rjw0501

Be easy on me...I'm new to the Mercedes line....

Question is.... do you really get that much more car by purchasing a 55, rather than a 500?

I'm in the market, but can't justify the price difference. aside fron the 60 more h/p, and the trimmed out interior, it seems lke the same car... I mean, come on, dosn't the 500 even come with the same exact wheels and tires?

any feedback would be appreciated.

thanks

moa4r

not the exact same, 55's wheels are a little different...
in addition to the engine and interior, you are also paying for upgraded suspension, brakes, exhaust, a bunch of other options and a small lip spoiler on the rear deck...
not worth it IMO (but really nice if you can afford it), since the 500 is already an nicely equipped car.

good luck

MBZman

You need to drive both and then make your decision. I have had the pleasure of driving both the 500 & 55 and there is a difference, whether it's enough of a difference is up to individual preference.

J Lucas

Not trying to be rude but If you can't justify the price then the reason might be your wallet rather than the vehicle features. Get the 500....

Spotty-Dog

Whether you think the price is justified is a personal opinion and, in my mind, reflects on whether you are comfortable in settling for less than the best. There is no doubt the 500 is a great car - but the 55 is better

lucycat

To repeat much of the above, depends on why you want the car, how you will drive it, how unimportant the $$$ are, how much you crave the "AMG" badge, etc.
I faced the same dilemma, and several folks advised me to get the 500, and use the $20k difference for all kinds of other things.
Despite their advice, I wanted the "ultimate" so I got the 55 Cab. In terms of the way I drive, the 320 might have been adequate, but the 500 definitely would have been.
No regrets, but the 500 would have served me just as well, and I could have bought a new iPod every week for a year.
If you are already wondering if it's worth it, it probably isn't. As someone once told me, if you have to ask, the answer is "No".

J Lucas

Not to mention the larger depreciation y ou are going to experience. If you really have it then buy it, but if your going to have to scrape or dig much deeper into your pockets, ITS NOT WORTH IT, its a car/depreciating asset you will never stop losing money....

:isclaimer::None of the above applies if you have your own business and can write off the depreciation as an expense.

MB AMG

I've never heard the new 55's exhaust note but the 500's exhaust rumble is great!

Improviz

was too steep. Used prices seem to be bearing this out: the differential between the two is more like $7-10K used. $20 grand for 50-60 horsepower, a few minor addons, and some suspension bits is really quite steep...

But the car is fantastic, no doubt about it. However, the 500 is closer in acceleration to the 55 than the 430 was, making the difference even more difficult to justify (imo), so in all likelihood as someone pointed out you will experience higher depreciation.

Solution, if you're patient, is to wait a year or so and pick up a used one (thoroughly inspected, of course!). Especially in the current market, depreciation will be steep first year, and you'd be able to pick one up with under 10K miles for pretty close to what a brand new 500 would cost you.

Or, just splurge and get the 55! You're the ultimate best judge of how much it's worth to you: drive both of 'em and see. Good luck, whatever you decide!

MBZman

I'm not seeing this $20k price difference. Last time I went to the dealer the CLK 500 was $61k, the 55 $73k. That's a $12k difference.

AMG BRED

If 60 horses doesn't mean anything to you, I would get the 500, and save the rest for Mods.

Frisco

It'd be alot non-decision if the CLK55 was differentiated better, specifically if it came in at 469 or 493hp like some of the other 55s. But at 360, I found it very hard to justify and went with the 500. If me, the decision would be between the CLK500 and the E55.

Improviz

Edmunds' price info for 2004 CLK500: MSRP = $52,800

Edmunds' price info for 2004 CLK55: MSRP = $69,900

So, actual difference in MSRP is $17,100. Not exactly $20K, but well above $12K. In this price range, three grand shouldn't be a make-it-or-break-it deal.

My point was that the difference between the two is, imo, excessive, particularly when you consider that the two cars' body panels are identical, save for slightly different front/rear fascia. Contrast this with the M3 versus 330Ci: the two share no exterior body panels, are dramatically different in appearance, and the underpinnings of the M3 are much more significantly upgraded compared to the CLK55 vs. CLK500; furthermore, the horsepower differential is 110 horsepower between those two cars compared to 60 for the CLK55/CLK500, yet the price differential of the M3 and 330Ci is $10,300 ($47,100 - $36,800).

I love the car, but I think that it is priced too high in comparison. If they'd made it a true 400 hp and done some more suspension upgrades, it would have been a heckuva lot more worth the difference imo.

lucycat

<< I'm not seeing this $20k price difference. Last time I went to the dealer the CLK 500 was $61k, the 55 $73k. That's a $12k difference >>

Forget about your dealer and Edmunds. Price from MB is:
500 coupe = $54,170
55 coupe = $70,620

500 Cab = $61,620
55 Cab = $80,220

So, with the Cabriolet, you see the differential pretty close to the $20K people are using.

LOH

No offense meant, but if you have to ask how to justify the price difference, the AMG is not for you. You'll be perfectly happy with the 500. You get 80ish% of the AMG for 70% of the price. For me it wasn't a hard decision. Either you want the AMG or you don't and either you can afford it or you can't.

What was important for me when purchasing this car was above all the performance. The V8 power and sound is absolutely intoxicating (to me) and even more so with the AMG. I appreciate the upgraded suspension and prefer the subtle cosmetic difference. I appreciate the nappa leather more than I thought I would. The AMG brand name is kinda cool if you're into that. But if not, as others have pointed out, if you want the performance of the 55 and don't care if it's an AMG or not, the more economical way is with a 500+modifications. You can have potential warranty issues, whether or not the dealer is right (and they're usually not) it can be a headache with a modified car.

clkguy

the argument is a contraversial one but the statement, buy the 500 an put the mods on is a valid one. if you consider that the true performance upgrades delete the stuff that makes the difference, as in upgrades,suspension is firmer but not by any means high performance,sway bar are slightly bigger, no means to lower or adjust ride heigth, brakes are nothing more than 500 stuff with a different color caliper and drilled disc's, wheels are always upgraded to 18 or 19", skid pad data is same on both models, take the 0-60 data and that can be attributed the 3.06 diff. ratio, this is not criticism but true comparison, take a 500 and put 10k in the right mods and its later time to the 55, the 2.82 ratio of the 500 provides a harder pull from 70 mph to the redline top speed of both at 155, but with a chip the 500 keeps pulling, being this a amg based model forum i know i will catch some hell, but once again only proving facts that i have acquired thru 16 years of mb dealership employment and first hand results
PS this was only a dollar for dollar comparison for retail pricing,i concur that a modified clk55 vs modified clk500 results could be different

RJC

The clk 55 comes with quite a few options as standard equipment vs the 500 and some equipment that not available on the 500. I drove both before I bought my 500. To me the $ difference (even with the extra stnd equpiment) was not worth it, although i enjoy hearing and seeing one speed by. I also did not care for the aluminum trim, it looked to plasticky. I just read that wood is an option but burl or popular only, i would have liked the black maple.

My 500 pulls pretty hard but as I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to see the stats of a 500 with the 3.06 of the 55 or the 3.27 of the 320 rear axle ratios.

Predator

hi

Spotty-Dog

I haven't actually seen a new 55 but mine did come with the charcoal bird's-eye maple, full leather dash, etc. Sure you can modify a 500 to be almost the same thing - but it will not have the cachet that comes with having a true AMG model. This has been watered down somewhat in the past few years with the increased production from AMG but to me, having one of only 25 or so cars in my country has a snob appeal that was worth a nine month wait and having to write a cheque large enough to buy a house in some parts of the country!:p

RJC

Nice...I guess with the designo you get black birds eye maple. How about some pics in and out? I agree I would not try to modify the car to be an amg wanna be.

I used to only drive Porsche 911 turbo's but I guess I've really mellowed over the last several years and 302 hp and 339 lb ft of torque in a four seat 2 door luxo GT are good enough. Jeez, I don't even break triple digits anymore...what the hell has happened to me

Predator

get the CLK55amg. I dont think i have seen one on the road as of yet. Very unique car to have.

Spotty-Dog

Does it have anything to do with age?

RJC

Ooops I see, you've got a w208 and a very nice one. Now it makes sense you've got black bird's eye, thought you had a 209.

Yeah age (I'm not that old) seems to mellow me. I used to drive very very fast and my turbo's were all modified to be scary fast. I also don't need the hassels from the "friendly" traffic cops and from my insurance company anymore. I still do appreciate fast cars though, I was at the Ferrari Cavallino a few weeks ago at the Breakers in Palm Beach...I was in heaven

Spotty-Dog

Did you drive your 500 to the Ferrari event? I bet they were all drooling!

clkguy

depends on if you buy for performance or "snob appeal" personally i have yet to see the snob appeal as a performance enhancement, the object of enhancements was to make it superior not almost the same thing