CLK63 Vs. CLK55

[juicee63]

I know touchy subject. Which car is faster?

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

[AMG_Power]

63,,,, no comparison! CLK55 had only 362hp and 376 Ib-ft. i have a feeling its very close to the clk550

[juicee63]

Originally Posted by AMG_Power

63,,,, no comparison! CLK55 had only 362hp and 376 Ib-ft. i have a feeling its very close to the clk550

Oh shi*

sorry.

Dam so it was not SC?

[AMG_Power]

not really,,, from mbusa site:
Engine AMG-built 5,439-cc SOHC 24-valve 90° V-8. High-pressure die-cast alloy cylinder block, alloy heads.
Acceleration1 0-60 mph in 5.0 seconds

[juicee63]

Dam the CLK 63 is serious! Looks like a nice improvement. Great track car

Ok sorry this is an unfair comparison. My apologies to the CLK owners I was not aware the 55 engine was not super charged.

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by juicee63

Dam the CLK 63 is serious! Looks like a nice improvement. Great track car

Ok sorry this is an unfair comparison. My apologies to the CLK owners I was not aware the 55 engine was not super charged.

[blackbenzz]

My CLK55 is supercharged and it will beat up on a CLK63

[ItalianStallion]

Originally Posted by blackbenzz

My CLK55 is supercharged and it will beat up on a CLK63

Yeah yeah, thats what they all say...

LOL just messin'.

Yeah, stock 55 isn't even worth comparing to a stock 63. The new CLK550 is around even with the CLK55. Unfortunately, there is no CLK63 coupe in the US but if there was the gap between the CLK55 and CLK63 would be even wider.

[Ted Baldwin]

Originally Posted by ItalianStallion

Yeah yeah, thats what they all say...

LOL just messin'.

Yeah, stock 55 isn't even worth comparing to a stock 63. The new CLK550 is around even with the CLK55. Unfortunately, there is no CLK63 coupe in the US but if there was the gap between the CLK55 and CLK63 would be even wider.

...........part of my incoherent rants on the forum is that MB/AMG made a big mistake by not introducing the CLK63 coupe to North America. Truly a missed opportunity.

Ted

[juicee63]

Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin

...........part of my incoherent rants on the forum is that MB/AMG made a big mistake by not introducing the CLK63 coupe to North America. Truly a missed opportunity.

Ted

Ted,

You wont have to read this twice, or do any detailed research.

It may shock you somewhat

I agree with you 100% and wonder.........

WTF were they thinking?

[SLK55R]

And forgot to add all of us that would have bought a CLK63 COUPE. Of course I wish it weight a lot less. Jesus!

[juicee63]

Originally Posted by SLK55R

And forgot to add all of us that would have bought a CLK63 COUPE. Of course I wish it weight a lot less. Jesus!

wheres your TIME SLIP LOL

[kip]

Originally Posted by juicee63

I know touchy subject.

Which car is faster?

You are comparing the wrong cars. E63 is in its own class with 481bhp. It seems clk 500 388 bhp is now faster than the old CLK 55 367bhp. That comparison is harder...

[Quicktwinturbo]

Originally Posted by kip

You are comparing the wrong cars. E63 is in its own class with 481bhp. It seems clk 500 388 bhp is now faster than the old CLK 55 367bhp. That comparison is harder...

CLK 500 has 388???? that's just wrong.. price starts at mid 50k too.. what the hell is going on..

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by Quicktwinturbo

CLK 500 has 388???? that's just wrong.. price starts at mid 50k too.. what the hell is going on..

What is called the CLK500 overseas is badged the CLK550 here.

[pazuzzu]

even considering as underrated as these cars are i would still think the clk63 convertible can beat the clk55 coupe...my 03 clk55 with ~2 gallons of gas in the tank and the tire pressure lowered a bit got me an average of 4.7 sec to 60, but i couldnt get in to the 12's. best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.

stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.

i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.

[eddieb]

Pazuzzu. how on earth do you get 4.7 secs to 60mph. what sort of launch technique do you use? I am in the UK, have the same car as you and from a standing start with ESP off and in S mode with a hard launch can only average about 5.3/5.5 secs with 99 octane fuel.

[Ted Baldwin]

Originally Posted by pazuzzu

even considering as underrated as these cars are i would still think the clk63 convertible can beat the clk55 coupe...my 03 clk55 with ~2 gallons of gas in the tank and the tire pressure lowered a bit got me an average of 4.7 sec to 60, but i couldnt get in to the 12's. best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.

stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.

i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.

.........No debate about that.......I think. Well hope there isn't one.

Ted

[pazuzzu]

Pazuzzu. how on earth do you get 4.7 secs to 60mph.

0-60 not 0-62? just a thought since i saw you said you from the UK....

let's see....drop the tire pressure, i have new tires- just michellin pilot sports, very little gas in the car, ESP off, smoke the tires, smooth rolling foot motion, i use sport mode too, no paddle shifters....it's a 2003. K&N airfilter. that's with 93 octane gas...the track isnt used much since it's private so it's usually pretty dry, not a lot of rubber/oil/water burn buildup at the line. i drive like a ****ing maniac on the way to the track to make sure s-mode is as aggressive as possible.

i havent had much trouble getting into the fours...i was pissed that car and driver got 4.5sec in their review. i cant get that...