There are times when a C32AMG is faster than a C55AMG & Vice-Versa!
12-10-2005, 11:27 PM
#26
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AMG_55
clk55 are still in production and are sold in other parts of the world. the reason that they arent sold here is b/c the sales were 2 low.
Hard to believe... since about 40% of AMG models are sold in the United States... yeah I try to quote sources whenever I stumble upon them... it makes one more credible when making facts not fiction, don't you think! Well hope your CLK55AMG is worth big bucks due to its exclusivity now!
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-11-2005 at 12:30 AM.
12-10-2005, 11:41 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by green_IZ
Hard to believe... since about 40% of AMG models are sold in the United States... yeah I quote stuff cause working at Diamler I'd like to represent the company info to the tee.... plus its makes one more credible when making facts not fiction, don't you think!
even if 80% of worldwide sales were us, it doesnt matter, if its not selling its not worth bringing here.(period)
so me racing and beating c32's is fiction and u (who has nothing to do w/ testing the cars) quoting is fact
great buddy, u win, want a cookie
12-10-2005, 11:52 PM
#28
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AMG_55
y is it hard to believe that the convertible was outselling the coupe?
even if 80% of worldwide sales were us, it doesnt matter, if its not selling its not worth bringing here.(period)
so me racing and beating c32's is fiction and u (who has nothing to do w/ testing the cars) quoting is fact
great buddy, u win, want a cookie
even if 80% of worldwide sales were us, it doesnt matter, if its not selling its not worth bringing here.(period)
so me racing and beating c32's is fiction and u (who has nothing to do w/ testing the cars) quoting is fact
great buddy, u win, want a cookie
My bad, I guess you are a math expert considering you beat C32's by 2 or more car lengths easily, lol...if almost the majority of AMG cars sold is sent to the US,then by having so much demand, one would figure that all the products that AMG has to offer would be brought here in terms of cars... I don't see why it wouldn't be selling... there were more coupes sold than are cab's in the state of Col alone....Also, MB has sold more coupes then cabs in Canada, and yet they are discontinuing the coupe in North America entirely; I guess in this case it is worth bringing it to Canada, period... thats a fact... never said you were not right, just hard to believe...even more so when you craft up numbers....
Anyhow, I've raced my buddy's C55 (like I said before) and I had a slight lead... having said that a C55 or a C32 would be a fair match to a CLK55... not by margins, as you have indicated... you probably should finish the cookie, maybe a few more pounds will make your car fly!!!
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-11-2005 at 12:12 AM.
12-11-2005, 12:13 AM
#29
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55 Black/Black Lighting, Premium, NAV
Originally Posted by green_IZ
besides working at Diamler I'd like to represent the company products to the tee....
12-11-2005, 12:27 AM
#30
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mez456
I read that a long time ago. The times for both the C32 and C55 are horrible. Makes you wonder what kind of people they have doing their testing. 0-60 5.6 for the C55. Give me a break. C&D got 4.7 almost a full second faster. And if you believe the Edmunds times then neither the C55 or C32 will ever have a chance to beat an M3.
Mez
Mez
... the new M3 will be no match, thus widening the gap... maybe if you raced the M3, you can lessen the gap, obviously these mag companies don't know who to drive
Anyhow I'm glad you purchased such a great piece of precision, considering Diamler's Quality 
12-11-2005, 01:11 AM
#31
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55 Black/Black Lighting, Premium, NAV
Actually have not had the chance to race an M3. I did race a 2006 c6 Vette and beat him.
https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/114286-popped-my-cherry.html
Now car for car the 2006 c6 Vette will smoke a c32 and a c55
MT-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE DATA
0-30 mph, sec 1.8
0-60 mph, sec 4.1
0-100 mph, sec 9.5
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.5 @ 115.0
But like all my posts in this thread it comes down to driver. Try to pay attention. Arguing over magazine times is moronic.
https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/114286-popped-my-cherry.html
Now car for car the 2006 c6 Vette will smoke a c32 and a c55
MT-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE DATA
0-30 mph, sec 1.8
0-60 mph, sec 4.1
0-100 mph, sec 9.5
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.5 @ 115.0
But like all my posts in this thread it comes down to driver. Try to pay attention. Arguing over magazine times is moronic.
12-11-2005, 01:20 AM
#32
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mez456
Actually have not had the chance to race an M3. I did race a 2006 c6 Vette and beat him.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=114286
Now car for car the 2006 c6 Vette will smoke a c32 and a c55
MT-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE DATA
0-30 mph, sec 1.8
0-60 mph, sec 4.1
0-100 mph, sec 9.5
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.5 @ 115.0
But like all my posts in this thread it comes down to driver. Try to pay attention. Arguing over magazine times is moronic.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=114286
Now car for car the 2006 c6 Vette will smoke a c32 and a c55
MT-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE DATA
0-30 mph, sec 1.8
0-60 mph, sec 4.1
0-100 mph, sec 9.5
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.5 @ 115.0
But like all my posts in this thread it comes down to driver. Try to pay attention. Arguing over magazine times is moronic.
Try to read what this thread was initially about... that would help! I posted it up to say that a C55 and C32 can have variations in performance, so a concrete statement about the victor is indeed hard to justify.... the times I have extracted from magazines only indicate the potential run a car can have... its a threshold someone has attained in one instance... so taking my words out of context is pretty preplexing since you and I speak the same language...or at least I'd hope so.... its moronic to argue something that was never an issue to begin with.... a hint for next time: try and read the topic about a thread before posting a useless argument, that may help!!!
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-11-2005 at 01:30 AM.
12-11-2005, 01:30 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55 Black/Black Lighting, Premium, NAV
Originally Posted by green_IZ
See the CLK55 AMG is heavier 3635lbs vs 3450lbs for the C32/C55 AMG; and with you being heavier, good luck!
2003 CLK55 AMG VERSUS 2003 C32 AMG
engine: V8 VS supercharged V6
0 - 60 mph: 5.1 seconds VS 5.1 seconds
12-11-2005, 01:43 AM
#34
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mez456
If we are speaking the same language why quote magazine times and totally discount AMG_55's account of him actually racing and beating 2 c32s? Maybe the C32 drivers sucked? Maybe it was 150F? Maybe he cheated?
If you could begin to read between the lines that I have typed ,one can see that a discrepancy of car lengths on every race attempt seems unrealistic.... reading English isn't obviously your forte.... perhaps beating corvettes is....stick to that :p
12-11-2005, 02:05 AM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
Mercedes AMG claims identical times of 5.2 seconds for the 0-100km/h (0-62mph) for both the C32 and C55. My personal interpretation of the instrumented tests which have been performed by the 3 mainstream North American magazines (R&T, C&D, MT) is that the C55 is probably slightly faster in a drag race, but very close.
In comparing performance numbers, I think everyone agrees that a direct comparison test done at the same time is the most valid. I have never found a direct comparison test of the C32 and C55. In the absence of that, the next best thing is comparing numbers from the SAME magazine because each magazine has their own sort of "rules and methods" about testing.
Interestingly, all 3 magazines tested the C32 against the Audi S4, and 2 of the 3 magazines tested the C55 against the Audi S4 as well. This is important, because the S4 numbers provide constant benchmark to gauge the performance of the C32 and C55.
Car and Driver May 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Car and Driver Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds
Road and Track Dec 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.4 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.9 seconds
Road and Track Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds; 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds
MotorTrend Sept 2003
C32: 0-60 in 4.77 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.24 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 4.99 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.44 seconds
MotorTrend Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds
S4: not tested at the same time
2 out of the 3 magazines found the C55 to be faster than the C32. For some people, that may already enough of a hint that the C55 may really be a bit faster than the C32. MT was the only one which found the C32 faster than the C55 from 0-60. But look at the S4 time of 4.99 seconds from MT performed on the same day as that fast C32. It is clearly much faster than the more typical times seen from C&D and R&T, leading me to think that on that day, the environmental/track/driver conditions may have resulted in BOTH the S4 and C32 to be "faster than usual".
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
In comparing performance numbers, I think everyone agrees that a direct comparison test done at the same time is the most valid. I have never found a direct comparison test of the C32 and C55. In the absence of that, the next best thing is comparing numbers from the SAME magazine because each magazine has their own sort of "rules and methods" about testing.
Interestingly, all 3 magazines tested the C32 against the Audi S4, and 2 of the 3 magazines tested the C55 against the Audi S4 as well. This is important, because the S4 numbers provide constant benchmark to gauge the performance of the C32 and C55.
Car and Driver May 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Car and Driver Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds
Road and Track Dec 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.4 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.9 seconds
Road and Track Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds; 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds
MotorTrend Sept 2003
C32: 0-60 in 4.77 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.24 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 4.99 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.44 seconds
MotorTrend Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds
S4: not tested at the same time
2 out of the 3 magazines found the C55 to be faster than the C32. For some people, that may already enough of a hint that the C55 may really be a bit faster than the C32. MT was the only one which found the C32 faster than the C55 from 0-60. But look at the S4 time of 4.99 seconds from MT performed on the same day as that fast C32. It is clearly much faster than the more typical times seen from C&D and R&T, leading me to think that on that day, the environmental/track/driver conditions may have resulted in BOTH the S4 and C32 to be "faster than usual".
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
12-11-2005, 02:30 AM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W211 E55 AMG, ML63 AMG, Past 996GT3,ZCPM3,Brabus C32,ML 500
take it to the ring
~~~~~~~~~~~~
BMW M3 GTR Schnitzer (11/2002) 7:12.25 SLICKS
Radical SR3 Turbo ( 7/2003) 7.19 (7:26 )
Porsche Carrera GT ( 9/2004) 7:32.44 (22.835km circuit)
TechArt-Porsche GT street ( 8/2001) 7:43
Pagani Zonda S ( 7/2002) 7:44
Porsche 911 GT2 ( 6/2001) 7:46
Porsche 911 GT3 RS ( 3/2004) 7:47
Porsche 911 GT3 Cup ( 2/1999) 7:49
Lamborghini Murci鬡go ( 6/2002) 7:50
BMW M3 CSL ( 8/2003) 7:50
Mercedes SLR McLaren ( 6/2004) 7:52
Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 (???) 7:52 (Unofficial)
Lamborghini Gallardo (12/2003) 7:52
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 6/2003) 7:54
Ferrari Challenge Stradale ( 2/2004) 7:56
Porsche 911 Turbo ( 6/2000) 7:56
Lotec-Porsche 911 Turbo ( 5/1998) 7:57
Nissan Skyline GT-R R33 (???) 7:59 (Unofficial)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi SPEC C (??/2004) 7:59
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 8/1999) 8:03
Lamborghini Diablo GT ( 7/2000) 8:04
Ferrari 575M Maranello (12/2002) 8:05
Ferrari 550 Maranello ( 6/1998) 8:07
Honda NSX-R ( 8/2002) 8:09 (7:56 claimed, link???)
Lamborghini Diablo SV ( 12/1997) 8:09
Ferrari F360 Modena ( 10/1999) 8:09
Donkervoort D8 180R ( 3/2001) 8:10
Chrysler Viper GTS ( 10/1997) 8:10
Mercedes SL55 AMG ( 5/2002) 8:12
Dodge Viper SRT-10 (10/2004) 8:13
Lotus Esprit Sport 350 ( 5/1999) 8:13
AC-Schnitzer-BMW CLS III ( 11/1997) 8:16
Porsche 911 Carrera (10/2001) 8:17
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish ( 1/2003) 8:17
Porsche 911 Carrera ( 1/1998) 8:17
Chevrolet Corvette Com. Edition ( 9/2003) 8:18
Ferrari F355 ( 6/1997) 8:18
BMW Z8 ( 8/2000) 8:18
Audi RS6 ( 9/2002) 8:20
Mercedes C55 AMG ( 7/2004) 8:22
BMW M3 ( 12/2000) 8:22
BMW M Coupe ( 10/1998) 8:22
Aston Martin DB7 GT ( 7/2003) 8:23
Porsche Carrera 4 ( 2/2001) 8:23
Subaru Impreza WRX STi ( 5/2004) 8:24
Mitsubishi Carisma GT EVO VII (11/2002) 8:25
Callaway C12 Coupe ( 4/1999) 8:25
Audi RS4 ( 10/2000) 8:25
Mitsubishi Carisma GT EVO VI ( 11/1999) 8:25
Nissan 350Z (10/2003) 8:26
BMW M5 ( 3/1999) 8:28
Mercedes CLK 55 AMG ( 5/2000) 8:29
Audi S4 Avant (11/2003) 8:29
Maserati Coup頃ambiocorsa (10/2002) 8:30
Lotus Exige ( 8/2004) 8:32
BMW Z4 3.0 SMG ( 5/2003) 8:32
BMW M Roadster ( 9/1997) 8:32
Porsche Boxster S ( 12/1999) 8:32
Opel Speedster Turbo ( 4/2004) 8:34
BMW Z3 Coup頳.0i ( 4/2001) 8:34
Brabus-Mercedes C V8 Coup頨 2/2002) 8:35
Porsche Boxster ( 3/2003) 8:36
BMW M3 SMG ( 3/1997) 8:35
BMW Alpina B3 3.3 ( 7/1999) 8:36
VW Golf R32 ( 2/2003) 8:37
Mercedes C32 AMG ( 9/2001) 8:37
Maserati 3200 GT ( 9/2000) 8:37
Subaru Impreza GT Turbo ( 3/2000) 8:37
Honda NSX ( 8/1997) 8:38
Brabus-Mercedes CLK 5.8 ( 12/1998) 8:38
Mercedes SL500 (12/2001) 8:38
Morgan Aero 8 ( 4/2003) 8:39
Honda S2000 ( 1/2000) 8:39
Chevrolet Corvette ( 7/1997) 8:40
Aston Martin DB7 Vantage ( 9/1999) 8:41
Audi S3 ( 6/1999) 8:41
Audi S4 ( 8/1998) 8:42
Lotus Exige ( 11/2000) 8:42
Honda Civic Type-R (11/2001) 8:47
Renaul Clio Sport V6 ( 7/2001) 8:49
Jaguar XKR Coupe ( 7/1998) 8:49
Audi TT 1.8T quattro ( 11/1998) 8:49
Alpina B10 3.2 ( 4/1998) 8:50
Alfa Romeo 156 GTA ( 6/2002) 8:51
Mercedes Benz C43 AMG ( 3/1998) 8:51
Mercedes CLK 430 ( 9/1998) 8:52
VW Golf GTI ( 1/2002) 8:54
Porsche Boxster ( 4/1997) 8:54
Mini Cooper S Works ( 9/2004) 8:55
AMG-Mercedes SLK-230 Kompressor ( 5/1997) 9:07
VW Golf V6 4motion ( 4/2000) 9:09
REMEMBER: Times are usually stock model from standing start & road tyres used.
BMW M3 GTR Schnitzer (11/2002) 7:12.25 SLICKS
Radical SR3 Turbo ( 7/2003) 7.19 (7:26 )
Porsche Carrera GT ( 9/2004) 7:32.44 (22.835km circuit)
TechArt-Porsche GT street ( 8/2001) 7:43
Pagani Zonda S ( 7/2002) 7:44
Porsche 911 GT2 ( 6/2001) 7:46
Porsche 911 GT3 RS ( 3/2004) 7:47
Porsche 911 GT3 Cup ( 2/1999) 7:49
Lamborghini Murci鬡go ( 6/2002) 7:50
BMW M3 CSL ( 8/2003) 7:50
Mercedes SLR McLaren ( 6/2004) 7:52
Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 (???) 7:52 (Unofficial)
Lamborghini Gallardo (12/2003) 7:52
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 6/2003) 7:54
Ferrari Challenge Stradale ( 2/2004) 7:56
Porsche 911 Turbo ( 6/2000) 7:56
Lotec-Porsche 911 Turbo ( 5/1998) 7:57
Nissan Skyline GT-R R33 (???) 7:59 (Unofficial)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi SPEC C (??/2004) 7:59
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 8/1999) 8:03
Lamborghini Diablo GT ( 7/2000) 8:04
Ferrari 575M Maranello (12/2002) 8:05
Ferrari 550 Maranello ( 6/1998) 8:07
Honda NSX-R ( 8/2002) 8:09 (7:56 claimed, link???)
Lamborghini Diablo SV ( 12/1997) 8:09
Ferrari F360 Modena ( 10/1999) 8:09
Donkervoort D8 180R ( 3/2001) 8:10
Chrysler Viper GTS ( 10/1997) 8:10
Mercedes SL55 AMG ( 5/2002) 8:12
Dodge Viper SRT-10 (10/2004) 8:13
Lotus Esprit Sport 350 ( 5/1999) 8:13
AC-Schnitzer-BMW CLS III ( 11/1997) 8:16
Porsche 911 Carrera (10/2001) 8:17
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish ( 1/2003) 8:17
Porsche 911 Carrera ( 1/1998) 8:17
Chevrolet Corvette Com. Edition ( 9/2003) 8:18
Ferrari F355 ( 6/1997) 8:18
BMW Z8 ( 8/2000) 8:18
Audi RS6 ( 9/2002) 8:20
Mercedes C55 AMG ( 7/2004) 8:22
BMW M3 ( 12/2000) 8:22
BMW M Coupe ( 10/1998) 8:22
Aston Martin DB7 GT ( 7/2003) 8:23
Porsche Carrera 4 ( 2/2001) 8:23
Subaru Impreza WRX STi ( 5/2004) 8:24
Mitsubishi Carisma GT EVO VII (11/2002) 8:25
Callaway C12 Coupe ( 4/1999) 8:25
Audi RS4 ( 10/2000) 8:25
Mitsubishi Carisma GT EVO VI ( 11/1999) 8:25
Nissan 350Z (10/2003) 8:26
BMW M5 ( 3/1999) 8:28
Mercedes CLK 55 AMG ( 5/2000) 8:29
Audi S4 Avant (11/2003) 8:29
Maserati Coup頃ambiocorsa (10/2002) 8:30
Lotus Exige ( 8/2004) 8:32
BMW Z4 3.0 SMG ( 5/2003) 8:32
BMW M Roadster ( 9/1997) 8:32
Porsche Boxster S ( 12/1999) 8:32
Opel Speedster Turbo ( 4/2004) 8:34
BMW Z3 Coup頳.0i ( 4/2001) 8:34
Brabus-Mercedes C V8 Coup頨 2/2002) 8:35
Porsche Boxster ( 3/2003) 8:36
BMW M3 SMG ( 3/1997) 8:35
BMW Alpina B3 3.3 ( 7/1999) 8:36
VW Golf R32 ( 2/2003) 8:37
Mercedes C32 AMG ( 9/2001) 8:37
Maserati 3200 GT ( 9/2000) 8:37
Subaru Impreza GT Turbo ( 3/2000) 8:37
Honda NSX ( 8/1997) 8:38
Brabus-Mercedes CLK 5.8 ( 12/1998) 8:38
Mercedes SL500 (12/2001) 8:38
Morgan Aero 8 ( 4/2003) 8:39
Honda S2000 ( 1/2000) 8:39
Chevrolet Corvette ( 7/1997) 8:40
Aston Martin DB7 Vantage ( 9/1999) 8:41
Audi S3 ( 6/1999) 8:41
Audi S4 ( 8/1998) 8:42
Lotus Exige ( 11/2000) 8:42
Honda Civic Type-R (11/2001) 8:47
Renaul Clio Sport V6 ( 7/2001) 8:49
Jaguar XKR Coupe ( 7/1998) 8:49
Audi TT 1.8T quattro ( 11/1998) 8:49
Alpina B10 3.2 ( 4/1998) 8:50
Alfa Romeo 156 GTA ( 6/2002) 8:51
Mercedes Benz C43 AMG ( 3/1998) 8:51
Mercedes CLK 430 ( 9/1998) 8:52
VW Golf GTI ( 1/2002) 8:54
Porsche Boxster ( 4/1997) 8:54
Mini Cooper S Works ( 9/2004) 8:55
AMG-Mercedes SLK-230 Kompressor ( 5/1997) 9:07
VW Golf V6 4motion ( 4/2000) 9:09
REMEMBER: Times are usually stock model from standing start & road tyres used.
12-11-2005, 09:07 AM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
Mercedes AMG claims identical times of 5.2 seconds for the 0-100km/h (0-62mph) for both the C32 and C55. My personal interpretation of the instrumented tests which have been performed by the 3 mainstream North American magazines (R&T, C&D, MT) is that the C55 is probably slightly faster in a drag race, but very close.
In comparing performance numbers, I think everyone agrees that a direct comparison test done at the same time is the most valid. I have never found a direct comparison test of the C32 and C55. In the absence of that, the next best thing is comparing numbers from the SAME magazine because each magazine has their own sort of "rules and methods" about testing.
Interestingly, all 3 magazines tested the C32 against the Audi S4, and 2 of the 3 magazines tested the C55 against the Audi S4 as well. This is important, because the S4 numbers provide constant benchmark to gauge the performance of the C32 and C55.
Car and Driver May 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Car and Driver Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds
Road and Track Dec 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.4 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.9 seconds
Road and Track Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds; 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds
MotorTrend Sept 2003
C32: 0-60 in 4.77 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.24 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 4.99 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.44 seconds
MotorTrend Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds
S4: not tested at the same time
2 out of the 3 magazines found the C55 to be faster than the C32. For some people, that may already enough of a hint that the C55 may really be a bit faster than the C32. MT was the only one which found the C32 faster than the C55 from 0-60. But look at the S4 time of 4.99 seconds from MT performed on the same day as that fast C32. It is clearly much faster than the more typical times seen from C&D and R&T, leading me to think that on that day, the environmental/track/driver conditions may have resulted in BOTH the S4 and C32 to be "faster than usual".
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
In comparing performance numbers, I think everyone agrees that a direct comparison test done at the same time is the most valid. I have never found a direct comparison test of the C32 and C55. In the absence of that, the next best thing is comparing numbers from the SAME magazine because each magazine has their own sort of "rules and methods" about testing.
Interestingly, all 3 magazines tested the C32 against the Audi S4, and 2 of the 3 magazines tested the C55 against the Audi S4 as well. This is important, because the S4 numbers provide constant benchmark to gauge the performance of the C32 and C55.
Car and Driver May 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Car and Driver Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds
Road and Track Dec 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.1 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.4 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.9 seconds
Road and Track Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds; 1/4 mile in 14.6 seconds
MotorTrend Sept 2003
C32: 0-60 in 4.77 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.24 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 4.99 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.44 seconds
MotorTrend Nov 2004
C55: 0-60 in 4.9 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds
S4: not tested at the same time
2 out of the 3 magazines found the C55 to be faster than the C32. For some people, that may already enough of a hint that the C55 may really be a bit faster than the C32. MT was the only one which found the C32 faster than the C55 from 0-60. But look at the S4 time of 4.99 seconds from MT performed on the same day as that fast C32. It is clearly much faster than the more typical times seen from C&D and R&T, leading me to think that on that day, the environmental/track/driver conditions may have resulted in BOTH the S4 and C32 to be "faster than usual".
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
12-11-2005, 07:15 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by green_IZ
having said that a C55 or a C32 would be a fair match to a CLK55... not by margins, as you have indicated...:
u know what i made everything up, i never raced c32's cause im scared they would beat me
is that better?
12-12-2005, 06:16 AM
#39
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E46 M3, 2008 E92 M3
This thread is sad. So he can't afford the C55, gets a used C32 and now tries to justify his purchase. 
Nothing wrong with buying a used C32, but this is rediculous. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking
Nothing wrong with buying a used C32, but this is rediculous. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking
12-12-2005, 10:06 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: london
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
996 C4, previously owned 996 c2, c32 amg, 350z, R33 GTR, R34 GTR
My problem is trying to justify changing from a C32 to a C55, cannot make a case for this on performance grounds as a very slight difference is not going to justify the financial loss of selling up.
Can anyone make a convincing case for this?
An extra pair of exhaust pipes and a different/(better?) engine note is all I can think of....
BTW my car has 18s rims already.
03 plate CLK 55`s are falling into my league (£33K) and am tempted.
Can anyone make a convincing case for this?
An extra pair of exhaust pipes and a different/(better?) engine note is all I can think of....
BTW my car has 18s rims already.
03 plate CLK 55`s are falling into my league (£33K) and am tempted.
12-12-2005, 11:14 AM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
I agree that if you already have a C32, it probably isn't financially worth it to upgrade to a new C55, especially as the W203 chassis will be replaced by the W204 chassis in MY2008. If I already had the C32, I'd wait to see what the W204 C-class AMG will be like.
Having said that, the performance difference between the C55 and C32 has more to do with the handling aspect, rather than straight line speed.
The major differences between C55 and C32: V8 motor (more linear powerband and very different sound), M (manual) mode for the transmission with gear shift buttons on the back of the steering wheel, and significantly better handling (because of more direct steering, 14mm widened front track, stiffer suspension all around, reworked ESP which is tuned more for aggressive driving).
The more minor differences are: cosmetic CLK front end, 18" rims, quad exhaust, trunklid spoiler, significantly revised interior with better seats and instrument cluster.
Having said that, the performance difference between the C55 and C32 has more to do with the handling aspect, rather than straight line speed.
The major differences between C55 and C32: V8 motor (more linear powerband and very different sound), M (manual) mode for the transmission with gear shift buttons on the back of the steering wheel, and significantly better handling (because of more direct steering, 14mm widened front track, stiffer suspension all around, reworked ESP which is tuned more for aggressive driving).
The more minor differences are: cosmetic CLK front end, 18" rims, quad exhaust, trunklid spoiler, significantly revised interior with better seats and instrument cluster.
12-12-2005, 11:21 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2010 C63 P31, 2003 C32
very nice summary of the differences, but i have stupid question for you guys- what is this MY 2006, MY 2004--
and by the way, what's the clk front change- the clear fogs? it doesn't have the grill...so i'm not sure.....
and by the way, what's the clk front change- the clear fogs? it doesn't have the grill...so i'm not sure.....
12-12-2005, 11:38 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
Originally Posted by danielemccabe
very nice summary of the differences, but i have stupid question for you guys- what is this MY 2006, MY 2004--
and by the way, what's the clk front change- the clear fogs? it doesn't have the grill...so i'm not sure.....
and by the way, what's the clk front change- the clear fogs? it doesn't have the grill...so i'm not sure.....
The front end of the C55 (from windshield forward) is taken from the CLK. The front end is 80mm longer than a typcial C-class. This was necessary as the original W203 front end could not accomodate a 5.4L V8. You'll see that the angle of the grill and even the headlamps are more slanted than a typcal W203. Furthermore, there are more cosmetic differences in that the grill itself is wider and shorter in height. The front bumper is completely revised as well, with different fog lights.
Last edited by PC Valkyrie; 12-12-2005 at 11:46 AM.
12-12-2005, 11:53 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
Car and Driver May 2003
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
C32: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
S4: 0-60 in 5.0 seconds; 1/4 mile in 13.6 seconds
Another way to look at it is this: From those comparison tests with the S4, the C32 is about 0.2-0.3 seconds faster to 60mph than the S4. On the other hand, the C55 seems to be 0.4-0.5 seconds faster than the S4. A very small difference indeed, but the trend is consistent.
12-12-2005, 12:56 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
Originally Posted by naadp
I can tell you from personal experience that the difference is much greater. I suspect they probably used an S4 with a manual gear box in the test, and it was probably the Avant or Sedan (weight). I'd say the C32 is probably a full second closer to 60 than the S4. I have no idea how they pulled the same quarter mile time.
And yes, all the S4's which were tested by the 3 magazines I posted were sedans with a 6 speed manual transmission.
12-12-2005, 01:20 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sin City
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
12' C63 P31, 06' Supercharged Range, 08' BMW 550i
Originally Posted by AMG_55
i live in beverly hills, amg's are like c240's, m3's are like toyota camry's and dont even get me started on the various 911's.
to give u an example.
i saw 2 new m5's on the freeway within 5 min of each other.
i c 360's around at least once every 2 days. murcies, couple times a week.....
i've even seen f50's on couple occasions.
saw an orange mclaren f1 about 6 months ago, sounds incredible
to give u an example.
i saw 2 new m5's on the freeway within 5 min of each other.
i c 360's around at least once every 2 days. murcies, couple times a week.....
i've even seen f50's on couple occasions.
saw an orange mclaren f1 about 6 months ago, sounds incredible
12-12-2005, 06:46 PM
#48
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AMG_55
im assuming u r talking 2 me.
im sure i weigh more than the other dude (about 220).
im sure i weigh more than the other dude (about 220).
12-13-2005, 08:36 AM
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Irvine, California
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32 AMG
im gonna call BS also. i find it extremely hard to believe you beat a C32 by
"4-5 car lengths" from 35-115 in your CLK55.
knowing that a stock C55 dyno's around 295rwhp with about 300 rwtq (most stock C32's dyno around 280-290. some have even dyno'd near 300 with similar tq numbers), and that a stock CLK55 is actually heavier PLUS your HRE rims, the added weight might negate any gains to be had by your exhaust and filters.
either you are bu11****ting, exaggerating by a huge degree, or the C32's you raced were duds
"4-5 car lengths" from 35-115 in your CLK55.
knowing that a stock C55 dyno's around 295rwhp with about 300 rwtq (most stock C32's dyno around 280-290. some have even dyno'd near 300 with similar tq numbers), and that a stock CLK55 is actually heavier PLUS your HRE rims, the added weight might negate any gains to be had by your exhaust and filters.
either you are bu11****ting, exaggerating by a huge degree, or the C32's you raced were duds
