CLK63 Vs. CLK55
06-08-2007, 02:12 AM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
06-08-2007, 02:17 AM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS63 Silver/charcoal, RRS S/C stornoway grey/ebony
not really,,, from mbusa site:
Engine AMG-built 5,439-cc SOHC 24-valve 90° V-8. High-pressure die-cast alloy cylinder block, alloy heads.
Acceleration1 0-60 mph in 5.0 seconds
Engine AMG-built 5,439-cc SOHC 24-valve 90° V-8. High-pressure die-cast alloy cylinder block, alloy heads.
Acceleration1 0-60 mph in 5.0 seconds
06-08-2007, 02:19 AM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Dam the CLK 63 is serious! Looks like a nice improvement. Great track car
Ok sorry this is an unfair comparison. My apologies to the CLK owners I was not aware the 55 engine was not super charged.
Ok sorry this is an unfair comparison. My apologies to the CLK owners I was not aware the 55 engine was not super charged.
06-08-2007, 10:33 AM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Trending Topics
06-11-2007, 03:18 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yeah yeah, thats what they all say...LOL just messin'.
Yeah, stock 55 isn't even worth comparing to a stock 63. The new CLK550 is around even with the CLK55. Unfortunately, there is no CLK63 coupe in the US but if there was the gap between the CLK55 and CLK63 would be even wider.
06-11-2007, 04:38 PM
#9
Yeah yeah, thats what they all say...LOL just messin'.
Yeah, stock 55 isn't even worth comparing to a stock 63. The new CLK550 is around even with the CLK55. Unfortunately, there is no CLK63 coupe in the US but if there was the gap between the CLK55 and CLK63 would be even wider.
Ted
06-11-2007, 07:11 PM
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
You wont have to read this twice, or do any detailed research.
It may shock you somewhat
I agree with you 100% and wonder.........
WTF were they thinking?
06-11-2007, 07:27 PM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
they number crunched
And forgot to add all of us that would have bought a CLK63 COUPE. Of course I wish it weight a lot less. Jesus!
06-11-2007, 07:50 PM
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
06-16-2007, 08:37 AM
#13
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
06-16-2007, 09:56 AM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
06-16-2007, 05:11 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
06-16-2007, 07:13 PM
#16
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 clk55
even considering as underrated as these cars are i would still think the clk63 convertible can beat the clk55 coupe...my 03 clk55 with ~2 gallons of gas in the tank and the tire pressure lowered a bit got me an average of 4.7 sec to 60, but i couldnt get in to the 12's. 
best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.
stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.
i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.
best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.
i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.
06-17-2007, 10:01 AM
#17
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 clk55 amg
Pazuzzu. how on earth do you get 4.7 secs to 60mph. what sort of launch technique do you use? I am in the UK, have the same car as you and from a standing start with ESP off and in S mode with a hard launch can only average about 5.3/5.5 secs with 99 octane fuel.
06-17-2007, 01:55 PM
#18
even considering as underrated as these cars are i would still think the clk63 convertible can beat the clk55 coupe...my 03 clk55 with ~2 gallons of gas in the tank and the tire pressure lowered a bit got me an average of 4.7 sec to 60, but i couldnt get in to the 12's. best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.
stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.
i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.
best was 13.0. but i'm your average schmo at the track.stock clk63s i think are hammering mid 12's with a trap of like 114-116mph? pretty good gain on the clk55.
i'm still pissed they arent releasing clk63 coupes in the US. that ****ing blows...i was all set to get one. now i'm lost as to what to get next.
Ted
06-18-2007, 06:52 AM
#19
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 clk55
Pazuzzu. how on earth do you get 4.7 secs to 60mph.
let's see....drop the tire pressure, i have new tires- just michellin pilot sports, very little gas in the car, ESP off, smoke the tires, smooth rolling foot motion, i use sport mode too, no paddle shifters....it's a 2003. K&N airfilter. that's with 93 octane gas...the track isnt used much since it's private so it's usually pretty dry, not a lot of rubber/oil/water burn buildup at the line. i drive like a ****ing maniac on the way to the track to make sure s-mode is as aggressive as possible.
i havent had much trouble getting into the fours...i was pissed that car and driver got 4.5sec in their review. i cant get that...
Last edited by pazuzzu; 06-18-2007 at 06:56 AM.
