. a5 thread, looks like audi has downgraded its interior quality.

Please show me where because I don't see it?

i dont see it either. but i've been in both 3er and clk coupe and i dont find them impressive, certainly not as good as audi's and according to some journalists, the new 3er and clk have better material quality than the a5, . may be it's the touch... look can be deceiving.

Wait a minute , Audi A4 (7 year old design) has better plastics than 3 series (haven't seen the new C class yet) , how it's possible that brand new A5 has worse plastics than 3 series? That would be that it has worse plastics than A4.

I don't buy that.

Damn that's a fine interior! The CLK's interior looks like a joke in comparison.

I honestly don't believe the A5's materials were ever compared against the CLK or the 3-Series, the chances are it was compared against Audi's normal un-matched industry leading standards! That damn 1982 cup holder didn't help things much either.

The performance data from the test:

Audi A5 3.0 TDi quattro
-240 hp / 4000 rpm
-500 Nm / 1500-3000 rpm
-6 spd manual
-AWD
-1740 kg
-250 km/h
-0-40 km/h: 1,4 s !!! (quattro-traction )
-0-100 km/h: 6,2 s
-0-160 km/h: 15,0 s
-0-180 km/h: 19,6 s
-18 m slalom: 63,7 km/h
-Handling: 1:49,2 min
-100-0 km/h (c/w): 35,3 m/34,7 m
-8,9 l/100 km

Mercedes-Benz CLK320 CDi
-224 hp / 3800 rpm
-510 Nm / 1600-2800 rpm
-7 spd automatic
-RWD
-1720 kg
-250 km/h
-0-40 km/h: 1,9 s
-0-100 km/h: 7,0 s
-0-160 km/h: 16,5 s
-0-180 km/h: 21,2 s
-18 m slalom: 59,7 km/h
-Handling: 1:51,5 min
-100-0 km/h (c/w): 37,6 m/36,2 m
-9,0 l/100 km

I believe in the other thread with the 330d vs the A5 had something in that order. However, what stuck out is the journalist said the A5's interior was QUITE up to par with the other Audi interiors. Said it's still very good, just not as good. Lemme look it up

A5 with the additional AWD weight is only 20 kgr heavier than CLK.

Vorsprung durch Technik baby.

Didn't quite find what I was looking for but found this in the 330d and A5 thread:

Qualitätseindruck/Materialien Max:20 BMW:18 Audi:18

I wouldn't exactly call the CLK a light car though

How much does BMW 330d weight?