According to the new CLK brochure:

the 209 AMG is listed as 5 seconds in the 0 - 60 mph acceleration, which is slower than the 2001-2002 coupe, which MB lists as 4.9 seconds.

The reason must be the additional 300 pounds of weight, - despite the additional 20 HP!!

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...140#post106140

I hope this number is very wrong, especially since MB is usually conservative with thier specs. If not I think I may have to settle for a "slightly used" W210 E55 for my next Benz!!!


MarcusBenz
H.O.I. MBZ

The new CLK (W209) will have some convenience features I wish were available on the W208.....

Keyless Go for one. Really useful. However, I like the styling and aggressive posture of the W208.

That's nice Karl

Strange how Mercedes Germany has the new W209 CLK55 AMG 0.2 seconds faster than the out-going model. Maybe the gearing is different for the US model??

btw, the W209 CLK55 AMG is not 300 pounds heavier than the W208 CLK55 AMG. The difference is 95kg according to Mercedes Germany, which equates to approximately 210 pounds.

-G'day-

210 pounds is 210 pounds. No different than permanently carting around my brother ( and he's a big son of a bitc#) everywhere I go. If MBZ were able to keep the weight down to W208 specs AND goose the power, I'd be impressed... But alas, to no avail.

Look here.....

www.mercedes-benz.com/e/cars/clk/clk55.htm

MB (worldwide) website shows 0-100 kph as being 5.2 sec.

Since 100 kph is roughly 62 mph, one could draw a conclusion that the 0-60 mph time is 5.1, MAYBE 5.0. Again, MB specs....compared with 4.9 in the U.S. brochure.

We'll see how the magazines "rate" the new CLK55.

p.s. The same website shows a weight of 1715 kg (3773 lbs.) for the W209 vs. 3485 lbs. for the W208. Difference is 288 lbs.

...288 pounds??! Well, Hell might as well add 3/4's of my wife to the load while we're at it. 25 more horsepower or not, more weight is not a good thing...

A terrific rating - the BEST/FIRST for ALL MB cars is the residual value for the #1: 2002 CLK55 AMG:

73 % in 2004 - after two years!

This tops the residuals of the CL55, CL500 and E55 all in the top ten for residual value as per CARS.COM!!

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national...residuals.tmpl

Please note that Mercedes Germany/world wide shows the weight of the car with a passenger inside (68kg), plus a 7kg laggage and 90% fuel load.

Mercedes Germany/world wide also shows the W208 weighing 1620kg, which equates to 3564 pounds. Thus W209 CLK55 AMG's 1715kg (3773 pounds) minus W208 CLK55 AMG's 1620kg (3564 pounds) gives you my previous answer of 210 pounds.

-G'day-

Help me out.....can you post a link to the MB website showing the weight for the W208? Can't seem to find it.

Thanks

Ridiculous!

http://www.mercedes-benz.de/

German site posts the following for 2003 CLK55 AMG Coupe:

Net + Tara = Gross weight
Leergewicht in kg 1715 >NET
Nutzlast in kg 405 >Tara
Gesamtgewicht in kg 2120 >Gross weight>Total weight
_______________

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container...C&class=02_CLK


The MBUSA site lists the curb weight of the 2002 CLK55 AMG coupe as:

Curb weight: 1560 kg or 3,485 lbs.

Difference: 1715-1560 = 155 kg = 342 lbs.
or
Difference: 2120-1560 = 560 kg = 1,235 lbs

So take your choice:

The new 2003 CLK is either 342 lbs. heavier (as I first stated)

or

1,235 lbs heavier - if you load it up, - as they do down under!!

...but NEVER only 210 lbs... RIDICULOUS!

Man!!, what some people do to prove a point. That's the reason love this forum so much, everyone has such passion for MB's!:p



MarcusBenz
H.O.I. MBZ

...So Karl; Does she stay or does she go??!!

Brian:

She'll stay at least... one more year.

I am eyeing the new SL... have a left brain v right brain battle going on.

Wow, that would be a decision I wouldn't want to make!!!! LOL!!



MarcusBenz
H.O.I. MBZ

No, its not ridiculous

The kerb weight measurement for MB (world wide/Germany) are done DIFFERENTLY to MB USA. So please don't compare MB (world wide/Germany)'s W209 weight specification to MB USA's W208 weigh specification.

Take a look at the C32 AMG for example

MBUSA C32 Specification

It shows the C32 AMG weighing 3,540 lb/1,605 kg


Ok, than take a look at The MB (world wide/Germany) specification for the C32 AMG

MB (world wide/Germany) C32 Specification

It shows the C32 AMG weighing 1,635kg.

Thus the two sites shows a 35kg (77 pounds) difference for the exact same car!

Why? Its because MB (world wide/Germany) measure its kerb weight in ready-to-drive condition, including driver, 68 kg, and luggage, 7 kg, fuel tank 90% full) for vehicles with standard specification.

MB (world wide/Germany) has the W208 CLK55 AMG weighing at 1620kg (stock). The specification for the car is no longer on the site due to the new model, but you can still find it on MB Australia, as MB Australia use the exact specification from MB (world wide/Germany)

MB Australia W208 CLK55 specification

Don't believe me? Try compare any MB (world wide/Germany) specifications (eg, 0-100km/h, kerg weight) for just about any car with MB Australia, and you will find the exact same figures for the same car.

Thus according to MB (world wide/Germany), W209's 1715kg (3773 pounds) is 209 pounds heavier than W208's 1620kg (3564 pounds).

Please don't compare MBUSA's kerb weight specification with MB (world wide/Germany) because they are measured Differently as stated earlier.

Just trying to prove a point. Both are great cars.

-G'day-

C-Kompii,

I can appreciate your point about the weight.

However, other details about specifications on the Australian website leave me suspect ALL the figures.

Look here....

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container...pec=0&menu=3_0


Check out the compression ratios:

AU = 10:1
USA = 10.5:1


0-100 kph times:

AU = 5.4
Germany = 5.2?? (if I remember correctly)
USA = 4.9 (0-97 kph)

These are just more than variations in how they measure a curb weight on a vehicle (whether you add fuel, driver, etc.)

I can't imagine Mercedes-Benz would lessen the potency of the Australian version

What do you think?

Chappy, you are correct in stating that 0-100km/h times for the W208 CLK55 AMG is 5.4 seconds according to MB Australia. The 0-100km/h time of 5.2 seconds given in MB (world wide/Germany) are that of the new W209 CLK55 AMG. If you had the opportunity to look at MB (world wide/Germany)'s 0-100km/h time for the W208 CLK a couple of month ago when it was still up, it also showed 0-100km/h in 5.4 seconds. You might wonder why MBUSA's stats are comparably faster than its MB (world wide/Germany/Australia) counterpart, the simple reason is that MBUSA do their testing independently from MB world wide. Have a look at MB Germany, MB world wide, MB Taiwan, MB Australia, they all show the C32 AMG and SLK32 AMG's 0-100km/h in 5.2 seconds, which is considerably slower than the figures given by MBUSA (even taking into consideration that 0-60mph = approx 97km/h). This is because some of the MB sites around the world uses MB world wide stats. Another factor could be the difference in gearing between the European and American model in some cases.

Let's use the C32 AMG again for example

MB Germany's C32 Specification

MB Australia's C32 Specification

MB world wide C32 Specification

As you can see, the 0-100km/h time for the C32 AMG in all three sites shows 5.2 seconds with kerb weight of 1635kg as oppose to MBUSA's 0-60mph time of 4.9 seconds and kerb weight of 1605kg.

MBUSA C32 Specification

What I am trying to say is that MB Australia and many other MB sites around the world uses MB world wide's stats, whereas MBUSA independently test for their own stats, thus the measurement condition, requirement are different.

So far, we do not yet have MBUSA's specification for the W209 CLK, thus we do not have the numbers to compare it with MBUSA's W208 stats. The only accurate comparison we can make at this moment is between MB world wide's stats on W209 (which is released) and its W208 stats. The stats comparison between MBUSA and MB world wide is not valid as they do their testing differently, which help explains the stat difference even with the same car model.

Hope this helps.

-G'day-

I will concede this point as I do not have the specs in front of me and are apparently no longer available on MB's worldwide website....my recollection is slightly different than yours. Moot point.

Moving on....

What about the differences in compression ratio?

I think I once posted links comparing MB world wide's W208 and W209 CLK55 AMG's 0-100km/h time in the W209 CLK forum a few month ago. (maybe you can do a search to find the link). The difference was 0.2 seconds in favour of the W209 to 100km/h. (5.2 for W209 and 5.4 for W208). But like you said, its a moot point till I find the links again.

As for the compressiion ratio. The specifications given in the Australian web site utilises the MB world wide stats. Thus I can not tell you why it is different from the compression ratio given in the MBUSA site. If you have a look at MB world wide, MB Germany and MB Australia's stats for the C32 AMG for example, they are just about identical in everything, including the compression ratio. You can also check other car model between these three sites for proof of consistency (be it 0-100km/h, kerb weight or compression ratio).

-G'day-

C-Kompii,

I have enjoyed our exhange and look forward to examining how the differences between the 208 and 209 CLK55s pan out in both MB testing, magazine testing and real-world results.

I own an '02 example of the CLK55 and admit to having a slight bias for the 208. However, I am a rational individual and give credit where credit is due. Let's keep this interest/hobby/obsession alive!

If you make it to Atlanta, I invite you for some beers.

Steve



p.s. Anybody have any (German) paper brochures about the W208 stats? :p

Steve, thank you for the invitation. I too have enjoyed this exchange of info, and can't wait till magazines start testing out the differences between these two great MB cars.

And same thing applies if you make it to Melbourne. Drinks on me.

Danny

-G'day-

C-Kompii

You are now comparing not only apples with oranges, or kangaroos with koalas by adding to the the pot the C32, while trying to prove a point re the CLK55.

Reminds me of the same logic a decade ago, when Japan banned US made ski imports, because the snow was different in Japan.

After lengthy trade negotiations, US skis were permitted to enter the Japanese market, because the snow was not different at all.

Karl, I only brought in the C32 example to show the consistant difference in weight measurement between MBUSA and MB world wide. This is just one example, you can look up any models on MB world wide, and find that the exact same car weighs more than the same model stat shown on MBUSA.

Same car but different weight? Why? It's because MBUSA and MB world wide measures their own weight of the car independently with different specifications under different conditions.

My examples earlier (links on second page of this thread)

MBUSA C32 weight = 1,605kg (3,531 pounds)
MB world wide C32 weight = 1,635kg (3,597 pounds)

MBUSA W208 CLK55 weight = 1,580kg (3,485 pounds)
MB world wide W208 CLK55 weight = 1,620kg (3,564 pounds)

MBUSA SLK32 weight = 1,460kg (3,220 pounds)
MB world wide SLK32 weight = 1,495 (3,289 pounds)

MB world wide states that the new W209 CLK55 weighs in at 1715kg (3,773 pounds). Wait a few month for the W209 CLK55 stats to appear on MBUSA, and I can safely say that the kerb weight for the car would be less than 3,773 pounds due to difference in weight measurement.

Thus before kerb weight stat on W209 CLK55 appears on MBUSA, we can only refer to the difference between the two CLKs using MB world wide's stat since both are given (3,773 vs 3,564 pounds). I am only trying to compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges, not the other way around

-G'day-

Well, after the dust has settled...

I bet the new CLK55 will be slightly faster in the 1/4 mile. The weight/power ratio is about the same, but the newer model has Speedshift. I dunno...pointless argument until the car ACTUALLY arrives.