why is no1 buying the clk63 ?

MikeRPA · 02-12-2007, 02:45 PM

is that because their convertble and its winter ? or what is it ? i mean its a sick looking car , is it slow ? or whats the problem i havnt seen any 1 on the forum with one , lol just curios.

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

WhiteTrash · 02-12-2007, 03:00 PM

i drove one. great car.
seriously overpriced though, in my opinion
also drove the CLK550 cab, which I will probably get.
i personally can't justify the $25,000 difference to get the clk63.

x-tian-230k · 02-12-2007, 03:56 PM

Because its 100k for a CLK.... I would much rather purchase a E63 or M6...

stefi · 02-12-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-tian-230k

Because its 100k for a CLK.... I would much rather purchase a E63 or M6...

That's the point!!!!!

x-tian-230k · 02-12-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefi

That's the point!!!!!

So your saying MB over priced the CLK63 so that consumers would purchase an E63 instead?

BrabusTrojanSL · 02-12-2007, 04:39 PM

I would never drop that much on a CLK, I have a 55, and I traded my older 55 for it, and it still didn't come near to 100k. That is surely a rip, and I don't think there is much of a difference speed wise between a 55 and 63 in this case, the convertible being slower. Hard top 55 is the way to go

blackbenzz · 02-12-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrabusTrojanSL

I would never drop that much on a CLK, I have a 55, and I traded my older 55 for it, and it still didn't come near to 100k. That is surely a rip, and I don't think there is much of a difference speed wise between a 55 and 63 in this case, the convertible being slower. Hard top 55 is the way to go

Sorry but the CLK63 is much faster than a N/A CLK55

BrabusTrojanSL · 02-12-2007, 04:52 PM

How much faster? is .1 or .2 seconds worth 30k? Lol. And besides, I am pretty sure the coupe 55 is equal to the convertible 63.

blackbenzz · 02-12-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrabusTrojanSL

How much faster? is .1 or .2 seconds worth 30k? Lol. And besides, I am pretty sure the coupe 55 is equal to the convertible 63.

I assume you're talking about 0-60mph. The 63 has ~100hp advantage over the 55. Is it worth 30k? Thats a subjective question. Personally, no. But if I had money to waste: Yes.

ashutt · 02-12-2007, 05:09 PM

I believe the 6.3 CLK was tested in the 0-60 around 4.5 or less. A W208 CLK55 0-60 time is 4.9. Realistically, that is 0.4 to 0.5 second difference in the 0-60, which is significant to say the least. However, for the price they are asking, I agree there are other appealing choices one might consider. And, I would only consider a coupe for performance- IMHO.

vmspionage · 02-12-2007, 05:12 PM

I'm really happy with my CLK 500 in the power department, but if I had the money to burn I'd probably jump on one.

The CLK 63 coupe is going to rock.

stefi · 02-12-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-tian-230k

So your saying MB over priced the CLK63 so that consumers would purchase an E63 instead?

Yes! For me CLK will never be a 100k caterogy car!

63 amg · 02-12-2007, 10:07 PM

I personally love mine! Fot that kind of power in a 4 seater convertible, which is what I want, it is great.

Yeah, they are pricey, but the M6 is about 15K + more and if you want a high performance 4 seater convertible I would definately pick the CLK63 over the M6, IMO.

Anyway they are fast and a grat looking car. That is my two cents.

rsr911 · 02-12-2007, 10:15 PM

I over looked 3 of them in my local Benz dealer parking lot. For $96,000 they had better have WOW factor and they just don't. Plus I am a coupe fan. No cabrios please.
Sorry.

Jaki · 02-12-2007, 10:36 PM

I personally don't think its worth that much money, and I hate softtop convertibles. Yes it has a 100 extra hp compared to the 55, but if I was spending a $100K on a performance car, I would get something much faster and more upgradeable performance wise. Now if they had a coupe, or a hardtop convertible CLK, and I had loads of extra money laying around, then I might consider the CLK63 (very unlikely though, I still think there's better options in that price range).

However, I do respect the CLK63 for what it is, and do think its a great car.

rlee02135 · 02-12-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 63 amg

I personally love mine! Fot that kind of power in a 4 seater convertible, which is what I want, it is great.

Yeah, they are pricey, but the M6 is about 15K + more and if you want a high performance 4 seater convertible I would definately pick the CLK63 over the M6, IMO.

Anyway they are fast and a grat looking car. That is my two cents.

$100K and no Bi-Xenons

Tuskir · 02-13-2007, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashutt

I believe the 6.3 CLK was tested in the 0-60 around 4.5 or less. A W208 CLK55 0-60 time is 4.9. Realistically, that is 0.4 to 0.5 second difference in the 0-60, which is significant to say the least. However, for the price they are asking, I agree there are other appealing choices one might consider. And, I would only consider a coupe for performance- IMHO.

CLK63 is actually faster than E63, so its on a whole different level than CLK55. Car and Driver got 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, 0-100 in 9.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph. For comparison, Car and Driver tested the E63 AMG at 0-100 in 9.7 seconds and 12.6 @ 115mph. But like others said, paying 100k for an CLK is pretty crazy, it doesn't look like its worth 100k period... they could've at least gave it 4 exhausts!

DemonaL · 02-13-2007, 01:01 AM

I think the only 63 I would buy is the ML63

Slight chance for the E63

MikeRPA · 02-13-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 63 amg

I personally love mine! Fot that kind of power in a 4 seater convertible, which is what I want, it is great.

Yeah, they are pricey, but the M6 is about 15K + more and if you want a high performance 4 seater convertible I would definately pick the CLK63 over the M6, IMO.

Anyway they are fast and a grat looking car. That is my two cents.

omg omg the color is sick , awesome looking whip , i dont like the rims tho ,
and yea Mercedes is so retarted for not having a coupe in the US

MrBenz55 · 02-13-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 63 amg

I personally love mine! Fot that kind of power in a 4 seater convertible, which is what I want, it is great.

Yeah, they are pricey, but the M6 is about 15K + more and if you want a high performance 4 seater convertible I would definately pick the CLK63 over the M6, IMO.

Anyway they are fast and a grat looking car. That is my two cents.

Who wouldnt !

Germancar1 · 02-13-2007, 07:59 AM

I think the "it is overpriced" theory has it! Yeah 90K is too much for a CLK of any type and its starting to get a little dated. It isn't of the same new found quality as the CLS, S, CL and even facelifted E/SL models. I think the CLK63 is a stunning car though, the numbers C&D got out of it are ridiculous, but even they said that it didn't strike them as a 90K car.

M

Chappy · 02-13-2007, 10:43 AM

I'm a coupe guy...I'd score a pre-owned CL55 for that price before getting the CLK63 cab.

Highend · 02-26-2007, 02:28 AM

no offense but maybe because the CLK is seen as a chick car, and especially a convertible. I know myself and others see the C, SLK, & CLK as a very feminine models. Yea I would drive a CLK63 but I would never buy a clk63 nor a c55 or slk55. For the money (100K) you could get soooooo much more, 100k is a Used 360!!!! 100K is a E55, E63, S55, CL55, M5, M3, M6 (with like 2k mi).

But thats just me, i would never spend 100k on a car either. I only buy used, i rather spend 40-50k and get a used 03/04 CL55 or E55. ****, 1-2 years from now 40-50k will be a an 06 CLS55.

Eurosport · 02-26-2007, 03:23 AM

if you need a convertible, why spend that much on clk63, when you can get a barely used SL55, a lot sexier car, and still have money left over?

david_101 · 02-26-2007, 05:39 AM

having driven the CLK63 coupe quite a bit at speed and in slalom, i can say that the rear tires don't stick to the pavement so well, the rear end wiggles too much and undermines the front end.

i believe there'll be a brawny DTM-looking CLK headed to the US within a model year. THAT car should be awesome.

02-12-2007, 03:00 PM	#2
WhiteTrash Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 113 Drives: 2003 CLK430 Cabriolet	i drove one. great car. seriously overpriced though, in my opinion also drove the CLK550 cab, which I will probably get. i personally can't justify the $25,000 difference to get the clk63. __________________ 2003 CLK430 Cabriolet Tectite Grey/Charcoal/Black top Heated Seats CD changer

02-12-2007, 03:56 PM	#3
x-tian-230k MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boston Posts: 2,678 Drives: CLK500/Range Rover HSE/E55 AMG/Bmw 328Xi coupe/BMW 4.8xi	Because its 100k for a CLK.... I would much rather purchase a E63 or M6... __________________ 02-Ducati 748 - SOLD 02-MV Agusta F4 750 03-CLK500 - SOld 04-E55 - Keyless go-Trunk closer-Pano Roof-lighting package-Premimum Package-euro command-parktronic-dynamic seats-V1 radar,heat/ventilated seats/multi contour-Navi-Tire Pressure MOnitor-Kleeman K1 performance package-Sprint Booster-E63 rear spoiler-F1 shift Paddles-SOLD 07-BMW 328xi Coupe - fully loaded. 07-BMW 335i sedan - fully loaded. 07-BMW X5 4.8is

02-12-2007, 04:39 PM	#6
BrabusTrojanSL Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 334	I would never drop that much on a CLK, I have a 55, and I traded my older 55 for it, and it still didn't come near to 100k. That is surely a rip, and I don't think there is much of a difference speed wise between a 55 and 63 in this case, the convertible being slower. Hard top 55 is the way to go __________________ 2003 SL 500 Launch Edition : ~~~~~~FULLY LOADED~~~~~~ *Black on Black* AMG Sport Pakage, AMG Illuminated Door Sills, Distronic, Parktronic, Key-less Go with Cards, Valentine 1, BRABUS Monoblock VIs, BRABUS Spacers, BRABUS BRAKES and BRABUS Valve Caps Hehehehe HUMMER H3 LOADED, White on Cream

02-12-2007, 04:52 PM	#8
BrabusTrojanSL Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 334	How much faster? is .1 or .2 seconds worth 30k? Lol. And besides, I am pretty sure the coupe 55 is equal to the convertible 63. __________________ 2003 SL 500 Launch Edition : ~~~~~~FULLY LOADED~~~~~~ *Black on Black* AMG Sport Pakage, AMG Illuminated Door Sills, Distronic, Parktronic, Key-less Go with Cards, Valentine 1, BRABUS Monoblock VIs, BRABUS Spacers, BRABUS BRAKES and BRABUS Valve Caps Hehehehe HUMMER H3 LOADED, White on Cream

02-12-2007, 05:09 PM	#10
ashutt Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 373 Drives: 2001 CLK 55 AMG & Range Rover Sport Supercharged	I believe the 6.3 CLK was tested in the 0-60 around 4.5 or less. A W208 CLK55 0-60 time is 4.9. Realistically, that is 0.4 to 0.5 second difference in the 0-60, which is significant to say the least. However, for the price they are asking, I agree there are other appealing choices one might consider. And, I would only consider a coupe for performance- IMHO. __________________ 2001 CLK 55 AMG 19" Moven C16 Rims Eagle F1 DS-D3 Tires (235/35ZR19 and 265/30/ZR19) H&R Springs Bilstein Sport Shocks Rear K-Mac kit Slotted/Cross Drilled Front Rotors StopTech Stainless Steel Brake Lines ATE Type 200 Brake Fluid Green Filters SpeedTuningUSA ECU Upgrade (6500 redline & removed speed limitation of 155 mph) Auto Meter Digital Pro Shift System (Level 2) Dynoed Power: (303/Wheels & 364/Crank)

02-12-2007, 05:12 PM	#11
vmspionage Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Newport News, VA, USA Posts: 300 Drives: 2008 CLK 63 Black Series	I'm really happy with my CLK 500 in the power department, but if I had the money to burn I'd probably jump on one. The CLK 63 coupe is going to rock. __________________ 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLK 63 AMG Black Series (black/black) 1999 Chevrolet Corvette (black/black)

02-12-2007, 10:15 PM	#14
rsr911 MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 1,090 Drives: 2002 AMG CLK55, 2005 ML350, 1995 S320 LWB - totaled	I over looked 3 of them in my local Benz dealer parking lot. For $96,000 they had better have WOW factor and they just don't. Plus I am a coupe fan. No cabrios please. Sorry. __________________ 2002 AMG CLK55 2005 ML350 Mercedes Benz Owner's Gun Club, Member #26 1995 S320 LWB (totaled 5/25/09) 2003 C240 4matic (sold) 1986 Porsche 911 (sold) 2002 Subaru WRX (track car) (sold) 1999 230 SLK (sold) 1973 450 SL (sold) 1973 450SLC (sold) "Time is too precious to keep it on an inexpensive watch"

02-12-2007, 10:36 PM	#15
Jaki Super Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 591 Drives: Nissan 350z TwinTurbo + CLK55 AMG + Audi A4 2.0T	I personally don't think its worth that much money, and I hate softtop convertibles. Yes it has a 100 extra hp compared to the 55, but if I was spending a $100K on a performance car, I would get something much faster and more upgradeable performance wise. Now if they had a coupe, or a hardtop convertible CLK, and I had loads of extra money laying around, then I might consider the CLK63 (very unlikely though, I still think there's better options in that price range). However, I do respect the CLK63 for what it is, and do think its a great car. __________________ Special thanks to: TurboWax, Billet Design Motorsports, Nitrous Express, Stewart Warner Performance, HP Autoworks, Speed Injected, Hallandale Auto Electric and Collision, Incredible Performance. 2003 CLK55 AMG Brilliant Silver Pics and mod list 2003 Nissan 350z TwinTurbo http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2180216 2007 Audi A4 2.0T http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2664136 Last edited by Jaki; 02-12-2007 at 10:47 PM.

02-13-2007, 01:01 AM	#18
DemonaL Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Boca Raton, FL Posts: 106 Drives: 2008 BMW 535i, 2007 335i, 2003 E320, 2007 Hayabusa	I think the only 63 I would buy is the ML63 Slight chance for the E63

02-13-2007, 07:59 AM	#21
Germancar1 MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Aurora IL USA Posts: 2,397 Drives: 03 CLK430 Cabrio	I think the "it is overpriced" theory has it! Yeah 90K is too much for a CLK of any type and its starting to get a little dated. It isn't of the same new found quality as the CLS, S, CL and even facelifted E/SL models. I think the CLK63 is a stunning car though, the numbers C&D got out of it are ridiculous, but even they said that it didn't strike them as a 90K car. M __________________ I am Merc1. Visit Germancarzone! 03' CLK430 Cabrio - Brilliant Silver/Ash/Ash Last edited by Germancar1; 02-13-2007 at 08:37 AM.

02-13-2007, 10:43 AM	#22
Chappy MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hotlanta Posts: 7,887 Drives: AMG	I'm a coupe guy...I'd score a pre-owned CL55 for that price before getting the CLK63 cab. __________________ W208 CLK55 - 2002 (Silver w/Charcoal - 43K miles) 1 of 3,381 W208 AMG Coupes Worldwide 304WHP / 321TQ - Stock! W124 Estate - 1995 MBWGCM #71 Kombi's Uber Alles Member #3

02-26-2007, 02:28 AM	#23
Highend Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: ]-[untington ]3each Posts: 381 Drives: S4 APR+1 /R53 † / X5 † / W210 E55 † / W210 Frabus † / E39 Hamann 540i † /	no offense but maybe because the CLK is seen as a chick car, and especially a convertible. I know myself and others see the C, SLK, & CLK as a very feminine models. Yea I would drive a CLK63 but I would never buy a clk63 nor a c55 or slk55. For the money (100K) you could get soooooo much more, 100k is a Used 360!!!! 100K is a E55, E63, S55, CL55, M5, M3, M6 (with like 2k mi). But thats just me, i would never spend 100k on a car either. I only buy used, i rather spend 40-50k and get a used 03/04 CL55 or E55. **, 1-2 years from now 40-50k will be a an 06 CLS55. __________________ The more you run over a cat, the flatter it gets.**

02-26-2007, 03:23 AM	#24
Eurosport Out Of Control!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: around the world Posts: 12,423 Drives: monowiper	if you need a convertible, why spend that much on clk63, when you can get a barely used SL55, a lot sexier car, and still have money left over? __________________ €

02-26-2007, 05:39 AM	#25
david_101 Super Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 777 Drives: 2005 SL65	having driven the CLK63 coupe quite a bit at speed and in slalom, i can say that the rear tires don't stick to the pavement so well, the rear end wiggles too much and undermines the front end. i believe there'll be a brawny DTM-looking CLK headed to the US within a model year. THAT car should be awesome.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: