charger71

Hi All,

I am trying to determine how to visually differentiate a CLK 63 cabriolet from a CLK 550.

Does the 550 have the dual outlet exhaust as well?

The CLK 63 runs a 12.5 quarter mile correct? What does the CLK 550 run?

I never noticed these cars before, but ran into one late last night. I was on a back highway, pretty empty stopped at a light, It turned green and a convertible CLK creeps up next to me and floors it. As the road was empty, I thought I would pass him with ease.. well, he put a car length on me and I didnt pass him until 120, and finally had a decent lead by 145.. He passed me and gave me the thumbs up, but I didnt get to talk to him or see more than the dual tips and CLK and swore I saw a "3".

My car is an 03 cobra convertible that at last count put down 450hp and 479ft/lbs, so I'm assuming this was the 63?

Either way.. beautiful car and awesome performance. any more info you guys can provide would be great.

Thanks! :-)

Holson

A stock CLK63's exhaust note is a lot louder & meaner than the 550, other than that.. 2-tone AMG wheels, more aggressive front spoiler and.. that's kinda it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzJEFy72rKo - that's a coupe so it's got 4 exhaust tips.

The dual exhaust on the CLK63 convertible looks just like the CLK550's...

I'd imagine the CLK550 probably does the 1/4 mile in about 13.5 secs (??)

If it could run a supercharged Cobra, it was probably a 63!

Welcome!

SoCalCLK

The price. And the badges.

Stiggs

CLK63 is only a cabriolet here in the states. No coupe offered except in Europe.

michaelnovikov

So there is no true worth in getting a CLK 63 vs CLK 550. I'm contemplating on moving to a high model from my 350 (instead of trying to tune it).

ashutt

Here are some basic specs for your comparison:

2003 Corbra Mustang Specifications:
The Roots-type supercharger and water-to-air intercooler to the Cobra's 4.6-liter, DOHC 4-valve V-8 engine bumps output to 390 horsepower with 390 foot-pounds of torque.
Curb weight: Coupe: 3,375 lb (1,531 kg) Convertible: 3,565 lb

Mercedes Benz CLK 63 AMG Specifications:
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 481 bhp @ 6800 rpm and Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 464.7lb-ft @ 5000 rpm.
Curb weight: 3869 lbs

If it was me, I would have stopped at 100 mph as that would have been sufficient to prove a point. No telling what the other person's intent was but German cars are generally get faster at the top end due to configuration for high speed driving.

elijah

You U.S. spec guys are so unlucky!! I'm so glad to be living in Europe lol...

elijah

That race must have had some effect on you to register on our forum and speak on it. No matter what the reason is, Welcome to mbworld.org

Honestly it couldve been a 550 or 63 AMG who knows. A whole lot of W209s are modified some way somehow so it could've been either or!

FatTony001

Look for the side vent of the front bumper to see if it's a 63
or the brakes...

ecampbell

The Black Series produces around 420 BHP so I seriously doubt the 63 AMG produces almost 60 BHP more...perhaps you mean gross HP??

JDB

The horsepower figure for the CLK63 Black Series, per the official Mercedes-AMG website

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/#/clk63-information

Their statement reads as follows:

"The coupe . . . is powered by powered by an AMG 6.3 Liter (sic) V-8 with its performance boosted to 373 kW (507 hp) and 630 Newton meters of torque."

JDB

ecampbell

Which is gross HP not RWHP. The question I guess should be how much does the regular CLK AMG 63 make at the wheels.

ashutt

We have lost the non-member who originally posted this thread. This thread has not included the Black Series in numbers reported nor has it specified the year of the CLK63. Nevertheless, here is what edmunds.com reported for the 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLK63 AMG Convertible:

Horsepower: 475 hp @ 6800 rpm
Torque: 465 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm
Curb weight: 3960 lbs.

The numbers above do not reflect power to the wheels as that is not how such numbers are normally reported. You need a dyno to really determine that number. I don't own a CLK63 so an actual owner can provide their input.

ecampbell

Again, I mearly tried to point out you said BHP when that was not accurate....

lsboogy

Drag Times and race-cars dot net both put my RWHP at about 315 - stock CLK55 - I think the AMG cars have pretty conservative ratings.

BTW - the calculator on race car is backed pretty well by my 'street" mustang - my trap speeds almost mirror what comes out, and I have had the car on a rear wheel dyno on several occasions. My ET's are limited by my driving ability - trap is just how far you can push the pedal.

betrezra

I've read stock W209 CLK55 RWHP @ +/-300 with 20% DT Loss.
They run 13.1 - 13.3 in the 1/4 mile regularly stock.

The W209 with 6.2 Liter (non BS) runs high 12's on street tires from what I gather.
But prob a tune and tires away from low 12's?

beachbenz63

Those numbers mirror the AMG "official" numbers, which are notoriously conservative, the CLK63A (cab.) was only produced for the US in '07 & '08 (presumably with the same specs).
Besides the rediculously incredible exhaust note, the AMG from the ground up design of the M156 engine makes this car amazing.

ecampbell

Agreed....with the stage 1 weistec SC installedvmy car was making 550 at the wheels. The stage 2 install is almost done so we should be looking at low 11's even with me driving

kbahl21

550 will run a 12.9(coupe),13.2(cab).

KENNY94945

Visual diff FTW: Brake rotors/ caliper.

lsboogy

The 3760 lb cab would need about 330 RWHP to run a 13.2, and a 3720 lb couple would need 345 to run a 12.9.

Marcus has the specs up for these cars (marcusfitzhugh dot com), and I trust his stuff. My car weighs 300lb less than a 550, and has 10 less hp, so it should be a bit faster. If these numbers are correct, you have a very stout motor in your car.

Most reports are they do 60 in just over 5.1 seconds, which would not correspond to a 12 second car with decent traction. The CLK55 ran it in 4.9 on the same spec pages.

betrezra

kblah is referring to real world figures.

The wgt/hp calculators are just estimates..... you have to take into account the sweet tq of these beasts as well which I'm sure the calculators don't.