Empty weight c55 and c32
10-24-2009, 08:34 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Germany, Neuburg
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32 AMG
Empty weight c55 and c32
Hi,
i'd read in the internet that the empty weight of a c55 is same than c32 amg, 1635kg.
But i couldnt belive; the c55 is (8cm?) longer, and has a big v8 in it. Okay, the c32 have compressor etc in it, but is the c55 only 1635kg light, too?!
Thx
i'd read in the internet that the empty weight of a c55 is same than c32 amg, 1635kg.
But i couldnt belive; the c55 is (8cm?) longer, and has a big v8 in it. Okay, the c32 have compressor etc in it, but is the c55 only 1635kg light, too?!
Thx
10-24-2009, 08:41 AM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Both engines are aluminum blocks so going from v6 to v8 doesn't add too much more weight. I'm thinking the v8 is a more compact design so even less of a weight difference. Remember the 5.5lt still has to fit in the exact same engine bay.
10-24-2009, 10:51 AM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Is incorrect.
The V8 did not fit in the regular W203 C-class engine bay, which is why the whole front end of the C55 is "mostly" the W209 CLK-class engine bay. CLK engine bay was longer and overall bigger due to the 430 V8 already being put in it.
The V8 did not fit in the regular W203 C-class engine bay, which is why the whole front end of the C55 is "mostly" the W209 CLK-class engine bay. CLK engine bay was longer and overall bigger due to the 430 V8 already being put in it.
10-24-2009, 11:37 AM
#6
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Germany, Neuburg
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32 AMG
Whats written in your papers?
10-24-2009, 12:03 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
I looked in the owner's manual and it doesn't say 
I also went downstairs to see if it was written in the door jamb, but it's not. Sorry.
I also went downstairs to see if it was written in the door jamb, but it's not. Sorry.
Trending Topics
10-24-2009, 10:17 PM
#8
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
Official North American "curb weight" of the C55 is 1605 kg (3540 lbs) according to Canadian and American Mercedes brochures.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
10-24-2009, 10:56 PM
#9
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
and if you measure the front upper frame to the firewall you have exactly the same distance in C55 as well as any other W203. The suspension are also the same.
the only difference is the slightly wider fender for a slightly more aggressive wheel setup and to differentiate from the facelifted W203.
10-24-2009, 11:02 PM
#10
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Official North American "curb weight" of the C55 is 1605 kg (3540 lbs) according to Canadian and American Mercedes brochures.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
10-24-2009, 11:20 PM
#11
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
the upgrades were purely cosmetics. you don't need a longer front end to fit a M113 that's based on the M112 short block. Brabus has proved it with their CV8 when the W203 first came out.
and if you measure the front upper frame to the firewall you have exactly the same distance in C55 as well as any other W203. The suspension are also the same.
the only difference is the slightly wider fender for a slightly more aggressive wheel setup and to differentiate from the facelifted W203.
and if you measure the front upper frame to the firewall you have exactly the same distance in C55 as well as any other W203. The suspension are also the same.
the only difference is the slightly wider fender for a slightly more aggressive wheel setup and to differentiate from the facelifted W203.
That's why the C55 has a stiffer ride and handles better (stock to stock comparison). The good news is that it means the C32's handling can be improved significantly just by changing springs/shocks.
Perhaps what you mean is that suspension geometry is the same between the C55 and C32.
Whether MB/AMG changed the C55's front end for a functional purpose or purely for the sake of cosmetics is unknown. Even though Brabus was able to shoe-horn a V8 into a standard W203, it doesn't mean it would satisfy MB/AMG's space and cooling requirements to fit the 5.4L V8 (which the W203 was never originally designed to do).
10-25-2009, 12:54 AM
#12
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: santa monica
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
99C43 05C55 06slk55
10-25-2009, 06:11 AM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
No Frank, the stock suspension of the C55 is DIFFERENT than the C32. The C55 has stiffer front springs and bearings, and different damping rates in the front and rear.
That's why the C55 has a stiffer ride and handles better (stock to stock comparison). The good news is that it means the C32's handling can be improved significantly just by changing springs/shocks.
Perhaps what you mean is that suspension geometry is the same between the C55 and C32.
Whether MB/AMG changed the C55's front end for a functional purpose or purely for the sake of cosmetics is unknown. Even though Brabus was able to shoe-horn a V8 into a standard W203, it doesn't mean it would satisfy MB/AMG's space and cooling requirements to fit the 5.4L V8 (which the W203 was never originally designed to do).
That's why the C55 has a stiffer ride and handles better (stock to stock comparison). The good news is that it means the C32's handling can be improved significantly just by changing springs/shocks.
Perhaps what you mean is that suspension geometry is the same between the C55 and C32.
Whether MB/AMG changed the C55's front end for a functional purpose or purely for the sake of cosmetics is unknown. Even though Brabus was able to shoe-horn a V8 into a standard W203, it doesn't mean it would satisfy MB/AMG's space and cooling requirements to fit the 5.4L V8 (which the W203 was never originally designed to do).
10-25-2009, 08:49 AM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
the upgrades were purely cosmetics. you don't need a longer front end to fit a M113 that's based on the M112 short block. Brabus has proved it with their CV8 when the W203 first came out.
and if you measure the front upper frame to the firewall you have exactly the same distance in C55 as well as any other W203. The suspension are also the same.
the only difference is the slightly wider fender for a slightly more aggressive wheel setup and to differentiate from the facelifted W203.
and if you measure the front upper frame to the firewall you have exactly the same distance in C55 as well as any other W203. The suspension are also the same.
the only difference is the slightly wider fender for a slightly more aggressive wheel setup and to differentiate from the facelifted W203.
I highly doubt that MB/AMG would spend millions of dollars on R&D and assembly line tooling changes (aside from other fabrication die changes) because they wanted something "purely cosmetic". The C55 was only offered for a couple of years after they were already planning the next W204, had very low production numbers, and was the lowest of the AMG models (aka you can't charge an outrageous price for the accessory, such as an S/SL/CL). It's highly illogical to spend that much money if it would've worked with the W203 front end to begin with.
There's a lot we don't know about, but there's definitely reasons (that we'll never know) on why they designed the C55 V8 with a CLK-ish front end. It's definitely not purely cosmetic.
10-25-2009, 11:52 AM
#16
I very much disagree with you on this. Just because you can shoehorn a V8 into an engine bay doesn't mean that it works as a reliable production product.
I highly doubt that MB/AMG would spend millions of dollars on R&D and assembly line tooling changes (aside from other fabrication die changes) because they wanted something "purely cosmetic". The C55 was only offered for a couple of years after they were already planning the next W204, had very low production numbers, and was the lowest of the AMG models (aka you can't charge an outrageous price for the accessory, such as an S/SL/CL). It's highly illogical to spend that much money if it would've worked with the W203 front end to begin with.
There's a lot we don't know about, but there's definitely reasons (that we'll never know) on why they designed the C55 V8 with a CLK-ish front end. It's definitely not purely cosmetic.
I highly doubt that MB/AMG would spend millions of dollars on R&D and assembly line tooling changes (aside from other fabrication die changes) because they wanted something "purely cosmetic". The C55 was only offered for a couple of years after they were already planning the next W204, had very low production numbers, and was the lowest of the AMG models (aka you can't charge an outrageous price for the accessory, such as an S/SL/CL). It's highly illogical to spend that much money if it would've worked with the W203 front end to begin with.
There's a lot we don't know about, but there's definitely reasons (that we'll never know) on why they designed the C55 V8 with a CLK-ish front end. It's definitely not purely cosmetic.
-1, not true at all, in fact the later C32s had lower production #s than the 2 years of the c55. There were only a shade over 200 for the US market for 2004 C32s. Go to Private Lounge for all the numbers. The rarest of the non Black Series AMGs is the E55 AMG Class wagons!!!
This list includes model years 1995 to 2006.
Best regards,
AMG Private Lounge Team
C 36 AMG
1995 401
1996 296
1997 199
C 43 AMG
1998 788
1999 546
2000 91
C 32 AMG
2002 1600
2003 878
2004 219
C 55 AMG
2005 1299
2006 451
CL 55 AMG
2001 303
2002 607
2003 1379
2004 611
2005 486
2006 182
CL 65 AMG
2006 52
CLK 55 AMG Coupe
2001 1343
2002 1467
2003 761
2004 509
2005 247
CLK 55 AMG Cabriolet
2002 1340
2004 782
2005 662
2006 180
CLS 55 AMG
2006 2765
E 55 AMG
1999 1104
2000 1203
2001 653
2002 997
2003 1318
2004 3218
2005 2214
2006 1187
E 55 AMG Wagon
2005 129
2006 64
G 55 AMG
2003 572
2004 294
2005 921
2006 393
ML 55 AMG
2000 2084
2001 1105
2002 735
2003 150
S 55 AMG
2001 1042
2002 1414
2003 1754
2004 854
2005 908
2006 429
S 65 AMG
2006 427
SL 55 AMG
2004 5217
2005 1542
2006 748
SL 65 AMG
2005 651
2006 390
SLK 32 AMG
2002 1182
2003 562
2004 312
SLK 55 AMG
2005 832
2006 1297
Last edited by Newzchspy; 10-25-2009 at 11:54 AM.
10-25-2009, 12:38 PM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
-1, not true at all, in fact the later C32s had lower production #s than the 2 years of the c55. There were only a shade over 200 for the US market for 2004 C32s. Go to Private Lounge for all the numbers. The rarest of the non Black Series AMGs is the E55 AMG Class wagons!!!
Sorry for not being clear on the $ thing.
10-25-2009, 04:49 PM
#18
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
No Frank, the stock suspension of the C55 is DIFFERENT than the C32. The C55 has stiffer front springs and bearings, and different damping rates in the front and rear.
That's why the C55 has a stiffer ride and handles better (stock to stock comparison). The good news is that it means the C32's handling can be improved significantly just by changing springs/shocks.
Perhaps what you mean is that suspension geometry is the same between the C55 and C32.
Whether MB/AMG changed the C55's front end for a functional purpose or purely for the sake of cosmetics is unknown. Even though Brabus was able to shoe-horn a V8 into a standard W203, it doesn't mean it would satisfy MB/AMG's space and cooling requirements to fit the 5.4L V8 (which the W203 was never originally designed to do).
That's why the C55 has a stiffer ride and handles better (stock to stock comparison). The good news is that it means the C32's handling can be improved significantly just by changing springs/shocks.
Perhaps what you mean is that suspension geometry is the same between the C55 and C32.
Whether MB/AMG changed the C55's front end for a functional purpose or purely for the sake of cosmetics is unknown. Even though Brabus was able to shoe-horn a V8 into a standard W203, it doesn't mean it would satisfy MB/AMG's space and cooling requirements to fit the 5.4L V8 (which the W203 was never originally designed to do).
the 202 was never designed to be stuffed with a V8 either.
10-25-2009, 04:56 PM
#19
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
I very much disagree with you on this. Just because you can shoehorn a V8 into an engine bay doesn't mean that it works as a reliable production product.
I highly doubt that MB/AMG would spend millions of dollars on R&D and assembly line tooling changes (aside from other fabrication die changes) because they wanted something "purely cosmetic". The C55 was only offered for a couple of years after they were already planning the next W204, had very low production numbers, and was the lowest of the AMG models (aka you can't charge an outrageous price for the accessory, such as an S/SL/CL). It's highly illogical to spend that much money if it would've worked with the W203 front end to begin with.
There's a lot we don't know about, but there's definitely reasons (that we'll never know) on why they designed the C55 V8 with a CLK-ish front end. It's definitely not purely cosmetic.
I highly doubt that MB/AMG would spend millions of dollars on R&D and assembly line tooling changes (aside from other fabrication die changes) because they wanted something "purely cosmetic". The C55 was only offered for a couple of years after they were already planning the next W204, had very low production numbers, and was the lowest of the AMG models (aka you can't charge an outrageous price for the accessory, such as an S/SL/CL). It's highly illogical to spend that much money if it would've worked with the W203 front end to begin with.
There's a lot we don't know about, but there's definitely reasons (that we'll never know) on why they designed the C55 V8 with a CLK-ish front end. It's definitely not purely cosmetic.
the hood and fender change does not cost that much. a minor stamping change is all it need. I think they actually use the same hood.
headlights and front bumper are shared parts. They have also brought down the cost by not using the two part impact strip on the front bumper.
like i've said, feel free to go measure the distance between firewall and front top frame where the latch it.
10-25-2009, 07:22 PM
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Small stamping change lol dies are not cheap! Neither is R&D.
Yes, they did use mostly common parts. But, you don't just make a major change to a vehicle because of "looks" without a major reason.
Yes, they did use mostly common parts. But, you don't just make a major change to a vehicle because of "looks" without a major reason.
10-25-2009, 08:07 PM
#21
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
unfortunately the only reason for the change is to differentiate the C55 from the rest of the C and the C32. The whole V8 debate is just an excuse to give it a proper reason for the change which is not needed.
The change from C36 to C43/55 was easy because the body kit made it look very updated. However for the W203 the C32 already has a good front end, so the only way to differentiate the C55 from the old was to change it's front end sheet metal. AND bolting on CLK sheet metal is the cheapest and most cost effective way to change the C55's appearance since the 209 is already based on the 203 platform.
you can argue all you want, but physical measurement doesn't lie. It already proved AMG's saying of "we extended the nose in order to fit the V8" is false. btw fyi, the M113 E43 has been put in a w203 without any change to the frames into a C240.
so what is the reason for Audi's B6 and B7 A4s? or the reason of the E90 M3 running a E92 nose?
The change from C36 to C43/55 was easy because the body kit made it look very updated. However for the W203 the C32 already has a good front end, so the only way to differentiate the C55 from the old was to change it's front end sheet metal. AND bolting on CLK sheet metal is the cheapest and most cost effective way to change the C55's appearance since the 209 is already based on the 203 platform.
you can argue all you want, but physical measurement doesn't lie. It already proved AMG's saying of "we extended the nose in order to fit the V8" is false. btw fyi, the M113 E43 has been put in a w203 without any change to the frames into a C240.
so what is the reason for Audi's B6 and B7 A4s? or the reason of the E90 M3 running a E92 nose?
10-25-2009, 08:25 PM
#23
unfortunately the only reason for the change is to differentiate the C55 from the rest of the C and the C32. The whole V8 debate is just an excuse to give it a proper reason for the change which is not needed.
The change from C36 to C43/55 was easy because the body kit made it look very updated. However for the W203 the C32 already has a good front end, so the only way to differentiate the C55 from the old was to change it's front end sheet metal. AND bolting on CLK sheet metal is the cheapest and most cost effective way to change the C55's appearance since the 209 is already based on the 203 platform.
you can argue all you want, but physical measurement doesn't lie. It already proved AMG's saying of "we extended the nose in order to fit the V8" is false. btw fyi, the M113 E43 has been put in a w203 without any change to the frames into a C240.
so what is the reason for Audi's B6 and B7 A4s? or the reason of the E90 M3 running a E92 nose?
The change from C36 to C43/55 was easy because the body kit made it look very updated. However for the W203 the C32 already has a good front end, so the only way to differentiate the C55 from the old was to change it's front end sheet metal. AND bolting on CLK sheet metal is the cheapest and most cost effective way to change the C55's appearance since the 209 is already based on the 203 platform.
you can argue all you want, but physical measurement doesn't lie. It already proved AMG's saying of "we extended the nose in order to fit the V8" is false. btw fyi, the M113 E43 has been put in a w203 without any change to the frames into a C240.
so what is the reason for Audi's B6 and B7 A4s? or the reason of the E90 M3 running a E92 nose?
10-02-2010, 10:09 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ashland, Ohio
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ex-C32
Looks like the C32 and C55 weigh the same. The 1695 kg quote from AMG might be the sunroof or other options that I know the C32 could be ordered without, unadvertised.
https://mbworld.org/forums/792187-post6.html
https://mbworld.org/forums/792187-post6.html
Official North American "curb weight" of the C55 is 1605 kg (3540 lbs) according to Canadian and American Mercedes brochures.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
Official European "unladen weight" (with 68 kg driver, tank filled to 90%, and 7 kg luggage) is 1635 kg according to international AMG brochure.
The AMG 5.4L naturally aspirated V8 in the C55 is a relatively light engine for its size, mainly because of its aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons. Its dry weight is 172 kg (368 lbs). As a point of reference, the dry weight of the current AMG 6.2L V8 is 199 kg.
Some interesting engine weights of the BMW M cars: the 4.0L V8 in the current M3 weighs 202 kg (445 lbs), and the 3.2L I6 of the previoius M3 weighs 217 kg (478 lbs).....due to its very heavy iron block. The numbers for the BMW engines do not specifically say "dry" weight, so any comparison to the dry weights of the AMG engines must be taken with a grain of salt.
All these engine weights are taken from offical AMG or BMW/M press releases.
What I don't know is the offical weight of the supercharged 3.2L V6 in the C32 AMG. What Mercedes Enthusiast magazine states is that the C55 and C32 weigh around the same because the supercharger on top of the C32 engine makes it weigh around the same as the NA C55 engine.
