Hey, for those of you who saw my last post (debating between CLK430 and CLK55), I am still doing research on switching to a luxury sports car. The CLK will be the "project." I understand the CLK is a fairly heavy car.

How well can I expect these boats to handle? I love flying around turns and having fun on back roads. Am I buying the wrong car? I am used to driving little rusty Japanese cars, 300zx, Acura Integra, etc. Looking to "level up" lol

Thank you.

 

On the Japanese sports car front, I used to have an Rx7. On the German sports car side I used to own a Porsche. Although I liked the interior layout, I never cared for the zx so this may sound biased. The 300zx was a GT. It handled like a GT and didn't stand up against either the 911 or Rx7 on a road course. The CLK430 is also a GT and weighs about the same as a 300zx. The CLK55 weighs 120 pounds more than the 430. There is no comparison when it comes to braking or acceleration. The CLK will simply out accelerate and late brake the zx into submission. As for lateral grip, much of what a person likes or dislikes is dependent on skill and technique. I will say the CLK coupe is predictable -it telegraphs what's happening. No one buys a zx for steering feel, so they couldn't possibly be disappointed with a CLK. The CLK is a very well sorted GT. I recommend you test drive a CLK to determine if it is what you want in a car.

I never took the driving characteristics of FWD Hondas Nissans or Toyotas seriously in comparison to true sports cars or GTs, so someone else will have to comment on the acura.

 

I'll leave the "boat" reference alone, except to suggest maybe not the best reference to go with when seeking advice from the community of "boat" drivers, just saying.
Former Celica GT owner here. The effortless acceleration just puts stupid grins on your face. The ease that ti cruises at 80+, keeps the stupid grin there and the knowledge that you are just scratching the surface when you accelerate from 80+ cements the grin permanently to your face. For me the area for improvement is in cornering. Take your time and sort through adjusting steering elements and suspension components.

 

You won't be disappointed with either V8 CLK. I would say the extra power with the 55 will ensure that the Benz you get is quicker than any stock Z you might have driven. If you are used to a well kept Twin Turbo 300ZX, the AMG is the only way to go.
Since it is a GT, it will not turn in or handle as sharply as a properly setup Integra. You won't mind as it makes nearly triple the power and can induce lovely oversteer!

 

I didn't want to come down too hard on the ZX, but . . . . . . . . the non-turbo 300ZX may outrun a CLK320. Thats a "maybe". A CLK430 will pull away from one like it was a school bus. In a 55, a person could start the "race" from park, put it in drive, and still beat ZX by some distance.

As for the twin turbo, it doesn't matter how many times Nissan said the words "awesome" in their 1990 ad campaign, a CLK430 will show that car tail lights as well. The ZX was a great replacement for the z31, but that was 25 years ago. Unless the ZX was made by Kawasaki, it's not outruning a V8 powered CLK. Lastly, I was wrong. The ZX weighs more than a CLK.

 

ouch, I always had those pegged in the mid-5's to sixty.

 

The 300Z was not the fastest of the Japanese sports cars but had class in its time.

I had a 1974 Merc Capri Ford powered made in Germany that left them in the WTF zone on the interstate.

The early L-6 twin carb 240/ 260 was the best choice for modification in that era.

I can not speak for front wheel drive cars or Acura either but if you like them go for EVO or WRX all wheel drive. Different class but very tunable and fun.

Gator

 

Im aware the CLK55 is faster, and doesn't need a turbo (or two) to be faster. I wanted to know how these handled around turns. I called them "boats" because of their weight. lol. I worried they would not handle super well around turns. But you guys are right, oversteer and a lot of torque will make me plenty happy, every single time.


What coilover options are available for the CLK55? I searched and a bunch of stuff came up. But in my opinion there's no way a $900 D2 coilover kit can be better in any way than the AMG stock suspension.

Thoughts?

 

Would it be possible to not use the term boats? Especially if the 300ZX TT is the comparo car. Of course, maybe I'm being too thin skinned. Maybe I should lighten up and widen the spectrum a little. Lets try that. Did you know the NA W210 E55 WAGON is faster to 60 than a 300ZX turbo? Not by a little, but 5.9 to 62 MPH (100 KPH) versus 6.5 to 60 MPH for the z and its turbos.

Sticking to specifics and using the same magazine, R&T, for comparisons, the CLK55 brakes from sixty to zero in 117 feet. That’s two feet shorter than a 2004 911 GT3. The zxTT takes 124 feet. 124 feet is further than an W220 S-Class. If driving in circles is important, the zx with its HICAS rear steer was able to generate 0.87g on a 300 foot skidpad. A four door W210 E55 generates higher numbers. So does a W220 S-Class. I do regret not having the W210 E55 wagon numbers. That would really make the comparison fun. The CLK55? 0.91g. Using a 700 foot slalom, the CLK55 made a 62.8 MPH pass. Unfortunately, the zx runs a 63. Damn, I was hoping to crush the z32 across the board. And the S-Class is little slower too. But don't drag race the NA S-55. It's faster to 60 and in the quarter. I guess a W220 S-Class is what you'd call a "speed boat"

 

Lol you guys are funny. 3800lbs = boat. Also, I agree. The stock z32 specs aren't impressive. Which has nothing to do with my all stock z31. Its been a project I've been restoring. I want to trade it in for a speed boat

Now can someone please answer my question about the suspension upgrades? Looking to lower it 2-3 inches. Thanks

 

 

Kinda like I said, the "boat" reference.... not working for you so much. Sticking with it...might not be the way to go.

 

Didn't mean to offend anyone. These are expensive cars and they're worth the money. But come on, take a joke! That's all I meant by it.

 

Here's the problem, not too many CLK owners will find that to be overly funny. But I can tell you this, if you’ve got a z31 300ZX, and you think that car handles well, you’ll love ANY CLK you bump in to.

For those that don't know, the z31 300ZX turbo ran a mid-15 second quarter mile at 85 MPH and found its way around a skidpad at 77 g - true specs from the Car and Driver October 84 issue. The non-turbo was even slower.


Yes, that is a z31 300ZX and that dash came with that car. I originally thought the OP had a z32 ZX. He has the other one.

As for coilovers, you might want to Google the W208’s double-wishbone front suspension and take a close look at the photos. The "ah-ha!" moment should arrive shortly thereafter

 

The 55 is more like 3500# but no matter. H and R springs are a good choice and help handling. If you go too low it will mess up the handling. Add some koni sport shocks and your in business. The 55 has stiff sway bars stock. The 55 all ready has a bunch of negative camber, and lowering adds more. Plan on the adjustable bolts to help take some back out. They have pretty good balance. I think you will find they handle quite well.

 

Not sure wher you are getting your stats from.

My 2002 CLK55 weighed in at the track with 1/2 tank of fuel and driver (200lbs) at an actual weight of 3650.

The real weight is closer to 3450ish...

For giggles, why not check out the lap times at the ring for the w208/55? IIRC, the CLK ran an 8:29 while the E46 M3 was 8:22.

How "good" of a driver are you?

 

I really need to put my track videos up as most ppl don't fully appreciate w208 amg!

my car is relatively lightly modded and I can keep up with newer corvette gs (436hp and 3300lbs) and 996 turbo. might be driver bit I'm relatively new to game so doubt it.

Overall car is great around track, def doesn't give you same feedback as e46 m3 (stupid steering box) but it handle extremely. It has massive amount of torque, great brakes, and well balanced and stiff chassis. not saying its best track car out there, but for great gt car it performs well on track.

 

Thank you for the response, Quant. This is what I was looking for all along.

I'm an amateur driver. My only experience is on back roads. Friends of mine have gone to autocross events and track days multiple times. Ive gone to spectate a few times, and at the strip too. One day I will go with them once I'm familiar with the CLK I plan to buy.

I didn't buy the Z31 as a race car. (lol) Just an older style that kind of fell into my hands. The only thing superior about it is rust. Tons of it. Its a nice car to take the roof off (T-tops) and ride around town. Looking to move onto something bigger and better and the CLK series seems to be where I'm headed.

Just wanted to make sure I was buying a car that at --least-- had decent handling.

 

I've driven a lotus else at Buttonwillow. .on top of racing amateur on an r6, and r1 for a few seasons .So I'm use to pretty amazing handling. You will enjoy the handling of this car..I've yet to run it on the track..but the handling(stock) in the hairpins in the mountains really surprised me. And the vs is pretty beast

 

Weight means something, but the numbers are way out of skew on most forums. It’s not what the car weighs, it’s how the weight is carried. For example, he’s 250 pounds, but no one calls LeBron James fat. I weigh a lot less than 250 pounds, but if I did, people could call me fat because of how I would carry those extra 70 pounds. See the difference?

The W208 CLK55 weighs in at 3485. The CLK430 is 3365. That’s not a guess or an estimate. I have the press kits (which differs from the "sales pamphlet"). Here are some other correct numbers – Porsche has a wonder car that they won’t let me anywhere near called the 918. In the quarter, the 918 runs 10’s. Not high-10s, mid-10s, or low 10s. 10 flat at 140+ MPH. The 918 weighs over 3800 pounds. Fat? Hardly.

Some may say the 918 isn’t a real car. It’s an $800K gas/electric Franken-Le Mans hybrid. OK, but it still weighs 3800 pounds. Rather than belabor that, lets move to another example, how about a BMW 335? It weighs 3600. That’s the coupe, not the cab. What about the M3 coupe? 3600. One car I considered when I got my CLK was an E39 M5 – four thousand pounds without a driver. The new M5 weighs more. The Audi TT is a light car, right? If so, the CLK55 is too because they’re within 125 pounds of each other. BTW, so is the 1-series BMW - yes, within 125 pounds of a CLK55.

The new F-Type Jag? Great car. It’s 3800 to 4000 pounds, depending on whether it’s a 6 or an 8. Aston Martin doesn’t build anything that weighs less than 3600 pounds. Ferrari? The 458 weighs in somewhere between the CLK430 and the CLK55. Lambo? Across the board, they’re heavier than Ferraris. 911’s are light. The new one. The old 997 weighs the same as a CLK430. A 997 S weighs more than a CLK55. The point is, like LBJ, none of those cars are considered slow, ponderous boats because, well, they’re not.

 

Point taken. I'm aware of the speed and brute acceleration of these cars, I just didn't expect much from the handling department. Looks like I'll be impressed on the test drive.

 

Great explanation Marcus! I just learned a few things about weight myself.

 

since we are talking about handling, what do you guys think about steering? i was going to get rack installed but now leaning towards modifying the box.

 

I'm probably an oddball....but I happen to like the recirculating ball steering. It's what I had in my W124s and W123.

That said, I just completed a 1000 mile trip in my W212 and it absolutely blows my older E-class cars away in comfort, safety, convenience and fuel economy.