CLK 63 review

[shoes]

There is a review of the CLK 63 up on thetruthaboutcars.com: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2100

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[BiTurboBenz]

I test drove a CLK63 last week at my dealer. MSRP $97K but no Xenons

Engine is drop dead gorgeous, exhaust note is amazing. In the end though, the 600 feels quicker so I will be keeping her for a while.

[c55m8o]

I drove the CLK63 @ the AMG Challenge, both on the big track and small oval (kidney actually). I set fastest run of the day in it in the Advanced Vehicle Dynamics challenge. It -is- hands down my favorite benz at this time. That engine -refuses- to downshift once you drive it aggresively. I'm luv'n that car simply on handling and performance alone. To tell you the truth, I hardly remember the interior, but that also reminds me it wasn't all that special -- to me. But I don't care about that.

Give me a CLK63 wide-body coupe like the F1 Safety Car and I think I'm going to have to retire my trust C43/55 steed.

[Germancar1]

Originally Posted by shoes

There is a review of the CLK 63 up on thetruthaboutcars.com:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2100

He is basically asking for them to do a Black Series version of the CLK63 and that is coming....

M

[shoes]

Who decided that the CLK 63 should be offered in the US only as cabriolet? I think it should have been offered only as a coupe.

[vraa]

thetruthaboutcars is such a great site. I love it.

[BoBcanada]

no coupe no care!

[whoover]

Originally Posted by shoes

Who decided that the CLK 63 should be offered in the US only as cabriolet? I think it should have been offered only as a coupe.

My guess is concern that a CLK63 coupe would undercut CLS63 sales too much drove this decision. The CLK would be $10k cheaper and Mercedes insists on calling the CLS a coupe. Not having the supercharger to differentiate the CLS anymore creates a tough situation for the marketing folks. They couldn't detune the CLK63 too much anyway because of the CLK550 at almost 400 HP. I don't think they had a choice.

[PsssTkiD]

why is the clk doesnt have the 500+ hp ?

[whoover]

That would make a CLK63 with 507 HP for $90k and a SL55 with 510 HP for $130k. More rocks and hard places with ragtops.

[AdaMBombC32G]

i've never understood this about MB.

isn't the CLK, a two door BASED C-class?

Either way, i would take a handful of cars over the CLK63 (and im a benz whore) and still have LOTS money left over, for say AN EXTRA car.

If it had a retractable hardtop like the SL/SLK... it would sound a little better... but c'mon MSRP of about 89k for a CLK... over 100k loaded is PLAIN-DUMB - i rather buy an SLK-AMG and wipe my a** with the rest of the money, truthfully!

[Germancar1]

Originally Posted by whoover

My guess is concern that a CLK63 coupe would undercut CLS63 sales too much drove this decision. The CLK would be $10k cheaper and Mercedes insists on calling the CLS a coupe. Not having the supercharger to differentiate the CLS anymore creates a tough situation for the marketing folks. They couldn't detune the CLK63 too much anyway because of the CLK550 at almost 400 HP. I don't think they had a choice.

Actually it was because the CLK55 Coupe was such a slow seller. There was no CLK55 Coupe last year either.

M

[LETO]

i dont think the coupe would be a bad seller if it had the new bigger engine. Hopefully the US market will get the couple (amg version) back after the complete design overhaul

[shoes]

This may be just anecdotal data but, I have been considering the CLK 63 and the CLK 550 over the past month and during that time, all the CLK550's have been sold at the local dealers while none of the CLK 63's have been. I think that paying $100K for a CLK is just a recipe for depreciation disaster.