Went to MBZ dealership today. Test drove a CLK63 BS, SL63, and C63 (w/ LSD). I've discounted the C63 almost immediately, because while its a very nice car... the inside is a bit cheap and in the end its still a C-Class (or as Fletcher Jones calls it the "baby benz" )

CLK63 BS Pros:
1) raw
2) exhaust is loud in the cabin
3) very nice suspension and handling
4) feels like so much fun, having such a crazy 'on the edge' car. every thing i did, i could feel the tires slipping wanting to start fishtailing.


CLK63 BS Cons:
1) limited technology. this car had Sirius, Keyless, and the old Nav version ... thats it. I wish it had the Bluetooth, iPod and new nav from the SL63 and I would've gotten it right away.
2) old transmission program. no rev-matching, and no plans for it in the future.
3) old body style


SL63 Pros:
1) Exhaust is louder than CLK63 BS -- outside of the car
2) Rev-matching downshifts
3) transmission is very nice
4) nice tech. package (ipod, bluetooth, sirius, hard drive based system, etc)
5) the rear of the car is pure sex
6) seats and the feel of the suspension while driving was great

SL63 Cons:
1) the 'feel' of the car is more detached than in the BS.. very noticeable, it hides the road a lot.
2) exhaust is quieter than BS inside the cockpit, even though the exhaust is actually louder on the outside
3) hood felt very long
4) the new front styling of the car is ehhh...
5) off the line the car is nice, but from a roll it really lacks power, needs a supercharger!

---

Overall, if the CLK63 BS had more advanced tech. I would love to have gotten it.
As of right now, I can't think of a FAST, semi-RAW car that still has full technology package included. Do you guys know of one?

I'll be making my final decision by Wednesday - CLK63 BS or SL63... VERY tough decision, I stood there for quite a while and even had them park them right next to each other and rev both engines, etc.

 

Nice, you drive the two top cars of my wishlist.

About the CLK63BS con: "I wish it had the Bluetooth, iPod..."

Can't Bluetooth and iPod be fitted in the CLK63BS via regular Mercedes means? If it has UHI and the same COMAND as the CLK63 it should be able to accept Bluetooth and iPod wouldn't it?

The Navigation of course is another thing. That won't be upgradable so easy...

 

Good luck with your decision.

That pic in your sig from Silver Dollar? Been there a few times

 

It would probably depend how badly I wanted a convertible. If I didn't care about a convertible, I would probably do the CLK63 BS. However, if money wasn't a major consideration and I didn't care about a convertible, I would wait for the SL65 Black! That thing looks awesome.

 

SL63 is for sure! So many advantages!+ This is the most beautiful car i have ever seen.
But i cant believe that its slow from a roll...
Anyway Chip+Headers will solve this problem
Go with SL

By the way. What is the price for SL with 030 package?

 

had both and you won't go wrong with either. your points are pretty accurate, though i don't feel that the sl is lacking in power, and the new transmission is superlative. interestingly, the buyer of my black traded an 07 TT porsche.

 

$154,000 (030, P1, pano, parktronic)

 

I drove the BS 3 times on 3 different days before deciding on the SL65. The first 2 times I drove the BS like a madman and it was a lot of fun. Crazy fun. However the 3rd day I drove it like a normal car on regular roads. Without the adrenaline rush the BS is really a rather poor car. The interior is cheap C class quality, seats are not all that comfortable, road noise is terrible, and the exhaust as sweet as it is when driving it hard actually becomes annoying. The lack of tech and amenities really started to shine through when you're not driving it hard. I got stuck in traffic and really started looking around it and couldn't help feeling how cheap the whole interior was and started to notice all the other things and that for the price it really wasn't a very good car. Good track car? Yes. Good car? No. I passed and got an SL65. Nothing quite like the punch of that motor, it's quite the experience.

 

These are really not cars to compare together. Your question would be better suited to be CLK Black vs GT3.

I don't understand why you would compare a SL63 or SL65 with the CLK Black Series. Seems like you are wanting two totally different experiences.

 

these really are all valid choices for a daily driver and of course they could be tracked but no road car is going to be at home on a track- might be fun, but not at all comparable to a true track car.

incidentally, someone remarked on the disappointing quality of the clk63BL's interior. i did not find that to be the case at all; in fact i think it far superior to any of the porsches with their incredibly cheap plastic trim parts.

 

SL 63 as a daily would be sik, I did not feel it lacked power at all in fact to me it felt faster, than my modded CLS 63 . It definately bolts out and the exhaust is the best I have heard on a Benz. The car is a luxo monster and it is a great choice unless you wish to attend numerous track days and park it during the week. Maybe just pick up the SL 65 black , LOL

 

SL 63 as a daily would be sik, I did not feel it lacked power at all in fact to me it felt faster, than my modded CLS 63 . It definately bolts out and the exhaust is the best I have heard on a Benz. The car is a luxo monster and it is a great choice unless you wish to attend numerous track days and park it during the week. Maybe just pick up the SL 65 black , LOL

 

So you've discounted the C-class almost immediately because of its cheap interior and because "in the end it's still an C-class"...but by the exact same reasons you should have discarded the CLK too, right ? I mean, it has an even cheaper interiour than the C and in the end it's still a CLK-class (which it's just a C coupe if i recall well, but the old C not the new!).

And then, I looked at the things you didn't like with it. I.e:

Dude, the C63 has all of this stuff that you say the CLK 63 BS lacks ! So you've discarded "from the beggining" a car that fits all the requierements you need, except one: cheap interior. But can be fixed too with the leather package that amg has recently introduced ! And if you ask me, the C63 looks 10 times better that the CLK, which in comparison looks like a very old and boring car. And there's no mistaking it for a regular C, with it's wide stance, flared arches and overall gorgeous agressive bodykit.


Now let's look a bit at the SL 63, and compare it to the C63:

First, you say that: "Exhaust is louder than CLK63 BS -- outside of the car"
I believe this is true for the C63 also. BUT -who gives a **** if the exhaust is louder form outside the car if from the cabin is actually quieter ??? No one.

2) Rev-matching downshifts -the C63 has rev-matching.

3) transmission is very nice- the C63 has a very nice transmission

4) nice tech. package (ipod, bluetooth, sirius, hard drive based system, etc) -check !

5) the rear of the car is pure sex - check !

6) seats and the feel of the suspension while driving was great -while i know the seats of the C63 are very nice i've heard the suspension is a little bit rough...but this has the advatage of better road feel which you say the SL 63 lacks:

"the 'feel' of the car is more detached than in the BS.. very noticeable, it hides the road a lot." -well, the bloody thing has airmatic suspension, so DooooH !!!

Let's see some other cons:

2) exhaust is quieter than BS inside the cockpit, even though the exhaust is actually louder on the outside - to be fair, you can very well resove this issue by lowering the roof...the SL is afterall a coupe-cabriolet, remember ?

3) hood felt very long- the C63 doesn't have this issue

4) the new front styling of the car is ehhh...- well, yes and no. From some angles it looks gorgeous but from others it looks like crap. But then again, the C63 doesn't have this problem. It looks gorgeous from either side.

5) off the line the car is nice, but from a roll it really lacks power, needs a supercharger! -very true, the sheer bulk of this car (it has nearly 2 tones!) makes it feel slower off the line than both the C63 and the CLK 63. And remember, the C has 70 bhp less, altough it has bassicaly the same engine.
So with a minimum amount of tuning you should get at least 500 bhp, and leave the SL in the dust ! (btw, a power package from AMG would be nice!)


Well, i believe i know one. It's called the C 63 AMG. You know, the one that you have discarded from the beginning. Oh, and it has 4 seats, so it's a far more practical machine than the other two. BTW, did you even test-drive the damn-thing ??

ps: i think you should wait for the C63 BS ^^

 

You are taking the OP's comments way too personally. I may not agree entirely with the OP...but it is obvious that you have never seen a CLK63 BS interior. The CLK63 BS an interior which liberally uses carbon fiber, much softer leather door panels and much much higher quality dash covering. I would agree that the C63 interior is cheap looking for a near $70K car. If the interior is important to him...then he made a valid point..especially since he posted it over a year ago...and the upgraded C63 interior package wasn't offered back then...unless his lack of a time machine is no excuse...

Tom

 

Fantasm,

You say in your sig:

Gone:
2009 Mercedes SL63 AMG

It says you owned and sold an SL63. I don't get it.

 

This thread is a year old, guys.

 

LOL!

Missed that. So he bought the SL63 and then sold it in less than a year....

 

And now I see he's driving a GTR...what happened to the BS ? I thought it was his second option :P Oh, i forgot, the GTR has a much better interiour..:rofl:

 

I too agree that the C-Class interior is just way too cheap looking and cheap feeling. And by the way, Fantasm joined us at Famoso track day last year and the SL63 was in fact slower than SL55, CLS63, E63, and a bunch of other cars. The car weights 4500 lbs and although the shifting felt very fast, the car did not perform well at all.

By then the CLK63 BS was old news and he wanted to get something with more power potential, so he went with the GTR. With some tuning, they are running 11.2 @ 127 mph (I think some may have even trapped a bit higher).

Fantasm, next year you should consider the SL65 BS

 

Slower in a straight line or on the entire circuit ?? And how did you establish that, exactly ? Plus, from what i know the SL55 is even heavier and has more confort oriented suspension (the ABC on the SL63 is tighter and as a result the car sits much better on curves than the 55), so i'm very skeptical it was faster on the track. In a straight line, maybe, because of the supercharger...but the difference should be minimal really.

And is he happy with his new purchase ? Because i'm thinking to replace my car too. I don't think it will be the GTR, because if feels too much like a playstation game from i've read. I want involvement from a sports car, passion, or "thrills" how Clarkson puts it, which the GTR obviously lacks.
Plus it sounds like crap too. So i think i'm gonna have either the new porsche turbo with PDK, either the GT3 (it it ever comes with an automatic). Or why not, if the prices are not too prohibitive, the uber cool SLS ! That should do the trick.

No, he shouldn't. He should consider the SLS instead (which will be a terrific sportscar if early reviews are of any indication). SL 65 is BS, and i'm not refering to the black series acronym. Yes, it looks very nice and yes, it goes really fast but that's about it. Ride confort is ZERO, the suspension is way to harsh and at 1870 kg kerb weight it's still no sportscar. More like a sport whale. Plus, what's the point of having a SL with no foldable roof ?? That's simply BS.

 

"from what you've read"... ok ok magazine racer, take a time out and go blab some place else.
The GTR does have driver involvement and is a pretty fun, and fast car.
By the time you've read this post I've already bought, enjoyed and sold my SL63 -- bought, and enjoyed my GTR and am about to sell it.
I go through cars fast, and I have driven everything that I speak about. I don't just "READ" about things and then try to take what I have gotten from READING and formulate them into REAL WORLD experiences that are some how supposed to be construed as FACTS by someone with no actual experience other than being an arm chair racer.

The interior on the GTR is better than the interior on the C63, FYI. The GTR is also faster and better handling then the C63. Its a good car, with a lot of jealous and under informed haters.
Also, the iPod integration on the C63 is complete trash - it was an after thought and not at all comparable to the nav. inside the SL63.

 

How did we establish that? Did you miss the part about us BEING AT A DRAG STRIP.

 

Fantasm,

What is next? R8? Used Gallardo?

What did your SL63 run in the 1/4 btw? MPH?

 

So all the journalists who have test driven the GTR and said it felt like a Playstation game are fools ? And you're the smart one right ? Oh well, if you say so...

Sorry but i didn't know Famoso was a DRAG STRIP. I'm not from the US you know...and he only said that "Fantasm joined us at Famoso track day". By "track" i understand "circuit".