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?

Guessing the 209. I think the 209 has 362hp and the 208 has 349hp. Also not sure which one has a lighter curb weight.

Actually, stock 208s have just 342hp at the crank. The 209s are roughly 300 lbs heavier than the 208s.

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?

Chap, Tough call but you'll probabaly win!

I actually like the looks of the 208 CLK55 a lot more than the W209.. The 209 seems softer, less agressive looking =/

My money is on the W208. It's smaller, lighter, and has the same torque. I too would challenge a W209 CLK55 to a little race.

.....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!!

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!!!!

Thanks....I hope to not disappoint

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?

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.

I think Jlee81 ran an 10.8@135, in the rain, on bald tires, after he put a K&N on there!! Seriously, I haven't seen many slips, if any, for 209s, but the mags did test them a bit faster than the 208's FWIW....otoh, Motor Week tested it slower, so who knows?

Good luck, let us know how it goes, and post some VVVIIIIDDDDEEEEEOOOO!!!

i think it will be up to the driver and the launch...

MArk

Mulder's $ is on the 208....

I believe the 209 may have better gearing, and also believe according to MB the times for the 209 are slightly better.

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

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" All the other specs are indentical to the U.S.-specs found for the 2004 CLK55! Why the differences?

Additionally, some old MB Star literature I have shows the W208 CLK55 weight as 3402 lbs.

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

But, that doesn't help it look any better. :p

Assuming Rafi accepts the challenge, I'll make sure to get lots of side-by-side photos for additional comparison....

I am rather smitten with the W209






























CLK DTM

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.

The 209 looks best when all four windows are down showing of its pillarless design.

Amen to that!!

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

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. The higher compression motor is rated at 362hp and 376ftlbs of TQ.Go figure!

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


Just for kicks how about my C55 W202 vs both 5.5L 208 and 209?


I think you'll beat him(209) Chappy!

Have you tested your C55 at the drags yet?

I hope to this Wednesday.I pm'd a guy here in NYC that owns a C32 and took him up on a challenge.I'm dying to see how well she'll do. Hope my investment was worth the $$$. Read down the thread.His name is NY C32 https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...01#post1278701

Wow, I hadn't seen that one on MBUSA's site; I was going by the data from the Car & Driver comparo (May '04) of the CLK55, 645Ci, and Maserati Coupe...C&D gives it (double-checked just now to make sure I wasn't losing it! ) as 3.06:1, meaning they botched it!

OK, so Chappy, *that* is good news for you!!!

I've always felt that it and the 210 E55 had the same horsepower, based upon its trap speed. And it's weird, but my owners' manual lists max torque as 386 or something close to that (I'll try to remember to check it and correct this), but they later derated it....to a *range*; they spec'd the 376 number from 3000-4200 rpm, meaning that its true peak had to lie somewhere in between, so yeah, I'd say peak torque is more like 390 or damn close to it, making 245 series rear tires and no LSD a particularly dumb combination (thanks, Mercedes! ) .

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

Have you run it at the strip? From your dyno run, sounds like you're pulling the same hp, so it'd depend upon gearing (and of course, driver!! ). Oh, and if you stuck an LSD on there, that'd give you a leg up (thanks, Mercedes).

It'll be a driver's race, methinks, but I'm feeling more optimistic now knowing that it's got the same rearend!!