CLK55 vs CL55
01-05-2006, 10:20 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Originally Posted by jpog
This continues to perplex me about this MB forum. I came from a S500 to the C55, with a E46 M3 in between. I made a conscious decision to go smaller and sportier from what I had in the S-class. After toying with the BMW, I realized I needed to come back home to MB.
Impressions though, are that MB owners look down their noses at the C-class much more than BMW owners do about the 3-series. On those forums, and in the local BMWCCA, there was much respect for the M3.
On the other hand, I see comments regularly around here implying that the C-class is junk. Typically it's from people who decided to buy something larger for one reason or another. AMG 55, not trying to pick on your quote necessarily, as I've seen so many others.
So what gives?
JPOG
Impressions though, are that MB owners look down their noses at the C-class much more than BMW owners do about the 3-series. On those forums, and in the local BMWCCA, there was much respect for the M3.
On the other hand, I see comments regularly around here implying that the C-class is junk. Typically it's from people who decided to buy something larger for one reason or another. AMG 55, not trying to pick on your quote necessarily, as I've seen so many others.
So what gives?
JPOG
01-05-2006, 10:37 AM
#27
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 E350 Sport, 2015 ML350 4Matic
Originally Posted by Vomit
It seems that some "members" get the size of their car mixed up with the size of their "members."
The S500 was a tight squeeze, now that I think of it. Ok, I'll stop. 
JPOG
01-05-2006, 03:21 PM
#29
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NorCal - SF
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz
Originally Posted by AMG_55
e55 is way more car for the $.
plus its faster, roomier, more luxurious and isn't a c class
plus its faster, roomier, more luxurious and isn't a c class
01-05-2006, 05:30 PM
#30
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSX
Originally Posted by jpog
On the other hand, I see comments regularly around here implying that the C-class is junk. Typically it's from people who decided to buy something larger for one reason or another. AMG 55, not trying to pick on your quote necessarily, as I've seen so many others.
So what gives?
JPOG
I think the basic BMW 3 performs a world better than a basic C class.
Its not AMG's fault, its MB's fault.
01-05-2006, 05:34 PM
#31
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSX
Originally Posted by art_z
I haven't driven any of these yet. I lusted after the CLK when I decided to get the 996 (no regrets there) but I always loved the W208 body style. I'm in no rush to get a car, so I'll take my time, kick some tires, drive as many as I can and see where I end up.
01-05-2006, 08:05 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Originally Posted by jpog
Isn't having a garage to park it in more important anyway? The S500 was a tight squeeze, now that I think of it. Ok, I'll stop.
JPOG
The S500 was a tight squeeze, now that I think of it. Ok, I'll stop. JPOG
01-06-2006, 05:23 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
R129 Sl
Hmmm...I find this thread quite interesting since I was considering a CLK55 as well. The exterior styling is not bad...yet at the same time, it doesn't jump at me. However, I love the R129 SL styling. It's sleeker and far greater looking than the CLK. Also, the fit and finish on the car is excellent. If you are looking for a tight, sporty car to have as a "fun car", then take a look. The 500 model is very nice and the 600 is almost unreal on the highway (you feel the torque). At 4500 lbs, it is a very solid and safe car. AND...it functions as both a hardtop coupe and a roadster. Check it out.
Good Luck!
Some Power Stats
SL500 Pre-1999 315 hp 347 tq
SL500 1999+ 302 hp 339 tq
SL600 All Years 389 hp 420 tq
Good Luck!
Some Power Stats
SL500 Pre-1999 315 hp 347 tq
SL500 1999+ 302 hp 339 tq
SL600 All Years 389 hp 420 tq
01-06-2006, 07:25 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
CLK55 is a big improvement from your poor man's Porsche 996 in terms of luxury and comfort.
CL-Class is a completely different style for people who wants a Benz with ultimate exclusiveness where the Aston Marin, Maybach and Bentley Continental Flying Spur are not to be affordable.
The current generation of CL-Class will fade out next year and replaced by a brand new CL-class which look like the 2006 new S.
It does not look like you are a classic Benz fan, so I am unable to imagine what is the benefit to you for shifting from a 996 to a CL apart from a car which is more bulky and more space?
CLK55 is relatively 'newer' than CL.
Good luck.
CL-Class is a completely different style for people who wants a Benz with ultimate exclusiveness where the Aston Marin, Maybach and Bentley Continental Flying Spur are not to be affordable.
The current generation of CL-Class will fade out next year and replaced by a brand new CL-class which look like the 2006 new S.
It does not look like you are a classic Benz fan, so I am unable to imagine what is the benefit to you for shifting from a 996 to a CL apart from a car which is more bulky and more space?
CLK55 is relatively 'newer' than CL.
Good luck.
01-06-2006, 08:57 PM
#36
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NorCal - SF
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz
Originally Posted by cntlaw
CLK55 is a big improvement from your poor man's Porsche 996 in terms of luxury and comfort.
01-07-2006, 09:34 AM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by AMG2GO
Nothing wrong with the AMG versions of the C class... but have you ever driven a standard C240? The one I get everytime my CL is in for service... I floor the gas pedal and can count 1001 1002 1003 before the thing starts to move forward. Its like there is oatmeal in the transmission. Its a complete joke.
I think the basic BMW 3 performs a world better than a basic C class.
Its not AMG's fault, its MB's fault.
I think the basic BMW 3 performs a world better than a basic C class.
Its not AMG's fault, its MB's fault.
01-07-2006, 09:35 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by AMG2GO
Nothing wrong with the AMG versions of the C class... but have you ever driven a standard C240? The one I get everytime my CL is in for service... I floor the gas pedal and can count 1001 1002 1003 before the thing starts to move forward. Its like there is oatmeal in the transmission. Its a complete joke.
I think the basic BMW 3 performs a world better than a basic C class.
Its not AMG's fault, its MB's fault.
I think the basic BMW 3 performs a world better than a basic C class.
Its not AMG's fault, its MB's fault.
01-08-2006, 11:58 AM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
[QUOTE=Clk&Slk]
From Car and Driver
CLK Rear Seat Volume: 34 Cu. Ft.
CL Rear Seat Volume: 36 Cu. Ft.
C Rear Seat Volume: 39 Cu. Ft.
E Rear Seat Volume: 44 Cu. Ft.
Originally Posted by Vomit
A CL will not be much better. . .my 6' tall neighbor had a CL. With his driver seat in a comfortable position, the back of his seat was touching the rear seat. There is no way that anyone could ride back there. IMO, a "family coupe" is a "really bad idea."
I easily fit 3 ten-year-olds in the back of my C32, without them having to do gymnastics to get in, and without 6' me having to eat the steering wheel to accomodate their legs. QUOTE]
Excuse me.........don't give advice on car you don't own. You based all this on your neighbor's car. Have you actually ever driven it? Maybe he like his seat all the way back when he drive like gangster in the rap video. You sure make it sound like the CL interior is smaller then your C32. That's a joke...if you think so. I currently own a CL 55 and CLK, so I know what i'm talking about. I don't own a C-class but i do drive it many time as a loaner when my cars are in for service. The c-class is much smaller. The only thing is better is, it got two extra door in the back for easy getting in and out. But once you close the door, it feel like a tiny box !!
I easily fit 3 ten-year-olds in the back of my C32, without them having to do gymnastics to get in, and without 6' me having to eat the steering wheel to accomodate their legs. QUOTE]
Excuse me.........don't give advice on car you don't own. You based all this on your neighbor's car. Have you actually ever driven it? Maybe he like his seat all the way back when he drive like gangster in the rap video. You sure make it sound like the CL interior is smaller then your C32. That's a joke...if you think so. I currently own a CL 55 and CLK, so I know what i'm talking about. I don't own a C-class but i do drive it many time as a loaner when my cars are in for service. The c-class is much smaller. The only thing is better is, it got two extra door in the back for easy getting in and out. But once you close the door, it feel like a tiny box !!
CLK Rear Seat Volume: 34 Cu. Ft.
CL Rear Seat Volume: 36 Cu. Ft.
C Rear Seat Volume: 39 Cu. Ft.
E Rear Seat Volume: 44 Cu. Ft.
01-08-2006, 02:48 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
[QUOTE=Vomit]
From Car and Driver
CLK Rear Seat Volume: 34 Cu. Ft.
CL Rear Seat Volume: 36 Cu. Ft.
C Rear Seat Volume: 39 Cu. Ft.
E Rear Seat Volume: 44 Cu. Ft.
Yup....it's quite surprising that the rear seat area dimensions of the CL are pretty much the same as the CLK, given the significantly longer and wider dimensions of the car. Here's a comparison of all four cars:
Click here for comparo
.......................E-Class E55 AMG CL-Class CL500 CLK CLK55 AMG C-Class C32 AMG
Standard Seating 5 4 4 5
Optional Seating No data No data No data No data
Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 36.90 36.90 38.90
Rear Headroom (in.) 37.70 36.80 35.80 37.30
Front Legroom (in.) 41.90 41.70 41.90 41.70
Rear Legroom (in.) 35.60 30.80 31.20 33.00
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 56.40 59.30 52.90 53.10
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 56.10 54.60 50.40 54.30
Front Hip Room (in.) 52.40 No data 53.70 52.00
Rear Hip Room (in.) 53.80 No data 45.90 54.40
Originally Posted by Clk&Slk
From Car and Driver
CLK Rear Seat Volume: 34 Cu. Ft.
CL Rear Seat Volume: 36 Cu. Ft.
C Rear Seat Volume: 39 Cu. Ft.
E Rear Seat Volume: 44 Cu. Ft.
Click here for comparo
.......................E-Class E55 AMG CL-Class CL500 CLK CLK55 AMG C-Class C32 AMG
Standard Seating 5 4 4 5
Optional Seating No data No data No data No data
Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 36.90 36.90 38.90
Rear Headroom (in.) 37.70 36.80 35.80 37.30
Front Legroom (in.) 41.90 41.70 41.90 41.70
Rear Legroom (in.) 35.60 30.80 31.20 33.00
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 56.40 59.30 52.90 53.10
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 56.10 54.60 50.40 54.30
Front Hip Room (in.) 52.40 No data 53.70 52.00
Rear Hip Room (in.) 53.80 No data 45.90 54.40
Last edited by Improviz; 01-09-2006 at 12:00 AM.
01-09-2006, 05:00 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
Big improvement in pwr with the new 6 spd manual C350.High 13 sec car way faster than the new BMW E90 330i.
i would still take the 330i or the is350 over the c350.... engine alone wont make up for the shortcomings on that car, plus its older than the other 2
