///AchMeinGott

I posted this in the C55 forum, but somehow forgot to here as well.

Hello all, my name's Mike and I suppose this is my introduction thread as well.

My life story in 2 minutes: I had a 94 corvette that I had for 5 years(07-12) and loved its rough and tumble ride. In 2010 my son was born, and I picked up my grandparents 95 Cutlass as a beater when they decided to cut back on cars in 2011. The Mrs car's time was up in Spring of 2013, so she picked up a Cube. As such, since selling my Corvette, I'm bored to tears no matter which car we take. I held out for a couple years as to get our other finances in order(inherited wife's sizable debt, she's almost finished online college, etc.) and next Spring/Summer I'll be ready to pull the trigger on a car that wont put me to sleep .2 miles down the road.

So I set out making a lengthy list of possible fun cars, cars most would never compare to each other, but I decided to throw logic out the window. Obviously, with an almost 5yo son another Corvette is out of the question. It has to have some semblance of a back seat, ideally one that could fit a 10-12yo assuming I keep the next car 5-7 years. I also wanted a low 13 second capable car, respectable handling, manual trans, and a simplistic car. I wanted something driver oriented daily driver that I could just get in and go. Adjustable this or that kept to a minimum(preferably 0).

I finally whittled my list down to an 03/04 Mach 1 Mustang, or 05/06 GTO. Both fit the bill great in different ways. Recently though, the Mach 1 has taken a back seat to a C55/CLK55(2005). Black with red stripe Mach 1's are one of the coolest cars I've ever seen, but the retro interior I'd rip out immediately, and the small back seat had me really questioning it. The C55/CLK55 with their low weight, basic suspension, and NA v8 is getting a pass despite an automatic trans.

So now I'm carefully debating a 6.0 GTO or C55/CLK55. Cars with a plethora of differences and a few similarities. Equal mileage, the GTO is a bit cheaper, and more plentiful. It's interior is simplistic but sporty with color matched interiors and of course, there's the LS2/T56. 40 more hp, but almost 200lbs more then a C55 and within 100lbs of a CLK55. Parts are also becoming increasingly rare. The C and even CLK interior is a bit more upscale but also more sterile, although I wouldn't call it boring. The M113/722 from what I've researched are rock solid, and between that and its standard shocks/struts/springs, all the expensive bits are extremely low risk. None the less, it still contains AMG-price tag components. Basically, its a rarity vs cost issue, GTO vs AMG.

I've done quite a bit of homework and have ample more time to before I buy, so my only question is, what non-Benz cars did you C/CLK55 owners come from? Any General Motors LSx cars, or by chance, anybody come from/to a GTO? What were the most glaring pros/cons the AMG had? Thanks in advance everyone.

CJackson13

A great friend of mine owns a manual 2013 5.0 mustang that is heavily modded. No engine mods yet, but all of the suspension work he has put into the car has made it a blast to drive. I have to say that I am very impressed with what Ford has accomplished with their newer mustangs, but I wouldn't buy one after owning my 2001 CLK (I know, not the right year). The build quality is a deal breaker for me with Ford and their plastic interiors, plastic door handles, etc.

The great thing about buying American is that everyone has them, and thus American cars may be cheaper to operate and repair in comparison to German because the parts are simply cheaper. Also, the popularity of American muscle cars among other Americans is HUGE so you will always have support.

It seems like you're basing your decision on reliability, drivability, and kind of a family integration factor.

Reliability: I can say that my CLK has been miles more reliable than the new mustang. My trans has 220,000 miles on it and is so far indestructible, whereas I have multiple friends who have replaced their Mustang tranny and clutch at around 50,000 miles. I just completed a motor swap and a tranny service (since it was out of the car anyway) all for less than $3k including parts and the new motor. German cars can be expensive if you're not wrench savvy or you dont know anyone that is. Cars in general are expensive though.

Drivability: Speed wise, from a 40 roll, my CLK stays about half a car length behind the new mustang due to less power and gearing; which is immensely impressive for an 01 AMG racing a car 13 years its junior. The Mustang is more easily modified as their are more supporting brands as it's the most modified car in America. The suspension opportunities are better, even with the live axle. The spring/shock setup of the CLK is its major pitfall in my opinion as it limits the car on how stiff you can make it.

Family-ability: about the same. The room in the back seat is similar among the new Mustang and my CLK. The only noticeable difference I can feel is the head-room of the CLK. The roofline of the Mustang doesnt take into consideration anyone over 5 and a half feet tall sitting in the back seat, there's just no head room. The CLK has noticeably more although I wouldnt say it's suitable for anyone over 5'10".

As far as what I would pick is concerned, I would pick my CLK every time because of how rare it is, especially in its current condition. It turns so many heads its unbelievable. People always think it's a 2010+ and are always shocked when I tell them it's a 2001. I've had multiple offers to buy it without ever trying to sell it. People are surprised by the speed and sound and often start a conversation with me at stoplights about my car. It's somewhat of a sleeper and people just dont expect it to perform the way it does. And for that, I absolutely love it and will never get rid of it. That doesnt mean I wouldnt buy a new mustang as a daily driver though

Just for reference: to add images for comparison purposes here's my buddys' 5.0

Nachtsturm

I have owned my share of American's V8's as that is where my roots lie.

In no particular order...

F-bodies
1993 Firebird Formula (Going back to highschool here, haha)
1999 Camaro Z28 A4
1999 Firehawk M6
2002 Trans Am M6
2002 Firehawk M6 (345HP pkg) <---awesome

Mustangs
2000 Mustang GT (auto)
2002 Mustang GT T5
2003 Mustang Cobra (Yellow)
2003 Mustang Cobra (Sonic Blue)
2003 Mach 1 5-speed
2006 Mustang GT 5-speed

Vettes:
1999 Coupe M6
2004 Z06

Other:
2000 Ford Lightning F-150
1999 SHO
1996 SHO

Came close to buying a GTO on a couple of occasions. Quite familiar with the holden, and have even run a couple down the strip.

I love american v8's.

While my CLK55's were very reliable, my mustangs were even more so. Not one issue from any of them, with the exception of a sticky clutch on my one Cobra. A clutch adjustment, and all was well.

To say which is better? They are all great in their own rite. If you are not a DIY, and are limited on funds, the benz can get expensive. T

The GTO has one of the most comfortable seats around, like sitting on a couch. As far as speed wise...the Mach 1, GTO (6.0L) and CLK555 are all a drivers race. The aftermarket is far more extensive for the Mach and GTO though.

If I had a kid, I would probably buy a nice C55 AMG and call it a day.

With that said, I have owned over 50 cars, and I do believe my 2005 CLK55 AMG is my favorite car I have ever owned. I bought my first AMG awhile ago, and have been sold ever since.

Since you live in PA, depending on your budget, I would also Check out the newer SHO's. Roomy, AWD, quick, tunable, and Safe.

///AchMeinGott

Reliability, driveability, and kind of family integration. That's just about spot on sir.

The kicker about the GTO is it's actually an imported Australian Holden Monaro. The LS2/T56 however very much originated in the US(or Canada depending on how you look at it lol) so yes the drive train is both solid and cheap. Ford however used a mediocre 5 speed for years, and when they went to a Chinese built 6 speed, they borderline should have been recalled. Aftermarket or even factory upgrade hand me downs are plentiful, it's just the body panels and GTO specific electrical bits that have become very hard to find, and in some cases expensive. The AMG drivetrain sounds to be just as solid with regular maintenance. Again, it's the body and electrical components that could nickle and dime me. Pretty even tie there.

Even though it was designed back in the early 00's, its interior was better then any American GM at the time and is comparable, if not a hair better I'd say, then the 11-14 Mustang's interior. That being said, it has no options... literally. Standard Blaupunkt stereo and steering wheel controls are about as far as the option list goes. There are some options available in the Australian cars that I could import, but some of it's not worth the effort. I keep things simple. Build quality, the car feels rock solid but the materials aren't up to the quality of the Mercedes I've seen. The color matched GTO interior is awesome, but creature comforts certainly go to the Benz.

I looked up the CLK(and C) vs GTO dimensions last night and was quite surprised. The GTO is a hefty 7" longer then the CLK and 8" more then the C class along with a 3" longer wheelbase. The GTO is noted as being able to fit four 6 footers once you cram them in, and indeed, it has 4" more rear leg room then either and 1.5" more headroom then the CLK, tied with the C class. I'd have to see a CLK and GTO side by side to see it, as I'd have sworn they were almost identical sizes.

Very unbiased review that resonates many of the conclusions I've come to. WS6 and Firehawks are in my top 10 favorite looking cars and was initially very interested in them, much the same as the Mach 1, but I've committed myself to sacrificing looks for build quality and interior room.

I also agree the three are a drivers race, mostly depending on speed, and have glaring differences but the common performance aspect makes them all shine as relative bargain buys. Thus, it's pretty hard for me to compare and contrast them all.

I guess I should add that I'm 26, and am plenty happy I've decided NOT to take the advice many say of "What you need is a 4 cylinder Fusion or a Camry or something." With a used Accord costing just as much as a GTO/CLK/C class, it makes no sense to settle for a boring econobox. The only advantage they have is fuel economy as far as I'm concerned. My budget for my next car is roughly $18k, with some "just in case" money set aside. I do all my own basic and even some advanced maintenance.

I haven't test driven a Mach in a long time, but as I said, I've all but crossed them off my list. I drove a GTO about 3 months ago, and was surprised but just how tightly built it was. The short stubby hood was a stark contrast to my Corvette. Torque was plentiful, and I could shift lazily at any rpm. It was a great drive. I also drove a C55 about 2 weeks ago. I was surprised by just how off the magazine reviews were about the trans speed, and how accurate the owners on the forums were. It was god-awful slow. Now, with only 31xxx probably casual miles, the TCU probably could have used a reset. I was shifting when the tac showed 6000 and still hit redline once or twice. Beyond that, I was overall impressed with it as well. Was almost dead quite inside and materials were nice. Above all else I noticed the car just felt like it was bolted to ground around every corner, yet never felt bouncy or rough. It understeered some, but on the back roads I took it on, even left/right transitions were very much a point and shoot affair. It had aftermarket 19's, 235F/275R which may have been a factor. It's steering was very heavy, more so then my Vette's was even, but that's a plus to me.

I'm interested to drive an 05 CLK55 to see if there's any perceptible difference between the two. As for the 2 VS 4 doors, it's a non-issue with me honestly. My son can buckle and unbuckle himself in many of the cars he's been in, so while I'd have to move my seat forward each time to let him in/out, I only have to open one door. With memory seats, returning it to its original position isn't a big deal either. The GTO lacks memory seats unfortunately. That being said, I'm leaning towards a C55 over a CLK55. The CLK seats look much better and it does have the 6/4 piston set up, but the C is roughly 100lbs lighter and I like the gauges/steering wheel better. That big clock in a performance coupe's gauge cluster... what were they thinking.

Scott Simoncic

2002 Mustang GT isn't a T5, it's a T45 or T3650 unless it was swapped. Just saying.

I also love American.... I've owned a 1994 Lincoln Mark VIII, Third cat delete, true duals with X-Pipe (all custom, very tight fit) but that has a variant of the Cobra Engine, 32V V8 4.6 (sounds glorious)..
1990 Iroc-Z HEAVILY Modded, cheap to do.
1996 Camaro Z-28 T-56 LT-1 LT-4 Intake, SLP Loud Mouth, Whisper Lid
2000 Camaro SS SLP T-56 LS6 Intake Manifold, BBK Throttle Body, Skip-Shift Delete, SLP Exhaust, Whisper Lid, Tune.
1999 Grand Prix GTP (Modded, U-Bend removel, Resonator Removal, Magnaflow Exhaust, Swappable Pully) Fun Sleeper, but FWD and horrible interior.
1988 Mustang 5.0 x2 One with Tremek TKO, one Modded, GT-40 Upper and Lower, Throttle Body, CAI, Bassani X-Pipe, Dynomax Mufflers, BBK throttle body, Upgraded MAF.
1989 Taurus SHO, SHO Shop Y-Pipe, SHO Shop Tune, removed resonator, Dynomax Exhaust, CAI, MAF Upgrade, Rod-Shifter Conversion, 1991+ Clutch and Flywheel (OEM Ford)
1998 Contour Sport Special Order to SVT SPEC (Hard to do, took 6 Months to get from ford) SVT Spec V6, SVT Brakes, Suspension and Exhaust, CAI and Tune, Lightweight as it had no power seats, also custom order with ABS Delete. 5-Speed.

Japanese:
1997 SC400 - Stock, fully loaded with Nakamichi, Heated Seats and Traction Control (Slow, but silky smooth ride, silent and extremely well built!)

Euro:
1997 Volvo 850 Wagon T-5 Modded. Silicone charge hoses, boost controller running 14psi, CAI, Euro-Spec Lights, FCP Euro Diaphragm, Tune. 300 HP super sleeper tire shredding super sleeper wagon. Pretty Fast on 14PSI
2002 MB CLK-430... Stock, quick and NEVER gave me a single problem!
2001 MB CLK-55 AMG... (Current) 65K Original. New to me but just a thug in a nice suit. Love this car, would have liked an A209, however I love the rock solid reliability of the A208. Plus, I have Two-Toned interior, the build quality is bank vault Solid.. Rides harsher than the 430, but it's well worth it. I have fun every single time I drive it. It's in FANTASTIC condition, great records and I picked the whole thing up for 11K out the door. Not regretting my decision AT ALL.. The only price you will pay is for the front brake rotors, NOT CHEAP, but hell, it's still less than a timing belt service on a Lexus. I figure it's a 75K mile job depending on how you drive, so, really it's not that bad, especially to have fantastic brakes.

I just can't do American anymore. I can't stand how Americans can't build a proper automatic, they bang and clunk and jerk, or slide-bump... At 100K my 430 shifted better than any American Transmission I've ever driven, even brand new.

The ride is firm but acceptable, it hits the bumps a little rough, but settles down right away, it doesn't keep trying to recover (hard to explain) but it's very well done. Handles well enough, the power is intoxicating. Lately it's been raining and it will spin the up through first, second and third in the wet. The Engine is a masterpiece... It's just better than what Americans do even with the LS powerplant.

C55's have their own set of issues, they really aren't up to the CLK build quality, so I'd say go with the CLK.

Nachtsturm

Wasn't swapped, typo. T5 was used in the foxes if memory serves me correctly.

///AchMeinGott

Sounds like you've had quite the fun auto history. Good to know. Just reinforces what I've gathered that, despite Mercedes taking a bit of a quality dive in the early 00's, the E/CLK/C 5.4 cars all seem to be pretty solid buys. Even my mom's E300d at nearly 340,000 miles, despite a slowly growing list of minor issues, is on 100% original drivetrain.

The C/CLK is the only auto car I'll consider due to reliability, simplicity, and light weight so I won't need to worry about that fortunately. Although, I was not anything close to impressed on my C55 test drive. I'm gonna chock that up to needing a trans reset... I hope. I'd hate to find out my Vette's 4L60E was just as responsive and want a TCU tune the week I brought it home.

Proper damping. I noticed it right away on the C55. It soaked up all the bumps of the backroad I was on while not being floaty, but also not being overly harsh.

The one point I'll disagree with is your engine analysis. It's output, and curve, is great, but nothing fantastic. For being a limited production 3 valve, twin spark, OHC, variable intake runner motor, it makes average power. The fact that it redlines at 6400 and only peaks at 5700 bothers me a little for some reason. The mass produced LS1's, while only being up .3L to the M113 matches it. The high performance LS6 exceeds it in both output, and curves. Then there's the LS2 in the GTO I'm looking at(which even has, quite possibly the worst intake manifold put on an LS motor). All do that without any of the tech the 5.4 employs, just old-fashioned displacement and good heads.

I thought that shared many components(as well as SLK) and thus were about the same. Interesting.

Thanks for the responses so far guys.

Nachtsturm

If you can live with the two doors, I would hunt for a 2005 CLK55, with only 247 imported, may have a harder time finding one local.

However, the C55 is legit. My friend after running 3 14's in his C55, let me try his C55, here is a vid of my first try. Cut a 1.97 60' on his 245's.


The C55's seem to be geared better, I was only a couple tenths faster in my CLK55 with more mods. My CLK is about 100lbs heavier. With more seat time, I would have certainly run 13.0 in his car as is.

///AchMeinGott

They are the same as far as I know. The older, torquey version 5.4 in the CLK and E class at least, had a 2.82 rear. When they dropped the torque and added HP/RPM's(03-06), they went to a 3.06 rear. The S/C cars at that point I assume kept the 2.82. The trans ratios I know are the same between C and CLK. 100lbs is 100lbs I guess. Closest track to me is Cecil, and then Atco. Both fast tracks. I don't doubt a C55 with a $250 cat/resonator delete and an 1/8th tank of gas could hit 12.7 at Cecil on a decent street tire.

The 05's certainly are rare, even compared to the already rare C55. The GTO in a color I want isn't exactly common either, but there are certainly more then the C/CLK.

I think when the time comes, it'll come down to a C55 or GTO honestly, although a perfectly timed/priced CLK could sway me. The pros/cons seem to only go one way. I can add the 6/4 piston calipers, and maybe the front seats, from the CLK to the C, but I can't put the C gauge cluster in the CLK nor can I easily take out 100lbs. Sure 15-20lbs I'd guess is from those same calipers, but that still leaves an 80lb deficit.

GTO to CLK I'd probably take the GTO as well with its color matched, more sporty interior. It may weigh even more, but it's also a bigger car. There are even brackets to add the 6/4 calipers from the CTS-V, as the GTO brakes are mediocre at best.

So it will most likely be GTO vs C55 in the 11th hour... which will probably come down to can I put up with another automatic or not. But I will certainly keep an eye out for any black or red CLK's nearby to test drive. Maybe the pillarless look will sell itself come spring...

Nachtsturm

I'd go C55 between the two, but I may be biased.

Our tracks here are nothing like ATCO. Would love to see how my CLK does there, but I haven't been back to the strip since I ran the 12 two years ago.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I was told that the gearing from C55 to at least the 05CLK is different from a pretty knowledgeable source.

Scott Simoncic

I think I may have stated the engine analysis incorrectly.... I love LS engines... I wasn't necessarily speaking to power output.... The fact that the M113 can be powerful and still refined. The LS, while a heck of a power producer just cannot touch the smooth and refined nature of the M113 when in cruising mode. I can drive my car and feel like I'm in a Mercedes, or drive like a hooligan and have a grunty thug. I can drive for 6 hours and not feel fatigued, that's why I think the power plant is fantastic. My mom (bless her heart) in retirement has a 2010 Camaro SS LS3 with a T56, she likes a fast car... I love driving it for 20 minutes or so, but even a 1 hour trip is fatiguing experience because it isn't refined AT ALL! The trans probably needed a reset... Throttle response will increase as well. Its definitely much better than a 4L60. Also, always remember that driving style with a Mercedes has to be approached differently, the kickdown switch is your friend. I almost went for a C55, but I did a ton of research and it just isn't built quite as well.... More usual suspect issues with other items on the car separate the drive train. Either way you'll be much happier overall than a GTO... I REALLY like GTO's but I just couldn't pull the trigger on one, maybe a CTS-V, but those are pricey. I think you'll be extremely happy with a MB, it makes a better DD, you won't regret it at all as it just settles down so much better and really makes you happy everyday.

The Foxes did have T5's. With the 4.6 came the T45.

I have had some really fun cars, my next one will be another MB, probably a C63 in coupe form... Or heck, even a 209 CLK 55. I'm hooked, I'm Benz for life now.

///AchMeinGott

From an engineering standpoint, this is impossible. The Camaro, being a more raw car due to a more rough suspension, less sound deadening, louder exhaust, etc. might be more fatiguing, but the LS3 adheres to the same NVH laws the M113 does. In fact, being newer, it might actually abide by more strict specifications. At 65mph, the Camaro may also cruise at a higher RPM, but I'd guess it and the C/CLK are fairly similar. The GTO has the same trans as the Camaro(sort of) but a 3.46 rear instead of 3.73, and might actually cruise along at a slightly lower rpm. I'll have to calculate that later with tire sizes, but just going off of the AMG's (3.06x.83)gearing vs the GTO's (3.46x.57) I'd imagine they are quite close.

I don't doubt it. This is an annoyance to me though. Adaptive trans on performance cars never made sense to me. No one is redlining every gear, every day. You just can't do that with any 300+hp car. That isn't to say I won't be redlining 3 or 4 times a day coming home from work at midnight though. On the 2005+ manual mode, does the trans default to the outermost perameter for shifting? That is to say, does it shift as fast as possible/best throttle response possible or does it still follow whatever the transmission has learned for you?

I suspect you would have hated my vette then lol. Felt every bump in the road, somewhat noisy inside, and the exhaust basically was behind your head. But despite it's numb steering, it followed whatever commands I gave it and the tires gave me enough feedback for it to be a blast and fairly tossable. I certainly would like a step up in overall car quality, but I do value performance over luxury ten fold. The gen 1 CTS-V are still in the low $20's with low mileage, and I actually think the GTO has a nicer interior, albeit lacking in options. I do love the gen2 CTS-V, but as you said, they are still up there in price. Given a need for 4 doors that would be my #1 choice, even with an unlimited budget. I loved the ones I've sat in. Shifter placement, seats, and all fit me perfectly. I also really like its in-between C/E class, very spacious 4 seater design. I think the new, larger, mimic the E class/5 series/A6 design is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, I missed a great chance Saturday as the Wife was at work and my son was at his grandmothers. There was an 06 manual GTO about an hour away, and an 05 CLK55 locally I was planning on driving back to back... as of Friday night. When I went to leave Saturday at noon, the GTO was off their site. Now I'll probably have to wait a few weeks for another chance like that at a decent mileage GTO. By then the CLK will be gone knowing my luck.