Wikipedia ?????

[wal]

I found this in the Wikipedia page and I am sure something is wrong there or is it true? The CLK55 AMG features a 5.4 L, 24-valve SOHC V8 engine and a 5-speed automatic transmission. The base price is US$69,900 for the coupé and US$87,000 for the cabriolet. The CLK55 AMG coupé was dropped in North America after the 2005 model year, though the cabriolet is still offered. The CLK55 was replaced by the CLK63 for 2007. However, the CLK 55 AMG actually accelerates 0 - 60 mph in 4.2 seconds: faster than the CLK 63 AMG, since the CLK 55 AMG is lighter in wieght. and here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_CLK-Class

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

[GiZzO]

CLK55 4.2sec and CLK63 4.3sec so the CLK63 is slower? Ya right
I would say thats wrong. Definatlly be interested who can prove this if its true.

[Addicted2Speed]

CLK63 is much faster to 60mph than CLK55, that part was probably written by a CLK55 owner. Its wikipedia, what did you expect? Most colleges don't even allow it to be used as a source or reference

[AMGOODNESS]

451 vs. 378. that CLK 63 would have to be damn heavy.

[MARTYMAR]

Originally Posted by wal

I found this in the Wikipedia page and I am sure something is wrong there or is it true?

The CLK55 AMG features a 5.4 L, 24-valve SOHC V8 engine and a 5-speed automatic transmission. The base price is US$69,900 for the coupé and US$87,000 for the cabriolet. The CLK55 AMG coupé was dropped in North America after the 2005 model year, though the cabriolet is still offered. The CLK55 was replaced by the CLK63 for 2007. However, the CLK 55 AMG actually accelerates 0 - 60 mph in 4.2 seconds: faster than the CLK 63 AMG, since the CLK 55 AMG is lighter in wieght.

and here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_CLK-Class

Don't worry...the CLK 55 WISH it was faster!! This is totally incorrect. The CLK 55 bone stock could hit 0-60 mph in 4.4 secs and that's with a perfect launch and all other conditions being perfect as well. 4.4 secs is being extremely nice. More like 4.5 secs is about right...not to mention the CLK63 AMG BS has 500 bhp and 465 lbs of torque at 3900+ lbs and yes it is still faster than the CLK 55 Now, I would like to see a supercharged CLK 55 vs a stock CLK 63 BS....that should be a nice race...well at first

[Jons95c36amg]

Dont underestimate the Clk55s potential. I ran my friends 350z turbo 7psi 6spd puts 360whp from a 40roll to 120 it was a close one! He ran 12.8@112

[MARTYMAR]

Originally Posted by Jons95c36amg

Dont underestimate the Clk55s potential. I ran my friends 350z turbo 7psi 6spd puts 360whp from a 40roll to 120 it was a close one! He ran 12.8@112

Yeah I hear ya...but a stock 55 is nice but no match for a 63 BS

[da_guitarist]

Also, there's a difference between the w208 clk55 and w209 clk55. i believe the w208 is a hair faster due to similar hp, but significantly lighter weight? the article should definitely consider the body style and engine changes from 02-03.

[SoCalCLK]

The W209 CLK55 is a torque monster no doubt. I feel it's between 4.9-5.2 0-60 on any given day.

But the CLK63 has a very powerful engine that puts out more power without weighing very much more than a CLK55. The CLK63 would be faster, no doubt. Wikipedia guy got his facts mixed up.

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by Addicted2Speed

CLK63 is much faster to 60mph than CLK55, that part was probably written by a CLK55 owner. Its wikipedia, what did you expect? Most colleges don't even allow it to be used as a source or reference

lol....guilty as charged.




























j/k

Wasn't me...there is quite a bit of erroneous info on that site. Some stats are euro, some U.S., etc.

[neilbo75]

Yeah, Wikipedia is like real people: very useful, provided you don't trust too much.

No way a CLK 55 (208 or 209) could keep up with a 63 IF both had competent drivers. I beat some incompetent new C 63 owners at the dragstrip at a recent AMG "Basic Training" day at the Hockenheim track. But the CLK 63 owner in our group (a coupe guy from Belgium) understood how to launch his car - and he handed me my backside.

[Stiggs]

Originally Posted by neilbo75

Yeah, Wikipedia is like real people: very useful, provided you don't trust too much.

No way a CLK 55 (208 or 209) could keep up with a 63 IF both had competent drivers. I beat some incompetent new C 63 owners at the dragstrip at a recent AMG "Basic Training" day at the Hockenheim track. But the CLK 63 owner in our group (a coupe guy from Belgium) understood how to launch his car - and he handed me my backside.

Exactly....we're talking about Wikipedia here people. Not very reliable.

[Jons95c36amg]

Originally Posted by da_guitarist

Also, there's a difference between the w208 clk55 and w209 clk55. i believe the w208 is a hair faster due to similar hp, but significantly lighter weight? the article should definitely consider the body style and engine changes from 02-03.

Yeah the w208 Clk55 has 376trq @3k rpm same as the w209 Clk55 but 300lbs more.

[ohlord]

bench racing a hard top55 v.s. the convertible63 which weighed 500 lbs. more.
That is a lot of extra weight to Drag around.
besides your CLK55 is better looking

[ashutt]

I had originally provided the base information for this link but since others can edit, someone has done so in error or jest. That is why anyone who quotes this web site as a definitive resources is lacking in judgment. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

[Quant]

no f**ing way... at best our 0-60 is like 4.5. the best in the 63 is more like 3.9. no comparision.