Improviz

....here are results:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2611a.shtml

0-60 mph: 4.9 seconds
1/4 Mile: 13.2 seconds @ 112 mph
60-0 mph: 126 feet
EPA: 13 mpg city/ 20 mpg highway
Mixed loop: 17 mpg

Trap is a bit off what I'd be expecting for an approximate 4,000 pound curb weight and 475 rated horsepower. I'd be expecting 113 or so, and this is assuming that MB was actually honest with their detuned rating for this car. If not, it'd be more like 115.

They also tested an ML63:
0-60 mph: 5.3 seconds
1/4 Mile: 13.6 seconds @ 108 mph
60-0 mph: 125 feet
EPA: 12 mpg city/ 16 mpg highway
Mixed loop: 12 mpg

For this thing to trap 108, it's putting out about 518 crank hp. Definitely seems like that CLK63 wasn't up to snuff.

Germancar1

Yeah I expected a little better out of the CLK too. The CLK550 can probably get close to that 0-60 number, but MW isn't a good source for acceleration numbers. They're almost always slower than the mainstream mags.

M

ItalianStallion

Those numbers definitely sound wa off. I was expecting a 0-60 under 4.5 seconds and a 1/4 mile in the 12's. I'd expect the CLK550 to conservatively hit those numbers.

rsr911

My 2002 CLK55 is looking better and better.

Improviz

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2247.shtml

They didn't do so well in it either:
0-60 mph 4.4 seconds
1/4 mile 12.7 seconds @ 114 mph
60-0 mph 126 feet

The 0-60 is pretty good, but the 1/4 time and trap are a few tenths and mph off of what others have gotten respectively....so maybe the CLK63 will fare better in the mainstream mags after all...if they ever bother to test the damn thing.

I mean, is this just poor Mercedes marketing, or what? Every new BMW to come down the pike gets tested, but it seems that Mercedes doesn't get near the press. Wtf is up here??

There are no tests in the US mags of the S65. There is one of the CL65. There is one of the CL55. None of the CLK63.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of tests of BMW: 325, 330, 335, 525, 530, 545, 550, 645, 650, 745, 750, all of the X series, all of the Z series....

If I were the head of Mercedes, I'd fire all of my marketing people and hire some who knew how to market cars.

Sorry for hijacking my own thread, but this is getting ridiculous.

FishtailnZ

If the car was still fairly new, then break-in will still free up a few more ponies. And to be fair a 112mph trap speed indicates the car is capable of a lot better than a 13.2 ET. A 112 trap speed will give an easy 12 second slip, if launched/driven properly.

Improviz

Yup, and it should definitely get a better 0-60 time than that! Sounds like to me they weren't hooking up worth a flip; with a 4.9 second 0-60 and a 113 trap, they obviously lost some time in the 60'.

FishtailnZ

Exactly, even a half-assed 2.0 sixty foot (I'd bet they got around a 2.4 on that 13.2 run) on an otherwise decent pass would give a 12.6 with that trap speed in that car IMO.

Improviz

Current issue just arrived, and it has a short take test of the car.

Results:
0-60: 4.2 seconds
5-60 rolling start: 4.4 seconds
0-100: 9.5 seconds
0-150: 22.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 12.5 @ 116

These are in line with the times C&D got for the E55, in fact up high the CLK is substantially faster, probably thanks to gearing:
0 to 60: 4.3 seconds
0 to 100: 9.9
0 to 150: 24.5
1/4 mile: 12.5 seconds at 116

Germancar1

Give it time, Mercedes just put a bunch of new cars on the ground for 2007 and the E550, SL550, S550, S600 have been tested by various mags so far. The S550 just spanked the LS460L in C&D. In the next few months you'll see the ML63, CLK63, CLS63, S65, CL550 etc. Mercedes only has so many cars in their press fleets and if you really look at all the mainstream mags every month there is a Mercedes in them. Honestly look at the last 4-5 months of C&D, MT, R&T and even Automobile, there is alway something Mercedes in them. Mercedes gets a lot more press than you've stated here, a lot more.

You also have to remember that every Mercedes except the C-Class got new or revised engines for 07, everything from the CLK550 to S65. That is a lot of product to cover.

M

Germancar1

I spoke to soon, see Improviz there you go. Those are some good numbers too.

M

Germancar1

What did they say about the handling?

M

MikeRPA

lol 12.5 still bad , i ramamber clk55's stock doing 12.9 , is 63 that heavy cuz its convertable or what is it ?

Germancar1

Likely due to weight and drag from the convertible top. I think 4.2 secs is off the charts for a 4-seat convertible. I think some of you guys are way too hung up on a few tenths of a seond here and there.

M

Chappy

The braking would be my biggest concern! The 209 CLK55 (coupe) stopped in 117 feet, according to Autoweek - a tie with the W203 C32.

The W208 has a 60-0 distance of only 112ft - same at the Boxster!

Improviz

Could be the tires...if the tires aren't as sticky, that would make a difference...also, don't forget: its weight is nearly 400 pounds north of the W208 coupe!

Chappy

I must admit....the new 63s are intoxicating....spent time recently with an E63 and the acceleration above 80 is freaking amazing. The CLK63 Black Series is my current 'Dream Car'

rsr911

Dream on brother - We might, mayby, get AMG to bring one over for our next get together....but I doubt we will ever get them imported over here

-O