FrankW

as one of the C32 owners I don't feel the need to upgrade to the C55, WHY? because there's the E55. It's as simple as that. The C55 although I'm sure it's a big improvement over the C32 whether or not it's true on the handling issue, the whole performance pkg it is not that great over the C32.

The C55 IMO is a new car for those that don't already have the C32, and for those that already has the C32 they will probably skip the C55 and go for the E55 if they feel it's time to change their car.

whether or not the C55 will handle better than the C32, we'll have to find out when it arrives. The C32 has a top heavy s/c V6, but the C55 will have a overall heavier V8 plus a longer nose which adds weight to the front. I'd say they are not much different base on the information we've got so far.

don't know if about the nose of the C55 has been answered or not, but here goes. The C55 has a longer nose because the w203 does not enough room for the V8 while still having a crash worthy front end. It's the same reason AMG didn't put a V8 in the C32 in the first place, but I guess they solved that by adding a longer nose.

for those that said "i rather have a supercharger than a V8"...are you sure??? I would take both...supercharger plus a V8 E55 AMG...

Vomit

Sorry if those of you who own or like the 300ZX took offense at my using same as the poster child for automotive design blunders. I was referring mainly to the 1984-1989 Nissan abortion which so many fine young citizens are now driving around in, usually with Pep Boys $49.00 chrome wheels and bubbling/peeling "Tijuana Purple" window tint. The 1990 to 1997? design was a nice car, however.

moomeh

moomeh

i don't like the supercharger winding noise. so c55 is in my future

lap

I turn off the esp and nail it to the music (and expen$e) of burning rubber :p

Prasith32

It still largely remains to be seen.

In terms of the suspension and handling of each car it is a wash if you want to mod it. The c55 stock will not beat a c32 modified with Carlsson Coilovers. The c55 modified will be the same as c32 modified.

The only reason I would want a C55 is for the hope that they improved ESP. That is the biggest flaw in our car. There are also no mods (none that I know of) that can currently change that. So even if we can develop more power easier and otherwise beat a c55 the ESP is the major inhibitor of fun and serious track performance.

I will definitely try to test drive a C55 when it becomes available. However the amount I would have to spend to upgrade to a C55 I could spend on my c32 and have a porsche turbo killer.

My .02

Prasith

MadC32

That's exactly what I love about the supercharger. It doesnt sound like all the others.. very special. Not quite your 5.0 V8 music but just unique..

Sleestack

I don't even own a C, but I do know that a C55 + Kleemann Supercharger is going to be one fast C class. If you are really a tuning nut, start saving your pennies now.

MB AMG

Just wondering if anyone knows, what did AMG do to the M113 engine to increase its HP (maybe torque) and its redline? The older AMG modified M113 had 342-354HP and 376-391lb-ft torque. Now without touching displacement, they have increased the power and the redline.

SiLvaC32

i loooooooooove my supercharger whine!

CynCarvin32

They changed the fuel mapping, used stiffer valve springs, and increased compression slightly (now 11:1). The car also has a different exhaust system.

Simple changes that give it a more high performance feel with more power and torque. I personally cant wait to her it scream to 6700 rpm!

rrf

I expect that specs and redline will be the product of octane available, as they are in our C32's.

In other words, CA won't be getting the same 6700 redline as Texas or Germany, and that reviews stats will vary quite a bit based on where they happened to be done. But the C55 probably won't vary as much based on temperture as the C32 did.

CynCarvin32

I would hope the C55 can rev to 6700 rpm. You very well could be right but an 11:1 compression ratio is lower than the effective compression rate of the C32 (base or with a pulley kit). I know the E55's do shift near their 6500 rpm redline. But I agree the C32 does not shift at 6220 very often!

I have yet to see an non kompressor that did not shift at its redline but this could be the first.

In regards to the post on the Kleemann compresson on a C55...I would not want to do that. There clearly is a reason why AMG lowers compression and strengthens the block when upping the hp ratings to 500 or so. I tend to think a 250 hp increase requires more than just a blower. Might work for a bit but I sure hope you never get a bad tank of gas or that your car does not fail for AMG motos are not cheap

Rich, any thoughts on the rear camber links you added? Any reviews on your car in its current state of tune? Thanks for the info. Sure looks like you have created a very well sorted C32! On you PSS-9's, is 1 the firmest or is 9 the firmest? Is it the same for the carlsson kit? Thanks in advance.

Eric

s4iscool

1 is firmest.

Sleestack

When you buy a Merc, part of the reason you pay so much is for the redundancy built into the critical components. Kleemann is a proven product without a history of causing engine problems. Running at low boost, the Kleemann systems run well within the tolerances of the MB engine. There are plenty of Kleemann owners on this board, including me, who have used Kleemann SCs on their V8 without any problems.... of course that is part of the reason the system will run you around $15K. That being said, tuning in general is not for the risk adverse. Nevertheless, I'm sure a C55 owner will put a Kleemann SC on their car and create a C that can really run with the big boys.

rrf

CynCarvin32
Rear camber links are basically needed for two groups of users:
- racers that need more negative camber for the track, and
- daily drivers that see lots of miles and because of lowering are eating up the insides of their expensive rear tires (they want less negative camber). For either group they work beautifully and are easily worth the cost. Luckily most folks with just a little negative camber, and not excessive wear don't need them.

The PSS-9s are great, I am totally happy with them. At first they seem sort of expensive, but they are one of my most enjoyable mods. As soon as you own them the cost is quickly forgotten, and if you look at them next to the Carlsson 9-ways they are a bargain I think most of the difference between these two is color and packaging. But if there is a real difference, the PSS-9 springs might be just slightly stiffer, but maybe 2% or so. But even if the springs are slightly different, the valving differences simply don't matter. The valving on both is adjustable, so on a PSS-9, I would set to 8 and Carlsson might be on 7, both would ride the same. Save your money and get the Bilstein instead of the more expensive Carlsson. Yes, on both types the higher number is actually "softer". Some other people are using the PSS-9 now and they are becoming favorites for these guys.

The PSS-9 is stiff enough that if I was to do it over again, I would consider running it without larger diameter sway bars. Since I already bought and installed the bars first, and the ride is fine, I run PSS-9 with bars (I have the Evosport bars and they work great, but I hear they are discontinued and you would need to use H&R bars now). Someday I might try reverting to the OEM AMG bars for testing.

I just recently put the PSS-9s back on. Before that I was testing the Renntech springs, trying to figure out what all the hype was about. Somehow the "Renntech springs with OEM AMG shocks" setup is one of the "best buys" on the C32, very good handling, great lowering, and very good overall dynamics and ride (much much better handling than OEM). This is probably the best low-cost suspension upgrade for every Joe. But with the Renntech springs, bigger bars are really advised.

Recently I had the opportunity to drive in high winds and the PSS-9 are unbelieveable in this situation, whereas the Renntech simply aren't. I think it is because the Renntech is low and soft with decent damping downward but soft upward, so the car can become easily unweighted. The PSS-9 is low and firm (but firm in both directions up-down), add to that the C32s low drag coeffecient, and it makes a suspension that seems impossible to upset. I know the high wind thing seems an inappropriately odd analogy, however it helped explain why two very different suspensions can work, while some of the others that from a "numbers aspect" are in the "middle" just don't seem to do as well. ... Sorry for the novel.

lap

I think you just sold me

CynCarvin32

Thanks Rich!

Some quick questions:
1) what ride height do you have the car set at? Have you ever measured from the center cap of the wheel to the finder line? Front/Rear?
2) What settings do you have (shocks) for your daily driving and do you change it often -- if you want to talk a nice aggressive drive?
3) How is the clearance between your BBS LM's and the front strut housing ? Looks like it will be a very close fit. Ever see any rub marks on the strut from the tire hitting the strut shaft? What tires do you run -- size and make and brand?
4) So with you camber links how much camber do you have out back? And up front the bolts got you around -1.5... is this correct?

Thanks for the info. Should be a great help.

Have a great week.

Enjoyed the novel...feel free to write another!

Eric

vraa

$11K, remember the price drop from $17k? But I'm guessing that you included labor.

rrf

1) 13.45/12.45
2) Usually City is 8 or 7, Canyon-run is 4 or 5
3) Clearance is very very close but OK, no rubbing, but maybe just 1mm to the wheel-saver band on the 235/18 Toyo
4) Camber in rear is .75deg, front is 1.25 degrees. About half on each is due to drop, half is added. My gut says toss the MB camber specs aside, camber should be adjusted to your driving style. If you are wearing out the outer edge, add some It will save your tires too. Pyrometer would be quicker than waiting for tire wear, but I don't have one.