Pffelan

if jap cars are so fast due to their miniscule weight.... where is the weight in a clk? is it easily removed -

i assume:-

spare wheel - replaced with can of foam..
elec seats - replaced with lighter buckets...
my *** - struggling with this one..
engine - isnt it alloy?

where else can i lose weight for improved strip/track performance?

Sleestack

This is what I'm doing:

a) remove front and back seats;, replace fronts with racing seats and back with a deck

b) replace hood w/ fiberglass big star hood/grill combo

c) eliminate spare tire well and spare

d) lower unsprung weight (i.e. lighter wheels and brakes)

I'm thinking this will all add up to b/t 200 - 250 lbs of weight savings.

hinhin7

Wowww. all those troubles only saves you around 200-250 lbs. Is it going to have a great impact on acceleration?
Sleestack: if you don't mind, what is the base of your CLK (430 or 55)?


Thanks

FInality

Thats quite a bit for something like the CLK 500 you go from about 184 bhp/ton to 204 bhp/ton.

Mach430

Removing 200-250lbs will equate to about 20-25hp in acceleration. Braking and handling will also be improved. Replacing seats can make a great difference in weight savings. A fiberglass hood, such as my CL hood, will remove 50+ lbs, and if there is demand, we can make a fiberglass/carbon fiber trunk lid.

newguy2008

I'm not flaming you, I just have a couple of questions:

Wouldn't braking and handling be worse, since I would assume that MB did testing on each model with the weight of everything on/in the car? Won't removing things like the spare tire/lighter seats etc. affect the car in a negative way as far as handling goes?

What about the weight of a full gas tank as opposed to running close to empty?

newguy2008

I'm not flaming you, I just have a couple of questions:

Wouldn't braking and handling be worse, since I would assume that MB did testing on each model with the weight of everything on/in the car? Won't removing things like the spare tire/lighter seats etc. affect the car in a negative way as far as handling goes?

What about the weight of a full gas tank as opposed to running close to empty?

Pffelan

the only way less weight could cause a prob is if you got the car so light it couldnt get the tyres up to temp?

dont reckon this will be a prob with a clk?

ldangeli

For less money and less work, you can add a K&N, and a the chip for around 500, that gets you the same HP if not more, without all the hassel.

What about crash and weight formulas / braking, that engineers already formulated into the wieght of the car. Don't you think that is going to dramatically affect the cars handling / safety capabilities?

Pffelan

you are assuming these theings havent been done?

filters and exhaust and suspension are all taken care of....
chips are a prob on mercedes...

removal of weight couldt affect crash structure unless you cut pieces of car out. unbolting no structural kit has no effect apart from reducing the weight and therefore the effort required to achieve a certain speed....

ldangeli

What speed are you trying to aqcuire, I maxed out at 148 and it was fast enough. Besides, for all the money and extra time, you can pick up a one year old AMG, that is faster, has better suspension, better brakes and better tranny already.. Not trashin' your work on your car, just doesn't make sense to me. After all, my time is worth a lot to me.

If you are trying to reach that superb performance, there is only one way to reach it, 911 C4s, or higher. "There is no substitute"

Sleestack

I think you are talking to me, but your statement is way off base. Sure, I could pick up a CLK55 AMG, however, my car will be putting out around 700 hp a 700 lb/ft of torque, have much better brakes and fully customized suspension. Furthermore it will have a more robust transmission. It's not about being at 148, it's how fast you get there. My car won't have a speed limiter sotop speed should be in excess of 200 mph.

Pffelan

i know what you are saying but many of us take a pride in the work we do on our cars.. each to there own i suppose but i guess you have just offended many people on this board

bmac002

Sleestck's car will eat up and spit out just about any 911. I dare say his car will beat a GT1 when it is finished. Yeah with the money he is spending he probably could have bought a Ferarri but he likes the CLK body style like I do. Before the new SL I think the CLK was one of the best looking Mercedes every built and he obvioulsly feels the same way. Would you rather have 'one of a kind' outrageous power in a Mercedes that will beat anything on the road or a 911? To me it is the MB, but to each his own. I think 911's are overrated. Sleestack, any new pictures?

ldangeli

Guys, I too own a CLK and am not trying to offend anyone. You don't have to tell me about doing work to cars, I have a "American Classic" that pushes nearly 440 to the wheels. I understand what you are saying and I agree about the body style. As far as the 911 is concerned, I am speaking all wheel drive. And if Sleestck's car can beat 0-60 in under 4 seconds, god bless. I would prefer to get stock, out of the box, ponies. That is MY OPINION.

Again, not putting you guys down, but I know what I paid for my car, and what I could get next time, out of the box.

Sleestack

I don't take offense. Not many cars are going to give you 700 hp and lb/ft torque stock. I dig on 911's (and actually owned one back in NYC), and will most deifnitely mod a Porsche, BMW and Ferrari to death in the future. I don't really care so much about 0-60 times as I do 1/4 mile times and acceleration from 60mph - 160mph. I'm doing the W208 project because (a) I dig on the W208 and want to build a tribute to that chassis, (b) I have a great relationship with Evosport and wanted to work with them on a mutually beneficial crazy tuning project, and (c) I can.

ldangeli

Again, totally understand your point. 148 comes fast enough, and to me it isn't how fast you get there either. It is a combination of things, breaking, acceleration, cornering, etc.. I have come to believe that a car needs "balance". Different than compromise. And for the others out there that are more concerned about eating up and spitting out other vehicles, what about the supra guys that will eat anyone for lunch, including crotch rockets? Is it really all about the engine? A quote from a very good friend of mine. "If I strapped a turbine engine on a tricycle and blew you away on 287, would you be envious?"

My Moto: Enjoy the puppy while she lasts, and drive it like it was stolen. These days may not be here again.



Good luck with the project, our body style certainly is a head turner!

Sleestack

Fully understand your point regarding balance. All aspects of the car are being reveiwed and modified to produce a car that performs on every level. You didn't really think I was going to drop that engine in the car w/o addressing the brakes, suspension, transmission, etc.? This isn't amatuer tuning hour. I agree that a tricycle with a rocket engine would not be satisfying, but the W208 is no rice rocket or tricycle. I don't quite understand why acceleration isn't important to you.

ldangeli

Acceleration is important, and you living in NYC previously should no, there just isn't enough room to Accelerate TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. LOL, seriously, I know this isn't amatuer hour. Acceleration is important. Personally I couldn't see putting all that work into this car. I guess I go through cars too quickly.

Sleestack

Yeah, NYC isn't such a great place for testing the performance of cars. Having a car in NYC can be a major inconvenience. I go through cars quickly too. I keep a few daily drivers in my garage to rack up the miles. I am currently driving a lightly tuned Audi A6 4.2 and an E320 (which I hate) for my daily commute. The CLK wil be used on weekends and on the track. I'm sure most people couldn't imagine putting so many resources into a CLK... which is probably why I'm one of the few people actually doing it.

ldangeli

True. Hey, a little off post, why do you hate the E320, I was looking into the new E55, or RS6. Now that's out of the gate performance. I heard the E55 is a pain in the A$% cause the car tries to drive itself too much!

Sleestack

I don't hate the E class. I just don't like the 3.2 liter V6 because I'm used to driving V8's. The RS6 is a nice choice, but, the styling (like my A6 4.2) is a bit too similar to a jelly bean. I'm waiting to see the new M5. My next daily driver will probably be an E55 or the new M5..... although a new Audi S8 is also a consideration.

ldangeli

Oh, that was funny.. Seriously, I would consider the M5, a buddy of mine has one that he drives daily, and holy crap, it is such a sweet ride. Again, acceleration issues. By the time you hit 130, usually in 3rd, and within 6 sec., you gotta Jam the brakes cause of traffic! Stupid NJ Traffic!

hinhin7

Sleestack: keep us updated with your car, would you.. :-)
What tires are you going to put on your car. I would guess that you are going to put very wide tires on the rear, like 315????

theine

To fit those tires, his fenders will have to look like a CLKDTM.