grane

I like abc because it blows my seats up to compensate for driving, like an F16, and also helps me deal with different seasonal conditions. Good driver ergonomics. Keeps you level and more comfortably alert as well as adjusting the suspension. Do the Bose, Bilstein and Koni systems achieve this level of integration and ergonomics?

Wasn't the Bose suspension announced years ago? Has anyone seen one in a car? Has any manufacturer adopted it?

Both Bilstein and I think Koni have active suspension systems that I assume a similar to ABC but are they hydraulic based? Do any production cars use them?

BlownV8

It was commercially released in 2009. I don't know any manufacturers that use the system; however, that may be more due to a pricing aspect.

Bose spent more than 100 million dollars developing the system. Bose items are crazy expensive already. Considering they charge over $100 for a set of headphones. Imagine the complexity of their suspension system. They may be trying to get $10,000 from the manufacturer for their system.

Manufacturers may not use it because of the high cost. It would cut too far into their profit margin. Also, Bose also may not be willing to warranty the item for as long as the manufacturers want or have conditions that would allow them to recoup the costs for defective batches. It's just too difficult to say why it has not made it in the general line-up yet.

ch33sehead

It was announced in 2009 but he never finished developing it. They're still trying to get the weight down. He spent 30 years of his life developing the thing as his pet project.

$100 is not a lot for headphones. There are many pairs out there for $200-300. In fact, I find it funny someone can spend $300 on an iPod and use the stock headphones. But I do think their speakers are overpriced.

JHouse

I'm old so..Bose's early speakers (the 901) were really a gee whiz gizmo. He used several of the same cheap driver so they could handle a lot of power and electronically boosted the treble and base to overcome the frequency response limitations of the drivers. The multiple driver effect along with shooting them backwards at the wall to disperse the sound made them sound "different". They sucked because you can't overcome physics.

His later stuff was more accurate, but never very high performance at all. Good at low volumes due to electronic equalization.

I know about dabbling in new areas. It isn't easy.

BlownV8

Yes, Bose makes headphones that cost over $350. Should have checked.

Quadcammer

lol yeah right

JHouse

I don't think the S and the CL handle the same.

BTW, I got back in the Mustang about two days later in the rain and driving normally (for me) I was sideways about half the time. Huge difference.

ch33sehead

There is also a tuning difference between the AMG and non-AMG ABC suspension systems. AMG systems are tuned to be sportier.

JHouse

Yes. And hydraulic vs pneumatic in most S class vs CL. I was trying to remain polite to the slam.

I've owned a Z-28, 300ZX, Corvette, CLK, etc. Driven a lot of light weight "roller skates". Sure the CL has more mass, but it is the most accurately controlled mass I have ever experienced. So, I'm very happy and surprised by how seductive it is.

1995E320Cab

You might not agree with JHouse but Car and Driver does ....

This was taken from the below top line coupe test - 2005 Aston Martin DB9 vs. Bentley Continental GT, Ferrari 612 Scaglietti F1, M-B CL600 ...

"Then there's the semiactive hydraulic suspension. It's a system of sensors and computer-controlled hydraulic rams and shocks at all four corners. It can instantly adjust from cushy soft for soaking up bumps to sports-car stiff to reduce body lean in corners. It's not perfect--some abrupt freeway impacts send jitters through the body--but in general, it works fantastically. The CL digs into corners with a surprising amount of bite and enthusiasm. One tester wrote, "Wow, very impressive in the turns, feels almost as agile and frisky as the Ferrari." The Benz also has a wonderful talent for inhaling large dips and wallops and exhaling mere nudges to the occupants."


http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...mparison-tests

Quadcammer

I've driven plenty of CLs. They handle ok for what they are, 4500lb vehicles that are extremely nose heavy. That said, the steering has so little feel, you have no idea what the front end is doing.

These are not sports cars, they don't have telepathic steering or handling, and thats ok.

Comparing it to a mustang is not fair to either car.

Drive yourself a lotus elise, and then we can talk about going where you point it.

JHouse

A friend of mine has a an Elise. It's a roller skate. I spent a lot of time in an MGB in the early 70's. Then there's the Miata. Yes. Mass is a big deal. And very low mass means not much stuff. I like stuff.

grane

Comparing a Lotus Elise, Toyota engine or Honda? , to a CL is like comparing an NsX to A 95 Legend coupe LS.

Both great cars, but one is a sports car exemplar Senna! And the other is a performance luxury coupe.

When I bought my CL 55 I sold my 10 year old Legend Coupe to a principal at an Acura dealership for several times the going price. Why? I maintain my cars.

A CL or a Legend is driving from Stuttgart to Hamburg and arriving refreshed and ready.

The NSX is close but no rear seat! It's a Corvette, an Aston Martin, a Miata, a s2000. It's going around Lime Rock or the Ring.

Sports cars are martinis and a CL is a Margaux.

JHouse

I really like red wine.

JHouse

Just comparing the curb weights for fun.

2004 CL55

Measurements
Width: 73.1 in.
Height: 55.4 in.
Length: 196.4 in.
Front track: 62.1 in.
Rear track: 62.1 in.
Wheel base: 113.6 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 12.3 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 12.3 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 100.8 cu.ft.
Drag Coefficient: .29 Cd
Curb weight: 4317 lbs.

2004 CLK55

Measurements
Width: 68.5 in.
Height: 55.7 in.
Length: 182.6 in.
Front track: 58.9 in.
Rear track: 58 in.
Wheel base: 106.9 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 10.4 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 10.4 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 91.9 cu.ft.
Drag Coefficient: .29 Cd
Curb weight: 3635 lbs.

2004 SL55

Measurements
Width: 72 in.
Height: 51 in.
Length: 178.5 in.
Front track: 61.8 in.
Rear track: 61.1 in.
Wheel base: 100.8 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 11.2 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 11.2 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 69 cu.ft.
Drag Coefficient: .30 Cd
Curb weight: 4319 lbs.

2004 S55

Measurements
Width: 73 in.
Height: 57.2 in.
Length: 203.1 in.
Front track: 62 in.
Rear track: 62 in.
Wheel base: 121.5 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 15.4 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 15.4 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 120.4 cu.ft.
Drag Coefficient: .27 Cd
Curb weight: 4300 lbs.

2008 S63

Measurements
Width: 73.7 in.
Height: 58.0 in.
Length: 205.0 in.
Front track: 63.0 in.
Rear track: 63.2 in.
Wheel base: 124.6 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 16.3 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 16.3 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 125.7 cu.ft.
Drag Coefficient: 0.30 Cd
Curb weight: 4665 lbs.

2008 CL63

Measurements
Width: 73.7 in.
Height: 55.8 in.
Length: 200.2 in.
Ground clearance: 5.1 in.
Front track: 63.0 in.
Rear track: 63.3 in.
Wheel base: 116.3 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place: 14.0 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity: 14.0 cu.ft.
EPA interior volume: 105.0 cu.ft.
Gross weight: 5532 lbs.
Drag Coefficient: 0.27 Cd
Curb weight: 4599 lbs.