CLK55 (W208) vs. CLK55 (W209) - both stock - who will win?
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
CLK55 (W208) vs. CLK55 (W209) - both stock - who will win?
I've challenged a fellow MBWorld member to a 1/4 duel at the track...
https://mbworld.org/forums/clk55-amg-clk63-amg-w208-w209/120141-rafi-i-m-calling-you-out.html
Any bets/predictions?
https://mbworld.org/forums/clk55-amg-clk63-amg-w208-w209/120141-rafi-i-m-calling-you-out.html
Any bets/predictions?
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JamE55
Guessing the 209. I think the 209 has 362hp and the 208 has 349hp. Also not sure which one has a lighter curb weight.
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
if I remember correctly...the W208 had a 0-60 = 4.9sec and the W209 had a 0-60 = 5.0sec.
This is all according to MBUSA.
I think Car and Driver tested a 2004 W209 CLK55 and got a 0-60 = 4.5sec.
I don't know how they do it?
This is all according to MBUSA.
I think Car and Driver tested a 2004 W209 CLK55 and got a 0-60 = 4.5sec.
I don't know how they do it?
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Trending Topics
#8
To be honest, biggest factor here will be driver....
.....specifically, launch; the two cars are pretty evenly matched in terms of the power/weight, and while the 209 is heavier, it also has a higher redline (which should help it if torque curve doesn't drop off too sharply) and a lower rearend, which will help it to overcome the weight advantage...as will its extra power, though torque is the same, as someone pointed out....
Of course, it also depends upon who built your engine, whose transmission and driveline has more friction, whose gasoline is better, whose fuel and air filters are cleaner, and on and on and on...the closer two cars are matched, the more intangibles come into play!!
But still, imo, the launch should be the deciding factor in this one. The new one has one advantage: If both cars are shod with stock tires, the new one's heavier weight will actually help it at launch, as extra weight = extra force pushing down on tires = extra traction. However, with either of these cars, it takes a lot of skill and practice to get a good hole shot...so basically, my money is on whichever of you guys launches better and has faster reflexes!!![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Unfortunately, I can't speak from experience here as I've never had the opportunity to run a 209, but I'll be interested to see the results; good luck from a fellow 208-er, and make sure you RePReSEnT, yO!!!!
Of course, it also depends upon who built your engine, whose transmission and driveline has more friction, whose gasoline is better, whose fuel and air filters are cleaner, and on and on and on...the closer two cars are matched, the more intangibles come into play!!
But still, imo, the launch should be the deciding factor in this one. The new one has one advantage: If both cars are shod with stock tires, the new one's heavier weight will actually help it at launch, as extra weight = extra force pushing down on tires = extra traction. However, with either of these cars, it takes a lot of skill and practice to get a good hole shot...so basically, my money is on whichever of you guys launches better and has faster reflexes!!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Unfortunately, I can't speak from experience here as I've never had the opportunity to run a 209, but I'll be interested to see the results; good luck from a fellow 208-er, and make sure you RePReSEnT, yO!!!!
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Improviz
good luck from a fellow 208-er, and make sure you RePReSEnT, yO!!!! ![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
I just did a quick search, but didn't find much. What's the best 1/4 time for a stock W209 CLK55 you've seen?
#10
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
540 6spd
This is close. The 208 is lighter which means they'll have similar power-to-weight ratio's. The 209 might have a slight advantage because it's got a wider powerband (redline ~6700rpm vs. 6000).
But go 208! Slap that 209 around.
But go 208! Slap that 209 around.
#11
Originally Posted by Chappy
I just did a quick search, but didn't find much. What's the best 1/4 time for a stock W209 CLK55 you've seen?
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Good luck, let us know how it goes, and post some VVVIIIIDDDDEEEEEOOOO!!!
#15
Senior Member
![Lightbulb](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/icons/icon3.gif)
Originally Posted by RJC
I believe the 209 may have better gearing, and also believe according to MB the times for the 209 are slightly better.
Best regards,
Matt
Last edited by AMG///Merc; 09-15-2005 at 12:32 AM.
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AMG///Merc
The 209's do have lower gearing (Numerically higher final drive), and the combined with an additional 20 hp will just about negate the weight disadvantage (150 lbs according to the AMG website, 3635 lbs vs 3485 lbs). I think that Improviz has pretty much summed it up best, and it will indeed come down to the drivers, and conditions...
Best regards,
Matt
Best regards,
Matt
Thanks for the specs. Interestingly, the MBUSA website shows the following:
2001 CLK55 - curb weight: 3575 lbs.
2002 CLK55 - curb weight: 3485 lbs.
2003/2004 CLK55 - curb weight: 3635 lbs. (1657 kg)
Here's the kicker....the www.mercedes-amg.com website shows specs for the current CLK55 AMG coupe as being 1820 kg "unloaded weight" and 2225 kg "total weight"
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Additionally, some old MB Star literature I have shows the W208 CLK55 weight as 3402 lbs.
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
In any case, I do agree with you that the weight difference is more like 150-200 lbs. than the 300 I originally (over) stated.
Confusing and inconsistent stats for sure (even from the manufacturer!)
In addition to the gear ratio advantage, the W209 CLK55 also enjoys a higher redline and a slightly higher compression ratio (yielding the 20 additional ponies), quicker shifting transmission (touch-shift vs. speed-shift) and better traction control software
![mercy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/mecry.gif)
#17
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W208 CLK55K, GTR, RS5
Originally Posted by Chappy
In addition to the gear ratio advantage, the W209 CLK55 also enjoys a higher redline and a slightly higher compression ratio (yielding the 20 additional ponies), quicker shifting transmission (touch-shift vs. speed-shift) and better traction control software
![mercy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/mecry.gif)
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 55 ON IT
But, that doesn't help it look any better. :p
I am rather smitten with the W209
CLK DTM
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Damn there is alot of W209 hatin going on!! Just kidding.
I have to admit...I miss the styling of my old W208. That car got more looks than my W209 ever did.
Its a classic.
I have to admit...I miss the styling of my old W208. That car got more looks than my W209 ever did.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Its a classic.
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Improviz
.....specifically, launch; the two cars are pretty evenly matched in terms of the power/weight, and while the 209 is heavier, it also has a higher redline (which should help it if torque curve doesn't drop off too sharply) and a lower rearend, which will help it to overcome the weight advantage...as will its extra power, though torque is the same, as someone pointed out....
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Also I noticed that when my car was on the dyno the rev limiter would always kick in at 6500 rpms in 4th gear.
By the way the hp #'s(349 vs 362) are a lil inaccurate IMOP.My car put out 289- 293whp which is W210 E55 territory.They also rate the 349 hp engine as having 391ft lbs in the E55 and 376ft lb or something like that in the CLK.
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
The new E55 is rated at 463hp(crank)vs 493hp,on the dyno however it's putting out the same whp as it's other supercharged AMG siblings. I found this all to be very interesting.Why does AMG state different hp #'s
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Just for kicks how about my C55 W202 vs both 5.5L 208 and 209?
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
I think you'll beat him(209) Chappy!
Last edited by ProjectC55; 09-19-2005 at 09:32 AM.
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
Just for kicks how about my C55 W202 vs both 5.5L 208 and 209?
I think you'll beat him(209) Chappy!
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
I think you'll beat him(209) Chappy!
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Chappy
Have you tested your C55 at the drags yet?
Last edited by ProjectC55; 09-19-2005 at 09:35 AM.
#25
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
Impro,I thought the new CLK 55's had the same rear diff ratio?
2.82:http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
OK, so Chappy, *that* is good news for you!!!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
By the way the hp #'s(349 vs 362) are a lil inaccurate IMOP.My car put out 289- 293whp which is W210 E55 territory.They also rate the 349 hp engine as having 391ft lbs in the E55 and 376ft lb or something like that in the CLK.
The higher compression motor is rated at 362hp and 376ftlbs of TQ.Go figure! ![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
The new E55 is rated at 463hp(crank)vs 493hp,on the dyno however it's putting out the same whp as it's other supercharged AMG siblings. I found this all to be very interesting.Why does AMG state different hp #'s
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
Just for kicks how about my C55 W202 vs both 5.5L 208 and 209? ![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
I think you'll beat him(209) Chappy!