There are times when a C32AMG is faster than a C55AMG & Vice-Versa!
12-10-2005, 02:16 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are times when a C32AMG is faster than a C55AMG & Vice-Versa!
Depending on the conditions, a C32AMG can be tested faster than a C55AMG and vice-versa! I have a C32AMG with the same rim (18")and tire style that is stock on a C55AMG and I have raced my buddy's C55AMG; I have won by only a marginally leap ahead. There are sooo many variables to account for when testing the two machines...
As an example, in this article, the C32AMG tested faster than the C55AMG! In this comparison, the C32 was tested under poor conditions and yet it still won...
A C32 vs a C55 battle can go back and forth... its a very slight difference in stock performances nonetheless....
THIS IS AN EXCERP FROM EDMUND'S WEBPAGE:
For the past three years, the ultimate C-Class has been the C32 AMG. With the engine bay stuffed with 349 horses' worth of supercharged V6, this compact sedan offered performance that bordered on the obscene. Let us quantify that statement; as we discovered in our test of the C32, the baby Benz could slingshot from zero to 60 mph in just 5.4 seconds and blast down the quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds. And this was under poor traction conditions. In other words, this innocuous compact sedan could lay waste to practically anything else on the road. And it wasn't just impressive in a straight line, either, as the AMG-massaged suspension and brakes endowed the C32 with the moves to match its track star performance.
So if it was so great, why is the 2005 version called the C55? As many of you enthusiast types have probably guessed, the numbers indicate a new engine. In place of the force-fed 3.2-liter V6 is an AMG-built 5.4-liter V8 (why it's not called the "C54" escapes us, though we do like the look of the double fives better). Kinda runs contrary to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
We're willing to bet the reason for the change is that Mercedes doesn't want to be bested by countryman Audi, whose top-dog A4 sedan, the S4, now packs a V8 beneath its hood. We can almost hear the conversation in the Mercedes-Benz boardroom: "Vell, if Audi offers a V8 in its little A4, how do you zink it vill make us look if ve don't have vun in zee AMG version of zee C-Class?" Or, maybe they spoke in German (wink, wink). Anyhow, since Mercedes already had a nice AMG V8 in its parts bins, company execs evidently figured "might as well put it in the C-Class."
Of course, we're sure that this transplant wasn't exactly a drop-in proposition — we're talking 5.4 liters here (the S4's V8 is "only" 4.2 liters). You'll have to look hard, however, to be able to distinguish the C55 from the C32. The grille and headlights are slightly different (less horizontal bars on the grille and a switch to clear-lens headlights) and the rear end now has a discreet trunk lid spoiler and quad exhaust tips (as opposed to the previous dual outlets on the left side). With its low nose and raised rear, the C55 looks as if it's crouching and ready to spring forth at any moment. Trust us; in this case looks are not deceiving.
Changes to the cabin are equally subtle, yet worthwhile. A sportier, three-spoke wheel replaces last year's dowdy four-spoker, the instruments are larger, there's flashier metallic trim, and the updated center stack now houses a Harman Kardon audio system (versus last year's Bose unit). Lastly, the optional navigation system is now DVD-based (meaning it uses a single DVD for U.S. mapping as opposed to the multiple CDs that the previous unit required).
Upon firing up the C55, we noticed one thing about the engine switch that gladdened us — the low, full-throated rumble of the V8. And looking at the cold stats, the V8 packs even more of a wallop than the supercharged V6, belting out 362 horsepower (versus 349) and 376 pound-feet of torque (versus 332). As before, the powerhouse is hooked up to an AMG-tweaked five-speed automatic transmission, with manual-shift capability and two modes (comfort and sport) for automatic operation. This year, however, drivers can (in addition to moving the gearshift lever side to side) change gears via a pair of buttons mounted behind the upper steering wheel spokes — flick the left one to downshift and the right one to upshift.
At the track, the C55 turned in slightly slower times than the C32 we tested a couple years ago. The raw numbers came in at 5.6 seconds for the 0-60 dash and 13.95 for the quarter. Still quick, but one would rightfully expect that the V8 would be a few tenths quicker, not slower. As we have stated before, there are many variables that come into play when testing a car for acceleration — the track surface, weather conditions (cool air is better than warm) and driver differences.Putting all that power to the ground is tricky, as it's so easy (with the traction control switched off) to make the rear Pirellis go up in smoke. If we chose to take say, eight runs, we're sure that the times would have come down, but we feel that three runs are easier on the car and better represent "real world" numbers. But let's not split hairs; this is one fast car any way you look at it.
Speaking of the real world, during our week with the car we thoroughly enjoyed the C55's performance. Although it can be fun to change gears yourself, we found that with the tranny in the sport mode it does a fine job on its own. Downshifts come ultraquick and changes up, even under full throttle, are virtually imperceptible. With so much power readily available, the C55 seems to pull as strongly from 50 to 80 mph as it does from 20 to 50. Plant your foot down at 75 and the jetlike rush of acceleration is thrilling (and dangerous to your license). As before, the top speed is electronically limited to 155 mph. Of course, here in Los Angeles, we're overjoyed if we get up to 50 mph on the various "freeways." Fully up to the task of reining in the C55 are a massive set of easily modulated disc brakes that require only 118 feet to haul this Benz down from 60 mph.
Once the C55 was done burning up the track, it was free for the weekend. We took the car on a 200-mile round-trip up the coast, running from Los Angeles to Carpinteria, a small, charming seaside town that seems worlds away from the overpopulated and stressful environs of Greater L.A. During this little road trip, we discovered that, as expected, the C55 is a blast on a twisty road, thanks to its rock-solid chassis and quick, well-weighted steering. Slicing through the canyons, the Benz felt hunkered down, finely balanced and eager to eat up the road. The Pirellis stuck to the asphalt like gum to Reeboks and apart from a slight dead spot on center, the steering's turn-in response was crisp and linear.
What we didn't expect from the C55 was such a hospitable ride on the superslab. Although the suspension is definitely on the firm side, it did a fine job of absorbing the jolts of broken pavement and expansion joints. A lack of wind and tire noise, coupled with the C55's appetite for high-speed cruising, made the miles melt away and had us wishing we had taken a longer journey. Obviously, the seats had to be comfortable for us to feel that way, and they were with their firm but perfectly contoured design that kept lower back pain (this writer's/runner's Achilles' heel) at bay. We also found the navigation system easy to use (we figured it out without having to look at the manual) but wondered why the climate control had 12 fan speeds when six would do just fine.
The real question here isn't how many fan speeds are enough, but how many cylinders. We had no complaints with the C32 and its muscular supercharged six — it was more than fast and refined enough, even for our picky staff. So is the V8 better? In terms of the soundtrack it provides to this AMG performance, yes, but otherwise we'd call it a draw. We know the real reason why Mercedes replaced it, but we're not complaining.
As an example, in this article, the C32AMG tested faster than the C55AMG! In this comparison, the C32 was tested under poor conditions and yet it still won...
A C32 vs a C55 battle can go back and forth... its a very slight difference in stock performances nonetheless....
THIS IS AN EXCERP FROM EDMUND'S WEBPAGE:
For the past three years, the ultimate C-Class has been the C32 AMG. With the engine bay stuffed with 349 horses' worth of supercharged V6, this compact sedan offered performance that bordered on the obscene. Let us quantify that statement; as we discovered in our test of the C32, the baby Benz could slingshot from zero to 60 mph in just 5.4 seconds and blast down the quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds. And this was under poor traction conditions. In other words, this innocuous compact sedan could lay waste to practically anything else on the road. And it wasn't just impressive in a straight line, either, as the AMG-massaged suspension and brakes endowed the C32 with the moves to match its track star performance.
So if it was so great, why is the 2005 version called the C55? As many of you enthusiast types have probably guessed, the numbers indicate a new engine. In place of the force-fed 3.2-liter V6 is an AMG-built 5.4-liter V8 (why it's not called the "C54" escapes us, though we do like the look of the double fives better). Kinda runs contrary to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
We're willing to bet the reason for the change is that Mercedes doesn't want to be bested by countryman Audi, whose top-dog A4 sedan, the S4, now packs a V8 beneath its hood. We can almost hear the conversation in the Mercedes-Benz boardroom: "Vell, if Audi offers a V8 in its little A4, how do you zink it vill make us look if ve don't have vun in zee AMG version of zee C-Class?" Or, maybe they spoke in German (wink, wink). Anyhow, since Mercedes already had a nice AMG V8 in its parts bins, company execs evidently figured "might as well put it in the C-Class."
Of course, we're sure that this transplant wasn't exactly a drop-in proposition — we're talking 5.4 liters here (the S4's V8 is "only" 4.2 liters). You'll have to look hard, however, to be able to distinguish the C55 from the C32. The grille and headlights are slightly different (less horizontal bars on the grille and a switch to clear-lens headlights) and the rear end now has a discreet trunk lid spoiler and quad exhaust tips (as opposed to the previous dual outlets on the left side). With its low nose and raised rear, the C55 looks as if it's crouching and ready to spring forth at any moment. Trust us; in this case looks are not deceiving.
Changes to the cabin are equally subtle, yet worthwhile. A sportier, three-spoke wheel replaces last year's dowdy four-spoker, the instruments are larger, there's flashier metallic trim, and the updated center stack now houses a Harman Kardon audio system (versus last year's Bose unit). Lastly, the optional navigation system is now DVD-based (meaning it uses a single DVD for U.S. mapping as opposed to the multiple CDs that the previous unit required).
Upon firing up the C55, we noticed one thing about the engine switch that gladdened us — the low, full-throated rumble of the V8. And looking at the cold stats, the V8 packs even more of a wallop than the supercharged V6, belting out 362 horsepower (versus 349) and 376 pound-feet of torque (versus 332). As before, the powerhouse is hooked up to an AMG-tweaked five-speed automatic transmission, with manual-shift capability and two modes (comfort and sport) for automatic operation. This year, however, drivers can (in addition to moving the gearshift lever side to side) change gears via a pair of buttons mounted behind the upper steering wheel spokes — flick the left one to downshift and the right one to upshift.
At the track, the C55 turned in slightly slower times than the C32 we tested a couple years ago. The raw numbers came in at 5.6 seconds for the 0-60 dash and 13.95 for the quarter. Still quick, but one would rightfully expect that the V8 would be a few tenths quicker, not slower. As we have stated before, there are many variables that come into play when testing a car for acceleration — the track surface, weather conditions (cool air is better than warm) and driver differences.Putting all that power to the ground is tricky, as it's so easy (with the traction control switched off) to make the rear Pirellis go up in smoke. If we chose to take say, eight runs, we're sure that the times would have come down, but we feel that three runs are easier on the car and better represent "real world" numbers. But let's not split hairs; this is one fast car any way you look at it.
Speaking of the real world, during our week with the car we thoroughly enjoyed the C55's performance. Although it can be fun to change gears yourself, we found that with the tranny in the sport mode it does a fine job on its own. Downshifts come ultraquick and changes up, even under full throttle, are virtually imperceptible. With so much power readily available, the C55 seems to pull as strongly from 50 to 80 mph as it does from 20 to 50. Plant your foot down at 75 and the jetlike rush of acceleration is thrilling (and dangerous to your license). As before, the top speed is electronically limited to 155 mph. Of course, here in Los Angeles, we're overjoyed if we get up to 50 mph on the various "freeways." Fully up to the task of reining in the C55 are a massive set of easily modulated disc brakes that require only 118 feet to haul this Benz down from 60 mph.
Once the C55 was done burning up the track, it was free for the weekend. We took the car on a 200-mile round-trip up the coast, running from Los Angeles to Carpinteria, a small, charming seaside town that seems worlds away from the overpopulated and stressful environs of Greater L.A. During this little road trip, we discovered that, as expected, the C55 is a blast on a twisty road, thanks to its rock-solid chassis and quick, well-weighted steering. Slicing through the canyons, the Benz felt hunkered down, finely balanced and eager to eat up the road. The Pirellis stuck to the asphalt like gum to Reeboks and apart from a slight dead spot on center, the steering's turn-in response was crisp and linear.
What we didn't expect from the C55 was such a hospitable ride on the superslab. Although the suspension is definitely on the firm side, it did a fine job of absorbing the jolts of broken pavement and expansion joints. A lack of wind and tire noise, coupled with the C55's appetite for high-speed cruising, made the miles melt away and had us wishing we had taken a longer journey. Obviously, the seats had to be comfortable for us to feel that way, and they were with their firm but perfectly contoured design that kept lower back pain (this writer's/runner's Achilles' heel) at bay. We also found the navigation system easy to use (we figured it out without having to look at the manual) but wondered why the climate control had 12 fan speeds when six would do just fine.
The real question here isn't how many fan speeds are enough, but how many cylinders. We had no complaints with the C32 and its muscular supercharged six — it was more than fast and refined enough, even for our picky staff. So is the V8 better? In terms of the soundtrack it provides to this AMG performance, yes, but otherwise we'd call it a draw. We know the real reason why Mercedes replaced it, but we're not complaining.
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-11-2005 at 01:25 AM.
12-10-2005, 03:10 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Not far fetched! Plus the C32 can be modded to run 12's.It's also a lighter car. 
12-10-2005, 04:29 PM
#6
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
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
12-10-2005, 04:40 PM
#7
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
something to think about from my previous post...
The C32AMG ranges from 2002 - 2004 production and yet the newest line up to the C-Class AMG is the 2005 C55AMG. It should blow out the C32AMG in terms of performance as did each and every model that was introduced since the inception of the C36 AMG.
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/faq/index.jsp
But that is VERY QUESTIONABLE!
These numbers that are quoted in Car&Driver are true for the C55 AMG
0-60: 4.7 sec
1/4: 13.3@108
BUT if we look at the MotorTrend's issue of August 2003, the C32AMG scores:
0-60mph:4.77 sec
1/4 mile:13.24@106.86
Not bad for a car that has a cheaper price tag and slightly more efficient on gas....
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/faq/index.jsp
But that is VERY QUESTIONABLE!
These numbers that are quoted in Car&Driver are true for the C55 AMG
0-60: 4.7 sec
1/4: 13.3@108
BUT if we look at the MotorTrend's issue of August 2003, the C32AMG scores:
0-60mph:4.77 sec
1/4 mile:13.24@106.86
Not bad for a car that has a cheaper price tag and slightly more efficient on gas....
Trending Topics
12-10-2005, 04:44 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
stock: I take the c55 with is a updated interior.
if you plan to mod: C32. cheaper to modify since is FI. With about $5k you can make this car a little beast.
I don't see a point of spending on a C55 and adding another $20k in mods... in that case the E55's comes in to play (2004's are running mid to high 60's)
No disrespect to some of our members, if they have the money more power to them.
A simple pulley and chip can keep the C32 in par with performance. However its down fall is the soft suspension. Springs and shocks are needed to make it a good all around car.
C55 has a slightly better suspension set up, Green filters, pulley and chip can add to some gains, but not as much as the c32. This is in terms of dollar value.
STOCK vs STOCK the C55 should win most of the time but by slight margins
if you plan to mod: C32. cheaper to modify since is FI. With about $5k you can make this car a little beast.
I don't see a point of spending on a C55 and adding another $20k in mods... in that case the E55's comes in to play (2004's are running mid to high 60's)
No disrespect to some of our members, if they have the money more power to them.
A simple pulley and chip can keep the C32 in par with performance. However its down fall is the soft suspension. Springs and shocks are needed to make it a good all around car.
C55 has a slightly better suspension set up, Green filters, pulley and chip can add to some gains, but not as much as the c32. This is in terms of dollar value.
STOCK vs STOCK the C55 should win most of the time but by slight margins
Last edited by TopGun32; 12-10-2005 at 04:47 PM.
12-10-2005, 04:47 PM
#9
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
The C55 and C32 are very close in performance. It is going to come down to which car has the better driver. Why argue about tenths of a second? Most times published are by professional drivers on tracks under optimal conditions. On the street when cars are so close in performance it is going to come down to who doesnt f*** up their launch. I almost beat a 2006 z06 vette but we both f***d out launch up and the z06 was just too much car. I would of needed a near perfect launch and for him to screw his launch up just for me to win for 1 or 2 seconds.
Mez
Mez
12-10-2005, 04:59 PM
#10
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
The C32AMG ranges from 2002 - 2004 production and yet the newest line up to the C-Class AMG is the 2005 C55AMG. It should blow out the C32AMG in terms of performance as did each and every model that was introduced since the inception of the C36 AMG.
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/faq/index.jsp
But that is VERY QUESTIONABLE!
These numbers that are quoted in Car&Driver are true for the C55 AMG
0-60: 4.7 sec
1/4: 13.3@108
BUT if we look at the MotorTrend's issue of August 2003, the C32AMG scores:
0-60mph:4.77 sec
1/4 mile:13.24@106.86
Not bad for a car that has a cheaper price tag and slightly more efficient on gas....
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/faq/index.jsp
But that is VERY QUESTIONABLE!
These numbers that are quoted in Car&Driver are true for the C55 AMG
0-60: 4.7 sec
1/4: 13.3@108
BUT if we look at the MotorTrend's issue of August 2003, the C32AMG scores:
0-60mph:4.77 sec
1/4 mile:13.24@106.86
Not bad for a car that has a cheaper price tag and slightly more efficient on gas....
they test at different locations, in different weather and different altitudes on different days.
the c55 is the faster car, only by a little; look at the trap speed.
i raced a couple of c32's
1 i beat by about 4-5 carlengths from 35-115
the other by about 2 carlengths from 25-80
12-10-2005, 05:16 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: nottingham / uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silver 2002 c32 amg
Originally Posted by AMG_55
u cant compare 2 different magazine's times
they test at different locations, in different weather and different altitudes on different days.
the c55 is the faster car, only by a little; look at the trap speed.
i raced a couple of c32's
1 i beat by about 4-5 carlengths from 35-115
the other by about 2 carlengths from 25-80
they test at different locations, in different weather and different altitudes on different days.
the c55 is the faster car, only by a little; look at the trap speed.
i raced a couple of c32's
1 i beat by about 4-5 carlengths from 35-115
the other by about 2 carlengths from 25-80
when autocar tested the c55 they concluded that it was slower in a straight line than the c32...same road tester drove both cars
how are you getting to race c32's i hardly ever see another amg let alone get to race them
12-10-2005, 05:26 PM
#12
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
timberman, i hear you about never seeing another C32. i've never seen another one since i bought mine, besides seeing one used at another dealer.
Does anyone know how many C32s were made in 2003?
Does anyone know how many C32s were made in 2003?
12-10-2005, 05:36 PM
#13
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Your C55AMG beat a C32AMG,a C55 is faster? -Having Beaten a C55,I Beg to Differ
If your argument is with comparing two magazines then your stement that having raced and beat c32's makes the c55 faster is also INVALID!!! Differences in drivers, tries & wheel specs, the starting lauch are all factors that are sooo inconsistent.. i.e the c32 performs much better in cooler weather due to its cold air induction mechanism...
As a side note, if you read my post initially, the reason for this post, is to state that one of either cars can be faster than the other given the variable conditions that come into play... there is no clear winner... Also, while we are on the topic of disscussion, then explain to me why MB posts 0-60mph for both cars at 4.9 sec... MB takes the most optimal conditions and results for both cars... they are just as equally as fast...food for thought!
Also, when comparing performance you should always compare stock for stock... the 3.2L V6 in the C32 was voted the 10 best engines by Motortrend... go figure....
AND if you want to compare a mod done to the C32AMG, look at this
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1447/article.html
-- with 500HP and 660Nm of Torque, look out!!!... the mods are endless...
As a side note, if you read my post initially, the reason for this post, is to state that one of either cars can be faster than the other given the variable conditions that come into play... there is no clear winner... Also, while we are on the topic of disscussion, then explain to me why MB posts 0-60mph for both cars at 4.9 sec... MB takes the most optimal conditions and results for both cars... they are just as equally as fast...food for thought!
Also, when comparing performance you should always compare stock for stock... the 3.2L V6 in the C32 was voted the 10 best engines by Motortrend... go figure....
AND if you want to compare a mod done to the C32AMG, look at this
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1447/article.html
-- with 500HP and 660Nm of Torque, look out!!!... the mods are endless...
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-10-2005 at 05:43 PM.
12-10-2005, 07:00 PM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by timberman
when autocar tested the c55 they concluded that it was slower in a straight line than the c32...same road tester drove both cars
how are you getting to race c32's i hardly ever see another amg let alone get to race them
how are you getting to race c32's i hardly ever see another amg let alone get to race them
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
12-10-2005, 07:10 PM
#15
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
If your argument is with comparing two magazines then your stement that having raced and beat c32's makes the c55 faster is also INVALID!!! Differences in drivers, tries & wheel specs, the starting lauch are all factors that are sooo inconsistent.. i.e the c32 performs much better in cooler weather due to its cold air induction mechanism...
As a side note, if you read my post initially, the reason for this post, is to state that one of either cars can be faster than the other given the variable conditions that come into play... there is no clear winner... Also, while we are on the topic of disscussion, then explain to me why MB posts 0-60mph for both cars at 4.9 sec... MB takes the most optimal conditions and results for both cars... they are just as equally as fast...food for thought!
Also, when comparing performance you should always compare stock for stock... the 3.2L V6 in the C32 was voted the 10 best engines by Motortrend... go figure....
AND if you want to compare a mod done to the C32AMG, look at this
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1447/article.html
-- with 500HP and 660Nm of Torque, look out!!!... the mods are endless...
As a side note, if you read my post initially, the reason for this post, is to state that one of either cars can be faster than the other given the variable conditions that come into play... there is no clear winner... Also, while we are on the topic of disscussion, then explain to me why MB posts 0-60mph for both cars at 4.9 sec... MB takes the most optimal conditions and results for both cars... they are just as equally as fast...food for thought!
Also, when comparing performance you should always compare stock for stock... the 3.2L V6 in the C32 was voted the 10 best engines by Motortrend... go figure....
AND if you want to compare a mod done to the C32AMG, look at this
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1447/article.html
-- with 500HP and 660Nm of Torque, look out!!!... the mods are endless...
i drive a clk55 w/ exhaust and k&n's
there was no launch, we did rolling starts as i stated, tires didnt matter b/c we were driving at speed where traction isnt an issue.
unless either one of us can stomp on the pedal quicker; drivers dont matter, maybe weight, im sure i weigh more than the other dude (about 220).
i kept pulling on him after we started racing, any advantage i had at the start (even though i cant think of any), wouldnt matter.
as for cooler weather, every car runs better in cooler weather b/c the air is denser.
maybe it affects a supercharger more, but thats the compromise of FI, its not my fault.
"AND if you want to compare a mod done to the C32AMG, look at this
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1447/article.html
-- with 500HP and 660Nm of Torque, look out!!!... the mods are endless... "
i agree that a FI engine is easier to make power out of, but a c55 w/ a kompressor makes 560-580, if u gonna mod, might as well mod the bigger engine
don't worry i'd be upset if a clk63 came out too :p
Last edited by AMG_55; 12-10-2005 at 07:12 PM.
12-10-2005, 07:28 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: nottingham / uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silver 2002 c32 amg
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
there are plenty of m3's where i live too (one of the reasons i didn't get 1) also plenty of 911's, boxters etc a few ferraris usually 355's 360's + seen 1 new 430 ...only ever seen 1 mclaren f1 and that was at a motor show
amg's are pretty rare over here ..dont know why
i know of only 1 other c32 in my area and thats an estate ...i've never seen a c55 not even at the dealership
12-10-2005, 07:58 PM
#17
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I was talking to you...
If you think that a CLK55AMG is faster than a C32AMG, you must have lucked out large, and by the margins you claim, you were probably racing a suzuki swift... On the other hand, a comparison between the C32 vs the C55AMG is a worthy comparo (almost identical chasis)...not a CLK 55 AMG... read the posting next time buddy.
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-10-2005 at 08:13 PM.
12-10-2005, 08:00 PM
#18
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: bay area, california
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'14 428i M-Sport, '02 C32 AMG
c32 and c55 difference is so minimal in the real world, that either car can come out on top depending on the conditions.
ceterius paribus, however, the c55 should win on the top end.
ceterius paribus, however, the c55 should win on the top end.
12-10-2005, 08:23 PM
#19
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
If you think that a CLK55AMG is faster than a C32AMG, you must have lucked out large, and by the margins you claim, you were probably racing a suzuki swift... On the other hand, a comparison between the C32 vs the C55AMG is a worthy comparo (almost identical chasis)...not a CLK 55 AMG... read the posting next time buddy.
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
12-10-2005, 09:26 PM
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by green_IZ
If you think that a CLK55AMG is faster than a C32AMG, you must have lucked out large, and by the margins you claim, you were probably racing a suzuki swift... On the other hand, a comparison between the C32 vs the C55AMG is a worthy comparo (almost identical chasis)...not a CLK 55 AMG... read the posting next time buddy.
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
Green I've seen both cars have pretty similar times CLK55 vs C32 that is.But damn I'm surprised that the new CLK is nearly 200lbs heavier than the W208 CLK55.The older CLK's must be faster than the new one's because they have similar #'s to the C32. Here is a comparo.Now keep in mind that most of these C32's are modded . 2 out of 3 of the CLK55's are modded and Chappy's CLK55 is stck as are just about most of the C55's. A stck C32 is not gonna run circles around a Stck AMG 5.5L C class in the 1/4 mile and vice versa.http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21
The C55 weighs in at 3,540 so it's heavier than the W208 CLK55(3485) but lighter than the porky W209 CLK55(3635)DAMN!.C32 is also weighng in at 3540.
However ,topend ,stck for stck,has to go to the 5.5L cars.http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
Last edited by ProjectC55; 12-10-2005 at 09:43 PM.
12-10-2005, 10:25 PM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by green_IZ
They no longer make CLK55 AMG's in the standard issue coupe (hard top), just the CAB.... CLK350's and 500's are still being made.
2k5 is the last yr for the coupe if that's the case.Here ya go!http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...=en&cardist=14 and here's another: http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...=&cardist=2569
Last edited by ProjectC55; 12-10-2005 at 10:33 PM.
12-10-2005, 10:39 PM
#22
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
That's not true!!They have a W209 CLK coupe to this day!
Green I've seen both cars have pretty similar times CLK55 vs C32 that is.But damn I'm surprised that the new CLK is nearly 200lbs heavier than the W208 CLK55.The older CLK's must be faster than the new one's because they have similar #'s to the C32. Here is a comparo.Now keep in mind that most of these C32's are modded . 2 out of 3 of the CLK55's are modded and Chappy's CLK55 is stck as are just about most of the C55's. A stck C32 is not gonna run circles around a Stck AMG 5.5L C class in the 1/4 mile and vice versa.http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21
The C55 weighs in at 3,540 so it's heavier than the W208 CLK55(3485) but lighter than the porky W209 CLK55(3635)DAMN!.C32 is also weighng in at 3540. However ,topend ,stck for stck,has to go to the 5.5L cars.
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
Green I've seen both cars have pretty similar times CLK55 vs C32 that is.But damn I'm surprised that the new CLK is nearly 200lbs heavier than the W208 CLK55.The older CLK's must be faster than the new one's because they have similar #'s to the C32. Here is a comparo.Now keep in mind that most of these C32's are modded . 2 out of 3 of the CLK55's are modded and Chappy's CLK55 is stck as are just about most of the C55's. A stck C32 is not gonna run circles around a Stck AMG 5.5L C class in the 1/4 mile and vice versa.http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21
The C55 weighs in at 3,540 so it's heavier than the W208 CLK55(3485) but lighter than the porky W209 CLK55(3635)DAMN!.C32 is also weighng in at 3540.
However ,topend ,stck for stck,has to go to the 5.5L cars.http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
That is true...they no longer make CLK55 AMG's in the standard issue coupe (hard top), just the CAB.... CLK350 and 500 coupes are still being made. Hence orders here for the 2005 CLK AMG's are the last to be built...
BTW the W208 CLK55 weighs 3520lbs according to Car&Driver Vol 46 No 12 (20lbs shy of the C55AMG) and has a 1/4 mile of 13.6@106mph slow in comparo... :p
Take a look at the times of the C32AMG versus the Audi S4
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/seda...rt/index6.html
1/4 mile, sec @ mph for the C32AMG 13.24 @ 106.86
Acceleration, sec for the C32AMG
0-30 mph 1.82
0-40 mph 2.60
0-50 mph 3.68
0-60 mph 4.77
0-70 mph 6.19
0-80 mph 8.01
0-90 mph 9.85
0-100 mph 11.80
These are the best stock times I have seen tested... it may very well have the potential to achieve these marks...
IF it can be done, kool!
Last edited by green_IZ; 12-11-2005 at 01:23 AM.
12-10-2005, 10:54 PM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Bro there are so many factors involved that you can't use one car and generalize.Cmon! 
Chappy's W208 CLK55 ran 13.32 stck at 109 mph! Very favorable conditions helped I might add. The weight I have for the W208 CLK55 is from the SOURCE! Not some magazine bro! It's not 3500lbs at least not the W208 CLK55. this comes from AMG center MBUSA's site. Look:http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
Chappy's W208 CLK55 ran 13.32 stck at 109 mph! Very favorable conditions helped I might add. The weight I have for the W208 CLK55 is from the SOURCE! Not some magazine bro! It's not 3500lbs at least not the W208 CLK55. this comes from AMG center MBUSA's site. Look:http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
Last edited by ProjectC55; 12-10-2005 at 10:56 PM.
12-10-2005, 10:58 PM
#24
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
If you think that a CLK55AMG is faster than a C32AMG, you must have lucked out large, and by the margins you claim, you were probably racing a suzuki swift... On the other hand, a comparison between the C32 vs the C55AMG is a worthy comparo (almost identical chasis)...not a CLK 55 AMG... read the posting next time buddy.
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
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
Source: Supercars.net/ MB Germany
Have fun imagining that you were leaps and bounds ahead of a C32AMG....
OH BY THE WAY, I'D BE UPSET IF A C63AMG WERE TO COME OUT SOON!!!!
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/spy-pho...amg-135621.php
And another site for your reference:
http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/40/mercedes-c63-amg
Enjoy!!!
PS... kinda funny that they discontinued the CLK55AMG coupe once the C55AMG came out...only the Cab is available!!!
u r sitting there and claiming sources (magazine tests, mb website...)
i actually raced 1. (2)
i guess i got lucky twice
:p
