2K6E55

Take a look at the article from edmunds.com regarding the BENZ CLK63 AMG...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=110099

AMG_55

there is also an article in autocar. 0-60 4.6... i think its mercedes time, not the mags

cantdriveonly55

how do yall feel about the comments on the steering?
other than that,

ItalianStallion

I think that Mercedes steering characteristics have always been criticized by magazines. They almost always say Mercedes steering feels dead in comparison to BMW's.

neilbo75

As I already posted somewhere before, I have no problem with the 208 55's steering. It may be bit numb and has a traditional luxury car feel if you just want to cruise, but it's damn easy to point and shoot. It lets you concentrate on the road and the g-forces.

Kind of like the way a Colt 45 in the hand leaves you to concentrate on who's coming over the top of the trench ....

wnycec

4.6 sounds weak.... with that big of an engine and so small a car... why cant they crack into the 3 second range

scrapes55

Isn't current (w209) 55 couple listed at 4.9 secs? I have even seen mag's listing around 4.7 not sure how true.

4.6 secs sounds horrible.

AMG_55

traction

realistically it should be/will be 4.2-4.4

ive seen 4.5 for a 209 55 cpe in car and driver or automobile (cant remember)

Stiggs

You are correct. It was Car and Driver May 2004 issue. I know becasue I kept it.
They tested a 2004 CLK55 against a BMW645ci and a Maserati Cambiocorsa Coupe.
The Mercedes placed first and they gave it a 0-60 time of 4.5sec. The fastest I've ever seen published. I don't believe it for a minute.
The 1/4 mile was 13.1sec@109mph.

The numbers I also loved were the 30-50mph = 2.5sec
and the 50-70mph = 2.9sec


doesn't seem like real world numbers...but they are nice in print for bragging rights.

scrapes55

Well those numbers depend sooo much on where and when the test was done.

With perfect cold temperature and a warm tires may be it is possible but who knows.

c55m8o

Not for nuth'n but, it's not untrue criticism.... this reminds me of my test drive of a W211 E55 with the thought of ordering the Wagon version... When turning onto the onramp to the highway -- between the car's weight and steering's [un]responsiveness -- I almost ended up on the grass after the turn, because it just "didn't turn" anything like I expected. I decided to stick with my old W202 and mod it [big time] instead...

I'm loving the widebody look of the CLK63 pace car; if that were to hit the streets, it's almost the only car [whisper:RS4] that's got me questioning my decision about sticking with my car and the money I sank into it ... but if the CLK63 drives anything like I found the E55 to, and it sounds like it does, I'll at least be thankful in knowing I saved a lot of money mod'n my old steed.

It's a real shame IMNSHO ... Ship the car with the pacecar bodywork, make it turn as if it had the speedybenz suspension and give it a great manual tranni... It would go down in history and be worshipped for generations. Now, it'll be a "me too" player for a while, close to the top of the heap in some respects, but not where it belongs across the board.

c55m8o

weight, and final gear ratio. ...it's made for the autobahn.

neilbo75

Good point. In Germany when traffic permits people cruise their AMGs at 150 mph. They then slow down to 100 when having to pass an ordinary car. So the Germans sweat about how short a time it takes to accelerate from 100 back up to 150 mph -- a real world criterion for them but one which few Americans or other Europeans get to care about very much.

Motortrend ran a comparion test a few months ago between a 55 CLS AMG and it's domestic competitor, a blown Cadillac "V" sedan. The Caddy could stay within an eyelash in the lower acceleration rungs but on the higher end it was left wheezing in the dust.

Car and Driver got a 4.9 second 0-60 mph run when it tested the 208 CLK. Most other sources were in the low fives. Of course there are a lot variables, but it amazes me that Car and Driver could get 4.5 seconds out of a 209 CLK. Afterall, isn't that the same car, only a bit bigger and heavier, but with the same engine? How could it be 10 percent faster ? Did Car and Driver put pine tar on its drag strip?

4.6 seconds for the 63 CLK strikes me as a marked improvement. It's probably a factory number set up conservatively so as to justify future model facelifts. Recall that the 208 was rated by MB at 5.4 0-100 km and the 209 at 5.2. How did the bigger, heavier car manage to improve? True, rated horsepower was bumped up a bit with the unveiling of the 209. But how? Torque didn't budge. Study an AMG catalog and it becomes obvious that MB sets its HP values more in function of pricing points than a dyno.

At any rate, the real means to getting sub-4 second times is weight reduction and traction improvement, in that order. The new Corvette Z06 is a supercar performer because GM kept it on a strict diet and fitted it out with huge tires.

c55m8o

I believe it's because the W208 55 had 1:2.82 final gear ratio, where the W209 has 1:3.06. Plus, MB+AMG may have worked the tranni shifts + torque converter + clutch paks to be more effective ... and I think the W209's clutch paks lock up in the lowest gear ratios, where the W208 is [I think] 3rd gear and above. ...and MB may have made the exhaust more efficient too [is the W209 full dual? I know the W208 like W210 and W202 AMG goes into a single exit].

PC Valkyrie

Just to clarify some things here about acceleration times.

Mercedes AMG is claiming 0-100km/h (0-62mph) in 4.6 seconds for the new CLK63 AMG coupe. For the CLK63 AMG cabrio, they are claiming 4.7 seconds for the run to 100km/h (62mph).

2 important points.
1) If you guys are worrying about tenths of a seconds, it is important to distinguish between 0-100km/h vs 0-60mph. The run to 60mph often is 0.2-0.3 seconds faster than the run to 100km/h.

2) Acceleration numbers from Mercedes can sometimes be conservative, with many magazines getting faster times when they perform independent tests.

In other words, I expect that the CLK63 will have a 0-60mph time of 4.3-4.4 seconds.

AMG_55

the 209 clk55 is much better when it comes to steering and roadfeel (still not much) than the 211 e55.

my mom has a e55 and it corners like ****, the grip is there but the steering is very numb and kinda slow and its very hard to tell when its going to let go.

thats the reason i passed on the 476hp (it was very tempting), i enjoy driving and didnt like the idea of air suspension and 4000+lbs. i also prefer n/a engines

Stiggs

I totally agree with this. They are being conservative.

KompressorKev

little nice fact

amg's powertrain director is Bernd Ramler, who oversaw the production of the CLK63's motor. he designed the Porsche Carrera GT v10 engine when he was with porsche power unit and motorsport. not making any connections, but, the motor is a quality one for sure