CLK-Class (W208) 1998-2002: CLK 200, CLK 230K, CLK 320, CLK 430 [Coupes & Cabriolets]

1991 W126 560SEC vs. CLK430

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 11-18-2005, 07:34 PM
  #1  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
MB AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 3,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2002 E55 AMG
1991 W126 560SEC vs. CLK430

I really just want to know the performance specs of both cars. (Posting it here as the 208 forum gets more action.) I was in a 1991 560SEC and decided to "informally" race a W208 CLK430. I florred it up a hill seeing him turn quite fast and he florred it. He pulled away... He knew it was on so at the next set of traffic lights (green), We were both going a constant speed (approx 25MPH) and he punched it. I was following him and punched it less than a second later than him. He pulls away quite a distance. The thing is that he only had himself in the car whereas I had 4 people in the car. Who would be faster in a drag race?
Old 11-18-2005, 09:32 PM
  #2  
CHB
Super Member
 
CHB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: BC
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'79 300D, '85 300Dt, '99 CLK430
I'd assume that the clk would win, becasue I read somewhere that the 560sec 0-60 is 7.4s, also the clk is weighs less. But we could find out exactly how fast, if you wana meet up sometime :p
Old 11-19-2005, 02:19 AM
  #3  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MarcusF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SCV SoCal
Posts: 3,784
Received 80 Likes on 64 Posts
2002 CLK430
A 91 SEC weighs over 3900 pounds. The SOHC 2 valve/cylinder 5.6 has 238 HP and 287 ft/lbs of torque. If you were comparing this to a CLK320, it would be close. The CLK320 has 217 HP, 229 ft lbs of torque, and weighs 3200 pounds. The SEC 560 runs a 7.2 second zero to sixty, the same time as the CLK320. The SEC 560 does the quarter mile in 15.7, while the CLK320 does it in 15.5 seconds.



However, you said CLK430. With 275 HP, 295 ft/lbs of torque, and weighing in at 3300 pounds, the CLK430 pulled away because the car is faster than an SEC560.
Old 11-19-2005, 05:51 PM
  #4  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
MB AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 3,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2002 E55 AMG
Hmm, I see! I guess it has to do with the weight deficit.

LOL, maybe we should meet up sometime CHB. :p

P.S. I'm just wondering why the M117 5.6L puts out less power than an, oh let's say an 4.2L M119. I know it had to do with emissions and I assume the M119 was designed to go in the N/A market right away where the M117 had to be de-tuned first?

Last edited by MB AMG; 11-19-2005 at 05:54 PM.
Old 11-19-2005, 07:55 PM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MarcusF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SCV SoCal
Posts: 3,784
Received 80 Likes on 64 Posts
2002 CLK430
The 119 is a much more modern engine than the 117, just as the 113 that’s used in the CLK430 is more modern than the 119. The 117 is single overhead cam (SOHC) 2 valve per cylinder engine. The 119 is a dual overhead cam (DOHC) 4 valve per cylinder engine. The 117 is larger, but not as efficient. The more efficiently you can pump air and fuel through an engine, the more power it will make.


If you just look at the peak HP figures for the 119 and 113, it may sound like I’m all wet when I say the 113 is more efficient than the 119. They both make the same peak numbers, but the 113 makes the power over a wider range. One of the reasons it makes the power over a wider range is the 113 has considerably less internal drag than the 119. According to Mercedes, the 113 has 45% less internal drag than the 119. You can read about the 113 design at my website. Just click the Engine Details link on the left side.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: 1991 W126 560SEC vs. CLK430



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 AM.