Still Looking

I really love the new CLK styling but i doesnt appeal to me as being that sporty rather a bit more classy, and i think an 03' CLK500 is a very nice car. But class isnt all. I am wondering as to how a CLK500, compares in numbers to an S4 or M3, since i have both in my family (S4 is brothers). Does a CLK500 come close? Maybe brother wants to trade his car cause its producrtion is being stopped soon and now would be the time to sell. So should he sell now a get a CLK500, or a 2004 S4 which is due out in a year.

Jksellman

My CLK500 has but 700 miles on it, so I haven't driven it very hard yet, but I am very impressed with its performance so far. My other cars are a slightly modified '96 Porsche 993 cab (6-speed), a '98 Boxster (5-speed), an '86 Carrera (5-speed) and a miata (Automatic).
I've driven an E55, an M-5, and a S-8 and found them all to be excellent automobiles.
I find The CLK to have "Sheer strength tempered by pure refinement".
I expect the forthcoming CLK55 to offer more performance, but as a "balanced" performance/"sports" car, I find the CLK500 to be the best of all worlds (performance, style, comfort, SAFETY and quality).
I had my last Mercedes coupe for 25 years ('78 280CE)....and I expect that I'll enjoy this car for a long, long time.
To answer you question regarding the other cars, 0-62 in 5.7 seconds is right up there. Handling and braking are world class.

Still Looking

Oh i havent heard anything of a CLK55, coming soo soon, any numbers on that?? I think that migh be of more interest. Being sporty compared to the 2004 S4 is hard. It is rumored to have a 4.2 engine with 400 bhp, and 0-60 times of 4.2. For you number freaks thats as fast as a 575 Maranello(newer version). Audi is said to own 3 M3's and are making the S4 to be better in every way. Lighter, faster, better handling. Can the Clk55 come into the competition in the middle of this sport sedan war??

Beltfed

Not going to beat an M3......you're going to have to wait for the RS4 for that. I don't believe the below numbers (seems a bit conservative), but its not going to do 0-60 in 4.9sec like the M3. Not to mention, the new S4 isn't that great looking.


"Audi is unveiling the sporty top model in the A4 range. The new S4 is making its debut at the 2002 Paris Motor Show. Like its predecessor, the current version is also available as a saloon and an Avant. The heart of the new Audi S4 is quite clearly its engine - a further refined V8 with chain drive at the rear and a swept volume of 4.2 litres. It produces 253 kW (344 bhp) and a torque of 410 Nm. The S4 consequently sets clear benchmarks in the B-segment: a benchmark for supreme power development resulting from the engine?s large capacity, and a benchmark therefore for unmistakeable dynamic handling."

"The eight-cylinder engine?s thrust enables the new Audi S4 with 6-speed manual gearbox to complete the sprint from 0 to 100 km/h in just 5.6 seconds. It takes just 20.6 seconds to reach 200 km/h, whilst the top speed is a governed 250 km/h. "

rexdog29

Definitely enough power.

The V8 Clk has 339 lb. ft. of torque at 2500 to 4500 rpm which means fast effortless driving around time. 0-60 in 5.7sec. in an automatic is pretty quick.

How often are you gonna rev your engine in the BMW or Audi at 8000 rpm to get to that 0-60 in 4.8 sec. or 5.5 for S4. Real world driving. Longevity of the twin turbo Audi engine is kinda scary because it's really not a sports car.

Audi is a nice car, but isn't it a more expensive volkswagen?

Average age Mercedes buyers are 35 to seniors, so I guess management thinks performance is not top priority. Mercedes has never been about numbers.

So if speed is what you're after, stick with the m3, s4 0r 911 because you'll look silly racing people in a Benz.

Rexdog
Clk 500 Oct.

Aus

I have posted this analogy before on the S class forum:

A salesman once likened drivers to fish:
BMW drivers are like sharks- aggressive, this is why all the drivers instruments are hidden from passengers and directed towards the driver- "its mine, im in control" attitude

Audi drivers were likened to dolphins- nippy, playful, young

and Mercedes as whales- cruise around, content with sticking to the speed limit etc.

Now I know this is not true in all cases and as marauder replied last time it's hard to pigeonhole them as the makes have become larger.

However I still find this philosophy true and interesting none the less.

cmoney

That said, it'll probably be priced around a nicely equipped CLK320 ($47000 or so).

Most people on the Audi forums are disappointed with the new S4, complaining about how boring it looks compared to the A4 (put a $1500 body kit for the same or better look) and how the stated performance (5.6 sec 0-100km/h with 344HP?!) seems outta whack, considering that's a manual tranny. It's definitely not gonna be an M3 killer, though with quattro it'll get you to the ski slopes and back...

Yet others are apologetic to Audi, telling naysayers to wait for the RS4...

Seeing the numbers for the CLK500, I think it'll be comparable to the new S4. If money's an issue, go with the S4. Otherwise, I'd say screw the S4, the CLK500 is a better car overall and will definitely be keeping up with the S4.

I've been slightly disappointed with the A4 and most of the complaints have been from the fact that it's overweight (causing poor performance and poor handling compared to the older model). And the interior is only slightly nicer than a Passat and while that's fine in the $28k-$35k range, it's not acceptable at the $45k-$50k range (probable S4 prices).

I'll be trading in my 2002 A4 whenever MB gets its act together and starts making the CLK350 and a DVD based nav system.

Still Looking

Guess this info is new, i have never seen it . I am a member of the vwvortex.com forums and all the talk there surrounding the S4, suggested just what i had said. Supposedly doing 0-60 in 4.2, and out doing the M3, in every. Some people said they had "sources" in the Audi world saying it would, but i guess all roomers. No matter what you guys think i still like that S4, for it is looking pretty mean with those blacked out lights. It might look plain compared to a normal A4, but that is only through the eye of ignorance. Underneath that engine is where all the magic happens. The car looks like a "normal A4" to those who dont know anybetter, and like a baddass S4 to those that do. I havent made up my mind but i do like the S4 (i speak for my brother).

FYI. Maybe i dont rev my engine to 8000 every time i get i start the engine, but once the ignition lights on the RPM goes down, my car is ready for some UNCLE BEN'S RICE !!

CLKisCooL

I think the new S4 extirior is OK. But, the interior is just not good enough. For $45k, it needs better quality and luxury on it.

Beltfed

Oh stop, for $50k it better not look like a standard A4 (it does unfortunately, besides the front bumper)....and I know the difference when looking at them, down to the rear badge style change on the previous S4. Audi should have designed a new alloy wheel for the new S4 (they didn't), the black door moldings look terrible, the chrome mirrors need to go (assume painted ones will be available), that 4 spoke steering wheel is no good also (I'm sure the interior will be of typical Audi quality, great). Overall, I prefer the previous S4's looks more, the new S4 just doesn't look as mean from the photos.

The car also weighs 300 pounds more than already heavy new A4. I'm sure it will be a great car, with a great power band....but the style is a bit controversial at this point.

I'm liking the specs/appearance of the new S60R more than the S4.

MBking

Buddy,

I think you're in the wrong forum. Check out the Supra, rx7, porsches and other sports car sites.

Don't pick on Hondas and Acuras. Play with the big boys like the Supra TT or Rx7. A modified one would change your view on Japanese rice burners. They run 10's and 11's in the 1/4 mile. I doubt a modified 400-500 hp Audi S4 can even get into the 12's. Bmw's M division would have a hard time.

You are right, beauty is only skin deep. Since when is Audi known for their great engines? Two words- Extended Warranty. You couldn't get me to plunk down 50 grand on a company whose been making good cars for about 4yrs.

Mercedes cars are about how you arrive, rather than how fast you arrive.

IGORDAVIDSON

I've got a fresh 03 clk500 with the amy sport look package. Power is great with good torque. Peels rubber w/o traction control. Handling is soft compared to true sports cars. kept up with 911 on the straight away, but bot even close in the turns. Too much body roll, too disconnected from the road. Overall I love the car (41 y/o male, previous cars corvette, spurs turbo, Iroc-z, transom). Hope that helps even if a bit too late.

ambit

Almost 12 years to the day late. Wow

M-Rods

LOL, I hope the OP isn't still waiting on opinions....

omega48er

HAHA i was like why is this 12yrs too late.

i have a clk550 and i know the 500 is a monster because you can slap a supercharger on it.

for me the 550 NA is more than enough power to spank most cars i see and i do agree with the body roll part but, its nothing some Sway bar upgrade won't fix.

mrbobby

It would seem to me, in fairness, that if you wanted to go up against the performance division offerings of Audi and BMW you would look to the AMG edition of a particular model. I would think that CLK 55 would more than hold its own against the aforementioned European hot rods. I know that earlier this year when I owned my S55 there were few full size autos that came close to it in acceleration and handling and that's in a car that's almost 10 years older than the applicable competition. Apples against apples there are few autos that will embarrass Mercedes. Just my humble opinion.

mguerrero

I concur

Rudeney

The problem with the CLK55 AMG compared with other MAG models is the lack of a supercharger. The CLK550 outperforms the CLK55 in a straight line, and equals it with handling when equipped wit the sport suspension upgrade or some aftermarket suspension components. If you want real performance in a W209, go for the CLK63 or better yet, the CLK63 Black Series.