CLK-Class (W209) 2003 on: CLK 270 CDI, CLK 200K, CLK 200 CGI, CLK 240, CLK 320, CLK 350, CLK 500, CLK 550 [Coupes & Cabriolets]

found this in BMW forum

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old Jan 27, 2004 | 04:58 PM
  #1  
Predator's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: NYC
found this in BMW forum

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46816



this is kind of old but it seems like the bmw guys on this forum think their cars look, handle and is faster than the clk500.
I guess, I shouldn't be surprised since its a bmw forum but most agree the new clk looks much better than then new 5.

Anybody know the 0-60 for the new 545i?
And I dont understand why people keep saying that the clk is a c class coupe when it isnt.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 03:01 AM
  #2  
VAHAGN MB's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, Ca.
2002 S500 & 2004 CLK320
ITs not a C coupe,, It has a totally different chassey than the C. The C is a much Smaller car.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 06:27 AM
  #3  
Guest0001
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by hyepower
ITs not a C coupe,, It has a totally different chassey than the C. The C is a much Smaller car.
The CLK is based on the C-Class.
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 07:02 AM
  #4  
FInality's Avatar
Super Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
996 Turbo
I'm too lazy to post this on the site someone care to do the honors for me.



Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 09:40 AM
  #5  
moa4r's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
From: McLean, VA
S4
Originally posted by hyepower
ITs not a C coupe,, It has a totally different chassey than the C. The C is a much Smaller car.
clk IS the same chassis as the c class--it basically is an upgraded c-class coupe...
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2004 | 12:10 PM
  #6  
deuce zer0's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,298
Likes: 0
From: Nashville
E63
Originally posted by Noble C320
The CLK is based on the C-Class.
I thought it was based on the E-class not the C, took over the older E cabriolet i though.
Reply
Old Jan 29, 2004 | 09:55 PM
  #7  
calboy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
2003 CLK 320
well c-class and clk-class are different classes although the clk is based on the c-class chassis (makes sense since it is a small car), it also has a mix of components from the other classes. The c-class has their own coupe already, the c sport coupe. It used to be the exterior styling is from the E class, actually, the rear still is, just that the new e-class doesn't look much like the old one and people confuse the clk front headlights with the c-class
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2004 | 12:14 AM
  #8  
clkguy's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: santa barbara calif.
2004 clk500 coupe
CLK500 vs. BMW 545I

first of all dont put any merit on this sunshine that these idiots are blowing up each others rear ends, what i do is run a BMW dealer parts dept., the new BMW E60 is a barge compared to a CLK500 when it comes to handling, for them to claim otherwise is merely them being in denial, the CLK320 has a better 0-60 time than what they claim the 500 has, so obviously these guys are uneducated in the topic of which they speak, a modified CLK will handle as well or better than a bmw m3, thats the measureing stick in which they are compared, so these idiots are comparing a sedan to a coupe and claiming better handling, if you ask a bmw man if a m3 compares to a e60 sedan they would say the m3 is in a different class, of course it is, and thats the class the clk500 falls into, sounds like some people dont know the difference between turds and chocolate
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2004 | 10:38 AM
  #9  
MikeOC's Avatar
Almost a Member!
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
BMW 330ci
Are you saying the CLK 320 0-60 time is around 6 seconds like they claim the CLK 500 is? Doesn't sound right to me
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2004 | 04:33 PM
  #10  
clkguy's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: santa barbara calif.
2004 clk500 coupe
time 0-60

Originally posted by MikeOC
Are you saying the CLK 320 0-60 time is around 6 seconds like they claim the CLK 500 is? Doesn't sound right to me
as i said there figures were wrong, the 500 coupe has a 0-60 of 5.7 the cabrio has 6.0 and the 55 has 5.3. the clk320 is actually closer to 7 seconds, yes i stand corrected, i was thinking the 500 cab was same time as 500 coupe and the 6.0 was a 320 but i admit i was confused

Last edited by clkguy; Jan 31, 2004 at 04:36 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2004 | 10:46 AM
  #11  
MikeOC's Avatar
Almost a Member!
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
BMW 330ci
Hey, no problem. I wish the 320 was close to 6 seconds! I think you're right, though, in that it's closer to 7 seconds. I have an automatic 2001 330ci now and the CLK doesn't feel a half a second slower to me.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2004 | 08:44 AM
  #12  
Stiggs's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,894
Likes: 8
From: Connecticut
2003 CLK55
I,m pretty sure MB says the 0-60 time for the CLK55 W209 is 5.0 sec. not 5.3
correct?
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2004 | 09:39 AM
  #13  
AMG BRED's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, Fl
CLK63 Black Series
Originally posted by Stiggs
I,m pretty sure MB says the 0-60 time for the CLK55 W209 is 5.0 sec. not 5.3
correct?
it's 4.9 :p
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2004 | 10:16 AM
  #14  
clkguy's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: santa barbara calif.
2004 clk500 coupe
0-60 times

the current brochure has 5.0 for the coupe and 5.2 for the convertible, a quicker time with a little help from the 3.06 ratio vs. 2.82 for the 500 w/o AMG enhancements
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2004 | 02:51 PM
  #15  
Stiggs's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,894
Likes: 8
From: Connecticut
2003 CLK55
Originally posted by AMG BRED
it's 4.9 :p

It was the W208 that had a 0-60 time of less than 5.0 sec.
Reply

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


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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 AM.