RicanCLK

Hello All,

New here, am interested on a 2004 CLK55 AMG with 77,000 miles. Am a diesel mechanic so I know the basics on what to check, my question is, are there anything else I should look for?

A while back I was doing my research on a 2004 BMW 300 series and found out that there were frame crack to check, the whole cooling system had to be upgrade it or failure was soon to come.

That was enough to scared me on buying one now am looking at CLK's

Thanks

C280 Sport

I have a 2005 CLK55 AMG Coupe. Had it for a couple years and nothing has gone wrong with it. They are pretty straight forward by MB standards. If you are looking at the convertible then make sure the soft top works. Basically I have found with the AMG is that you need to make sure the pads/rotors are done, trans fluid and oil changes are done too. Lubrication of the rubber seals on the windows are something too because that seems to be the main cause of the windows rattling.

dzmitry

I think the only major thing to check (except normal checks) is a radiator (2004 MY still maybe affected "leaking Valeo radiator") see here
I wouldn't worry about brakes. 2004 CLK55 (unlike 2005) is using same same brake system as clk500/clk550

RicanCLK

DZMITRY, what I gather, Valeo is a brand of radiator that are prone to failure. what is the fault overheating or mixing tranny fluid with coolant?

I do I know is a Valeo radiator, any labels?

Thanks

dzmitry

You can find more details for example here and here. I think Mercedes was installing those Valeo radiator up to 09/30/2003 (still 2004 model year)
Basically the problem is in mixing transmission fluid with coolant, which may/will damage transmission. On my 2004 clk320 transmission was replaced (because of that issue) along with radiator back in 2005-2006.

nkx1

I'm not an expert by any means, so I'm not able t directly answer your question.

However, in case you cared, the general consensus seems to be that the CLK550 is faster than the CLK55. Given that you can pick up a CLK550 for fairly cheap, that might be an option worth looking into since you would have a faster and newer car for not much more money. If you go this route, I would probably buy a 2008 or 2009, as these will likely be clear of the defective idle gear issue (informally known as the balance shaft issue, though the V8's don't have a balance shaft). There's a ton of info on this issue here and via Google search and how to find out if a particular car is affected.

Good luck and happy car hunting!

dzmitry

Why would you assume that CLK550 faster that CLK55 ?

nkx1

Sarcasm?

CLK550 coupe: 3,720 lb curb weight, 382 HP, 391 ft lb TQ, 7 speed transmission

CLK55 coupe: 3,635 lb curb weight, 362 HP, 376 ft lb TQ, 5 speed transmission

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos



EDIT: Interestingly, in finding the stats for the CLK55, I came across a Motor Trend story that asserts the 0-60 time of the CLK55 is 4.8 seconds. I'm assuming the CLK550 coupe must be even faster? I've read at least one person here (who stated he had both the CLK55 and the CLK550) state that the CLK550 definitely felt faster. Anecdotal, of course, but it still helps to slant things in favor of the 550.

I will concede that everything doesn't seem to add up perfectly, since the generally accepted 0-60 time for the CLK550 cabriolet is 5.1 seconds, and it only weighs 200 lbs more than the coupe. Hard to believe 200 pounds would add over 0.3 seconds to a 0-60 time for the cab vs coupe, but who knows...

https://www.motortrend.com/news/spor...-comparison-2/

dzmitry

I'm sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but you're using wrong source of information
3960lbs it's a curb weight of clk55 convertible and you're comparing it to curb weight of clk550 coupe.
Real number is (from original Mercedes specification). You can find this information here
CLK55 coupe: 3,635 lb and 362 hp/376 ft-lb
CLk550 coupe: 3,720 lb and 382 hp/391 ft-lb
Let's talk about transmissions;
Yes clk550 is using 7-speed tranmission vs 5-speed on CLK55, but It's AMG tuned 5-speed (reed about AMG Speedshift) which is (what Mercedes claims) 35% faster than regular 722.6 (5-speed). Plus clk55 using 3.06 rear gear vs 2.65 on clk550.
At the end clk550 85lbs heavier than clk55, and has only 15 ft-lb more. I'd assume than 5-speed amg transmission not that slower than 7-speed regular transmission (not comparing it to amg-tuned 7-speed transmission) (btw if we're talking about 0-60 time, both transmissions will shift only one since both cars cat archive 60mph on second gear). So no, it's not a sarcasm, clk550 is just a little bit, but slower than clk55

dzmitry

Sorry, posted before I saw your correction

nkx1

dzmitry: Since our opinions are speculative and it's probably not going to be feasible to prove one way or the other, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyhoo, hopefully this tangential discourse is of some benefit to the OP!

dzmitry

Agree

Sorry again for hijacking the thread

Rudeney

The CLK55 should be a great car. The 722.6 5-speed transmission and M113 engine have both proven the test of time. Regardless of performance, it's an AMG car which is something special.

C280 Sport

The 0-60 time on my CLK55 Coupe is 4.8 seconds and can go even lower with a better driver other then me lol. The CLK550 is around 5.3 or so. If its the coupe then a tad lower. Convertibles are usually slower then their coupe siblings due to the extra weight. Originally I was looking for a CLK550 Coupe but stumbled on a 05 CLK55 Coupe with very low miles. When new it makes 0 sense to splurge on the CLK55 over the CLK550 since the performance is near the same. However being on the used marked and the fact that both are sub $15,000 cars now it only makes sense to go for the AMG. You get the sound as well I love the sound!

C280 Sport

Ok so something to think about here. 200 pounds yes. But also think of where the extra weight is being put in the car? The rear end. Also, it is rear wheel drive. So more weight in the rear plus rear wheel. The CLK550 may feel faster because it is newer but fact is that it is not faster. Its not that much slower either. This was a time in MB history where the AMG cars where not all that much faster then the highest non AMG car. Example being the CL55 N/A vs the CL600/CL500. Or the S55 AMG N/A vs the S600/S500/S430. Reason being is that there is no forced induction until 2003 when the supercharging and turbocharging became a thing. However, this was never the case with the CLK as no CLK came with anything other then a N/A Engine. I really wish they made a CLK55 AMG with the same engine used in the E55 AMG...

nkx1

The AMG is a cool car and more special than the 550, no argument there.

I just don't buy that it's definitively faster than the 550 based on the specs.

To distill it just to the numbers:

CLK550 coupe: 9.74 pounds per 1 horse power/ 9.51 pounds per 1 ft lb of torque
CLK550 coupe axle ratio: 2.65

CLK55 coupe: 10.04 pounds per 1 horse power/ 9.67 pounds per 1 ft lb of torque
CLK55 coupe axle ratio: 3.06

5G-Tronic transmission ratios:
1st gear: 3.595
2nd gear: 2.186
3rd gear: 1.405
4th gear: 1.000
5th gear: 0.831
R1: -3.167
R2: -1.926

7G-Tronic transmission ratios:
1st gear: 4.377
2nd gear: 2.859
3rd gear: 1.921
4th gear: 1.368
5th gear: 1.00
6th gear: 0.82
7th gear: 0.728
R1: -3.416
R2: -2.231

So this is a really tough one. I think the culprit making the CLK550 potentially slower is the axle ratio, which I didn’t know until doing a bit of research just now. The CLK550 is 2.65; the CLK55 is 3.06.

I think it really would be a tossup regarding the real-world quickness of the two cars, given the higher HP and torque per pound of the 550, the higher 2nd gear transmission ratio of the 550 (60 MPH is apparently reached in 2nd gear), but the numerically higher axle ratio of the 55.

If 3.06 gearing were installed in the 550, the 550 would be definitively faster. Unfortunately, doing so is apparently a huge hassle (bummer!). See thread below if interested.

https://mbworld.org/forums/clk-class-w209/598777-rear-differential-gears-2.html

Anker

The horses per pound is really not an accurate comparison. They are derived from the peak of the HP curve. It isn't even possible to drive a car at that point all the time. What gives a car acceleration and power is the total shape and height of the torque curve. A car with a wide, flat torque curve can be a lot faster than one with a pronounced peak, even if the peak is higher than the wide, flat one's maximum.

nkx1

Both cars have a similar 5.5L engine as far as I can tell (despite the AMG one being "hand built"). However, the 550 has 4 valves per cylinder; the 55 has 3. This doesn't appear to be supportive of the 55 having broader HP/TQ curves, but I could obviously be wrong.

If the CLK55 is faster, it appears to be attributed to the 3.06 axle ratio.

In previous reading on this site, I received the impression that most people thought the 550 was quicker. I don't think this can ever be settled without a few races. But since mine's a daily driver, I'm out lol.

550 vs 55 thread: https://mbworld.org/forums/clk55-amg...-vs-clk55.html

ambit

I've owned a 05 CLK55 and a 09 CLK550 concurrently for about 6 months and I can say without any doubt the CLK550 felt faster in every aspect.
The 7 speed tranny was enormously more responsive and feels like it gets the power down better.

The CLK550 is missing the brakes, the tighter seats and the exhaust note (ohh god do I miss that) but I'm getting much better gas mileage.

The CLK550 has some oddities, like chirping on lock/unlock. The passenger side mirror doesn't auto-turn down in Reverse. The fog lights 'help' you by turning on while cornering at low speeds.
If something happened to my car I'd replace it with another CLK550 instead of an older AMG.