208 clk vs.209 clk

leggs · 06-18-2003, 10:45 PM

Is the 208 clk quicker than the 209 clk

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

shadowlord · 06-19-2003, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leggs
Is the 208 clk quicker than the 209 clk

stk versus stk, no way!

bmac002 · 06-19-2003, 09:35 AM

Since this is in the CLK55 forum I assume that it is asking about the CLK55 208 vs 209. I might be wrong but I think MB listed the 208 at 4.9 0-60 and the new clk 55 209 is listed at 0-60 in 5.0. I would say YES the 208 is faster than the 209. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the 208 0-60 time.

Stiggs · 06-19-2003, 11:47 AM

will you ever really notice 0.1 sec in the real world??? I doubt it!

leggs · 06-19-2003, 12:59 PM

I was referring to the 1/4 times I read in Road & Track or one of those mags that the 208 ran the 1/4 in the mid 13's and the 209 ran the 1/4 in high 13's it is this discrepancy that has me asking the question.

Chappy · 06-19-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leggs
Is the 208 clk quicker than the 209 clk

Oh, Karl.....:p

AMG///Merc · 06-19-2003, 06:45 PM

Did I miss them some how? Where did you see an article on the 209 CLK55? Any info would be appreciated...

Best regards,
Matt

leggs · 06-19-2003, 07:24 PM

I've yet to read an actual 1/4 mile time as well, however based on the 1/4 mile times of the new e-55 12.5, and the sl55 13.0, I tend to believe that the new clk is an n/a engine rather than supercharged and should run a 1/4 mile no faster than the previous 208 model. I've asked the question hoping that maybe someone might have some insight as to wether or not the new car is quicker, because mb is charging $20k more for a 209.

RJC · 06-19-2003, 10:03 PM

There is a couple hundred pound weight penalty for the new 209 55 vs the 208 55...the 0-60 times are off about a tenth or so for the 209 but the added hp for the 209 should overcome the weight penalty in quarter mile trap speeds, 0-100 etc.

5439cc · 06-20-2003, 09:50 AM

Amigo's I have driven the 209 three times at various dealership and I would have to say My BEAST 208 w/ K%N AF Only Mod Added Feels Stronger and eager to kick ass down the highway - But that just might be due to break in of the 208 - the 209 feels really good the steering feels a little more responsive than the 208 - But all and all I love the 208 - I looks meaner and sounds better - But I do love the int of the 209. Remember there is so much more than just BS - Straight line numbers, that's not even 1/4 of the driving experience behind the creation of such vehicles - I think we spend to much time with Is this fast, is that faster - If you really want fast buy a ford cobra R and save big $ - Lets focus more on the driving dynamics and experience which these wonderful cars deliver - If you really want to appreciate your MB more, rent or borrow a friends car for a couple of days - Talk about a eye opener. I had to borrow my brothers Subaru SVT for two days while visiting him, I felt like a boy-hood racer and talk about a rough ride.

Enjoy want you are so lucky to drive and for ///AMG sake - see the bigger picture my brothers....

P.S. I got my beast to the limiter yesterday on the highway - Just a quick rush to open her up - 154 as per the digital readout.....
SMOOOOTTHHHHHHHHH......

J Lucas · 06-20-2003, 03:40 PM

Even though you are 99% correct, how about you just stick to the question asked in the beginning of the thread. You could debate all the other aspects in your own posts

Quote:

Originally posted by 5439cc
Amigo's I have driven the 209 three times at various dealership and I would have to say My BEAST 208 w/ K%N AF Only Mod Added Feels Stronger and eager to kick ass down the highway - But that just might be due to break in of the 208 - the 209 feels really good the steering feels a little more responsive than the 208 - But all and all I love the 208 - I looks meaner and sounds better - But I do love the int of the 209. Remember there is so much more than just BS - Straight line numbers, that's not even 1/4 of the driving experience behind the creation of such vehicles - I think we spend to much time with Is this fast, is that faster - If you really want fast buy a ford cobra R and save big $ - Lets focus more on the driving dynamics and experience which these wonderful cars deliver - If you really want to appreciate your MB more, rent or borrow a friends car for a couple of days - Talk about a eye opener. I had to borrow my brothers Subaru SVT for two days while visiting him, I felt like a boy-hood racer and talk about a rough ride. Enjoy want you are so lucky to drive and for ///AMG sake - see the bigger picture my brothers....

P.S. I got my beast to the limiter yesterday on the highway - Just a quick rush to open her up - 154 as per the digital readout.....
SMOOOOTTHHHHHHHHH......

5439cc · 06-20-2003, 06:56 PM

Forgive me for leaving the path of conversation....It Comes With Age

FrankW · 06-22-2003, 07:10 AM

performance it's a wash I believe. 208 is a little lighter with less power and 209 is a little heavier with little more power which makes'em about the same performance wise.

btw, leggs, the base price for the 208 was $69095 and the base price for the 209 is $69470. They differ by $375 dollars, not $20k.

leggs · 06-22-2003, 08:15 PM

I ordered the 55 and with most of the options comand,keyless go, bi xenons and what not the sticker was $75 plus tax and luxury tax. I've since cancelled my order and am currently debating between a clk 500 or a porsche c2 cab.

AMG///Merc · 07-09-2003, 02:13 PM

Obviously there is a weight penalty with the 209, and while it has an additional 20 hp, I believe that the 209's shorter (numerically higher) gearing is what would make the difference. To tell you the truth, I was a bit disappointed with my 209 in regards to engine performance. If my financial situation improves (hopefully) then there may be a kompressor/wheels/suspension in my 209's future. Hopefully... (big bucks!) And besides all of that, I think that 5439cc is right on the money in regards to "real world" performance and driving. Maybe it was a friendly jibe, but I think that J Lucas was a little harsh with his comments in regards to 5439cc's post. I thought it was relavant to the subject and an interesting post. Keep 'em coming 5439cc...

Best regards,
Matt

p.s., I know my post sounds contradictory, but I want to have my cake and eat it to...

Shine · 07-11-2003, 12:22 AM

CLK55 W209 vs W208
two factors dominates the acceleration
(1) Final ratio W209 3.06 vs 2.82
(2) Compression 11.0 :1 vs 10.5 : 1
not to mention the AMG speedshift in W209

W209 rules

J Lucas · 07-11-2003, 11:16 AM

Actually. I don't believe I was being harsh or rude in my post nor was I trying to be.

The question of the thread is " Is the 208 clk quicker than the 209 clk"

THATS IT.....

If he wanted to debate the charactertistics of the 208 and 209 he could have asked a more general question like what are some of the PRO's and CON's of the 208 vs the 209. That would have started a debate similar to the 4000 other ones comparing the two already in the 209 and 208 forums.

Instead, He asked ONE very specific question to get a specific answer about something he obviously didnt know. Its courteous to try to answer his question first since this is his thread and not try to turn it into some personal debate about what YOU do and don't like about the car .

If the way I said it , came off harsh then I apologize but that was not my intent, rather to try and stay on topic for once. but again I have gone

Quote:

Originally posted by AMG///Merc
Maybe it was a friendly jibe, but I think that J Lucas was a little harsh with his comments in regards to 5439cc's post. I thought it was relavant to the subject and an interesting post. Keep 'em coming 5439cc...
Best regards,
Matt
p.s., I know my post sounds contradictory, but I want to have my cake and eat it to...

leggs · 07-11-2003, 08:16 PM

I've only driven in these cars i never vhave driven it myself because I am handicap so i am unable to test drive either car myself i'd really only be able to drive it if i purchased one outright.my point was that i haven't really felt much of a diffrence in these cars i like them both and personally like the 208 body style better. However i am in the very near future going tobuy a new clk 500. I was looking at the 55 and i like the car but would rather wait until i finish law school in hopes that i can be a cl55 as my first amg car. No need to debate or be harsh with any info that is posted in this thread i was just looking for a general consensus abouit the new vs.the old that was all. I think mthe questions as wellas the answers that are given in this or any other forum, are better than any info i would get from posing this question to anyone friend or dealer.
Thanks for allof the replies.

06-19-2003, 09:35 AM	#3
bmac002 Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 135 Drives: CLK 320	Since this is in the CLK55 forum I assume that it is asking about the CLK55 208 vs 209. I might be wrong but I think MB listed the 208 at 4.9 0-60 and the new clk 55 209 is listed at 0-60 in 5.0. I would say YES the 208 is faster than the 209. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the 208 0-60 time. __________________ 1999 CLK320 Blk/Blk H&R Springs Bilstein Shocks K&N Drop-in BBS RX 18x8 s-03's V-1 Hardwired

06-19-2003, 11:47 AM	#4
Stiggs MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 7,188 Drives: 2003 CLK55	will you ever really notice 0.1 sec in the real world??? I doubt it! __________________ 1999 CLK430 Black/Black(Gone) 1999 ML430 Black Opal 2003 CLK55 Black/Black

06-19-2003, 06:45 PM	#7
AMG///Merc Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oxford, Pa Posts: 458 Drives: 03 CLK55	I haven't seen any articles on the 209 55 yet... Did I miss them some how? Where did you see an article on the 209 CLK55? Any info would be appreciated... Best regards, Matt

06-19-2003, 10:03 PM	#9
RJC MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17 Posts: 3,786	There is a couple hundred pound weight penalty for the new 209 55 vs the 208 55...the 0-60 times are off about a tenth or so for the 209 but the added hp for the 209 should overcome the weight penalty in quarter mile trap speeds, 0-100 etc. __________________ RJC 2007 PORSCHE 997 Carrera S Meteor Gray Metallic/Black Twin Turbo Forged 19" rims Leather Sport Seats Embossed Crests Sport Chrono Package Plus Self Dimming Mirrors Polished Tips 6 Speed 2008 BMW 328 2nd Car Titanium Silver Metallic/Black Sport Package Steptronic w/Paddles etc, etc Previous MB's 2006 E55, 2004 CLK500, 2003 CLK500, 2001 CLK430, 2000 CLK430, 1999 CLK430, 1992 300CE. Previous Other Brands Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, Corvette

06-20-2003, 09:50 AM	#10
5439cc Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Randolph, New Jersey Posts: 272 Drives: 2002 CLK55 ///AMG	Only My 2 Cents - Keep The Change But; Amigo's I have driven the 209 three times at various dealership and I would have to say My BEAST 208 w/ K%N AF Only Mod Added Feels Stronger and eager to kick ass down the highway - But that just might be due to break in of the 208 - the 209 feels really good the steering feels a little more responsive than the 208 - But all and all I love the 208 - I looks meaner and sounds better - But I do love the int of the 209. Remember there is so much more than just BS - Straight line numbers, that's not even 1/4 of the driving experience behind the creation of such vehicles - I think we spend to much time with Is this fast, is that faster - If you really want fast buy a ford cobra R and save big $ - Lets focus more on the driving dynamics and experience which these wonderful cars deliver - If you really want to appreciate your MB more, rent or borrow a friends car for a couple of days - Talk about a eye opener. I had to borrow my brothers Subaru SVT for two days while visiting him, I felt like a boy-hood racer and talk about a rough ride. Enjoy want you are so lucky to drive and for ///AMG sake - see the bigger picture my brothers.... P.S. I got my beast to the limiter yesterday on the highway - Just a quick rush to open her up - 154 as per the digital readout..... SMOOOOTTHHHHHHHHH...... __________________ 2002 CLK55 ///AMG Brilliant Silver/Int Charcoal Timeport, Voice Activation & GPS Command System, K&N V1 Hardwired - 18" MILLE' Miglia EV- Wheels-Kuhmos Tires (R 8.5 fr/10.0 rear) - 20mm H&R Wheel Spacers (Wifes Car) 2004 Porsche Targa - THERE IS NO OTHER ! JUST BRING IT !

06-19-2003, 12:59 PM	#5
leggs Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fl,Az Posts: 331 Drives: 05 g35 & 04 cl 500	I was referring to the 1/4 times I read in Road & Track or one of those mags that the 208 ran the 1/4 in the mid 13's and the 209 ran the 1/4 in high 13's it is this discrepancy that has me asking the question.

06-19-2003, 07:24 PM	#8
leggs Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fl,Az Posts: 331 Drives: 05 g35 & 04 cl 500	I've yet to read an actual 1/4 mile time as well, however based on the 1/4 mile times of the new e-55 12.5, and the sl55 13.0, I tend to believe that the new clk is an n/a engine rather than supercharged and should run a 1/4 mile no faster than the previous 208 model. I've asked the question hoping that maybe someone might have some insight as to wether or not the new car is quicker, because mb is charging $20k more for a 209.

06-20-2003, 06:56 PM	#12
5439cc Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Randolph, New Jersey Posts: 272 Drives: 2002 CLK55 ///AMG	My BAD ! Forgive me for leaving the path of conversation....It Comes With Age __________________ 2002 CLK55 ///AMG Brilliant Silver/Int Charcoal Timeport, Voice Activation & GPS Command System, K&N V1 Hardwired - 18" MILLE' Miglia EV- Wheels-Kuhmos Tires (R 8.5 fr/10.0 rear) - 20mm H&R Wheel Spacers (Wifes Car) 2004 Porsche Targa - THERE IS NO OTHER ! JUST BRING IT !

06-22-2003, 07:10 AM	#13
FrankW Out Of Control!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Diamond Bar, CA Posts: 19,294 Drives: DirtyToo & Thrifty	performance it's a wash I believe. 208 is a little lighter with less power and 209 is a little heavier with little more power which makes'em about the same performance wise. btw, leggs, the base price for the 208 was $69095 and the base price for the 209 is $69470. They differ by $375 dollars, not $20k. __________________ 2002 W203 M112K with insane amount of mods "new pic on last page" 2008 W204 M272 with not so much mods. wants 307hp 7200 redline engine from SL350 For Sale:authentic Carlsson exhaust tips (2) $200

06-22-2003, 08:15 PM	#14
leggs Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fl,Az Posts: 331 Drives: 05 g35 & 04 cl 500	I ordered the 55 and with most of the options comand,keyless go, bi xenons and what not the sticker was $75 plus tax and luxury tax. I've since cancelled my order and am currently debating between a clk 500 or a porsche c2 cab.

07-09-2003, 02:13 PM	#15
AMG///Merc Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oxford, Pa Posts: 458 Drives: 03 CLK55	Don't forget about gearing... Obviously there is a weight penalty with the 209, and while it has an additional 20 hp, I believe that the 209's shorter (numerically higher) gearing is what would make the difference. To tell you the truth, I was a bit disappointed with my 209 in regards to engine performance. If my financial situation improves (hopefully) then there may be a kompressor/wheels/suspension in my 209's future. Hopefully... (big bucks!) And besides all of that, I think that 5439cc is right on the money in regards to "real world" performance and driving. Maybe it was a friendly jibe, but I think that J Lucas was a little harsh with his comments in regards to 5439cc's post. I thought it was relavant to the subject and an interesting post. Keep 'em coming 5439cc... Best regards, Matt p.s., I know my post sounds contradictory, but I want to have my cake and eat it to...

07-11-2003, 12:22 AM	#16
Shine Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Lean runner Posts: 972	CLK55 W209 vs W208 two factors dominates the acceleration (1) Final ratio W209 3.06 vs 2.82 (2) Compression 11.0 :1 vs 10.5 : 1 not to mention the AMG speedshift in W209 W209 rules

07-11-2003, 08:16 PM	#18
leggs Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fl,Az Posts: 331 Drives: 05 g35 & 04 cl 500	I've only driven in these cars i never vhave driven it myself because I am handicap so i am unable to test drive either car myself i'd really only be able to drive it if i purchased one outright.my point was that i haven't really felt much of a diffrence in these cars i like them both and personally like the 208 body style better. However i am in the very near future going tobuy a new clk 500. I was looking at the 55 and i like the car but would rather wait until i finish law school in hopes that i can be a cl55 as my first amg car. No need to debate or be harsh with any info that is posted in this thread i was just looking for a general consensus abouit the new vs.the old that was all. I think mthe questions as wellas the answers that are given in this or any other forum, are better than any info i would get from posing this question to anyone friend or dealer. Thanks for allof the replies.

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: