Rambino951

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/

Addicted2Speed

Not sure where you are getting this data from, but you are wrong. According to C&D tests, where they test their vehicles on very accurate scales in every test, C63 actually weighs 4,034lbs while CLK63BS weighs 3,920lbs. Thus, the CLK63 actually weighs 114lbs less than C63.

I will agree that CLK63 should weigh significantly less than 4,034lbs considering its being marketed as a track-day car. The new M3 is the same size, has back seats and still weighs 3,570lbs, CLK63B should weigh very close to that.

(my sources: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ries_road_test and http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test )

Rambino951

Via the sites now listed in my original post.. maybe they were prelim..? but still the cars are basically identical except for pretty body panels.. 60k more for that is a rip off

C63 3649lbs
Clk BS 1995 kg (or 4398 lbs)

Addicted2Speed

I see what you mean, it looks like Mercedes figures are wrong (which they usually are, don't ask me why lol). In addition to C&D, Road and Track also measured CLK63BS to weigh under 4,000lbs and C63 to weigh over 4,000lbs. See this PDFfile: http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...3-Lotus_dp.pdf

transferred

BS is not 4,300. However, strange that it weighs the same as the 3,900lb E60 M5 given it has only two seats and is meant to be a track car. Does handle very well for the weight though, but more focused SMG-style gearbox should be on it.

SteveL

Beside the facts and figures all being wrong, clearly you have not driven and CLK63 Black Series.

The car is as heavy as it is because AMG made the car track ready but they insisted it still be a Mercedes so the interior was not stripped down to lighten the car. The car has significant upgrades for cooling that are not present on any other AMG car. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and clearly don't understand the car.

user z478747

The suspension is the same? Externally adjustible? Height adjustible?

Tranny upgrade coming for the CLK.

Are the weight number quoted with driver and gas on the CLK? I read somewhere some of the weight figures included fluids and a driver?

Really sounds like you should buy a C63. It will however never be a CLK63 BS.

alexander stemer

Wouldn't you have to look at the C63 at least twice a day? I'd pay a bunch just to say it wasn't mine.
Granted taste is personal, but does anybody think the C63 looks great?
What you are paying for on the BS is the development cost of a very limited production run. Coilovers, coolers, locker and fender panels don't cost $70,000, but engineering the package for limited production does run up big numbers.
Nobody says the Black Series is a huge value, it just has no equals, so you pay only if it's worth it to you. If the C63 makes more sense to you, and you like it, go for it. AS

ET550

[QUOTE=Rambino951;2788874]I just did a close review of both cars..

Im not so impressed anymore


And no one here is impressed with your research skills. What did you do, skim a couple of magazine articles and reach the conclusion most convenient to you justifying buying a car with a back seat? You say you are not impressed anymore yet you obviously have not driven either car. Why would you be impressed in the first place? And your "facts" are just plain wrong. Same suspension? Where did you glean that tidbit from? Im sure plenty of people will justify buying a C63 for one reason or another, and they will be perfectly happy with their choice. But don't try to pass off nonsense as reasoned analysis without doing some real homework first. You should have quit after your posts about retrofitting back seats in a BS so you have a place for an extra girlfriend.

Rambino951

[QUOTE=ET550;2789516]
You really sound like a brainwashed snob with no idea what your talking about. If I perfer a BS but want to be able to retrofit a back seat so I can tak more than one girl out, that should not be a big deal. Dont fall into the belief that the BS is UBER race car, its not.. Its still a heavy benz with an Automatic transmisson and heavy carpets. It was meant to battle with comparable performance to an M6 (which does have a back seat btw)..If benz wouldnt have stuffed so much fluff into its car, im sure they would have left it in.. If I want to ad a back seat for daily driving usage and still carry the the prestige of the BS, that should not be a big deal. So get over it.

My car characteristic comparison came from the magazine articles.. Everything I said what mentioned in those articles. Ok maybe the BS has a more adjustable suspension and a few other little extras, but that still should not justify the 70k markup. Regardless though, that will be reflected when it depreciates heavily over the next couple of years.. This car is beautiful no doubt, but its just the common 63amg cake with a little extra icing.

In the end, im still quite a fan of this motor and model.. You guys are waging an internal war as either of my choices was still a 63amg model.. Lighten up on the tom foolery around here. Only the brand name snobs get offended, it quite funny because the truth is.. the c63 and the clk63 BS are VERY Very similar and Im just pointing out the 70k upgraded raping in the butt you guys are recieving over the same common product.. But that ok, im sure you also spend stupid money on other name brand crap which you believe heighten your image, that too was also probably made in china.. get my drift.. Remember, I am FOR the 63Amg, im merely comparing the models differences..

Just so people know my background, I am an Avid tracker with Instructor status, I haver owned M models, Benz 600s, Porsche 911s etc.. I modify and tune for a hobby so im not to new to this stuff nor am I so easily impressed.. It is, what it is.. Commom Luxury and performance with a heavy Brand name tax

Ted Baldwin

.........Mercedes was very clever in introducing the C63 last among the 63 series. I don't know if it is better than the CLK63 BS (I doubt it) but it really makes you stop and think about what you are doing wih your money. At $130K the CLK63 BS is tough to justify. With the introduction of the C63, that justification becomes even harder. This is exactly what would have happened had Mercedes introduced the CLK63 fixed roof to North America. This in my mind explains why they did not introduce it. But now we have the C63 to compare the CLK63 BS with. However I think it is the E63 that really appears to be an inferior car compared to the C63.

.........CLK63 BS owners don't want their car to be compared to any other car. While I think the CLK63 BS is fantastatic, I think the owners have once again fallen for the MB marketting hype. Not sure how many will admit it. They won't be the last. There will be another reportedly exclusive, only 30 units made, never to be replicated Mercedes that more will fall for in the future. Mercedes keeps laughing all the way to the bank.

Ted

user z478747

Rambino951, If you have such a hard time justifying the CLK BS in your mind then just buy a C63 and be done with it. Is it really worth all this angst? I would however suggest that with your background you at least drive the CLK BS.

DFW01E55

[QUOTE=Rambino951;2789644]Nor am I easily impressed.

Have you driven both cars or is this a paper chase?

I'd be interested to hear your comparo of driving characteristics, your "feelings" based on what you read, not so much.

spr

hahah!

Yeah that quote made me laugh my **** off as well. Instructor of what? Unless you have certain licenses you're just playing racecar driver... which is fun.. but it is a completely different league.

Addicted2Speed

Ted is 100% right. The problem is not in the car, but in the engine. With current-gen AMG cars, all of them have the same 6.2L engine, unlike the previous gen, where lower-end cars had a 360hp N/A V8 and higher-end AMG's had a 500hp supercharged V8. Look at the CLK-DTM for example. That car was basically no different than CLK63BS, however, it cost $250,000 and nobody complained. Why not? Simple - it had McLaren SLR engine in it.

This problem would be easily solved if higher-end cars like CLK63BS or SL63 received either a twin-turbo version of this engine or engine with higher displacement (i.e. 7.0L with 650hp). In my opinion, Mercedes decided to simply cut their R&D cost and use clever marketing techniques to downplay the fact all AMG's, high and low end, use the same freakin' engine (except 65's of course). The unfortunately result is that $60,000 C63 is as fast as $140,000 CLK63 BS, CL63, S63 or SL63. To put it into another perspective, this would be equivalent of BMW using their V10 engine in the M3 or Porsche using their 3.6L twin-turbo engine in a Cayman.

silence

also, of note to me- bs prices used are already hurting below msrp...

jrcart

I'm laughing too! I think he must be "instructor status" on Playstation or XBox or something, you can tell that he has very little if any real world track knowledge or experience just based on the terms he is using. I reached "jet fighter pilot status" on Flight Simulator, but I don't think any of you guys are gonna want to fly in a real plane with me are you? Please remain seated until the pilot has turned off the fasten seatbelt signs! LOL!!!!!

ET550

[QUOTE=Rambino951;2789644]Yeah. Im the brainwashed snob but you want to add a back seat and "still carry the prestige of the BS." I bought the car because i liked the way it looked and the way it drove and the relative pratically it offered for that type of vehicle. Not because some magazine article recommended it. You should buy what you like and can afford and stop trying to justify it to everyone else with some half-baked analysis.

ShelleE55

A car is about getting behind the wheel and driving it. What you read is only a setup of what to expect, until you personally drive it you can not form a complete opinion.

I was still questioning some of the value of the Black Series after spending 4 days in the C63 earlier this year. Well yesterday I spent time in both cars. I was able to drive both the C63 and the Black Series yesterday at Las Vegas Speedway on similar autocross setup and doing a paper comparison of the two cars are useless.

Whether the Black Series is worth $135k we can argue all day long but there is no argument about whether it is better more capable car than the C63. The Black Series will out drive, out handle out perform the C63 all day long every day. I've wanted one for quite some time because it was a different AMG. Now that I have driven it and seen it perform on track in the hands of a pro driver and riding in it with a pro drive I want one because it is a fantastic car to drive on the track...

ShelleE55

There is more to a car than just the engine.

Germancar1

Wow...lots of misinformation and wild theories here.

In brief the CLK BS is about the total experience of driving, not straight line dominance. The C63 simply won't handle and drive like the CLK BS. The C63 can't handle the M3 on a track, but the CLK BS beats the M3 around in tests I've seen. The extra engineering effort that went into the CLK BS is what drives the price up.

Ted - you make no sense as usual. Would you have Mercedes dumb down the C63 so to not show up the E63? Are you forgetting the advantages of having an E over a C? It isn't just about sheer speed.

I continued to be shocked by the drag racer mentality on these boards. Mercedes/AMG finally builds a real trackable car and yet all some can see is the price/hp vs other AMG cars that clearly aren't nearly as capable on the track. AMG should just go back to big engines with huge hp and loose chassis, that would satisfy most here. Just ridiculous.

Car and Driver weighs every car they test, gassed, but without a driver. You can't compare their figures to other magazines. Just like you can't compare performance figures from different magazines to one another.

A car like the CLK BS handles some of the M division's best, the M3 and the M6, yet it is inferior to a C63...a car that can't handle either. Why should AMG bother if the criteria is going to be so simple as looking at a spec sheet and price without the driving experience? The CLK BS is the first AMG after the SL55 to get respect from every corner of the globe for its dynamics, not just its engine.

M

Germancar1

Bingo, someone gets it.

M

B.E.R.U.A.N.G

All he's trying to do is to make a sense by comparing two cars, with no attention to insult or flame on some one....but why people in this forum always replied with offensive replies? I really dont get it tho...

He's not even insult or quote other's people name or nick name too..

I might be got flamed too, because I am on his side now

DFW01E55

As Emeril would say, "BAM!"

Thanks Shell, whether you're an "instructor" or "jet fighter pilot " or just a weekend good timer like many of us, you're opinion is valuable since you've got seat time in both cars.

ShelleE55

[QUOTE=Rambino951;2789644]The price of the BS is definitely debatable but for someone of your background to reduce changes in suspension, brakes, tires, gearing etc as a little extra icing seems strange to me.