cntlaw

I read that the weights of :
C55 = 1635kg
CLK55 = 2120kg
CLK55cab = 2225kg
Why CLK55 and C55 both states 5.2s 0-100kmh? Shouldn't C55 be faster with much lighter weight? Or else does the CLK have a different tuning programme?

I also read that the fuel consumption of:
C320: C55:
City=6.7km/L 5.8km/L
Urban=12.9km/L 11.4km/L
Average=9.8km/L 8.4km/L
It is hard to believe the difference is so little? Why?

rguy

I have found my C55 to be much more fuel efficient than I at first thought. One reason is the continued use of the three valve per cylinder setup. Another is that with more power, you don't need to run as high of revs to attain speeds. Revs burn fuel when you use the throttle to get them. On an on ramp that I might have to have the pedal to the floor for in a C320, I might be able to do at 1/4 to 1/2 throttle on the 55. Gearing and other issues surely help, and this is surely only part of the picture, but it is a start.

As for C55 vs. CLK55, a couple things come to mind. One is that despite the weight advantage of the C55, it actually becomes a disadvantage, as the tires are not as "smooshed" into the ground....i.e. there is a slightly smaller contact patch and you will have an easier time of lighting up the tires. This is akin to one reason why porsche put the engine in the back. One was to put as much weight on the rear axle as possible, which is why their flat 6 engines have always had such good 0-60 for the power and also to make the car have near 50/50 weight distribution on turn in, anticipating the massive forward weight transfer under racing conditions. Second, the marketing people at MB, I am certain, do not want to hurt CLK55 sales based on performance because a "downmarket", ~$14k cheaper car can run better.

Chappy

Where are you getting your stats from? According to www.mbusa.com, the C55 weighs just 95 pounds lighter than a current CLK55 coupe. Your stats show about a 485 Kg (1067 pound) difference....this is not the case!

cntlaw

I believe so, I think that blooddddy mag had incorrect data compiled on it ...and it was middle of the night ...I could have thought about this common sense that even S-Class is under 2 tons.
This makes me believe that the fuel consumption figures of C55 is also wrooong I think average 7km/L is about right.

rguy

That was the other thing I forgot to comment on.... the C AMG is a bit heavier than even MB states in my opinion, but I don't know how much the CLK AMG is heavier than MB states or if it is. Last I heard was that the C55 with fluids is about 3750lbs. Sorry about my oversight. Don't ever mean to sound like a fruit loop.

rguy

Also, the C AMG is the info that is most correct. It is the CLK that is stated from your numbers to be roughly the weight of a fully loaded long wheelbase (or american) V8 S-Class.

cntlaw

That's was also what I thought the author compiling the data probably input the CLK +5 passengers net weight