Just how FAST is the Kleeman kit for the CLK430?
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
From: West Covina, CA
S60R, ML320, W211/E350
Just how FAST is the Kleeman kit for the CLK430?
I've read all the reviews and all the specifications, but when it comes right down to it, I want to know just how much faster is my $16K gonna get me....
so what I really want to know is how fast will my CLK430 be 0-60 and 1/4 mile after I install the Kleeman kit with stock everything. ( tire, suspension, ect..)
Thanks.
so what I really want to know is how fast will my CLK430 be 0-60 and 1/4 mile after I install the Kleeman kit with stock everything. ( tire, suspension, ect..)
Thanks.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35,855
Likes: 3
From: Southern CA
I can quote you numbers, like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s, but numbers just don't come close to actually being in the car. I you'd like, we can meet up some time in Huntington Beach, and I can show you first hand.
Ben
Ben
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
From: West Covina, CA
S60R, ML320, W211/E350
That would be great.
Are you guys open on Saturdays? if so I will definitly drop by to see your car. Do you normally keep the kits in stock? or do I have to wait a few weeks/months? and what is the down time for installing the kit?
Again, thanks for the help Ben.
Again, thanks for the help Ben.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35,855
Likes: 3
From: Southern CA
We are open weekdays only, but I can meet you sometime on the weekend. Send an email with your contact information to ben@evosport.com. I will call you and explain in detail any questions you may have.
Thanks
Ben
Thanks
Ben
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
I can quote you numbers, like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s, but numbers just don't come close to actually being in the car. I you'd like, we can meet up some time in Huntington Beach, and I can show you first hand.
There's alot different between 4.0s and 4.9s...buddy !! I just think that it a misleading info when you said 0-60 in 4s instead of 4.9s.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35,855
Likes: 3
From: Southern CA
Linh,
Real specs vary depending on the traction. I am currently using 275s in the rear, and can get much more traction than someone with the stock 245s. If I were to switch to a stickier compound tire, I could get much lower acceleration times than currently.
How would I be misleading him if he is physically in my car to see for himself?
Real specs vary depending on the traction. I am currently using 275s in the rear, and can get much more traction than someone with the stock 245s. If I were to switch to a stickier compound tire, I could get much lower acceleration times than currently.
How would I be misleading him if he is physically in my car to see for himself?
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
Ben,
Read his Q's again please !!!
and here's is your responsed.
Ben, he want the spec. with stock everything like tires, suspension etc. and you give him the spec. with....
My friend, don't even think that you can improves your 0-60 time by almost a second even with slick tires on, on a car that put out 350-400 hp at the wheel. I just read my "BENZO Magazine" that Kleemann extensively advertises in this magazine that quote, the Clk55K 0-60 in 4.6s !!! So how can your Clk43K is faster then the Clk55K??? Oh...i'm sorry, is those tires that make it faster. Can you tell me where i can get a set.....??? Ben, the Clk43K is one F#$CKEN fast car the Kleemann produces and so there's no need add any kind of spices to it. Ben repeat business is base on honesty and knowledge.
Read his Q's again please !!!
so what I really want to know is how fast will my CLK430 be 0-60 and 1/4 mile after I install the Kleeman kit with stock everything. ( tire, suspension, ect..)
and here's is your responsed.
I can quote you numbers, like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s, but numbers just don't come close to actually being in the car. I you'd like, we can meet up some time in Huntington Beach, and I can show you first hand.
Real specs vary depending on the traction. I am currently using 275s in the rear, and can get much more traction than someone with the stock 245s. If I were to switch to a stickier compound tire, I could get much lower acceleration times than currently.
Last edited by linh; Sep 19, 2002 at 01:30 PM.
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,660
Likes: 2
From: Charlotte, NC
2000 CLK430
easy there killer..... haha ben has other performance modifications other than his Kleemann, so is say a 4.9 0-60 that impossible? and if he says in the 4s and he can put up a 4.9, then that is not misleading, just vague, am i correct?
Eric
Eric
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,289
Likes: 9
From: So Cal
W213 '17 E43 ///AMG - W211, W208 no more
linh: you are right. the straight forward approach is the cleanest approach. although, i do think you need to calm down just a bit and just CHILL... thats So Cal lifestyle... Just CHILLIN'
we can't blame Ben. in sales, its natural to 'tease' a little, and the best way to make a sale is to get the customer to come in to physically see and touch.
and considering that Ben is even offering to give the customer a ride in his car, that is a great selling point.
Ben, if you have the numbers, i think we'd all like to know and for the sake of keeping sanity/control within this thread
we can't blame Ben. in sales, its natural to 'tease' a little, and the best way to make a sale is to get the customer to come in to physically see and touch.
and considering that Ben is even offering to give the customer a ride in his car, that is a great selling point.
Ben, if you have the numbers, i think we'd all like to know and for the sake of keeping sanity/control within this thread
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35,855
Likes: 3
From: Southern CA
Linh:
Your logic is missing one key factor. If the 0-60 on a CLK43k is limited due to the rear wheels spinning through 45mph, wouldn't a faster CLK also be limited for the same reason? Yes, the 55k has 100HP more than the 43k, and yes it is faster. And the 0-60 on both cars is limited due to traction.
If one car is getting traction, while the other isn't, then the car with the traction has an advantage that may result in a faster time. Now, if you take the 43k with a published average of 4.9 seconds vs the 55k with a published average of 4.6 seconds and add traction to the 43k, it will result in a much better speed. But wait, in your example you forgot to add traction to the 55k. If the 55k has the same tires, it will accelerate faster. Where did I say otherwise?
If you take a 7 second drag car, and put all-season 245/45/17s on it, it will not come close to 7 seconds. On any car, once the tires break loose, the 0-60 will be affected by the traction.
Now .3 seconds goes by very fast. Even with 275s, I can peel out for over 3 seconds. Please do not take this as me saying that better tires would take 3 seconds off my 0-60, but think about it... Traction is a KEY FACTOR in 0-60 times on high HP cars.
My car does not yet have cams, headers, or any other performance modifications other than a cat-back exhaust. Anyone who goes for a ride in my car will have the same experiences as they would in their own 43k, except that I have larger tires.
Now in your constant attempts to attack Kleemann and myself, you failed to realize that the original poster of this message is being helped, as he is planning to come by and see firsthand what the car can do.---How can that be misleading?
Thanks
Ben
Your logic is missing one key factor. If the 0-60 on a CLK43k is limited due to the rear wheels spinning through 45mph, wouldn't a faster CLK also be limited for the same reason? Yes, the 55k has 100HP more than the 43k, and yes it is faster. And the 0-60 on both cars is limited due to traction.
If one car is getting traction, while the other isn't, then the car with the traction has an advantage that may result in a faster time. Now, if you take the 43k with a published average of 4.9 seconds vs the 55k with a published average of 4.6 seconds and add traction to the 43k, it will result in a much better speed. But wait, in your example you forgot to add traction to the 55k. If the 55k has the same tires, it will accelerate faster. Where did I say otherwise?
If you take a 7 second drag car, and put all-season 245/45/17s on it, it will not come close to 7 seconds. On any car, once the tires break loose, the 0-60 will be affected by the traction.
Now .3 seconds goes by very fast. Even with 275s, I can peel out for over 3 seconds. Please do not take this as me saying that better tires would take 3 seconds off my 0-60, but think about it... Traction is a KEY FACTOR in 0-60 times on high HP cars.
My car does not yet have cams, headers, or any other performance modifications other than a cat-back exhaust. Anyone who goes for a ride in my car will have the same experiences as they would in their own 43k, except that I have larger tires.
Now in your constant attempts to attack Kleemann and myself, you failed to realize that the original poster of this message is being helped, as he is planning to come by and see firsthand what the car can do.---How can that be misleading?
Thanks
Ben
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,261
Likes: 13
From: Afghanistan / South Florida / Camp Lejeune, NC
2008 BMW M6, 2008 Ducati 1098, 2008 Ducati Monster S2R1000, 1971 Ducati Scrambler
linh, the only way that Ben is misleading is that there will be two people in the car, rather than one during the test drive, however to the untrained person, you cannot even tell the difference. I don't know of any other tuner who would invite someone to come in and test drive their product.
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: London
R129 SL320 '99
Guys, it's good to have a healthy debate and this one is just that.
However, I am sure we can all say what we think in a constructive manner even if we disagree with what's being said.
Personally, I don't like it too much when it gets like this.
Just my 2c's...sorry.
However, I am sure we can all say what we think in a constructive manner even if we disagree with what's being said.
Personally, I don't like it too much when it gets like this.
Just my 2c's...sorry.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
If you take a 7 second drag car, and put all-season 245/45/17s on it, it will not come close to 7 seconds. On any car, once the tires break loose, the 0-60 will be affected by the traction.
Ben, your car only add an extra 100 plus hp at the wheel and it an automatic. !!! You should have traction problem like the way you make it sound out to be. If you do, then that all in a driver problem not knowing how to drive it....buddy! So you can do the same thing too with your foot at the starting line. Don't rev that damp engine to 5000 rpm at the starting line, of course you will have traction problem. Even my little CRX Si will have traction problem if i drop the clutch at 5000 rpm. Do you understand my point?
I remember that Merc/Bmw meet at Ervine Sprectrum in the parking lot when Kleemann driver was showing off doing the dognut burn out... .etc and he smoked the **** out of those tires, which is very easy to do. But when the race started between the C32, E55 and Clk43K. All three car take off beautifully with no tires spin in first gear at all and all three car was still dead even in first gear until second gear then the E55 started to pulled ahead of Clk43K and the C32 just pulled right past the E55 and the Clk43K. Ben, any car can have traction problem if you don't know how to drive it.
Last edited by linh; Sep 19, 2002 at 04:51 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
I've raced Ben's CLK43K off the line and actually be in the car before, that thing is a killer! It's definately a 12 second car(0-60 in 4s).
Wow....you can actually tell a 12's car with "BUTT" dyno? I have nothing more to say about that !!!
linh, the only way that Ben is misleading is that there will be two people in the car, rather than one during the test drive, however to the untrained person, you cannot even tell the difference. I don't know of any other tuner who would invite someone to come in and test drive their product.
Last edited by linh; Sep 19, 2002 at 05:00 PM.
MBworld Guru
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,058
Likes: 18
From: Diamond Bar, CA
W206 PHEV AMG
Please no fighting 
just read here Car and Driver test on CLK43k and C32k Kleemann
The Clk43k by Kleemann is only fraction of second faster than the STOCK Clk55 running 4.9 0-60 and 13.3 at 108 for 1/4 mile. Impressive, but not that impressive.
just read here Car and Driver test on CLK43k and C32k Kleemann
The Clk43k by Kleemann is only fraction of second faster than the STOCK Clk55 running 4.9 0-60 and 13.3 at 108 for 1/4 mile. Impressive, but not that impressive.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
The Clk43k by Kleemann is only fraction of second faster than the STOCK Clk55 running 4.9 0-60 and 13.3 at 108 for 1/4 mile. Impressive, but not that impressive
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,436
Likes: 6
300ce
...................We have been down this road before. I have driven a CLK 32k(mine), a CLk55K and a CLk43k. This is the bottom line. Supercharging a CLk55 does not really greatly improve the 0-60 time and quater mile time as much as you would except given the huge increase in HP. A has been mentioned, this is because most of the HP is wasted in wheel spin due to inadequate traction. The car however is a monster to drive. So, when you supercharge a CLK 430, you gain 0-60 and quate mile times that approach that of the CLk55k because the CLk 55k simply does not have enought traction to blow away the CLK43K. So for both cars, a 0-60 time of in the 4's is really the best way to describe them because the times will vary considerably depending on traction. For te CLk55K, traction is the limiting factor. For this reason, an argument can be made that putting a Kleemann in a CLk 55 may not be worth it since most of the HP gain is wasted in tire spin. But wait till you drive this car. You actually get the biggest boost in usable HP by supercharging a CLK 320. None of the 345HP goes into wheel spin. the difference is like night and day. The percentage change in performance is greatest for the CLK32k compared to CLK 43k and CLk55k. So, a lot of the power of these cars is not in the 0-60 times, because it is simply not possible to improve the 0-60 time of a CLK 55K that much, so a CLK 43k approaches its numbers, but when you drive both cars..........the difference is obvious. TRACTION IS a BIg PROBLEM FOR THE CLK 55K, less so for the CLK43K and no problem for the CLK32K.
Ted
Ted
MBworld Guru
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,058
Likes: 18
From: Diamond Bar, CA
W206 PHEV AMG
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
...................We have been down this road before. I have driven a CLK 32k(mine), a CLk55K and a CLk43k. This is the bottom line. Supercharging a CLk55 does not really greatly improve the 0-60 time and quater mile time as much as you would except given the huge increase in HP. A has been mentioned, this is because most of the HP is wasted in wheel spin due to inadequate traction. The car however is a monster to drive. So, when you supercharge a CLK 430, you gain 0-60 and quate mile times that approach that of the CLk55k because the CLk 55k simply does not have enought traction to blow away the CLK43K. So for both cars, a 0-60 time of in the 4's is really the best way to describe them because the times will vary considerably depending on traction. For te CLk55K, traction is the limiting factor. For this reason, an argument can be made that putting a Kleemann in a CLk 55 may not be worth it since most of the HP gain is wasted in tire spin. But wait till you drive this car. You actually get the biggest boost in usable HP by supercharging a CLK 320. None of the 345HP goes into wheel spin. the difference is like night and day. The percentage change in performance is greatest for the CLK32k compared to CLK 43k and CLk55k. So, a lot of the power of these cars is not in the 0-60 times, because it is simply not possible to improve the 0-60 time of a CLK 55K that much, so a CLK 43k approaches its numbers, but when you drive both cars..........the difference is obvious. TRACTION IS a BIg PROBLEM FOR THE CLK 55K, less so for the CLK43K and no problem for the CLK32K.
Ted
...................We have been down this road before. I have driven a CLK 32k(mine), a CLk55K and a CLk43k. This is the bottom line. Supercharging a CLk55 does not really greatly improve the 0-60 time and quater mile time as much as you would except given the huge increase in HP. A has been mentioned, this is because most of the HP is wasted in wheel spin due to inadequate traction. The car however is a monster to drive. So, when you supercharge a CLK 430, you gain 0-60 and quate mile times that approach that of the CLk55k because the CLk 55k simply does not have enought traction to blow away the CLK43K. So for both cars, a 0-60 time of in the 4's is really the best way to describe them because the times will vary considerably depending on traction. For te CLk55K, traction is the limiting factor. For this reason, an argument can be made that putting a Kleemann in a CLk 55 may not be worth it since most of the HP gain is wasted in tire spin. But wait till you drive this car. You actually get the biggest boost in usable HP by supercharging a CLK 320. None of the 345HP goes into wheel spin. the difference is like night and day. The percentage change in performance is greatest for the CLK32k compared to CLK 43k and CLk55k. So, a lot of the power of these cars is not in the 0-60 times, because it is simply not possible to improve the 0-60 time of a CLK 55K that much, so a CLK 43k approaches its numbers, but when you drive both cars..........the difference is obvious. TRACTION IS a BIg PROBLEM FOR THE CLK 55K, less so for the CLK43K and no problem for the CLK32K.
Ted
I don't know about how much extensive mods did Ben do to his car, but the one CD put in the test is provided by Kleemann. Traction won't be much of a factor if the driver knows how to ease the throttle. If high torque result in wheel spin wouldn't the Viper's 500hp/500lbs of torque slow it down. Same goes for SL55, 360, 996 Turbo, etc.
btw the 3.2 Kleemann engine is rated at 330 hp, not 345 hp. Unless you have some other mod to go with it?
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
From: Chorley Lancashire England
CLK 430 Coupe + MGF + 1980 Camaro
so what your saying ( and car and driver) is that a kleeman 4.3k is the cheapest way to get real grunt out of the box ?
and bens car must be sodding quick as it has the supercharger plus so many other mods?
hence the 4sec / 12sec is enitrly possible dependent upon track surface/tyres and driver ability?
or does linh have a grudge?
and bens car must be sodding quick as it has the supercharger plus so many other mods?
hence the 4sec / 12sec is enitrly possible dependent upon track surface/tyres and driver ability?
or does linh have a grudge?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,261
Likes: 13
From: Afghanistan / South Florida / Camp Lejeune, NC
2008 BMW M6, 2008 Ducati 1098, 2008 Ducati Monster S2R1000, 1971 Ducati Scrambler
Originally posted by Pffelan
or does linh have a grudge?
or does linh have a grudge?
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
2007 S
Guys, you're twisting Ben's numbers here. He didn't claim 4.0 seconds and 12.0 seconds. Read his quote, actually here is the quote "like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s". You see the 'in the' sentence structure which indicates that he is claiming it to be in the 4's, not 4.0 seconds. That means 4.0-4.9 which I don't imagine to be a claim that can't be backed up in a 43k. . .
Give it a break - I don't see anything he's done wrong, and even offered a ride. If I was in SoCal, I'd go take a ride to see what improvements there was, and whether it would be better than my CLK55.
Ed
Give it a break - I don't see anything he's done wrong, and even offered a ride. If I was in SoCal, I'd go take a ride to see what improvements there was, and whether it would be better than my CLK55.
Ed
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
99' SLK 230 & 01' CLK 430
I don't know about how much extensive mods did Ben do to his car, but the one CD put in the test is provided by Kleemann. Traction won't be much of a factor if the driver knows how to ease the throttle. If high torque result in wheel spin wouldn't the Viper's 500hp/500lbs of torque slow it down. Same goes for SL55, 360, 996 Turbo, etc.
Guys, you're twisting Ben's numbers here. He didn't claim 4.0 seconds and 12.0 seconds. Read his quote, actually here is the quote "like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s". You see the 'in the' sentence structure which indicates that he is claiming it to be in the 4's, not 4.0 seconds. That means 4.0-4.9 which I don't imagine to be a claim that can't be backed up in a 43k. . .
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,340
Likes: 22
From: Southern California, USA
2003 CL55 AMG
Originally posted by anthem
Guys, you're twisting Ben's numbers here. He didn't claim 4.0 seconds and 12.0 seconds. Read his quote, actually here is the quote "like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s". You see the 'in the' sentence structure which indicates that he is claiming it to be in the 4's, not 4.0 seconds. That means 4.0-4.9 which I don't imagine to be a claim that can't be backed up in a 43k. . .
Guys, you're twisting Ben's numbers here. He didn't claim 4.0 seconds and 12.0 seconds. Read his quote, actually here is the quote "like 0-60 in the 4s, or qtr miles in the 12s". You see the 'in the' sentence structure which indicates that he is claiming it to be in the 4's, not 4.0 seconds. That means 4.0-4.9 which I don't imagine to be a claim that can't be backed up in a 43k. . .
Here Here ! Exactly correct and what I was going to state myself.
To answer FrankW, Ted is running a slightly higher boost in his car (.7 bar vs .5 bar), that is probably where the extra hp is getting generated from.
This thread is going nowhere, therefore, I am closing it.
