AMG: CLK55 vs. C32
11-27-2001, 11:03 PM
#2
Super Member
CLK Vs C32
That's funny you started this thread as I just drove a CLK55 extensively today.
The CLK has the old Mercedes interior. It seems very classy but less functional than the C class interior.
The CLK55 does NOT have a one touch sunroof close. Here is a list of the things that the C32 has and the CLK55 lacks. If you don't care about these things than scroll down to the performance comparison.
The CLK55 Lacks
Motorized steering wheel
Steering wheel adjustment up and down. It only has in and out (telescoping)
One touch sunroof close
Automatic lights
Drilled rotors
The CLK55 has heavy doors. I like that. They feel VERY solid and firm.
Better seats in the CLK55 IMHO
There is more but I don't want to bore you....
The CLK55 is lacking MANY of the fine computer adjustments the C32 has. For instance, the ability to turn the fog lights on when unlocking the doors. This is a cool option. It helps you find your car fast in a big parking lot. It also looks cool.
Other things missing are the updated radio and climate control functions.
Performance and driving observations
The dash is better looking in the CLK55. It is wood trimmed near the windshield like my C43 had.
The windshield is smaller in the CLK so it is harder to see out of the car. I don't have the feeling of looking down at the road like in the C32. The hood on the CLK55 doesn't slope like the C32 Does.
I like the feeling of being "right there". The CLK doesn't give me that sensation.
The V8 sound is amazing if not a little bit muted for my tastes. Ahhh that V8 sound brings back memories. The throttle response is instantaneous at an idle. Just tap the throttle on the CLK and Vrooom vrooom. Instant gratification. The C32 hesitates. This really doesn't effect the performance of the engine, but I like to rev the engine sometimes
Driving the CLK55 felt almost identical to my old C43. It was VERY solid and quiet. The suspension felt similar to the C32 during normal driving. Stiff but forgiving.
The steering feel was heavier than in the C32. It felt more numb. This is due to the fact that the CLK does not have rack and pinion steering. I didn't get a chance to push the car to it's limits so I can't comment on all out handling differences.
Here is the crazy part. My C32 feels significantly faster than the CLK55 did. Maybe this is due to the smooth delivery of the V8. My C32 pulls about as hard as the CLK55 did up to 4500rpms. BUT....then the C32 goes into overdrive where the CLK55 kept the same push through the rpms.
I could go on forever..but in the end, the CLK55 is a beautiful car. It is class all the way. If all I were looking for was status and women then I would buy this car. If I was looking for all out performance and usability the C32 wins hands down.
The C32 feels faster and more nimble. I feel MUCH more confident driving it then the CLK55.
The ONLY thing I absolutely LOVED about the CLK55 that the C32 lacks was it's contour seats.( air adjustable) Ohhhhh yes.
:o
The CLK has the old Mercedes interior. It seems very classy but less functional than the C class interior.
The CLK55 does NOT have a one touch sunroof close. Here is a list of the things that the C32 has and the CLK55 lacks. If you don't care about these things than scroll down to the performance comparison.
The CLK55 Lacks
Motorized steering wheel
Steering wheel adjustment up and down. It only has in and out (telescoping)
One touch sunroof close
Automatic lights
Drilled rotors
The CLK55 has heavy doors. I like that. They feel VERY solid and firm.
Better seats in the CLK55 IMHO
There is more but I don't want to bore you....
The CLK55 is lacking MANY of the fine computer adjustments the C32 has. For instance, the ability to turn the fog lights on when unlocking the doors. This is a cool option. It helps you find your car fast in a big parking lot. It also looks cool.
Other things missing are the updated radio and climate control functions.
Performance and driving observations
The dash is better looking in the CLK55. It is wood trimmed near the windshield like my C43 had.
The windshield is smaller in the CLK so it is harder to see out of the car. I don't have the feeling of looking down at the road like in the C32. The hood on the CLK55 doesn't slope like the C32 Does.
I like the feeling of being "right there". The CLK doesn't give me that sensation.
The V8 sound is amazing if not a little bit muted for my tastes. Ahhh that V8 sound brings back memories. The throttle response is instantaneous at an idle. Just tap the throttle on the CLK and Vrooom vrooom. Instant gratification. The C32 hesitates. This really doesn't effect the performance of the engine, but I like to rev the engine sometimes
Driving the CLK55 felt almost identical to my old C43. It was VERY solid and quiet. The suspension felt similar to the C32 during normal driving. Stiff but forgiving.
The steering feel was heavier than in the C32. It felt more numb. This is due to the fact that the CLK does not have rack and pinion steering. I didn't get a chance to push the car to it's limits so I can't comment on all out handling differences.
Here is the crazy part. My C32 feels significantly faster than the CLK55 did. Maybe this is due to the smooth delivery of the V8. My C32 pulls about as hard as the CLK55 did up to 4500rpms. BUT....then the C32 goes into overdrive where the CLK55 kept the same push through the rpms.
I could go on forever..but in the end, the CLK55 is a beautiful car. It is class all the way. If all I were looking for was status and women then I would buy this car. If I was looking for all out performance and usability the C32 wins hands down.
The C32 feels faster and more nimble. I feel MUCH more confident driving it then the CLK55.
The ONLY thing I absolutely LOVED about the CLK55 that the C32 lacks was it's contour seats.( air adjustable) Ohhhhh yes.
:o
Last edited by FLSL55; 11-27-2001 at 11:09 PM.
11-27-2001, 11:20 PM
#3
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome Write up. Appreciate the time you put into that.
It was a good read.... I hope to see more soon.
What about.... Styling... exclusiveness... value
which has it? which doesn't
It was a good read.... I hope to see more soon.
What about.... Styling... exclusiveness... value
which has it? which doesn't
11-27-2001, 11:22 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
2 Posts
W212 E63, Audi R8 4.2, Panamera S, Range Rover Sport GT
you can't go wrong with either car. however, you might want to consider that the CLK will be replaced next year with a new body style, while the C32 has many more years ahead of it. The interior in the C32 is very nice. I guess it just depends if you'd rather have a 4 door or a 2 door.
11-27-2001, 11:23 PM
#5
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too like the interior of the C32.. It's more updated..
I do like the seats in the CLK
But when It comes to body styling.... I'm leaning towards the CLK
nevertheless... i love the styling on the C class still.. the new body.. that is. Especially the C32amg
I do like the seats in the CLK
But when It comes to body styling.... I'm leaning towards the CLK
nevertheless... i love the styling on the C class still.. the new body.. that is. Especially the C32amg
Last edited by esoin; 11-27-2001 at 11:28 PM.
11-28-2001, 12:01 AM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
I had a choice and never even considered the C32.
The 2002 CLK55 wins hands down for me,- and I gladly paid $20,000.- more for the CLK55, which fits me - 6'2" - like a glove.
The 2002 CLK55 wins hands down for me,- and I gladly paid $20,000.- more for the CLK55, which fits me - 6'2" - like a glove.
Trending Topics
11-28-2001, 10:17 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Center of Universe
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLK55, Mini S
C32AMG...no way.
Sorry, but there is no way I would even consider moving down to a C32. Why would I want something the size of a Honda that is only distinct when you gun the engine? If I want something in that price range, I will get a M3.
Nice, unbiased screed/comparision though...yeah. But didn't you forget to mention some of the CLK55 standard equipment that is optional on the C32, like headlight clearners, ski bag, fully adjustable seats. You see, the CLK55 is a premium car, stocked with every option except the phone, CD and navigation, the C32 is a bottom of the line special edition that you still have to add options get it up to the luxury standards of its largers siblings.
If the C32AMG is what you can afford, great. Nice car. But winding up your V6 with a super charger does not make it a smooth powerful V8, it makes it a fast V6. If I want four doors, I will buy an E55...a comparable car in every way.
Nice, unbiased screed/comparision though...yeah. But didn't you forget to mention some of the CLK55 standard equipment that is optional on the C32, like headlight clearners, ski bag, fully adjustable seats. You see, the CLK55 is a premium car, stocked with every option except the phone, CD and navigation, the C32 is a bottom of the line special edition that you still have to add options get it up to the luxury standards of its largers siblings.
If the C32AMG is what you can afford, great. Nice car. But winding up your V6 with a super charger does not make it a smooth powerful V8, it makes it a fast V6. If I want four doors, I will buy an E55...a comparable car in every way.
11-28-2001, 10:35 AM
#10
Super Member
I think it is funny that many people put down the new C and applaud the CLK.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
11-28-2001, 11:47 AM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
2 Posts
W212 E63, Audi R8 4.2, Panamera S, Range Rover Sport GT
generally, people are going to be biased towards the car that they own...it is sometimes difficult to get unbiased feedback
i guess it depends on your needs. the c class may be to small for some, some people prefer a V6 or V8, or whatever...the bottom line is, the clk55, e55, c32, and c36/c43 are all great cars. i guess it just depends on which one suits your personal preference for style, performance, and utility. you can't go wrong with any of these in your driveway.
If I were in your shoes, I would probably get an 2001 E55 (although it was not on the list). Out of the three cars I have driven, this one is my favorite. It's fast, handles well, has a nice comfortable interior, and lots of room to spare. But then again, I guess it depends on your family size and/or needs. I don't have kids (yet) but still enjoy the versatility of a 4 door. I guess I would prefer a CLK430 cab (the CLK55 cab is too expensive!!!!) from this model range. I love the 202 and 203 C-Class, but as a 4-door, it's a little small for me. If I wasn't planning a family soon, I would definitely consider this one.
There's my two cents. Hope no one is offended.
i guess it depends on your needs. the c class may be to small for some, some people prefer a V6 or V8, or whatever...the bottom line is, the clk55, e55, c32, and c36/c43 are all great cars. i guess it just depends on which one suits your personal preference for style, performance, and utility. you can't go wrong with any of these in your driveway.
If I were in your shoes, I would probably get an 2001 E55 (although it was not on the list). Out of the three cars I have driven, this one is my favorite. It's fast, handles well, has a nice comfortable interior, and lots of room to spare. But then again, I guess it depends on your family size and/or needs. I don't have kids (yet) but still enjoy the versatility of a 4 door. I guess I would prefer a CLK430 cab (the CLK55 cab is too expensive!!!!) from this model range. I love the 202 and 203 C-Class, but as a 4-door, it's a little small for me. If I wasn't planning a family soon, I would definitely consider this one.
There's my two cents. Hope no one is offended.
11-28-2001, 11:57 AM
#12
Out Of Control!
You can't really go wrong with both cars. I mean they're great. One thing you might want to consider is the room it has. Even thought the CLK is a great car there's hardly any room on the backseat while the C32 is more roomier. But like what i said you can't go wrong with either car!
11-29-2001, 12:49 AM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2002 CLK 55 AMG Coupe ;)
Observation:
CLK's steering wheel telescopes in and out only, no up or down movement.
Same is true for the new & improved 2002 911 Porsche: Steering wheel telescopes only!
Same is true for the new & improved 2002 911 Porsche: Steering wheel telescopes only!
08-03-2004, 03:45 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
I dunno about everyone else here but my steering wheel goes up, down, in and out.
Also I have the auto function on my light switch. And I can make my foglights turn on when its dark out and I unlock or lock the car...you just have to have the light switch in the "auto" position.
Also I have the auto function on my light switch. And I can make my foglights turn on when its dark out and I unlock or lock the car...you just have to have the light switch in the "auto" position.
08-03-2004, 05:09 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stiggs
I dunno about everyone else here but my steering wheel goes up, down, in and out.
Also I have the auto function on my light switch. And I can make my foglights turn on when its dark out and I unlock or lock the car...you just have to have the light switch in the "auto" position.
Also I have the auto function on my light switch. And I can make my foglights turn on when its dark out and I unlock or lock the car...you just have to have the light switch in the "auto" position.
08-03-2004, 05:17 PM
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
This post was started in 2001...so, it must be in reference to W208 CLK55....
....which doesn't have tilt wheel, only telescopic. Peculiarity of Mercedes: they seem to incorporate certain features ten years after everyone eles does.
08-03-2004, 08:47 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i drive an ///M6
v8 torque, lOOks, and for some reason, no one seems to even know what the clk55 is (exclusivity). shoot, when i got mine, the 1st thing someone said to me was "that belongs in a rap video with a hot chick in a bikini washing it." 
the c32 looks very similar to a regular c class, but there are much less clk's (320's,430's, 500's, &55's) where i'm from. performance is pretty dead even, though. flip a coin. 
the c32 looks very similar to a regular c class, but there are much less clk's (320's,430's, 500's, &55's) where i'm from. performance is pretty dead even, though. flip a coin.
08-03-2004, 10:39 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB & BMW
Great opinions.
I used to have a 2003 C32 and now have a 2004 CLK55 AMG and both
were great cars. I have to admit that the C32 was more nimble and felt faster
due to the lighter weight..? But the CLK hauls.. its very quick and proves it has the power with the V8. Both are different cars and like everyone said before, it all depends on your own taste and needs.
I enjoyed both cars. Cant go wrong with an AMG, or furthermore- Mercedes!
I used to have a 2003 C32 and now have a 2004 CLK55 AMG and both
were great cars. I have to admit that the C32 was more nimble and felt faster
due to the lighter weight..? But the CLK hauls.. its very quick and proves it has the power with the V8. Both are different cars and like everyone said before, it all depends on your own taste and needs.
I enjoyed both cars. Cant go wrong with an AMG, or furthermore- Mercedes!
08-08-2004, 12:49 AM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
Originally Posted by C32AMG
I think it is funny that many people put down the new C and applaud the CLK.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
C32AMG
You are definitely making some good points here.
I am waiting for my C55 in two weeks time and my case is a good example.
Here in HK the C55 comes to a price tag of 110,000 and 135,000 for the CLK55. These tags are both big fortunes for a salary taking guy.
The choice and decision logic was not entirely money. Yes, for my case, I can probably still be able to make up the difference to get a CLK55 as the bank loan is big for 135,000 so as for 110,000. Yes, the CLK55's look wins the ladies than the C55. And then, if that was the main reason, I could have easily achieved this goal with a cheaper new CLK320 cab or a equivalent priced CLK500 cab
USD 135,000 is over 1 million HKD Not to say about the wife, and my boss would think I am crazy while he still uses a Japanese saloon. So I guess I rather feel that way: get the 'cheapest AMG' with two more doors.
cnt
08-08-2004, 06:11 PM
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Well, since we're replying to old threads...
If indeed the new C-class were MUCH more of a performance car than the 208 CLK55, we would expect to see this in the track numbers for the C32 vs. the CLK55. Both are rated at about the same horsepower, same size tires, same drivetrain, gearing (slight advantage to C32), and are about the same weight.
Unfortunately, the track numbers don't bear this out...
Nuerburgring lap times:
W208 CLK55: 8.29 min.
C32: 8.37 min.
Hockenheim lap times:
W208 CLK55: 1.18.2 min.
C32: 1.20.6 min.
Handling CLK55 C32
Slalom Course (36m) 119 Km/h 118 Km/h
Evasive Course (110m) 124 Km/h 132 Km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=30%26Car2=42
New C55 supposedly does get much better track numbers than C32, though...still, the huge gap between C32 and CLK55 doesn't indicate that your C32 is a MUCH better performance car than the 208 CLK55...quite the opposite, I'm afraid. :p :p
Unfortunately, the track numbers don't bear this out...
Nuerburgring lap times:
W208 CLK55: 8.29 min.
C32: 8.37 min.
Hockenheim lap times:
W208 CLK55: 1.18.2 min.
C32: 1.20.6 min.
Handling CLK55 C32
Slalom Course (36m) 119 Km/h 118 Km/h
Evasive Course (110m) 124 Km/h 132 Km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=30%26Car2=42
New C55 supposedly does get much better track numbers than C32, though...still, the huge gap between C32 and CLK55 doesn't indicate that your C32 is a MUCH better performance car than the 208 CLK55...quite the opposite, I'm afraid. :p :p
Originally Posted by C32AMG
I think it is funny that many people put down the new C and applaud the CLK.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
They took the old W202 C class and plopped the CLK's body on it.
That is why it drives identical to my past C43 AMG.
The only reason people think the CLK is better than the C class is it's looks and price tag.
In actuality, the current CLK is MUCH less of a performance car than the W203 C class.
Don't get me wrong, I do love the CLK's looks. I think it is more of an image car than the C32. That does not make it a better car.
By the way. I sold my Porsche 996 for this car. I wanted something nimble and tossable. The E55 though a great car in every aspect, didn't give me this feeling.
Not all people who drive C32's can't afford more expensive cars. That is just a generalization on your part.
