MikeRPA

is that because their convertble and its winter ? or what is it ? i mean its a sick looking car , is it slow ? or whats the problem i havnt seen any 1 on the forum with one , lol just curios.

WhiteTrash

i drove one. great car.
seriously overpriced though, in my opinion
also drove the CLK550 cab, which I will probably get.
i personally can't justify the $25,000 difference to get the clk63.

x-tian-230k

Because its 100k for a CLK.... I would much rather purchase a E63 or M6...

stefi

That's the point!!!!!

x-tian-230k

So your saying MB over priced the CLK63 so that consumers would purchase an E63 instead?

BrabusTrojanSL

I would never drop that much on a CLK, I have a 55, and I traded my older 55 for it, and it still didn't come near to 100k. That is surely a rip, and I don't think there is much of a difference speed wise between a 55 and 63 in this case, the convertible being slower. Hard top 55 is the way to go

blackbenzz

Sorry but the CLK63 is much faster than a N/A CLK55

BrabusTrojanSL

How much faster? is .1 or .2 seconds worth 30k? Lol. And besides, I am pretty sure the coupe 55 is equal to the convertible 63.

blackbenzz

I assume you're talking about 0-60mph. The 63 has ~100hp advantage over the 55. Is it worth 30k? Thats a subjective question. Personally, no. But if I had money to waste: Yes.

ashutt

I believe the 6.3 CLK was tested in the 0-60 around 4.5 or less. A W208 CLK55 0-60 time is 4.9. Realistically, that is 0.4 to 0.5 second difference in the 0-60, which is significant to say the least. However, for the price they are asking, I agree there are other appealing choices one might consider. And, I would only consider a coupe for performance- IMHO.

clkwork

I'm really happy with my CLK 500 in the power department, but if I had the money to burn I'd probably jump on one.

The CLK 63 coupe is going to rock.

stefi

Yes! For me CLK will never be a 100k caterogy car!

63 amg

I personally love mine! Fot that kind of power in a 4 seater convertible, which is what I want, it is great.

Yeah, they are pricey, but the M6 is about 15K + more and if you want a high performance 4 seater convertible I would definately pick the CLK63 over the M6, IMO.

Anyway they are fast and a grat looking car. That is my two cents.

rsr911

I over looked 3 of them in my local Benz dealer parking lot. For $96,000 they had better have WOW factor and they just don't. Plus I am a coupe fan. No cabrios please.
Sorry.

Jaki

I personally don't think its worth that much money, and I hate softtop convertibles. Yes it has a 100 extra hp compared to the 55, but if I was spending a $100K on a performance car, I would get something much faster and more upgradeable performance wise. Now if they had a coupe, or a hardtop convertible CLK, and I had loads of extra money laying around, then I might consider the CLK63 (very unlikely though, I still think there's better options in that price range).

However, I do respect the CLK63 for what it is, and do think its a great car.

rlee02135

$100K and no Bi-Xenons

Tuskir

CLK63 is actually faster than E63, so its on a whole different level than CLK55. Car and Driver got 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, 0-100 in 9.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph. For comparison, Car and Driver tested the E63 AMG at 0-100 in 9.7 seconds and 12.6 @ 115mph. But like others said, paying 100k for an CLK is pretty crazy, it doesn't look like its worth 100k period... they could've at least gave it 4 exhausts!

DemonaL

I think the only 63 I would buy is the ML63 Slight chance for the E63

MikeRPA

omg omg the color is sick , awesome looking whip , i dont like the rims tho ,
and yea Mercedes is so retarted for not having a coupe in the US

MrBenz55

Who wouldnt !

Germancar1

I think the "it is overpriced" theory has it! Yeah 90K is too much for a CLK of any type and its starting to get a little dated. It isn't of the same new found quality as the CLS, S, CL and even facelifted E/SL models. I think the CLK63 is a stunning car though, the numbers C&D got out of it are ridiculous, but even they said that it didn't strike them as a 90K car.

M

Chappy

I'm a coupe guy...I'd score a pre-owned CL55 for that price before getting the CLK63 cab.

Highend

no offense but maybe because the CLK is seen as a chick car, and especially a convertible. I know myself and others see the C, SLK, & CLK as a very feminine models. Yea I would drive a CLK63 but I would never buy a clk63 nor a c55 or slk55. For the money (100K) you could get soooooo much more, 100k is a Used 360!!!! 100K is a E55, E63, S55, CL55, M5, M3, M6 (with like 2k mi).

But thats just me, i would never spend 100k on a car either. I only buy used, i rather spend 40-50k and get a used 03/04 CL55 or E55. ****, 1-2 years from now 40-50k will be a an 06 CLS55.

Eurosport

if you need a convertible, why spend that much on clk63, when you can get a barely used SL55, a lot sexier car, and still have money left over?

david_101

having driven the CLK63 coupe quite a bit at speed and in slalom, i can say that the rear tires don't stick to the pavement so well, the rear end wiggles too much and undermines the front end.

i believe there'll be a brawny DTM-looking CLK headed to the US within a model year. THAT car should be awesome.