I give up

 

I believe the bigger problem, more than stated load capacities, is the ingress/egress for the rear seating area. With a standard CLK, I believe the front seats have a release mechanism that folds the seat forward as well as moves the seat base forward. This allows rear passengers a way in and more importantly a way out ... especially useful in an emergency. With the standard BS front seats, I can have a hard time moving the seat to a position allowing me to put my little 5.1 lb dog in the back. With that said, I wouldn't let a person ride in the back, least a child.

G

 

Details details...this guy can walk on water so I doubt a non-mechanical seat hinge is going to slow him or his off spring down, they can probably just levitate themselves back there or blink their eyes three times and magically appear in the back seat.

 

So are you intimating that the engineers who designed the car know more then members of this forum ?

It takes a contortionist to get in and out of the back area to clean the inside of the rear window....!

 

Dug up a few details for the european version of the BS vs the 'regular' CLK 63 AMG :

- Mass of the vehicle : 1660 vs 1655 kilos
- Max permissible mass : 1995 vs 2175 kilos

The 180 kilos difference in max permissible mass, as set by AMG, may somehow be related to the difference in axles used.

Allowing for - say 50 kilos of - extra weight for the rear seats + auxiliary equipment itself, there would be about 285 kilos of 'margin' left for 2 passengers, i.e. some 140 kilo per person, not considering any luggage. Based on that alone there shouldn't be any reason nót to install rear seats. But, as rightfully said above, there are a few other things to consider.

By the way : for reasons of keeping the car as original as possible, I would never ever consider retrofitting rear seats.

 

Try it with a roll bar installed. I had to train my 3.5 year old son how to do it for me, when he gets too big his little brother will take over but when he gets too big I'm screwed LOL

 

Good information, however to the best of my knowledge US and euro versions don't have different axles. If I had to guess why there's a max payload difference between the two I would say it has to do with the optional euro aero package, that rear wing generates a couple hundred pounds of downforce I would assume. I'm not saying I'm right but I doubt they have two different axle part numbers for US and Euro.

 

I already have the data and the source is Mercedes Benz and the engineers who designed and built the car who have thought the change from the standard CLK was sufficient to have a warning inserted in the owners manual.

If you want me to believe the Mercedes engineers are wrong, the answer is simple, go to Mercedes and tell them why they are wrong and you are right. I put more faith in the designers of the car than you. If you can convince them, you have convinced me.

 

I hear you on the roll bar ... when the kids get too big for it, let me know ... I figured out an easy way to clean the rear window.

 

Can we agree that if the maximum payload and the weight restriction of the trunk are are not exceeded with the addition of the rear seat and passengers (and cargo, if any), then the rear end of the car will not spontaneously catastrophically fail while driving on the road, resulting in loss of life for everyone else on the road?

And regarding access to the rear seats in a CLK63BS, I'm guessing you guys are not familiar with third rows in many SUVs, minivans, or wagons.

Re SMP: The point which you seem to be missing is that the weight restriction you cited on page 347 of the manual has to do with weight in the trunk, NOT the passenger cabin, and NOT the maximum payload. The weight of the rear seats is not in the trunk.

 

How original .... PJK signed up under a new screen name to keep this argument going under dragCLK ... in the future, try to think this through all the way. People who want to run 9's in the 1/4 and are concerned about the weight of a roll cage don't care about adding weight with rear seats. Thanks for the entertainment though

 

it's not like that, friend. the only point i'm really trying to make is that it's not responsible to conclude that the owner who fits the rear seat cushions in the BS is negligent. simply not true, in my opinion. i suppose it ends there, as it's just opinion. nobody here is a MB engineer assigned to the design of the BS, so it's impossible to determine precisely why the delete took place. all an owner can do is use the information available to make a decision as to whether their particular usage of the rear compartment is indeed safe, or if it presents a significant concern. up until now, for me the BS has been a no-go because if it's limited useability, particularly the inability to tote my grade-school kids around. if the seat can be fitted, and the stock seat belts added to the stock belt anchor spots, i'm comfortable with allowing my kids to ride back there, just as i would a CLK 63.

look, i spend a lot of time playing with road cars and race cars. when the race prep shop fitted a new racing shell in my club race car, they reinforced the floor at the mounting points and made whatever modifications he deemed necessary to make the seat race ready. this tech is not a scientist, or a mazda engineer. of course a spec miata race car is not at all designed to go club racing from the factory any more than a lincoln town car is designed to be 45 feet long and carry 10 people and luggage to the airport. yet the spec miata is the largest club racing class in the country, and supported by the factory. it's ok to modify a machine such as these, so long as you've considered the important details. it's not a case of "i know better than you or a MB engineer". it's a case of having an understanding of the science and elements involved.

it's also possible that all of us here have a varying view points on the dreaded 'warning label.' every product seems to warn of injury or death if used improperly. i grew up in the 70's riding in the back of a giant chevy wagon with 6 friends and no seat belts, no car seats, no child locks and no airbags. just a pile of people in a 6000# rust bucket. of the 75% of people who even use modern child seats, over half have them installed incorrectly (as recorded by police who conduct child seat checks). so my statement is this: calm down a bit. just because you may feel it's unsafe to put someone in the back of a BS, doesn't make it so. mercedes doesn't warn of retrofitting a seat in the car, and nobody is ignoring the weight advisory. read the warning, consider the warning and address the warning when making the mod. simple.

respectfully.

 

Andy??

 

Traffic was brilliant enough to ask what data I needed to see to believe and I told him.

 

So here's the way it plays out in real life...
Owner modifies car with rear seat. Car is involved in accident which is his fault but his kid in back seat is injured.
Owner says geee my kids hurt somebody is at fault!! Owner goes to lawyer. Lawyer agrees to take case and represent hurt kid. Sues MBUSA. If it's CA or some other product liabilty friendly states, Lawyer only needs to show 1% negligence to collect all of the medical bills and economic loss of the kid. MBUSA defense is the warning labels and stupid owner, but a jury may find that the father is 99% at fault and MBUSA is only 1%. MBUSA still pays!
This is why the engineers at MB go to such great lengths to inform morons from doing stupid things. The engineering explanination is not going to satisfy owner, but maybe this will.
BTW if you think this is a hypothical its not.

 

I think we can all agree on that statement, sad state of affairs but any ambulance chasing idiot lawyer in this country would jump on that.

 

Average ambulance chaser can't afford the ton of paper MB attorneys throw at the defense of these cases, but it cost big to defend the unmeritorious cases.
Now you know why the warning stickers are all over the car.

 

LOL

 

I give up, go ahead and install back seats, throw a trailer hitch and tow package on it and maybe a ski rack....did I miss anything.

Oh, I did miss something. Be sure to install some headrest TV monitors so your back seat passangers can be entertained when you're towing your snowmobiles and taking your skis up to Big Bear.

 

You forgot the mini-fridge where the battery used to be.

By the way, why is this thread still going on. Isn't there anything more worthy to discuss?

 

what makes your car- and all of it's warranty-voiding mods any safer than the OP car, which now has a factory-fitted back seat? the fact that there is no label warning you against your specific modifications? seems weird that with all the unsupported tuner-mods you've made, that you could have such a strong opinion about some dude who wants to put the seat back into a chassis that's designed to have it anyway.

also, what are you on about with trailer hitches, skis and snowmobiles?

this is the most emotional/least scientific thread about science i've read in awhile.

 

I already admitted that an arguement could be made that my car might be dangerous, however, my car is probably lighter than a stock BS with my carbon fiber roof, carbon fiber seats (saved over 160 lbs). Roll bar weighs 42 pounds and not sure what the blower weighs. I don't haul kids around in my car and I don't have backseat passangers.

I'm not the safety police, the OP and a few others were arguing the fact that MB has warning on the car and in the manual and was arguing that the frame on a BS is identical to a CLK350/550/63 and its not. Its obvious this guy and a few other have all the answers and know far more than the rest of us and AMG engineers so I'm not even sure why any of us are wasting our time on this thread. LOL 4, almost 5 pages.

 

hmmm. maybe this has already been discussed, but how is the BS frame not the same as the rest of the CLK line? you thinking benz stamped out a unique frame/chassis for the BS? come on now.

 

Mike - why don't call MB and ask them.

 

They did somewhat. The front strut towers are a different design, shape and height as my 500 to allow the 3 point strut to bolt up in lieu of the single center bolt on mine. Also, the distance between the rear shock mounts is different, very slightly but it is.

I know this because I bought a set of Black Series strut bars for my 500 based on the info from a few others that they would be an east install - they are not. I have to make custom brackets front and rear to make these bars work. If I was to place the front bar bracket on my strut tower and close the hood it would tear through.

So yes, MB did infact make changes to the Black. If these easy to notice changes are there I bet there are more on there too.