///MB

I've driven a C32 before and it seems a little "boaty" to me... does the CLK55 and the C32 share similar suspension components? If not, how much better or worse is the CLK55 than the C32?

I have also driven an E500 and I think the airmatic DC on that is far better than the AMG C32 suspension.

Thanks.

Mach430

All factory Mercedes suspension are weak IMO. You can greatly improve the handling without sacrificing ride quality. The C32 has a much stiffer chassis than the w208 CLK, and will outhandle it. I do not yet know about the w209. My guess would be that they are close.

Improviz

a German magazine. They often test cars around two tracks: Hockenheim, and Nurburgring. Since these tests are done by the same driver every time, Horst von Saurma, they give a pretty good indication of the relative track capabilities of a car.

As you can see, even though the acceleration numbers obtained were virtually identical, the CLK55's time at both tracks was *much* faster. Furthermore, the track conditions when the CLK55 was tested were less advantageous: a colder track usually equals slower times, and the C32 was tested at 25 degrees celsius, pretty much perfect.

So, with a difference like this, I'd respectfully suggest that the CLK55 is far and away the better-handling car. One second per lap is a big margin, but several seconds is gigantic.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=30%26Car2=42

///MB

Thanks for both your replies... I guess I didn't say, but I did mean the new W209 CLK55 vs. the C32. I'm assuming since the older one beat the new C32, the 209 CLK55 should be even better.

davidb

Interesting that the stock CLK55 had faster lap times and 0-100km times than the Brabus CLK 5.8.

[Tried to post the comparison link, but the URL kept pulling up the Clk55 vs. C32 test ]

Improviz

I checked the site again, and in their "tracktest" section, they give a Hockenheim lap time for the new CLK55 of 1'18.6", about 0.4 second slower than the time they gave for the W208. Given that the new one is about 300 pounds heavier, it probably handles quite well for its lap time to be that close...and its time is still significantly faster of the C32's time of 1'20.6", so I'd say it gets the nod...

ndabunka

Guys - Part of the reasosn the CLK did so well on the track is it's strong torque capacity. Helps you get going quicker out of turns. As the times demonstrated the C32's fast but not as quick out of the turns. ///MB The newer 209 body is quite a bit heavier than the 208 and although HP is slightly increased, the additional weight has to be flung around the corners and it's slower...

Improviz

Plus, it's not as though the C32 is weak in the torque department! It makes around 300 ft-lb over a very wide rpm range, which is plenty to power it out of turns.

I too am puzzled as to why it didn't fare better, but other magazines' results are similar. Realistically, unless you're running time trials on your way to work, you'll never know the difference; on the street, both cars handle extremely well and have far more grip than anyone sane would use on a public road.

Improviz

///MB

Thanks again. I got to test drive a new CLK55 today. I thought the suspensions seemed a little tighter and less boaty than that of the C32... so I was pretty happy with it. Although, I didn't get to test them back to back... so I'm not entirely sure. The CLK just seemed lower and more connected to the road, while the C32 seemed like it was still a floating sedan.
Overall, I thought the CLK55 was very nice... but I'm not sure if it's worth 20K more than a C32. Also, it needs MUCH bigger tires/rims.
Anyone have any other comments/opinions about the CLK55 vs the C32? (not just handling, but anything).

Thanks.

ndabunka

//MB - While both cars are tight with regards to space, the C32 does have 4 doors so if your agenda includes transportation for more than 2, you may want to lean towards the c32. My CLK55 is OK for small children (8 and under) but asking co-workers to climb into the back seat is a pushing it a little.

///MB

I can see that. It did seem pretty tight, but I drive an M3 right now, so it's about the same. As far as having more than 1 passenger, I do quite a bit, but not for longer drives. So, I don't think it would be too much of a problem.

Improviz

I think that, being as it is 300 pounds heavier than the previous model, it's not going to be as tossable, but I'm sure it's a competent handler. But 3400-3500 pounds is my limit, and plus I'm not really enamored of the looks of the new one...

burat

the single wipers. It's sooooo ****en cooolll. Hahahaha.

FrankW

the CLK55 does better around the track I think it's because of the extra torque over the C32. It's much easier for 208 CLK55 to accelerate at higher speed. They have similar 0-60 and 1/4 time because C32 is lighter and the torque is harder to put down on the CLK55. If the driver and condition are the same.

anyway, compare to the 209, I have no idea because I haven't test drive the new 55 yet. To my friend's 01 CLK55 that i drove a couple times, yeah, my C32 does handle better.

oh yeah, gotta love that front airdam of the new CLK55...

Improviz

The thing is, high torque can be both a blessing and a curse on a track with 245-series tires on the back. I've played around with the CLK55's capabilities enough to realize that on the track, it would be a handful at the limit because of the tendency of the high torque to overpower the rear tires, so it requires a more judicious application of the throttle to avoid power oversteer, which will cut lap times.

Also, don't forget that the C32 has a 10% lower drive ratio than the CLK55, so once you factor in the driveline multiplication, the effective torque difference is not as pronounced as it would seem to be...after all, the M3 has far less torque than *either* the CLK55 or the C32, but still manages to turn faster track times on both low- and high-speed tracks thanks to its agressive gearing and tauter chassis tuning (which comes at the expense of ride; nothing's for free).

I think it's simply that the CLK55 (W208) is a few hundred pounds lighter (check their specs at Edmunds.com), has the engine set back further behind the wheels (which gives it a bit more neutral cornering attitude), and has more agressive suspension tuning out of the box: having driven both, the stock setup on the C32 definitely allows more noticeable body roll than the CLK. I don't have enough experience with the W209 to comment.

But if the original poster is *that* concerned about handling yet still wants a four-door, a few suspension bits swapped out on the C32 would close the gap pretty easily, with a slight penalty in ride quality.

Anyway, the limits of these cars are so high that unless you're a looney or running for your life, you're not going to be exploring them on the street in any case!