SL65amg

Will there by an SLK 63? There's gonna be a C63 next year, and there's already a CLK 63 too, so why not an SLK 63?

The 475 HP version of the 6.3 V-8 in the CLK 63 cabriolet would be devastating in the SLK.

Logically, there's no reason to not put it in there, expecially since bmw will probably put the new V-8 from the upcoming M3 into their M3 hardtop convertible soon after the coupe is released.

Germancar1

There have been many debates and lots of rumors about whether or not there will be a SLK63. My guess is that there will be a SLK63 for the 2009 model year in the U.S. likely next spring. The old 5.5L V8 is being phased out slowly, but surely.

M

Acez

sounded impossible. they have hard time just to squeeze the 5.5 V8 in.

Germancar1

Someone else was saying that someone from AMG told them that the 6.2L V8 has 2 fuel pumps or something like that and it wouldn't fit in the SLK. All will be revealed in Sept at the Frankurt auto show when the facelifted SLK is shown.

M

Shinigami

Yes, it was said that the 63 needs two fuel pumps...

The engine itself is actually lighter and more compact then the 55.

But even the 55 can be boosted to 600hp on the standard pumps, so maybe if they made a 400-450hp version of the 63, a single pump would be enough?

Who knows... I'd love to see it, I'd love to drive it, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

bfnnrgn

An SLK63 with 475 HP would run rings around the bigger 63 models. CL63, SL55(63). I doubt Mercedes would allow that.

Germancar1

I don't see a problem with that because it is supposed to be, or at least trying to be a sports car.

M

Shinigami

I think the SLK would benefit more from a diet, then it would from a more powerful engine.

Shave 200lb's and man, this thing would fly. I already feel a difference if I have a 140lb passenger and a full tank of gas versus just myself and a nearly empty tank of gas. The car is just so much more responsible.

But a larger engine does bring its own bragging rights

Germancar1

I think most cars could go on a diet, surely Mercedes-Benzes are right up there at the top of the list! Even with all their heft they're still faster than many so yeah loosing some weight would be an awesome change.

M

Acez

too much electronics. especially the folding roof. dump that away + the carpets and the passenger seat

jgsx

That has never been a problem before. If they are concerned, they'll just do what they've done in the past -- say that the car has less power than it really does.

Shinigami

The SLK has some pretty thick steel in use on the body. Maybe using some aluminium like in the new TT would help. For example, compare the thickness of the body panels on the SLK to the Z4, and those on the Z4 are much more flexible and hollow sounding. The doors on the Z4 doesn't make a "thunk" sound when you close the doors, etc... etc...

Quite a few people have made this comment as few cars make that "Mercedes thump" when you close the doors and the like.

But then again, the Z4 is also several hundred pounds lighter. So do you want to forego a bit of solidity to having better speed, handling, braking...

Most would say yes, but it's an MB and so the badge dictates that solidity of feel and comfort must be considered important.

benzmodz

Would be a lot more devastating if they put the E55 engine in.

FishtailnZ

I agree, a couple hundred pounds off the curb weight would make a BIG difference in this car - it's small in size, but there are times you can definitely feel it being a bit of a porker. The 5.4L engine is wonderfully tractable with torque everywhere across the rpm range. Easy power/performance without having to rev the bejeezus out of it to paste a grin across your face.

C43AMG

That was me .

Germancar1

So is that still the word, no SLK63?

M

C43AMG

"PROBABLY" in model year 09' - with complete body/chasis design!

bfnnrgn

In the meantime I'll just keep enjoying the SLK55. It's a a very fun ride. In fact I haven't driven the E55 in 2 weeks. Anyone want to buy an E55?

Shinigami

That's a bit early in my opinion. It would mean the SLK run is only 5 years, and MB's runs are usually more then that. The SLK's still selling really well, so it might be a bit premature to think it would come out in 2 years time (even the facelift isn't out yet). I'm betting more on 2011 or 2012 for a brand new chassis.

I think the power and torque is quite plentiful, the SLK is a fast car and my idea of shedding weight is not to just make the car faster. The torque already ensures it can move the +1.5 tons of mass. What it would help to lower weight, is to make the car stop much sooner, lessen the understeer in tight/fast corners and overall improve slalom speeds. The SLK is quite well done, because even with its 200-500lb more weight versus the competition (Miata, S2000, Z4, etc...), it is only a few tenths of a second behind on some slalom or autox type try-outs. With that weight off its shoulder, it would become a completely different car!

Germancar1

He means a facelift not a total re-design. 2009 is definitely going to be the year for the facelift since the 2008 model year is too close for anything to change now.

M

Addicted2Speed

Who needs the SLK63 anyway? Just fit a kleemann kompressor on it and you'll have a lot more horsepower and torque than the 63, for less money. I'm doing mine pretty soon actually...

Shinigami

There are advantages and disadvantages in this reasoning.

You say it's cheaper to go Kleemann. Well, I disagree. The CLK 63 is only 10k swiss francs more expensive then the old 55. A Kleemann supercharger with installation (for 500hp) would cost about 30k swiss francs.

Secondly, you'd lose your warranty, and as with anything after market bolted on devices, you never know 100% if it's going to run flawlessly...

Thirdly, naturally aspirated, and in this case high revving engines, hold a special place in some peoples hearts. The 6.2 liter engine is quite rev happy, nice liner torque distribution and going past 7000rpm (the E class I drove went to 7400rpm before the revlimiter hit in) is quite fun. One reason why Ferrari's still not using turbos or superchargers in their modern cars. A supercharger will produce a nice effect, but is this what 'everyone' wants? Not to mention more moving parts and more complexity... The 6.2 liter engine is lighter (by over 50lb!) and simpler then a 5.5 liter with a supercharger.

Finally, having that 63 badge in place of a 55, well, some people find that badge very important.

Just a few opinions of mine, but cost may be different in your location, reliability may not be an issue, and the extra torque might be more valued by you as an individual

Yellow R1

Geezuz, you are getting seriously ripped if you are being quoted 30k swiss francs (that is ~$37k US). You can get just the blower & ECU (500 Hp) installed here in the US for $14k (just slightly more than $12.3k = 10k swiss franc surcharge for a 63....assuming MB does not raise it even more as there is no 63 SLK ).

Kleemann warranties all parts & service for 1 year or 12,000 miles. And, the MB dealer I consort with will fix any non Kleemann item wrong with the car (the original warranty is not voided). This may depend on your Dealer, but I think most dealers still want your money from routine service intervals & most know Kleemann makes high quality products (unless you are a punk azz annoying kid that does burn outs in fron of the Dealership ).

Reliability? The basic powerplant has been running for years in AMG cars (blown 5.5L) & I have not heard of any issues. My car has had zero issues - runs like a champ. I speak with Cory & Brandon @ Kleemann on occasion & they have never verbalized (when asked) about blown engines/rel issues with the N/A 5.5L with the Kleemann blower. I dunno - seems to work just fine (or they would not sell the stuff - it's just not financially viable to stay in business when you are getting constant claims against your firm....ask John Lingenfelter).

-Matt

Shinigami

30k swiss francs, more like $25k...

That's still quite a bit of cash. I remember asking people on the forums how much they paid for the blower in the US, and it was like $14k without the work. As it's a day or two worth of work to install, the total installation cost is almost $20k, no?

But anyway, the cost of the actual parts are much higher in Europe, sadly enough...

But if the cost of a CLK63 is just 10k (swiss francs, i.e. $8k) over the older 55, then would this be the same for the SLK, and if so, then wouldn't it be smarter to get an 'original' MB?

To each their own, of course...

And you're right, the 55 in the SLK is the same as the 55 in an SL, albeit the SL has an SC on it. No reliability issues on the SL, and most likely none on the SLK with Kleemann's kit.

As far as warranty, well... I guess it depends on the dealer. Some can be shady and will speak you down if they even think that you've modded your car. My dealer is an official Brabus reseller, so they do warranty Brabus stuff, but not Kleemann I would think. I haven't bothered asking, and besides, I'd need to pay another $12k to legalize my engine conversion for Swiss roads (long story).

Oh well...

Tuskir

I was quoted 16,400$ installed for the kleemann blower + ecu, another 4,000$ to install the kleemann headers, and another 1,500$ for custom mufflers. So you can get pretty close to 600hp for 20,000$....