Which one is better. slk 32 or the slk 55?
06-17-2005, 12:16 PM
#26
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by tungster
I want to agree with everyone.
One reason you redesign a car is to make it better......but my question is......The car is $12k more expensive than the SLK32 $67,000.
Not worth the money in my opinion. $58k and you can have a Corvette Z06 and there is no unmodded SLK that will touch it.
I currently have my car scheduled to go into Kleeman here in Tampa and have the Stage I (ECU, Pully....396 hp, 392 tq) Kit installed and will get the car back Friday for the long weekend for the 4th of July.
Let a SLK55 wanna play....they'll be doing nothing but looking at my bumper.
Also getting my stock AMG rims done. We are polishing the outer ring and powder coating the center spokes black to match the car.
My question to everyone is.......Would it be beneficial to upgrade the suspension?? How much better is a $2200.00 suspension compared to the AMG suspension??
I spoke with Renntech and they told me NOT to do the suspension......just looking for some opinions.
Thanx for listening and I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One reason you redesign a car is to make it better......but my question is......The car is $12k more expensive than the SLK32 $67,000.
Not worth the money in my opinion. $58k and you can have a Corvette Z06 and there is no unmodded SLK that will touch it.
I currently have my car scheduled to go into Kleeman here in Tampa and have the Stage I (ECU, Pully....396 hp, 392 tq) Kit installed and will get the car back Friday for the long weekend for the 4th of July.
Let a SLK55 wanna play....they'll be doing nothing but looking at my bumper.
Also getting my stock AMG rims done. We are polishing the outer ring and powder coating the center spokes black to match the car.
My question to everyone is.......Would it be beneficial to upgrade the suspension?? How much better is a $2200.00 suspension compared to the AMG suspension??
I spoke with Renntech and they told me NOT to do the suspension......just looking for some opinions.
Thanx for listening and I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know where a Z06 came into this, but they are built like Fisher Price toys....the quality is a significant sacrifice. The '06 Z06 is not going to be cheap. I spend some time at the Vette forum & the early consensus is low/mid $70s.....It will run a mid 11 sec 1/4 mile & handle amazingly well, but the quality will not be up to par for some.
Curious why are you taking a modded SLK32 & comparing it to a stock SLK55? For what its worth, you won't be pulling an SLK55 with 396 Hp. Look at the C6 Vette for reference. Its got 400 Hp & weighs 150lbs less (about the same as an SLK32) & its actually a tick slower through the quarter mile. The MB 7 Spd tranny (another technological advancement over the old SLK class) which keeps the power in its sweet spot which makes it more efficient in making use of the power it develops.
Last point, people can mod the SLK55.
An ECU reprogramming nets 408 Hp & 442 ft lbs of tourque (17% increase in power & tourque) & it gets better gas mileage to boot 
. There is also the Kleeman blower which nets 530 Hp alone (not to mention a head & cam package etc that can bring it up to over 600 Hp). That 5.5L powerplant is an SLR motor sans blower. So, at the end of the day, the V6 will run out of displacement in a modded power war & also lacks the 7 Spd tranny which makes more efficient use of power under the curve.In any case, have fun with your car when you get it back. More power is never a bad thing.
-Matt
06-17-2005, 06:01 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ SLK
Yellow R1, You are trying too hard... lol...
I live in Colorado and when I first show interest in the new SLK (350). My saleperson was constantly nagging me to buy the SLK32. Supercharger, fast, blah, blah. Practically giving it away. Why b/c ppl were storming in to Glauser Mercedes to trade in their old SLK's for new ones. That was in April, the SLK32's are still park in the lot. That tells you alot about the new body style and looks of the r171.
I've never considered the r170, IMO, it was ugly and girly. My initial interest was the CLK 500 Cabrio. but I knew the new SLK was coming out, so I decided to wait, good thing that I did.
Back to topic, from an unbias opinion, I don't own either the SLK32 or the SLK55. (but have a 350 on order
) To say the SLK32 is better than the SLK55 is called "DENIAL." First sign of a problem, therapist suggested.
Oh yeah................. The SLK55 is not a sports car, it's a f@cking bad *** sports car.
I live in Colorado and when I first show interest in the new SLK (350). My saleperson was constantly nagging me to buy the SLK32. Supercharger, fast, blah, blah. Practically giving it away. Why b/c ppl were storming in to Glauser Mercedes to trade in their old SLK's for new ones. That was in April, the SLK32's are still park in the lot. That tells you alot about the new body style and looks of the r171.
I've never considered the r170, IMO, it was ugly and girly. My initial interest was the CLK 500 Cabrio. but I knew the new SLK was coming out, so I decided to wait, good thing that I did.
Back to topic, from an unbias opinion, I don't own either the SLK32 or the SLK55. (but have a 350 on order
) To say the SLK32 is better than the SLK55 is called "DENIAL." First sign of a problem, therapist suggested.Oh yeah................. The SLK55 is not a sports car, it's a f@cking bad *** sports car.
06-17-2005, 06:51 PM
#28
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Ynot
Yellow R1, You are trying too hard... lol...
I live in Colorado and when I first show interest in the new SLK (350). My saleperson was constantly nagging me to buy the SLK32. Supercharger, fast, blah, blah. Practically giving it away. Why b/c ppl were storming in to Glauser Mercedes to trade in their old SLK's for new ones. That was in April, the SLK32's are still park in the lot. That tells you alot about the new body style and looks of the r171.
I've never considered the r170, IMO, it was ugly and girly. My initial interest was the CLK 500 Cabrio. but I knew the new SLK was coming out, so I decided to wait, good thing that I did.
Back to topic, from an unbias opinion, I don't own either the SLK32 or the SLK55. (but have a 350 on order ) To say the SLK32 is better than the SLK55 is called "DENIAL." First sign of a problem, therapist suggested.
Oh yeah................. The SLK55 is not a sports car, it's a f@cking bad *** sports car.
I live in Colorado and when I first show interest in the new SLK (350). My saleperson was constantly nagging me to buy the SLK32. Supercharger, fast, blah, blah. Practically giving it away. Why b/c ppl were storming in to Glauser Mercedes to trade in their old SLK's for new ones. That was in April, the SLK32's are still park in the lot. That tells you alot about the new body style and looks of the r171.
I've never considered the r170, IMO, it was ugly and girly. My initial interest was the CLK 500 Cabrio. but I knew the new SLK was coming out, so I decided to wait, good thing that I did.
Back to topic, from an unbias opinion, I don't own either the SLK32 or the SLK55. (but have a 350 on order
) To say the SLK32 is better than the SLK55 is called "DENIAL." First sign of a problem, therapist suggested.Oh yeah................. The SLK55 is not a sports car, it's a f@cking bad *** sports car.
. I had to wait 10 months for our delivery (had the car built w/our options). In any case, it was worth the wait. We really like the car.Congrats on your 350
. The design/cars are rare, its a solid performer, & its built very well. The SLK32 is still a nice car, I just didn't like it enough to buy it at the time so we put our oder in for the newer model.
06-18-2005, 12:53 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ SLK
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Its interesting your sales guy was pushing to sell the SLK32. I had the "opposite" effect with my dealer indicating that it was the last one they had & he would'nt recommend it due to the new SLK coming out . I had to wait 10 months for our delivery (had the car built w/our options). In any case, it was worth the wait. We really like the car.
Congrats on your 350 . The design/cars are rare, its a solid performer, & its built very well. The SLK32 is still a nice car, I just didn't like it enough to buy it at the time so we put our oder in for the newer model.
. I had to wait 10 months for our delivery (had the car built w/our options). In any case, it was worth the wait. We really like the car.Congrats on your 350
. The design/cars are rare, its a solid performer, & its built very well. The SLK32 is still a nice car, I just didn't like it enough to buy it at the time so we put our oder in for the newer model.I don't own a SLK32, he was pushing me to buy one b/c nobody else wanted it. They had a few on their lots, he wanted to see if I want it so, he can get rid of it. I'm picking mine up in Germany on July 25th.
I considered a SLK55 but decided not too b/c I don't need the speed or power. This is going to be a weekend (cruise) car and, I also wanted manual transmission (most important). With all the options, my SLK350 is going to be over $60K, I could have added another $10 to get the SLK55. If the SLK55 came in manual, I probably would not considered the SLK350. I'm happy with my decision, I don' have to wait 7-8 months, I get wood trim, and it's going to be a pleasure to drive.
06-20-2005, 06:25 PM
#30
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK32 AMG Kleemann Custom
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
The SLK55 base is $62k (not $67k). The extra $7k provides faster acceleration, a far superior chassis, nicer interior, and a fresh design. I've driven both & the SLK32 is a nice car, its just not as nice as the SLK55 (nor should it be - the SLK55 is a brand new design/car & has been engineered as such).
I don't know where a Z06 came into this, but they are built like Fisher Price toys....the quality is a significant sacrifice. The '06 Z06 is not going to be cheap. I spend some time at the Vette forum & the early consensus is low/mid $70s.....It will run a mid 11 sec 1/4 mile & handle amazingly well, but the quality will not be up to par for some.
Curious why are you taking a modded SLK32 & comparing it to a stock SLK55? For what its worth, you won't be pulling an SLK55 with 396 Hp. Look at the C6 Vette for reference. Its got 400 Hp & weighs 150lbs less (about the same as an SLK32) & its actually a tick slower through the quarter mile. The MB 7 Spd tranny (another technological advancement over the old SLK class) which keeps the power in its sweet spot which makes it more efficient in making use of the power it develops.
Last point, people can mod the SLK55. An ECU reprogramming nets 408 Hp & 442 ft lbs of tourque (17% increase in power & tourque) & it gets better gas mileage to boot . There is also the Kleeman blower which nets 530 Hp alone (not to mention a head & cam package etc that can bring it up to over 600 Hp). That 5.5L powerplant is an SLR motor sans blower. So, at the end of the day, the V6 will run out of displacement in a modded power war & also lacks the 7 Spd tranny which makes more efficient use of power under the curve.
In any case, have fun with your car when you get it back. More power is never a bad thing.
-Matt
I don't know where a Z06 came into this, but they are built like Fisher Price toys....the quality is a significant sacrifice. The '06 Z06 is not going to be cheap. I spend some time at the Vette forum & the early consensus is low/mid $70s.....It will run a mid 11 sec 1/4 mile & handle amazingly well, but the quality will not be up to par for some.
Curious why are you taking a modded SLK32 & comparing it to a stock SLK55? For what its worth, you won't be pulling an SLK55 with 396 Hp. Look at the C6 Vette for reference. Its got 400 Hp & weighs 150lbs less (about the same as an SLK32) & its actually a tick slower through the quarter mile. The MB 7 Spd tranny (another technological advancement over the old SLK class) which keeps the power in its sweet spot which makes it more efficient in making use of the power it develops.
Last point, people can mod the SLK55.
An ECU reprogramming nets 408 Hp & 442 ft lbs of tourque (17% increase in power & tourque) & it gets better gas mileage to boot . There is also the Kleeman blower which nets 530 Hp alone (not to mention a head & cam package etc that can bring it up to over 600 Hp). That 5.5L powerplant is an SLR motor sans blower. So, at the end of the day, the V6 will run out of displacement in a modded power war & also lacks the 7 Spd tranny which makes more efficient use of power under the curve.In any case, have fun with your car when you get it back. More power is never a bad thing.
-Matt
I saw all the Kleeman stuff the the SLK55 and yes you can turn that bad boy into a FIEND of a Monster.
Don't get me wrong but I love the SLK55....it has all the creature comforts which I wish I had in mine. Beautiful interior, nice "Neck Scarf", Lots of power, better handling, but I was just shocked by the large increase in price.
I saw a sticker on one at the dealership that said 67k and the sale man said that he has sold them for that all day long. Yes it looks better then the SLK32 (Though I have had my share of compliments in mine).
I love my car and wouldn't get rid of it for the world and for less money I'm modding my SLK32 and will have a super car killer (Kinda of)..lol
I already have taken the logos of my car when I got it....it looks so much better with no raised letters or numbers on the side or rear and it also smoothed the lines out on the car. Mine is Blk/Blk and can't wait for Kleeman to get done with it.
I'll post my time slips when I get down to the track to run it.
Maybe when all is done I'll have to get an SLK55 in a couple years and mod it when its NEW.
06-22-2005, 07:13 AM
#31
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
MB gave a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds for the 32, and 4.9 for the 55 when they got released.
However, MB underestimates their times and several publications and people agreed that the 32 ran at anything from 4.5 to 4.9 instead of the 5.2, so MB USA corrected this.
The 55 has since then been reviewed by some magazines to do the 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, while some people down at the drag strip reported times as low as 4.2.
Seems like the 55 is faster then the 32, largely in part thanks to the 7g.
However, MB underestimates their times and several publications and people agreed that the 32 ran at anything from 4.5 to 4.9 instead of the 5.2, so MB USA corrected this.
The 55 has since then been reviewed by some magazines to do the 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, while some people down at the drag strip reported times as low as 4.2.
Seems like the 55 is faster then the 32, largely in part thanks to the 7g.
06-24-2005, 09:41 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
The SLKC32 has much more tuning potential as well and handles better than a SLK55.With the right mods they can run mid to low 12's. You would have to give Kleeman and Renntech mucho payola to F/I the normally aspirated 5.5L motor. SLK 32 best 2 seater AMG car $$ for $$ power and modd wise.New SLK 55 looks better though.IMOP!
Last edited by ProjectC55; 06-24-2005 at 09:47 PM.
06-25-2005, 12:52 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uber 202
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
The SLKC32 has much more tuning potential as well and handles better than a SLK55.With the right mods they can run mid to low 12's. You would have to give Kleeman and Renntech mucho payola to F/I the normally aspirated 5.5L motor. SLK 32 best 2 seater AMG car $$ for $$ power and modd wise.New SLK 55 looks better though.IMOP!
06-25-2005, 07:21 AM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by MikeL
The SLK32 has more tuning potential if you dont have much money to mod. If you got the money, strap a blower onto the SLK55 and you'll not only have a better handling car, you'll also have 500-600 hp, depending on s/c application and mods.
Originally Posted by coolcarlskic43
You would have to give Kleeman and Renntech mucho payola to F/I the normally aspirated 5.5L motor. SLK 32 best 2 seater AMG car $$ for $$ ,power and modd wise.New SLK 55 looks better though.IMOP!
Are'nt we repeating what I said? You will spend close to 20k doing a supercharger mod to the NA 5.5L motor Bud unless you're installing it yourself!Not my ideal way of making the most outta my money!!!
06-25-2005, 12:28 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ SLK
It's not all about power
If it was then we're all be driving Corvettes, more power, more torque, faster, depending on options, can be cheaper, better handling.
When you think of Mercedes, you think of prestige, luxury, being exclusive, and IMHO, the older SLK has none of it. I see it around and hardly anybody notice it. hell, I didn't know about the old r170 until I had interest in the new r171. The newer body style is much better in looks, and according to various sources (numerous car magazines) and not just opinions, better handling, more torque, hp, cargo spaces, everything. End of debate... :p
Slk32 vs Slk55
Is this worthy of a debate.
When you think of Mercedes, you think of prestige, luxury, being exclusive, and IMHO, the older SLK has none of it. I see it around and hardly anybody notice it. hell, I didn't know about the old r170 until I had interest in the new r171. The newer body style is much better in looks, and according to various sources (numerous car magazines) and not just opinions, better handling, more torque, hp, cargo spaces, everything. End of debate... :p
Slk32 vs Slk55
Is this worthy of a debate.
06-27-2005, 01:14 PM
#38
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK32 AMG Kleemann Custom
Originally Posted by Ynot
When you think of Mercedes, you think of prestige, luxury, being exclusive, and IMHO, the older SLK has none of it.
How can you say that?? No prestige?? Its a Mercedes Benz and EVERY Mercedes Benz come with prestige! Thats why we buy these cars. I could have bought a Corvette Z06 in 2002 for 5k less than I paid for my SLK32.
At the end of the day when you pull it in the garage its still a CHEVY no matter how fast it goes.
On the comments side of things...I stopped at a 7-11 to get something to drink and this guy pulls behind me and blocks me so i can't pull out. I was putting the top down when I saw him. He motioned for me to come over (There were a lot of people around so i wasn't scared at all) I get over there and he looks at me and says, "Thats must be better than sex!", referring to the car of course. He held out his hand to shake mine and says, "That is one beautiful car and you have a nice day"....No prestige...Please!
I dropped my car off at Kleemann in Tampa Saturday and will get it returned on Friday with all of the mods done.
Check List:
Stage I Crank, Pulley, ECU kit.
Speed limiter gone
Taking current AMG wheels, Polishing the outer ring to a chrome and powder coating the inside spokes black to match the car
New Roters (Stock) and New Brake Pads (90% Less Brake Dust)
Taking off the Mercedes Benz Badges on the back and hood and replacing with the Kleemann Badges....Chrome outer ring and K with black background to match the car.
Kleemann will be taking pictures of the car and posting on their website when complete.
I know that I will not be able to sleep Thursday night knowing that when I fly in Friday afternoon that my baby will be ready for me....
06-27-2005, 04:49 PM
#39
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
The car already runs a 12.7 quarter, stock. I think with another 70Hp (20% more power) & a LSD, it may near high elevens.
-Matt
06-27-2005, 04:58 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Actually, you can attain significant Hp increases for the SLK55 without a blower (which is $15k installed BTW, not $20k). Pls visit the Kleemann site, they list many N/A option for increased power (intake, exhaust, ECU, Cam). Its easy to attain approx 70 Hp with an intake, exhaust, & an ECU reprograming = 425 Hp for approx $5k or less. 
I'm actually waiting on a quote for some of the above option from a local speed ship. I'll post the cost/feedback I get when I receive the quote.
The car already runs a 12.7 quarter, stock. I think with another 70Hp (20% more power) & a LSD, it may near high elevens.
-Matt
I'm actually waiting on a quote for some of the above option from a local speed ship. I'll post the cost/feedback I get when I receive the quote. The car already runs a 12.7 quarter, stock. I think with another 70Hp (20% more power) & a LSD, it may near high elevens.
-Matt
Show me some dyno data showing me a 70 hp increase with just those mods N/A I can tell you that there will be no big difference with an aftermarket exhaust.The stck AMG exhaust is very efficient. It's also made by Sebring. http://www.kleemann.dk/site/3CCAE156...374819FC06.htm
If the 5.0 L motor is not making anywhere near a 70 hp inc with cams and ECU tuning what makes you think the 5.5L motor N/A would be any different
In order to even make near 60 hp according to Kleeman you need 1.Cams=Krazee dollars
2.Headers= Krazee dollars
3.valve springs=Krazee $
Total = KRAZEE $$$$$$$ The headers alone will cost you well over 2k,Ecu tuning between 1k and 2k,air filters at least 100.00 each,Exhaust at least 1500.00 (res eliminator + cat back)Do we need to mention cams and install.We won't include cost of labor to install all this stuff because then we'll have to dive off a cliff head first into a dry lake! 
VERY VERY EXPENSIVE! Better off buying an E55 F/I vs doing a Supercharger to the SLK instead of all this N/A stuff to an SLK55.Either way you go it's not gonna be cheap and easy hp or labor wise like you say.
Last edited by ProjectC55; 06-27-2005 at 07:26 PM.
06-27-2005, 08:13 PM
#41
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
I have those things + Ecu programming on my C55 and I can tell you that you won't have a 70 hp increase.No way!Especially without cams.You must be dreaming. Show me some dyno data showing me a 70 hp increase with just those mods N/A I can tell you that there will be no big difference with an aftermarket exhaust.The stck AMG exhaust is very efficient. It's also made by Sebring.
Matt:
The SLK55 exhaust is not as efficient as the other N/A 55 variants (this is "why" it gives up 7 Hp right off the bat). If you don't think CAI, exhaust, ECU, & Cam can't provide 70 Hp (@ the flywheel), I don't know what to tell ya other than Kleemann & my local speed ship disagree (as do I based on typical LS1 power gains for the above mentioned modifications, which is a mere 2 OHV set up). DigiTec in Newport Beach have a 408 Hp/442 ft# torque offering for the 5.5 powerplant with the ECU tune ALONE. See their advertisement in Automobile - these guys are meticulous in obtaining maximum power from the high end cars they tune by optimizing the A/F ratios.
http://www.kleemann.dk/site/3CCAE156...374819FC06.htm
If the 5.0 L motor is not making anywhere near a 70 hp inc with cams and ECU tuning what makes you think the 5.5L motor N/A would be any differentIn order to even make near 60 hp according to Kleeman you need
Matt: Uhh, its actually an increase of 64 Hp (302 stock, 366 with the mods). Bingo!
Matt: Lets put Kleemann's #'s in below, instead of "Krazee". Lets use their mid range numbers, just to be accurate/conservative:
1.Cams= 7.5% = 27 Hp
2.Headers+Exhaust= 10% = 35 Hp
3. ECU: 8% (lowest estimate): 38 Hp
4.valve springs= Lets assume that is part of the above Cam package
Summary: I'm up to 100 Hp, on conservative numbers. Even if it were lower, its gonna exceed 70 Hp pal!
Total = KRAZEE $$$$$$$ The headers alone will cost you well over 2k,Ecu tuning between 1k and 2k,air filters at least 100.00 each,Exhaust at least 1500.00 (res eliminator + cat back)Do we need to mention cams and install.We won't include cost of labor to install all this stuff because then we'll have to dive off a cliff head first into a dry lake! VERY VERY EXPENSIVE! Better off buying an E55 F/I vs doing a Supercharger to the SLK instead of all this N/A stuff to an SLK55.Either way you go it's not gonna be cheap and easy hp or labor wise like you say.
Show me some dyno data showing me a 70 hp increase with just those mods N/A I can tell you that there will be no big difference with an aftermarket exhaust.The stck AMG exhaust is very efficient. It's also made by Sebring. Matt:
The SLK55 exhaust is not as efficient as the other N/A 55 variants (this is "why" it gives up 7 Hp right off the bat). If you don't think CAI, exhaust, ECU, & Cam can't provide 70 Hp (@ the flywheel), I don't know what to tell ya other than Kleemann & my local speed ship disagree (as do I based on typical LS1 power gains for the above mentioned modifications, which is a mere 2 OHV set up). DigiTec in Newport Beach have a 408 Hp/442 ft# torque offering for the 5.5 powerplant with the ECU tune ALONE. See their advertisement in Automobile - these guys are meticulous in obtaining maximum power from the high end cars they tune by optimizing the A/F ratios.
http://www.kleemann.dk/site/3CCAE156...374819FC06.htm
If the 5.0 L motor is not making anywhere near a 70 hp inc with cams and ECU tuning what makes you think the 5.5L motor N/A would be any different
In order to even make near 60 hp according to Kleeman you need Matt: Uhh, its actually an increase of 64 Hp (302 stock, 366 with the mods). Bingo!
Matt: Lets put Kleemann's #'s in below, instead of "Krazee". Lets use their mid range numbers, just to be accurate/conservative:
1.Cams= 7.5% = 27 Hp
2.Headers+Exhaust= 10% = 35 Hp
3. ECU: 8% (lowest estimate): 38 Hp
4.valve springs= Lets assume that is part of the above Cam package
Summary: I'm up to 100 Hp, on conservative numbers. Even if it were lower, its gonna exceed 70 Hp pal!
Total = KRAZEE $$$$$$$ The headers alone will cost you well over 2k,Ecu tuning between 1k and 2k,air filters at least 100.00 each,Exhaust at least 1500.00 (res eliminator + cat back)Do we need to mention cams and install.We won't include cost of labor to install all this stuff because then we'll have to dive off a cliff head first into a dry lake! VERY VERY EXPENSIVE! Better off buying an E55 F/I vs doing a Supercharger to the SLK instead of all this N/A stuff to an SLK55.Either way you go it's not gonna be cheap and easy hp or labor wise like you say.I didn't say it was going to be easy labor wise (although paying a local speed shop for the cam work makes it real simple
). What are you reading? I also just paid $78k for my SLK55. I'm not too concerned with cost. For some, it may be an issue, for me its about having the right power AND balance in a car with a short wheel base. N/A options can be better than slapping on a blower to obtain the overall performance requirements I need without sacrificing saftey (again, adding weight up front via a blower install may not be the wisest approach for a short wheel based vehicle). I've been wrenching w/cars for over 20 yrs & I can tell you, its better to do your homework to look at the whole enchilada before slapping on speed parts. If you don't, you can wind up screwing up your car in the process from a functional standpoint. Hope this makes sense?Se ya,
-Matt
06-27-2005, 10:26 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Matt:
The SLK55 exhaust is not as efficient as the other N/A 55 variants (this is "why" it gives up 7 Hp right off the bat). If you don't think CAI, exhaust, ECU, & Cam can't provide 70 Hp (@ the flywheel), I don't know what to tell ya other than Kleemann & my local speed ship disagree (as do I based on typical LS1 power gains for the above mentioned modifications, which is a mere 2 OHV set up). DigiTec in Newport Beach have a 408 Hp/442 ft# torque offering for the 5.5 powerplant with the ECU tune ALONE. See their advertisement in Automobile - these guys are meticulous in obtaining maximum power from the high end cars they tune by optimizing the A/F ratios.
Se ya,
-Matt
The SLK55 exhaust is not as efficient as the other N/A 55 variants (this is "why" it gives up 7 Hp right off the bat). If you don't think CAI, exhaust, ECU, & Cam can't provide 70 Hp (@ the flywheel), I don't know what to tell ya other than Kleemann & my local speed ship disagree (as do I based on typical LS1 power gains for the above mentioned modifications, which is a mere 2 OHV set up). DigiTec in Newport Beach have a 408 Hp/442 ft# torque offering for the 5.5 powerplant with the ECU tune ALONE. See their advertisement in Automobile - these guys are meticulous in obtaining maximum power from the high end cars they tune by optimizing the A/F ratios.
Se ya,
-Matt
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Actually, you can attain significant Hp increases for the SLK55 without a blower (which is $15k installed BTW, not $20k). Its easy to attain approx 70 Hp with an intake, exhaust, & an ECU reprograming = 425 Hp for approx $5k or less. .
-Matt
.-Matt
Last edited by ProjectC55; 06-27-2005 at 10:33 PM.
06-28-2005, 10:49 AM
#43
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Buck for buck, the 32 will be easier to mod if you want 30 extra HP. A more performant pulley will net you up to 400hp.
Since the 55 is NA engine, you will spend a lot more money to wring power out of it. Although new cams, headers and valve springs might also net you up to 400 or 430 hp (assuming it's 60-70 extra HP), it will have cost you TEN TIMES as much as the 30-40 hp upgrade in power you had for the 32.
However, if you REALLY want power, spending 20 times more then the pulley, will get you anywhere from 500 to 600hp for the new SLK. Fab Design quoted me a price of just under $15000 for 500hp supercharger with installation for my 55, whilst Kleemann mentioned that theirs will cost up to $20k with the extras needed to have a 600hp engine.
Blah, you pay what you, and for the time being I'll stay happy with the 360hp I have *shrug* (I'll let the warranty ride out first before I go pay a visit to mr fab or kleemann... heh)
Since the 55 is NA engine, you will spend a lot more money to wring power out of it. Although new cams, headers and valve springs might also net you up to 400 or 430 hp (assuming it's 60-70 extra HP), it will have cost you TEN TIMES as much as the 30-40 hp upgrade in power you had for the 32.
However, if you REALLY want power, spending 20 times more then the pulley, will get you anywhere from 500 to 600hp for the new SLK. Fab Design quoted me a price of just under $15000 for 500hp supercharger with installation for my 55, whilst Kleemann mentioned that theirs will cost up to $20k with the extras needed to have a 600hp engine.
Blah, you pay what you, and for the time being I'll stay happy with the 360hp I have *shrug* (I'll let the warranty ride out first before I go pay a visit to mr fab or kleemann... heh)
06-28-2005, 12:23 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Shinigami
Buck for buck, the 32 will be easier to mod if you want 30 extra HP. A more performant pulley will net you up to 400hp.
Since the 55 is NA engine, you will spend a lot more money to wring power out of it. Although new cams, headers and valve springs might also net you up to 400 or 430 hp (assuming it's 60-70 extra HP), it will have cost you TEN TIMES as much as the 30-40 hp upgrade in power you had for the 32.
Since the 55 is NA engine, you will spend a lot more money to wring power out of it. Although new cams, headers and valve springs might also net you up to 400 or 430 hp (assuming it's 60-70 extra HP), it will have cost you TEN TIMES as much as the 30-40 hp upgrade in power you had for the 32.
06-28-2005, 04:35 PM
#45
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK32 AMG Kleemann Custom
Update:
Got a call from Kleemann today and they got my car off of the Dyno.
I didn't get all the details but they said that the Rear wheel HP was 285 which they said was on par with the 349 hp minus the percentage calculations and it came out to the same 285whp.
He said that this thing will be sick when its done.....I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Is it Friday yet???
More updates to come as I get them!
Got a call from Kleemann today and they got my car off of the Dyno.
I didn't get all the details but they said that the Rear wheel HP was 285 which they said was on par with the 349 hp minus the percentage calculations and it came out to the same 285whp.
He said that this thing will be sick when its done.....I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Is it Friday yet???
More updates to come as I get them!
Last edited by tungster; 06-28-2005 at 05:09 PM.
06-29-2005, 01:24 AM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by tungster
Update:
Got a call from Kleemann today and they got my car off of the Dyno.
I didn't get all the details but they said that the Rear wheel HP was 285 which they said was on par with the 349 hp minus the percentage calculations and it came out to the same 285whp.
He said that this thing will be sick when its done.....I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Is it Friday yet???
More updates to come as I get them!
Got a call from Kleemann today and they got my car off of the Dyno.
I didn't get all the details but they said that the Rear wheel HP was 285 which they said was on par with the 349 hp minus the percentage calculations and it came out to the same 285whp.
He said that this thing will be sick when its done.....I CAN'T WAIT!!!
Is it Friday yet???
More updates to come as I get them!
06-29-2005, 10:59 AM
#47
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK32 AMG Kleemann Custom
Originally Posted by Shinigami
MB gave a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds for the 32, and 4.9 for the 55 when they got released.
The 55 has since then been reviewed by some magazines to do the 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, while some people down at the drag strip reported times as low as 4.2.
The 55 has since then been reviewed by some magazines to do the 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, while some people down at the drag strip reported times as low as 4.2.
I and no offense can't believe these numbers....4.2, 4.3??
Show me some time slips or hard proof.
Track-Challenge.com has these numbers for the SLK55:
Acceleration
0 - 40 Km/h 1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,4 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,8 s
AND For the SLK32:
0 - 40 Km/h 1,6 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,5 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 Km/h 5 s
These I can believe.
I also will be taking mine back down to the track and getting my timeslips with the new mods.
I will post numbers from the stock runs (Which I already have.....1/8th mile 8.605 s) and the new runs when I get them.
Last edited by tungster; 06-29-2005 at 11:01 AM.
06-29-2005, 01:05 PM
#48
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
tungster: you want proof? Go read some of the magazine reviews, or better still, go check out the drag strips that were posted on mbnz.org.
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only stating the numbers I were given. I have a 55, but I haven't actually tested the speed at which it goes from 0-100kph.
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only stating the numbers I were given. I have a 55, but I haven't actually tested the speed at which it goes from 0-100kph.
06-29-2005, 01:13 PM
#49
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
Go back to your original post,you said ECU,Intake and Exh=70hp.I (Carl) added that you would need cams to attain at least that.The ECU is not gonna add 35 hp to the equation on a N/A car.Give me hard data please (dyno) and not some advertised jargon.
We will have to agree to disagree on the 70 Hp estimate (even sans cams). I say its attainable given Kleemann's above mentioned testing (and my own knowledge & experience - especially for this 5.5L powerplant). If you think a whopping 20% power increase can't be obtained from a full exhaust, CAI, & an ECU upgrade on a powerplant in a "mild" state of tune, I don't know what to tell ya (especially when other people & firms have done it for years - ergo Kleemann, Rentech, Digitec, etc. The header upgrade alone will net 30 - 35 Hp (that stock header on the SLK55 is about as wide as a straw - its a JOKE).
And yes, a cam upgrade is can be pricey. The other mods can be had for under $5k. If you (or Shinigami) want to complain over $5k, thats a personal finance issue - not mine?
No hard feelings, I'm just pointing out we can agree to disagree on some points. Its not a big deal.
See ya,
-Matt
06-29-2005, 02:50 PM
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by tungster
I and no offense can't believe these numbers....4.2, 4.3??
Show me some time slips or hard proof.
Track-Challenge.com has these numbers for the SLK55:
Acceleration
0 - 40 Km/h 1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,4 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,8 s
AND For the SLK32:
0 - 40 Km/h 1,6 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,5 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 Km/h 5 s
These I can believe.
I also will be taking mine back down to the track and getting my timeslips with the new mods.
I will post numbers from the stock runs (Which I already have.....1/8th mile 8.605 s) and the new runs when I get them.
Show me some time slips or hard proof.
Track-Challenge.com has these numbers for the SLK55:
Acceleration
0 - 40 Km/h 1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,4 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,8 s
AND For the SLK32:
0 - 40 Km/h 1,6 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,5 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 Km/h 5 s
These I can believe.
I also will be taking mine back down to the track and getting my timeslips with the new mods.
I will post numbers from the stock runs (Which I already have.....1/8th mile 8.605 s) and the new runs when I get them.
You want a time slip? Go to the SLK55 section. A guy in Florida ran a 12.7 quarter with his traction control on about 4 months ago (you can see his time slip). He then proceeded to run a 12.4 with traction control off (and no spare tire).
The 7 Spd tranny keeps the power at its power peak (between 5 - 6.8k rpm) for optimal acceleration. It makes better use of the power & torque it produces to achieve pretty fast acceleration. I drive a mid 11 sec RX-7 & I'll tell you, my SLK55 is every bit a mid 12 sec car (and is even more impressive from a standing start where the 7 spd tranny shines.....The engine does NOT leave its power curve, even for an instant). The SLK55 just plain hauls azz from 0-60.
-Matt
