c32used

I would stay with the C32 for that much money to upgrade. As I see it why get another car that is to similar to the one you have? A Aftermarket warranty is alot wiser imo.

PC Valkyrie

Come on......every C32 owner likes to quote that Edmund's test to think that the C32 is faster than a C55. That is just ONE on-line magazine which tested cars on different days. They fully admit that variables in track conditions, temperature can affect these times. And that Edmunds C55 test result of a 5.6 second 0-60 time is an anomaly when you compare to other tests performed by more mainstream car magazines.

Here are other numbers from more mainstream magazines for the C55.
Car & Driver: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds
Motortrend: 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds
Road & Track 0-60 in 5.0 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds

I have always said that the C55 is NOT significantly faster than the C32 in a straight line.....they are very close that it really would be a driver's race. But to think that a stock C32 is significantly and consistently faster than the C55 in a straight drag race is a bit riduculous.

What the C55 is MUCH better at is handling, which is in keeping with the facelifted 2005-2007 C-class cars (all 2005-2007 facelifted C-class cars handle better than the pre-facelifted 2001-2004 ones because of upgrades to the suspension setup). I've said this many times before, as the C55 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster around a twisty track than the C32 when you put the same pro driver in the car.

From Sport Auto magazine, the C55 is 15 seconds faster than the C32 around Nurburgring and a full 2 seconds faster on the short and tight Hockenheim track.....and the difference is NOT because the C55 is that much faster in a straight line.

Those of you who have ridden in a C55 and C32 know that the stock suspension setup in the C55 is much stiffer and hence more bumpy on the streets, which fits with its superior track pace. The steering ratio is much quicker too and you can feel this difference even on the streets. The C55 is the first C-AMG car to come close to the E46 M3 when it comes to pace around a track. Evo magazine had a head to head comparision between the C55 and E46 M3 (with competition package). The C55 was only 0.2 seconds slower than the M3 on their benchmark 1.8 mile test track. And remember, the poor C55 had narrower tires than the M3 and no LSD.

For the C55, this marked improvement in handling over the C32 is often overlooked by many auto enthusiasts (including many MB fans) because MB missed the mark dynamically when they came out with the C32 (as compared to the benchmark E46 M3), and the C55 is automatically assumed to be just a C32 with a bigger engine.

Yes, I agree with all of you that you can get more straightline speed from the C32 because it is easier to modify a forced induction engine. If I owned a C32, I probably wouldn't upgrade deliberately just to get a C55. I personally think it isn't worth it, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the C55 is superior to the C32 as a performance car.

c32used

ITS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT OWNERS OF C32 AND C55 ARE DISSAGREEING ON THINGS..........NOW BOTH OF YOU ARE DEBATING ON GENERALLY THE SAME CAR. CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??

spr

PC made all the points I would have made, but the main difference also that wasn't addressed was the interior. I simply could not stand the instruments on the c32, they looked very very cheezy (sorry) but the speedo is simply hokey IMHO. Also the lack of a DVD based Nav is HUGE. I cannot comment on fit and finish nor how well the stereo sounds but the instrument panel stopped me from trading my c43 for a c32 back in the day.. I went for a 99 996 instead however . Now going from that is a fun comparison. The handling on the C is sooo poor compared to my 996 it's just sad. At least the c43 had adjustments you could make and crank the camber in and have it handle fairly well, Plus I seem to remeber reading that the c43 even stock outhandled both the c55/32 at .88g but maybe that was a blown out figure too, but from what I remember my "well aligned" c43 was certainly more neutral and seemed to handle better. That again, was 5 years ago though and after having a 996 with ever mod possible done to it... yeah.

jgsx

Nothing that PC said wasn't already said on this thread. Stock vs stock, the C55 is superior. Modded vs modded, C32 wins.

spr, I agree, the c32 cluster sucks. I already talked about that. I upgraded the cluster in my c32, and in comparison, the c55 cluster sucks to it. The DVD COMMAND is much better than the CD COMMAND, but it is still very primitive and dated. I upgraded to the latest Pioneer unit. It blows even the new S-class COMMAND away. Besides the DVD COMMAND and seats, I think that the C55 interior is a downgrade from the C32.

spr

What cluster do you have that's so cool? Pics?

jgsx

I already posted pictures on this very thread.

spr

my bad I picked up the thread on page 2. Looks like the clk63 cluster. I like both mine and that one, I cannot say which I like more. I would assume that the clk63 one has more options for read outs which would make it better. Personally I think the clock is somewhat out of place. What did that run and what is required to make it work out of curiosity? I am sure c32 members would love to know.

hkycoldrct

to bad they don't make manual transmissions for either of these darn rides where it would boil down to what it should when playing the whose faster game; the driver.