C63 is the Same as the CLK63 but better?
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: Fargo, North Dakota
2012 Cayenne Turbo
That CLK63 Black weight is from Mercedes-AMG site as a loaded weight. They have the C63s loaded as 2170 KG.
Try getting the basics right.
BTW, the cars aren't as similiar as you seem to think.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 21
CLK63 Black Series
I just did a close review of both cars..
Track width, the CLK is a few mm wider and lower, but barely.. Just has wider body panel look
As for Brakes, Both are the same.
As for tunable power output, Both are the same
As for suspension, Both are basically the same
C63 you get 4 doors, CLK63 you get 2
CLK 63 has the regular 7 Speed AMG
C63 has the 7 Speed AMG PLUS (downshift blipping etc..)
Heres another catch.
The CLK 63 Black Series weighs 4300lbs
The C63 weighs about 3700lbs
Thats about a 600 lbs difference.. Where the hell does all that extra weight in the Black Series come from? Yes it has tranny cooler and a nice diffuser, but otherwise... I dont get it.
C63 is also a newer body style and yet because of the Black Series name, Merc charges close to double the price..
you pay a premium, but for actual performance and or tunable performance.. well you can do the same and the 600lbs light c63 does also have that as an advantage..
Im not so impressed anymore
Do your own comparisons here
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/C63/
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/CLK_Black_Series/
Track width, the CLK is a few mm wider and lower, but barely.. Just has wider body panel look
As for Brakes, Both are the same.
As for tunable power output, Both are the same
As for suspension, Both are basically the same
C63 you get 4 doors, CLK63 you get 2
CLK 63 has the regular 7 Speed AMG
C63 has the 7 Speed AMG PLUS (downshift blipping etc..)
Heres another catch.
The CLK 63 Black Series weighs 4300lbs
The C63 weighs about 3700lbs
Thats about a 600 lbs difference.. Where the hell does all that extra weight in the Black Series come from? Yes it has tranny cooler and a nice diffuser, but otherwise... I dont get it.
C63 is also a newer body style and yet because of the Black Series name, Merc charges close to double the price..
you pay a premium, but for actual performance and or tunable performance.. well you can do the same and the 600lbs light c63 does also have that as an advantage..
Im not so impressed anymore
Do your own comparisons here
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/C63/
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/CLK_Black_Series/
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
CLK 63 AMG Black
You are a funny man. I don't think you do a lot of reading when you look at those websites (the ones you posted) otherwise you would have noticed a few things. You say brakes are the same. 1st, the brake disc on the BS is a two piece in the front. One piece rotor on C63. 2nd, the brakes are bigger on the BS because C63 comes standard with 18" wheels. You cannot fit 18" wheels on a BS. Won't clear the brakes. You say suspension is the same. Where did you read that? BS comes with coilovers, C63 with struts. I don't have to tell you, but there is a big difference. You say BS weighs 4300 pounds. Where did you come up with that number? If you look at AMG's website, you will see the weight for the BS is listed as 1760 kilos. That includes a driver of 68 kilos, luggage of 7 kilos and almost a full tank of gas. Now when you translate that number to pounds, it equals 3872 pounds. C63 in comparison, 3806 pounds. Those are just a few of the inaccuracies in your comments. You say you are not impressed anymore, well, should I say I am not impressed with your reading skills?
The primary reason 18" wheels won't fit is interference with a steering knuckle. This is according to Tire Rack that carefully measured my car with optical lasers to see if I could fit snow tires on 18 inch rims.
Aside from the coilovers and totally adjustable suspension, handling is significantly impacted by the locking differential. This is what creates the "steer from the rear" feeling of the car.
I wasn't under the impression that the C63 had coolers for the engine oil, rear differential, and the power steering.
Am I the only one that thinks the C63 bodywork is unattractive? AS
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 3
From: CT
2008 CLK 63 Black Series, 2013 G63, 2014 RS5 Coupe, 2013 JKUR 10A
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
C43, SLK32, CLK63 Black Series
I still have no idea why someone who wants a back seat and an SMG/manual transmission would even bother looking at a Black Series. For the price of the Black Series there other cars to choose from, the M6 for example.
It is kind of like saying I want an AWD convertible and then looking an E63.
It is kind of like saying I want an AWD convertible and then looking an E63.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
From: Central New Jersey
CLK63 Black, E350 Wagon, Supercharged Denali, Lotus Elise, Tesla Model 3 Dual-Motor.
Agree with everything, but would add the following:
The primary reason 18" wheels won't fit is interference with a steering knuckle. This is according to Tire Rack that carefully measured my car with optical lasers to see if I could fit snow tires on 18 inch rims.
Aside from the coilovers and totally adjustable suspension, handling is significantly impacted by the locking differential. This is what creates the "steer from the rear" feeling of the car.
I wasn't under the impression that the C63 had coolers for the engine oil, rear differential, and the power steering.
Am I the only one that thinks the C63 bodywork is unattractive? AS
The primary reason 18" wheels won't fit is interference with a steering knuckle. This is according to Tire Rack that carefully measured my car with optical lasers to see if I could fit snow tires on 18 inch rims.
Aside from the coilovers and totally adjustable suspension, handling is significantly impacted by the locking differential. This is what creates the "steer from the rear" feeling of the car.
I wasn't under the impression that the C63 had coolers for the engine oil, rear differential, and the power steering.
Am I the only one that thinks the C63 bodywork is unattractive? AS
It's 2008 C Klasse has given up that claim and taken on the look of the Nippon vehicles.
In particular the new "C" looks like an ACURA from the rear quarter.
And even the side view has a touch of TL genes also.
"Not that there is anything wrong with that."
MachC5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 55
From: Naperville, IL/Chicago
2008 CLK63 Black Series 2012 C63 Black Series 2014 SLS Black Series
I still have no idea why someone who wants a back seat and an SMG/manual transmission would even bother looking at a Black Series. For the price of the Black Series there other cars to choose from, the M6 for example.
It is kind of like saying I want an AWD convertible and then looking an E63.
It is kind of like saying I want an AWD convertible and then looking an E63.
"Relax, all right? My old man is a television repair man, he's got this ultimate set of tools! I can fix it!"- Jeff Spicoli
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 55
From: Naperville, IL/Chicago
2008 CLK63 Black Series 2012 C63 Black Series 2014 SLS Black Series
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: Fargo, North Dakota
2012 Cayenne Turbo
The C class and the Chrysler Sebring look way too similiar.
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/sebring/
http://www.mbusa.com/models/gallery/...e=c_class_main
Last edited by chiphomme; Apr 27, 2008 at 06:09 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
CLK 63 AMG Black
The C class and the Chrysler Sebring look way too similiar.
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/sebring/
http://www.mbusa.com/models/gallery/...e=c_class_main
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/sebring/
http://www.mbusa.com/models/gallery/...e=c_class_main
That may seem shallow, so maybe in this respect, I am. But, I do feel the BS is a very striking car. If it didn't perform, I wouldn't have purchased a BS, but in fact it does, and looks great. AS
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Likes: 19
Ok guys, Im not jet fighter pilot, but the Instructor status is just a way to say that ive done plenty of track events with the Porsche and BMW clubs to rank up in the "I know what im doing" category.
I realize a lot of my comparisons were off, but if you do take a look at the magazine articles I listed, they do say what I wrote.. Im happy though to have learned here that there are bigger differences than I thought.
However,
At this point, I think purchasing a C63, and spending maybe 25k on it with aftermarket suspension and brake and engine performance upgrades will yield you close to if not better results than a stock CLK63 BS With an extra seat in the back.
Overall, my choice would still be a CLK BS, because they just have the prestige and the quality and technically tested stamp behind it, not to mention its ultra beautiful looks. However, having a look at the current price tag for that upgraded comparison, I have chosen an M6 for now. An M6 with modification will give me an excellent daily driver, fully transmission control, great weekend track car and enough room to carry some ladies around for the evening.
I think in 2 years, ill make the change over to the CLK63 BS Benz when the price has taken its expected depreciation and I can justify the value for what im getting.. Then again, I may also just go for a 911 TT, modify that and be able to use it for the winter and by then the 2 little back seats will be perfect for retrofitting child seats lol..
Cheers
I realize a lot of my comparisons were off, but if you do take a look at the magazine articles I listed, they do say what I wrote.. Im happy though to have learned here that there are bigger differences than I thought.
However,
At this point, I think purchasing a C63, and spending maybe 25k on it with aftermarket suspension and brake and engine performance upgrades will yield you close to if not better results than a stock CLK63 BS With an extra seat in the back.
Overall, my choice would still be a CLK BS, because they just have the prestige and the quality and technically tested stamp behind it, not to mention its ultra beautiful looks. However, having a look at the current price tag for that upgraded comparison, I have chosen an M6 for now. An M6 with modification will give me an excellent daily driver, fully transmission control, great weekend track car and enough room to carry some ladies around for the evening.
I think in 2 years, ill make the change over to the CLK63 BS Benz when the price has taken its expected depreciation and I can justify the value for what im getting.. Then again, I may also just go for a 911 TT, modify that and be able to use it for the winter and by then the 2 little back seats will be perfect for retrofitting child seats lol..
Cheers
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,436
Likes: 6
300ce
...........the CLK63 is a special series that has more to do with driving dynamics and pure acceleration. This is not a mystery to those that still question its price and value relative to others in the aMG line up. No need to pound this oint, it is not something we dont understand. The issue is that even when you factor that point into consideration, and add the fact that the newer AMG cars like the C63 are becoming more and more dynamic at half the cost it makes the CLK63 BS more difficult to justify for many. The C63 is a four doe sedan while the CLK63 BS is two door sports car without a back seat. I hope to god that the two door sts car withu a more nimble around the track, other wise the CLK63 BS owners will have the right to ask for their money back.
........If you compare the C63 to another four door sedan like the E63. You will see that the C63 clearly wins. For those that point out that the C63 is smaller than the E63.......wow! What a revelation. You sure did point out something we did not know. It is the C-class. It is smaller than the E-class. Like another forum member has stated, it will be like putting the V10 engine in the M3 and making the M3 faster and coner better than the M5 and hope that people will buy the M5 purely for its size. Unlike the E63, the C63 has rev matching down shift program which the CLK63 BS owbners are petitioning for and it has traction control that can be turned off completely. Both of these making for a more engaging driving experience for the enthusiast.
.............For the snobish growd, you can just hold your fire. Yes, I know that the C63 is still a C-class. If this is the criteria by which you spend your money, you won't have much of it left very soon.
Ted
........If you compare the C63 to another four door sedan like the E63. You will see that the C63 clearly wins. For those that point out that the C63 is smaller than the E63.......wow! What a revelation. You sure did point out something we did not know. It is the C-class. It is smaller than the E-class. Like another forum member has stated, it will be like putting the V10 engine in the M3 and making the M3 faster and coner better than the M5 and hope that people will buy the M5 purely for its size. Unlike the E63, the C63 has rev matching down shift program which the CLK63 BS owbners are petitioning for and it has traction control that can be turned off completely. Both of these making for a more engaging driving experience for the enthusiast.
.............For the snobish growd, you can just hold your fire. Yes, I know that the C63 is still a C-class. If this is the criteria by which you spend your money, you won't have much of it left very soon.
Ted
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,846
Likes: 291
From: Dallas TX
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Oh god Ted please. The E63 isn't going anywhere nor is it obsoleted by the C63. The E is larger, yes....but it also is more confortable, has a better ride and isn't supposed to be as sporty as the smaller C63. Your posts on how MB has just botched this and botched that are just ridiculous and they have no bearing in what people actually buy and do. The E63 will still have its appeal as will the C63. Some people don't want a smaller C and likewise some don't want the larger E it is as simple as that, well that in addition to the other differences each car bring to the table. The C is the superior sports sedan yes, the E is better at the luxury side of the equation. Obviously if one is buying an E, even an AMG model they're not going to be seeing decreasing radius corners like a C AMG buyer would.
M
M
Last edited by Germancar1; Apr 28, 2008 at 07:24 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
I think the main difference asthetically is of course just the look and styling differences. However, that being said, stick a set of coilovers on the c, some R compounds and ....well....
The only limitation I can see for the c is the lack of huge fenderwells to fit some serious rubber. As any AMG owner knows the biggest problem with these cars is putting enough rubber to the ground. With the CLK having presumably more room it should always be able to be faster all around.
What are the largest rims you can stick on the clk63bs? (F&R)
MB should have dropped the new tranny, and ceramic brakes in the BS -at least they're doing a remap for the downshifting blip- that is a slap in the face that the c has it and the black doesn't.
I think MB has somewhat shot themselves in the foot offerering the same motors in all lines. A while back, I was considering the e55 just for the engine. However after driving the e55 v. c55 they e was a pig on rollerskates and you can swap out coilovers on the c-etc. and 10k cheaper at the time. Now e63 v. c63? It's a no brainer. It's a shame the c has gotten so heavy though.
MB will just limit options (keyless go/panaromic roof) to the upper models to try and force you to buy the more expensive model that way.
The only limitation I can see for the c is the lack of huge fenderwells to fit some serious rubber. As any AMG owner knows the biggest problem with these cars is putting enough rubber to the ground. With the CLK having presumably more room it should always be able to be faster all around.
What are the largest rims you can stick on the clk63bs? (F&R)
MB should have dropped the new tranny, and ceramic brakes in the BS -at least they're doing a remap for the downshifting blip- that is a slap in the face that the c has it and the black doesn't.
I think MB has somewhat shot themselves in the foot offerering the same motors in all lines. A while back, I was considering the e55 just for the engine. However after driving the e55 v. c55 they e was a pig on rollerskates and you can swap out coilovers on the c-etc. and 10k cheaper at the time. Now e63 v. c63? It's a no brainer. It's a shame the c has gotten so heavy though.
MB will just limit options (keyless go/panaromic roof) to the upper models to try and force you to buy the more expensive model that way.
Last edited by spr; Apr 28, 2008 at 10:27 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
CLK 63 AMG Black
I think the main difference asthetically is of course just the look and styling differences. However, that being said, stick a set of coilovers on the c, some R compounds and ....well....
The only limitation I can see for the c is the lack of huge fenderwells to fit some serious rubber. As any AMG owner knows the biggest problem with these cars is putting enough rubber to the ground. With the CLK having presumably more room it should always be able to be faster all around.
What are the largest rims you can stick on the clk63bs? (F&R)
MB should have dropped the new tranny, and ceramic brakes in the BS -at least they're doing a remap for the downshifting blip- that is a slap in the face that the c has it and the black doesn't.
I think MB has somewhat shot themselves in the foot offerering the same motors in all lines. A while back, I was considering the e55 just for the engine. However after driving the e55 v. c55 they e was a pig on rollerskates and you can swap out coilovers on the c-etc. and 10k cheaper at the time. Now e63 v. c63? It's a no brainer. It's a shame the c has gotten so heavy though.
MB will just limit options (keyless go/panaromic roof) to the upper models to try and force you to buy the more expensive model that way.
The only limitation I can see for the c is the lack of huge fenderwells to fit some serious rubber. As any AMG owner knows the biggest problem with these cars is putting enough rubber to the ground. With the CLK having presumably more room it should always be able to be faster all around.
What are the largest rims you can stick on the clk63bs? (F&R)
MB should have dropped the new tranny, and ceramic brakes in the BS -at least they're doing a remap for the downshifting blip- that is a slap in the face that the c has it and the black doesn't.
I think MB has somewhat shot themselves in the foot offerering the same motors in all lines. A while back, I was considering the e55 just for the engine. However after driving the e55 v. c55 they e was a pig on rollerskates and you can swap out coilovers on the c-etc. and 10k cheaper at the time. Now e63 v. c63? It's a no brainer. It's a shame the c has gotten so heavy though.
MB will just limit options (keyless go/panaromic roof) to the upper models to try and force you to buy the more expensive model that way.
I have 4 cars with over 500hp, so I am certainly used to the results of more power and less weight. From my perspective, I don't think the BS needs any more power, and it carries the weight just fine. So, I don't think the common engine architecture is a problem.
Personally, I think the BS handles its weight better than a stock Porsche tt, and doesn't wash out the front end when it's doing it.
The E series is definitely better for taking business clients to dinner, or relaxed cruising. It just isn't as much fun for an enthusiast. Even if performance was indistinguishable for a C63, I would not be a customer, based on looks.
It is logical to sit out of the market in hopes of snagging one at C63 prices in a few years. AS
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
As for all the same engines, AMG have indeed made a big mistake. The M3 and M5 are simply not going to be cross shopped and offer different experiences with unique personalities. It was good for AMG to develop their first new engine but no one thought that the 6.2 would be their only engine.
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Gs 300, Rx 330
Even though it's a C class, I'm probably going to get one of these bad boys because of the way they look, it looks mean and sounds as loud as my G55!!!! And it has so much power!!!
That being said the C63 and the black series are two different cars period, you can't compare them!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=alexander stemer;2792788]Let me be the first to say that I don't want ceramic brakes. I'm not entering any 24 hour enduros, or even doing a 20 lap sprint race. I don't think I will fade the steel brakes, but if I do, I'll happily let them cool. What I really don't want to do is replace ceramic discs.
Personally, I think the BS handles its weight better than a stock Porsche tt, and doesn't wash out the front end when it's doing it.
Ceramic brakes are to reduce unsprung weight not fade. A well designed steel rotor and alum. hat works just fine. If you're getting fade - get brake cooling ducts, change pads, fluid, or driving style. I hear you with the Gen 1 P car cracking rotors, however they were replaced albeit bedrudgingly under warranty.
P TT's camber can be adjusted to not be so understeer happy quite easily and gt3 bars are cheap. Are there camber adjustments on the BS or are they B.S. like the other AMG's?? This is also a serious flaw in their designing.
Personally, I think the BS handles its weight better than a stock Porsche tt, and doesn't wash out the front end when it's doing it.
Ceramic brakes are to reduce unsprung weight not fade. A well designed steel rotor and alum. hat works just fine. If you're getting fade - get brake cooling ducts, change pads, fluid, or driving style. I hear you with the Gen 1 P car cracking rotors, however they were replaced albeit bedrudgingly under warranty.
P TT's camber can be adjusted to not be so understeer happy quite easily and gt3 bars are cheap. Are there camber adjustments on the BS or are they B.S. like the other AMG's?? This is also a serious flaw in their designing.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
CLK 63 AMG Black
[QUOTE=spr;2792888]
Your reply is valid but not relevant to me or my needs. I fully understand unsprung weight, and I would never endeavor to run an F1 or Indy car with excessive mass outside the spring towers(obviously, I will never run either of those car types). But, when we are talking about 3500+/- pound street cars, I'm not a good enough driver to feel or measure that difference in ceramic weights vs steel rotors. Doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it means that the theoretic ?.1 seconds difference in lap times is meaningless in a world of amateur drivers. What matters is stopping distance and fade, and here the ceramics don't add anything, at least to my driving.
As far as the Gen1 Porsche ceramics being the only ones impacted, my friend and neighbor with a 997GT3 would differ. He has just been hit with the 5 figure replacement bill for his ceramic rotors- he is converting to steel instead.
As far as the camber adjustment and GT3 rear bar, you are also correct. I have both on my 996ttX50. These make a significant difference. It still doesn't turn like a BS. You can see the difference in the first fast corner.
Camber adjustment is a nice feature, but the BS doesn't seem to need it, at least for my intended purpose. You are aware of the very high tire pressures recommended. The car does not roll the contact patch onto the shoulder.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a contest. I do think the BS is a unique vehicle, but maybe I'm getting too strident. AS
Let me be the first to say that I don't want ceramic brakes. I'm not entering any 24 hour enduros, or even doing a 20 lap sprint race. I don't think I will fade the steel brakes, but if I do, I'll happily let them cool. What I really don't want to do is replace ceramic discs.
Personally, I think the BS handles its weight better than a stock Porsche tt, and doesn't wash out the front end when it's doing it.
Ceramic brakes are to reduce unsprung weight not fade. A well designed steel rotor and alum. hat works just fine. If you're getting fade - get brake cooling ducts, change pads, fluid, or driving style. I hear you with the Gen 1 P car cracking rotors, however they were replaced albeit bedrudgingly under warranty.
P TT's camber can be adjusted to not be so understeer happy quite easily and gt3 bars are cheap. Are there camber adjustments on the BS or are they B.S. like the other AMG's?? This is also a serious flaw in their designing.
Personally, I think the BS handles its weight better than a stock Porsche tt, and doesn't wash out the front end when it's doing it.
Ceramic brakes are to reduce unsprung weight not fade. A well designed steel rotor and alum. hat works just fine. If you're getting fade - get brake cooling ducts, change pads, fluid, or driving style. I hear you with the Gen 1 P car cracking rotors, however they were replaced albeit bedrudgingly under warranty.
P TT's camber can be adjusted to not be so understeer happy quite easily and gt3 bars are cheap. Are there camber adjustments on the BS or are they B.S. like the other AMG's?? This is also a serious flaw in their designing.
As far as the Gen1 Porsche ceramics being the only ones impacted, my friend and neighbor with a 997GT3 would differ. He has just been hit with the 5 figure replacement bill for his ceramic rotors- he is converting to steel instead.
As far as the camber adjustment and GT3 rear bar, you are also correct. I have both on my 996ttX50. These make a significant difference. It still doesn't turn like a BS. You can see the difference in the first fast corner.
Camber adjustment is a nice feature, but the BS doesn't seem to need it, at least for my intended purpose. You are aware of the very high tire pressures recommended. The car does not roll the contact patch onto the shoulder.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a contest. I do think the BS is a unique vehicle, but maybe I'm getting too strident. AS
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Also, on an endurance race tires will go before ceramic brakes. And ceramics crack if touched by a tire iron at those temps.
[QUOTE=alexander stemer;2793311]
[QUOTE=alexander stemer;2793311]
Your reply is valid but not relevant to me or my needs. I fully understand unsprung weight, and I would never endeavor to run an F1 or Indy car with excessive mass outside the spring towers(obviously, I will never run either of those car types). But, when we are talking about 3500+/- pound street cars, I'm not a good enough driver to feel or measure that difference in ceramic weights vs steel rotors. Doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it means that the theoretic ?.1 seconds difference in lap times is meaningless in a world of amateur drivers. What matters is stopping distance and fade, and here the ceramics don't add anything, at least to my driving.
As far as the Gen1 Porsche ceramics being the only ones impacted, my friend and neighbor with a 997GT3 would differ. He has just been hit with the 5 figure replacement bill for his ceramic rotors- he is converting to steel instead.
As far as the camber adjustment and GT3 rear bar, you are also correct. I have both on my 996ttX50. These make a significant difference. It still doesn't turn like a BS. You can see the difference in the first fast corner.
Camber adjustment is a nice feature, but the BS doesn't seem to need it, at least for my intended purpose. You are aware of the very high tire pressures recommended. The car does not roll the contact patch onto the shoulder.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a contest. I do think the BS is a unique vehicle, but maybe I'm getting too strident. AS
As far as the Gen1 Porsche ceramics being the only ones impacted, my friend and neighbor with a 997GT3 would differ. He has just been hit with the 5 figure replacement bill for his ceramic rotors- he is converting to steel instead.
As far as the camber adjustment and GT3 rear bar, you are also correct. I have both on my 996ttX50. These make a significant difference. It still doesn't turn like a BS. You can see the difference in the first fast corner.
Camber adjustment is a nice feature, but the BS doesn't seem to need it, at least for my intended purpose. You are aware of the very high tire pressures recommended. The car does not roll the contact patch onto the shoulder.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a contest. I do think the BS is a unique vehicle, but maybe I'm getting too strident. AS
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 3
From: CT
2008 CLK 63 Black Series, 2013 G63, 2014 RS5 Coupe, 2013 JKUR 10A
Ok guys, Im not jet fighter pilot, but the Instructor status is just a way to say that ive done plenty of track events with the Porsche and BMW clubs to rank up in the "I know what im doing" category.
I realize a lot of my comparisons were off, but if you do take a look at the magazine articles I listed, they do say what I wrote.. Im happy though to have learned here that there are bigger differences than I thought.
However,
At this point, I think purchasing a C63, and spending maybe 25k on it with aftermarket suspension and brake and engine performance upgrades will yield you close to if not better results than a stock CLK63 BS With an extra seat in the back.
Overall, my choice would still be a CLK BS, because they just have the prestige and the quality and technically tested stamp behind it, not to mention its ultra beautiful looks. However, having a look at the current price tag for that upgraded comparison, I have chosen an M6 for now. An M6 with modification will give me an excellent daily driver, fully transmission control, great weekend track car and enough room to carry some ladies around for the evening.
I think in 2 years, ill make the change over to the CLK63 BS Benz when the price has taken its expected depreciation and I can justify the value for what im getting.. Then again, I may also just go for a 911 TT, modify that and be able to use it for the winter and by then the 2 little back seats will be perfect for retrofitting child seats lol..
Cheers
I realize a lot of my comparisons were off, but if you do take a look at the magazine articles I listed, they do say what I wrote.. Im happy though to have learned here that there are bigger differences than I thought.
However,
At this point, I think purchasing a C63, and spending maybe 25k on it with aftermarket suspension and brake and engine performance upgrades will yield you close to if not better results than a stock CLK63 BS With an extra seat in the back.
Overall, my choice would still be a CLK BS, because they just have the prestige and the quality and technically tested stamp behind it, not to mention its ultra beautiful looks. However, having a look at the current price tag for that upgraded comparison, I have chosen an M6 for now. An M6 with modification will give me an excellent daily driver, fully transmission control, great weekend track car and enough room to carry some ladies around for the evening.
I think in 2 years, ill make the change over to the CLK63 BS Benz when the price has taken its expected depreciation and I can justify the value for what im getting.. Then again, I may also just go for a 911 TT, modify that and be able to use it for the winter and by then the 2 little back seats will be perfect for retrofitting child seats lol..
Cheers
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 369
Likes: 3
From: CT
2008 CLK 63 Black Series, 2013 G63, 2014 RS5 Coupe, 2013 JKUR 10A
...........the CLK63 is a special series that has more to do with driving dynamics and pure acceleration. This is not a mystery to those that still question its price and value relative to others in the aMG line up. No need to pound this oint, it is not something we dont understand. The issue is that even when you factor that point into consideration, and add the fact that the newer AMG cars like the C63 are becoming more and more dynamic at half the cost it makes the CLK63 BS more difficult to justify for many. The C63 is a four doe sedan while the CLK63 BS is two door sports car without a back seat. I hope to god that the two door sts car withu a more nimble around the track, other wise the CLK63 BS owners will have the right to ask for their money back.
........If you compare the C63 to another four door sedan like the E63. You will see that the C63 clearly wins. For those that point out that the C63 is smaller than the E63.......wow! What a revelation. You sure did point out something we did not know. It is the C-class. It is smaller than the E-class. Like another forum member has stated, it will be like putting the V10 engine in the M3 and making the M3 faster and coner better than the M5 and hope that people will buy the M5 purely for its size. Unlike the E63, the C63 has rev matching down shift program which the CLK63 BS owbners are petitioning for and it has traction control that can be turned off completely. Both of these making for a more engaging driving experience for the enthusiast.
.............For the snobish growd, you can just hold your fire. Yes, I know that the C63 is still a C-class. If this is the criteria by which you spend your money, you won't have much of it left very soon.
Ted
........If you compare the C63 to another four door sedan like the E63. You will see that the C63 clearly wins. For those that point out that the C63 is smaller than the E63.......wow! What a revelation. You sure did point out something we did not know. It is the C-class. It is smaller than the E-class. Like another forum member has stated, it will be like putting the V10 engine in the M3 and making the M3 faster and coner better than the M5 and hope that people will buy the M5 purely for its size. Unlike the E63, the C63 has rev matching down shift program which the CLK63 BS owbners are petitioning for and it has traction control that can be turned off completely. Both of these making for a more engaging driving experience for the enthusiast.
.............For the snobish growd, you can just hold your fire. Yes, I know that the C63 is still a C-class. If this is the criteria by which you spend your money, you won't have much of it left very soon.
Ted
