209 55 favored over sl55 s55 e55 cl55 c32 etc

[RJC]

In this month's issue of Sports Car Intl there was a visit to AMG a the author drove all the latest AMG cars...he prefered the clk over the rest for steering, handling, feel and the normaly aspirated engine of the 209

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

[5439cc]

Is there a link to share with the forum ?

[hmrdwn]

Wow. One man's opinion. Boy that seals it for me.

CLK55 all the way...

Yeah, right. LMFAO.

[JamE55]

Originally posted by hmrdwn
Wow. One man's opinion. Boy that seals it for me.

CLK55 all the way...

Yeah, right. LMFAO.

Lmao!!!! You just made my day!

[Sleestack]

Originally posted by RJC
In this month's issue of Sports Car Intl there was a visit to AMG a the author drove all the latest AMG cars...he prefered the clk over the rest for steering, handling, feel and the normaly aspirated engine of the 209

Give him a the CLK55... I'll take the SL55,E55, CL55 or S55.

[karl k]

The 208 CLK55 beats the 209 by .5 second!

[RJC]

You guys are too much I don't even own a 209 55 but I thought the impressions of the author (who tests a lot more cars than most of ever will let alone all the current AMG cars back to back on Germany's Hockenheim GP course, anybody done that lately???) would be interesting as it shows that just more hp/trq and price don't always mean the best overall ratings. The author Ian Kuah is also a former CL 500 owner, unlike most automotive journalists that personally own much lesser cars. I mentioned the items he thought made the clk55 great to drive... jeez, grow up!

[RJC]

Originally posted by 5439cc
Is there a link to share with the forum ?

Sorry no link but the issue is Sept 2003 it has a Ford GT on the cover in the classic Gulf racing colors. The article is 5 pages and even covers time in the CLK GTR and DTM.

[Jay/Dallas]

RJC - Gosh. Responses like that really make you want to post on this form don't they? I assume that the next time you run across some information you think might be helpful or at least interesting to those of us on this forum you will think twice. If you then don't bother to post this information we all lose out. The forum becomes less useful, fewer people take part leaving the forum populated by a bunch of aggressive self-congratulating.........folks. But wait! Maybe that's already happened. In any case - thanks for posting your info. As it happens I had already read the article. Like you, I found the author's viewpoint interesting.

[AMG///Merc]

Written by Ian Kuah. He came up with the exact same conclusion. So much so, that I suspect that Mr. Kuah is an independent journalist, and the article was sold to both magazines. If it isn't the same author, that would really be saying something. Like RJC pointed out, these journalists have vastly more experience in regards to test driving cars, and in this case, the author drove all the cars on the same day, in the same conditions, back to back, and he chose the CLK55 as his overall favorite. I for one, was happy to read that. There is a very small "First drive" article in the current "Automobile" magazine. By very small, I mean about two paragraphs and 4 pictures, but so far as I can tell, it's the first "review" of the 209 CLK55 coupe written so far. It was a very posative "review" by-the-way. I can't wait for the full write-ups on it!



Best regards,
Matt

p.s., Jay/Dallas: I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with you. Notice how few posts I've writen? To RJC or anyone else, keep 'em coming. It's not like this forum is overflowing with new information...

[MBcoupe forever]

Never driven an AMG car, but its quite refreshing with a journalist that doesn't rank equal to HP rating but goes beyond and look for other aspects of the car. However, the understatement of a non-modified E55 is appealing though.

Cheers

[Sleestack]

Originally posted by RJC
You guys are too much I don't even own a 209 55 but I thought the impressions of the author (who tests a lot more cars than most of ever will let alone all the current AMG cars back to back on Germany's Hockenheim GP course, anybody done that lately???) would be interesting as it shows that just more hp/trq and price don't always mean the best overall ratings. The author Ian Kuah is also a former CL 500 owner, unlike most automotive journalists that personally own much lesser cars. I mentioned the items he thought made the clk55 great to drive... jeez, grow up!

Wow, you guys take yourselves way too seriously. Different cars will obviously appeal to different drivers. That particular tester "preferred the CLK over the rest for steering, handling, feel and the normaly aspirated engine of the 209." Great. That's really informative. I'll take the time to read the article if I see the magazine, however, while I can understand why he might prefer the steering, handling and "feel" (whatever that is supposed to describe) of a CLK, I have a hard time understanding why he prefers the NA, moderately powered V8 of the CLK to the monster powerplant in the SL55. Supercharger whine, lag... whatever the reason may be, significantly superior performance numbers are hard to ignore.

As for my post... it was a less than direct response to the conclusion reached by that particular reviewer, as summarized by RJC. Whatever his reasoning, regardless of his credentials, I'd rather be driving an SL55 than a CLK55. There might be aspects of the CLK that are superior to the SL55, however, if the reviewer actually prefers a CLK to an SL55 (which seems to be the case based on RJC's description), he certainly has some peculiar criteria for evaluating cars. I believe I have enough experience (and more than the average MB owner) with various MBs to reasonably come to that conclusion, despite my lack of credentials.

I'm sorry I wasn't more direct and descriptive in my first response, however I didn't realize that people felt so strongly about forum etiquette. The fact that these exist: made me think this was all supposed to be lighthearted. Geez, don't get old faster than you need to.

[RJC]

[quote]Originally posted by Sleestack
[b] I'll take the time to read the article if I see the magazine, however, while I can understand why he might prefer the steering, handling and "feel" (whatever that is supposed to describe) of a CLK, I have a hard time understanding why he prefers the NA, moderately powered V8 of the CLK to the monster powerplant in the SL55. Supercharger whine, lag... whatever the reason may be, significantly superior performance numbers are hard to ignore.




Agreed you should read the article in full and since you haven't I'll provide more information along with the conclusions of the author;

"At the end of the day, it was clear that my favorite car was the CLK55AMG for its fine handling, adjustability and crisp response of its normally aspirated motor." Again this goes beyond just numbers. More quotes; "Busy as I was taking pictures of the proceedings, I drew the short straw and started off with the only car left, the CLK 55 AMG. With just 367 hp from its normally aspirated 5.4 V8 and conventional steel-spring suspension compared to the active suspensions of the 500hp supercharged cars, you would have thought the CLK55 was out of its depth. Not a bit. Lighter and more nimble, it had less mass to accelerate, brake and corner. The larger and heavier supercharged cars were never able to convincingly pull away even on the long back straight. Braking later and harder it was possible to catch all the others going into the stadium section and hold tight all the way through again. On the bald limit the CLK chasis is superbly sorted and easily adjustable, with arguably the best steering feel of any of the AMG cars."

The findings of this article are quite interesting and give further credence to MB for making the CLK55AMG what it is today. There is much more to the article about the other AMG's and is worth the read.

[Sleestack]

First of all, the CLK55 is not the lightest of the AMG cars. It is heavier than both the C32 and SLK32. Nevertheless, his quote only seems to be comparing the CLK to the heavier, high horsepower AMGs. Was he ignoring the C32 and SLK 32 when talking about the CLK55 being "lighter and more nimble?" Second, although he drove all of the cars, the conclusion the draws about the CLK hanging with the larger AMGs is based on him following cars driven by other drivers. It is entirely possible that his superior driving skills is what allowed the CLK to stick to the other cars. Furthermore his statement that the "larger and heavier supercharged cars were never able to convincingly pull away even on the long back straight" is rather vague. We're not talking about Indy cars v. street cars. A 1 second difference in 1/4 mile times is huge difference, however it won't result in a car pulling 15 car lengths ahead of another car. He also doesn't say that he was actually able to outperform the other AMGs in the CLK. We're also talking about MBs here, not purpose built sports cars. Of course the CLK is going to feel more responsive than the enormous S55, CL55 and E55, however, none of those cars are built for the track. If you are looking for a sports car MB isn't exactly the best place to start.

I'm sure the reviewer knows what he is talking about and is an extremely skilled driver. I also don't doubt that the CLK55 can hold its own on a track against the other AMGs. So, if you are looking for an MB to throw on the track, "almost" keep up with the other AMGs on that track, and "feel" better than the other AMGs (despite performance numbers and the fact that we are evaluating very different cars) I guess his preference for the CLK is understandable. As for me, I''d still take an SL 55 (or a CL55 or E55 for that matter) over the CLK55.

Next months's issue features a track comparison of the Maybach versus a mere SLK320. My guess is that the reviewer will find the SLK more nimble and responsive and able to keep up (if not beat) the Maybach on the track.

[karl k]

Originally posted by Sleestack

Next months's issue features a track comparison of the Maybach versus a mere SLK320. My guess is that the reviewer will find the SLK more nimble and responsive and able to keep up (if not beat) the Maybach on the track.

That issue is already out. The race never took place.

Maybach kept the SLK in it's trunk --- never released, never raced!

:o

[RJC]

Originally posted by Sleestack
First of all, the CLK55 is not the lightest of the AMG cars. It is heavier than both the C32 and SLK32. Nevertheless, his quote only seems to be comparing the CLK to the heavier, high horsepower AMGs. Was he ignoring the C32 and SLK 32 when talking about the CLK55 being "lighter and more nimble?" Second, although he drove all of the cars, the conclusion the draws about the CLK hanging with the larger AMGs is based on him following cars driven by other drivers. It is entirely possible that his superior driving skills is what allowed the CLK to stick to the other cars. Furthermore his statement that the "larger and heavier supercharged cars were never able to convincingly pull away even on the long back straight" is rather vague. We're not talking about Indy cars v. street cars. A 1 second difference in 1/4 mile times is huge difference, however it won't result in a car pulling 15 car lengths ahead of another car. He also doesn't say that he was actually able to outperform the other AMGs in the CLK. We're also talking about MBs here, not purpose built sports cars. Of course the CLK is going to feel more responsive than the enormous S55, CL55 and E55, however, none of those cars are built for the track. If you are looking for a sports car MB isn't exactly the best place to start.

I'm sure the reviewer knows what he is talking about and is an extremely skilled driver. I also don't doubt that the CLK55 can hold its own on a track against the other AMGs. So, if you are looking for an MB to throw on the track, "almost" keep up with the other AMGs on that track, and "feel" better than the other AMGs (despite performance numbers and the fact that we are evaluating very different cars) I guess his preference for the CLK is understandable. As for me, I''d still take an SL 55 (or a CL55 or E55 for that matter) over the CLK55.

Next months's issue features a track comparison of the Maybach versus a mere SLK320. My guess is that the reviewer will find the SLK more nimble and responsive and able to keep up (if not beat) the Maybach on the track.

He refered to the CLK as the "medium weight" car. As you noted he also said "lighter" not lightest. He also said he prefered the crisp response of the clk 55 engine (have you been reading the posts in the e55 forum about the "normal" first gear hesitation of the supercharged engine), he didn't say he would prefer 367hp to 500hp, he likes normally aspirated responses. Of course most of us would have a CL55 or SL 55 but there is a big price difference from those 2 doors to that of the CLK55. I don't care for 4 door cars and for the money the 2 door clk55 has a lots of postive attributes to offer the driver vs the high price siblings. You say maybe he was the best driver and that's how the car performed so well, maybe he was the worst driver of them all, then what??? As far as your comments of the car keeping up with the 500hp cars on the track, you should not discount this as you do with your snide comment refering to the slk vs Mayback test, the 500hp cars did have trouble pulling away from the CLK55 and the CLK 55 was also not built for the track but as a 4 seat passenger luxury sports coupe. Why do you have so much trouble giving this car the credit it deserves??? BTW, MB is rumored to be considering the big displacement 6.3 return in favor of more supercharged cars. If you want to continue to dispute the author's findings call him up and do it with him (but I'd read the entire article though ) I'm tired of this :o

[jco-amg]

F1 safety car driver Bernd Maylaender also prefers the CLK55 over the SL55...on the track at least...

[Sleestack]

Originally posted by RJC
Why do you have so much trouble giving this car the credit it deserves??? BTW, MB is rumored to be considering the big displacement 6.3 return in favor of more supercharged cars. If you want to continue to dispute the author's findings call him up and do it with him (but I'd read the entire article though ) I'm tired of this :o

Actually, I don't have trouble giving credit to the CLK 55. It's a very nice car. My responses were prompted by the fact that you took issue with my original post where I simply stated that I'd take an SL55, CL55 or E55 over the CLK55 despite what the reviewer might have opined. As for the larger cars having trouble pulling away from the CLK55, as I stated in my last post, the description quoted by you is rather vague and subject to quite a few variables, so I don't see how it's all that informative. Furthermore, I did state that MBs are not built for the track. I did not exclude the CLK55. I'm not looking to dispute the reviewer, I just happen to have a different opinion and preferences. The fact that you posted something and expected to get agreeable, detailed repsonses is not really my problem... the fact that you decided to have your own snide remark about some of the responses, including mine, is.

[hmrdwn]

LMFAO.

RJC, AMG, Jay -- Lighten up. Please.

F ck'n forum nannies who can't take a joke ought to get some boxer shorts. I think the tighty whiteys are starting to bind your perspective and shut off your sense of humor.

I'm sure it's a marvelous article. Just spectacular.

And the world is a better place for children and Mercedes enthusiasts alike because you took the time to let us know that this gentleman drove all those cars, and had an opinion about which one he like best.

Bravo! Good Job. And thank you.

[RJC]

Originally posted by Sleestack
Actually, I don't have trouble giving credit to the CLK 55. It's a very nice car. My responses were prompted by the fact that you took issue with my original post where I simply stated that I'd take an SL55, CL55 or E55 over the CLK55 despite what the reviewer might have opined. As for the larger cars having trouble pulling away from the CLK55, as I stated in my last post, the description quoted by you is rather vague and subject to quite a few variables, so I don't see how it's all that informative. Furthermore, I did state that MBs are not built for the track. I did not exclude the CLK55. I'm not looking to dispute the reviewer, I just happen to have a different opinion and preferences. The fact that you posted something and expected to get agreeable, detailed repsonses is not really my problem... the fact that you decided to have your own snide remark about some of the responses, including mine, is.

I never took issue with your choice of cars in your original post, as I said I don't even own a CLK55...I could care less if anyone agrees with what he said, but he is in a much better position to rate all the AMG cars than any of us and I don't think we should trash the guys test results just cause we (sic) you don't agree. If the author picked the e55/s55/sl55 etc I would have written the same comments in my initial post for that car. What I did take issue with, as did some others here, is you seem to disagree with almost eveything the author said, and then you try to rationalize all your points the best way you know how ie; the guy was a better driver than the rest. I don't beleive I made any snide remarks to you personally, I wasn't the one mentioning a ficticious slk vs maybach test. Until you drive all the AMG cars back to back under the same conditions your opinion of the author's means nothing to me. I don't or did not want to get into a pissing contest with you, if you wish to continue this you can do it with yourself as I will not.

[RJC]

Originally posted by AMG///Merc
Written by Ian Kuah. He came up with the exact same conclusion. So much so, that I suspect that Mr. Kuah is an independent journalist, and the article was sold to both magazines. If it isn't the same author, that would really be saying something. Like RJC pointed out, these journalists have vastly more experience in regards to test driving cars, and in this case, the author drove all the cars on the same day, in the same conditions, back to back, and he chose the CLK55 as his overall favorite. I for one, was happy to read that. There is a very small "First drive" article in the current "Automobile" magazine. By very small, I mean about two paragraphs and 4 pictures, but so far as I can tell, it's the first "review" of the 209 CLK55 coupe written so far. It was a very posative "review" by-the-way. I can't wait for the full write-ups on it!



Best regards,
Matt

p.s., Jay/Dallas: I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with you. Notice how few posts I've writen? To RJC or anyone else, keep 'em coming. It's not like this forum is overflowing with new information...

Thanks for the words of encouragement, I thought the original information was good and I was quite happy for the new CLK owners.

[RJC]

Originally posted by Jay/Dallas
RJC - Gosh. Responses like that really make you want to post on this form don't they? I assume that the next time you run across some information you think might be helpful or at least interesting to those of us on this forum you will think twice. If you then don't bother to post this information we all lose out. The forum becomes less useful, fewer people take part leaving the forum populated by a bunch of aggressive self-congratulating.........folks. But wait! Maybe that's already happened. In any case - thanks for posting your info. As it happens I had already read the article. Like you, I found the author's viewpoint interesting.

I will continue to post info for people like you who take it as informative.

[Sleestack]

Originally posted by RJC
I never took issue with your choice of cars in your original post, as I said I don't even own a CLK55...I could care less if anyone agrees with what he said, but he is in a much better position to rate all the AMG cars than any of us and I don't think we should trash the guys test results just cause we (sic) you don't agree. If the author picked the e55/s55/sl55 etc I would have written the same comments in my initial post for that car. What I did take issue with, as did some others here, is you seem to disagree with almost eveything the author said, and then you try to rationalize all your points the best way you know how ie; the guy was a better driver than the rest. I don't beleive I made any snide remarks to you personally, I wasn't the one mentioning a ficticious slk vs maybach test. Until you drive all the AMG cars back to back under the same conditions your opinion of the author's means nothing to me. I don't or did not want to get into a pissing contest with you, if you wish to continue this you can do it with yourself as I will not.

You take yourself and this forum way too seriously. All I did was disagree with the author's conclusion and point out that your summaries weren't particularly informative. I did not disagree with everything he said and certainly didn't say that the review was skewed in the CLK's favor by his driving ability. In fact, I pointed out that driving ability is a variable that wasn't measured and could affect his impressions of the CLK relative to the other cars being driven by other drivers. Obviously it could cut both ways, which is exactly why I thought his description of the CLK's performance relative to the other drivers he was following wasn't particularly useful. Why don't you take them time to read and comprehend rather than being so defensive. I really don't care whether you value my opinion or not, I was just offering my opinion, which you obviously don't like.

First you said you were tired of this. Then you said you wouldn't get into a pissing match. I suppose next time, you'll really mean it.

[karl k]

Originally posted by RJC
I will continue to post info for people like you who take it as informative.

RJC -

Thanks for the effort.

Time has come to unleash the alligators for the ungratefuls.

[RJC]

You're quite welcome Karl.