SLK55 (R171) 2004 - 2010: SLK200K, SLK280, SLK350, SLK55, SLK55 Black Series

SLK63 coming next year

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 06-22-2007, 12:18 PM
  #1  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
bfnnrgn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SL65
SLK63 coming next year

Well, looks like we have confirmation of the SLK63 and it's coming next year. No word on power, but at least it's existence isn't a rumor anymore. This would be the fist mention of it on any documentation from Mercedes.

Old 06-22-2007, 12:58 PM
  #2  
Junior Member
 
NasimDaDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'07 SLK55
Ooooh...can't wait!
Old 06-22-2007, 01:32 PM
  #3  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
SLK55R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
nope

Thats from a long time ago actually and has been posted before on a forum. Don't remember if it was this one.

After that was released ... AMG was repeated questioned if the 6.3 would come to the SLK. They have said no repeatedly.

Of course if it does ... awesome!
Old 06-22-2007, 02:20 PM
  #4  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
bfnnrgn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SL65
Originally Posted by SLK55R
Thats from a long time ago actually and has been posted before on a forum. Don't remember if it was this one.

After that was released ... AMG was repeated questioned if the 6.3 would come to the SLK. They have said no repeatedly.

Of course if it does ... awesome!
You just had to go and rain on my parade....
Old 06-22-2007, 02:56 PM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
alroumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kuwait City, Kuwait
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
G55 & SLK55
I am sad also, but to get close to the rumoured 420-450hp on the 6.2litre engine I guess 55 owners need Valve Springs, cam's, headers and an ecu update.

or you can go for the 6.1 S Brabus upgrade for 445hp/
Old 06-22-2007, 09:36 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Acez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2001 Kleemann CLK 230K, 2006 CLS 350, GTR R35
or kleemann supercharger for ~500-540hp
Old 06-23-2007, 01:41 AM
  #7  
Almost a Member!
 
mbSLRwannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2007 SLK55 AMG Iridium Silver
that was posted on the AMG owners forum a long long time ago, and was confirmed as bogus
Old 07-10-2007, 06:21 AM
  #8  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Germancar1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes on 203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Now that we have the hp numbers for the C63 AMG I'm betting that we'll see a SLK63 with the same 457hp or 450hp for the U.S. market SAE conversion.

M
Old 07-10-2007, 10:08 AM
  #9  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
alroumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kuwait City, Kuwait
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
G55 & SLK55
I say 63 for the R172, this topic was debated before no space for the 6.2l V8.
Old 07-10-2007, 11:01 AM
  #10  
Super Member
 
silk32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: N.Attleboro,MA
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo, Turbo, SLK 55, E350 4Matic, Xterra
any spy shots of the r172?
Old 07-10-2007, 11:20 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Ferri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2011 Hyundai Elantra GLS
Originally Posted by alroumi
I say 63 for the R172, this topic was debated before no space for the 6.2l V8.
I do not think that is entirely correct. The SLK and C (203) shared front ends with the current CLK, where the 6.3 was fitted with no problem. I believe the SLK will soon be endowed with the 6.2L V8, and get a black-series like styling makeover.
Old 07-10-2007, 03:38 PM
  #12  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
alroumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kuwait City, Kuwait
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
G55 & SLK55
Originally Posted by Ferri
I do not think that is entirely correct. The SLK and C (203) shared front ends with the current CLK, where the 6.3 was fitted with no problem. I believe the SLK will soon be endowed with the 6.2L V8, and get a black-series like styling makeover.
Thank you for enlighting me, well we will see.
Old 07-10-2007, 03:54 PM
  #13  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
AdamG@NorCal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fremont, Ca
Posts: 2,915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EVOTECH Mercedes AMG
Originally Posted by Ferri
I do not think that is entirely correct. The SLK and C (203) shared front ends with the current CLK, where the 6.3 was fitted with no problem. I believe the SLK will soon be endowed with the 6.2L V8, and get a black-series like styling makeover.
You are right on the money.

And for those who wants a little more power from the M113/M156, please contact EuroElites as EuroElites has now the capability of custom tuning (in house)

Cheers,

Adam

Last edited by AdamG@NorCal; 07-10-2007 at 04:00 PM.
Old 07-10-2007, 05:35 PM
  #14  
Almost a Member!
 
SLK 55 Kleemann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLK 55 Kleemann -06 Lotus Esprit V8 Biturbo -96 Harley Lowrider -06
Originally Posted by Acez
or kleemann supercharger for ~500-540hp
True!
My car delivers at the moment, 513 Hp and 700 Nm, and in August I will add Camshafts and ofcourse their Exhaustsystem -
Old 07-10-2007, 11:01 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The sad part is that C63 and SLK63 cost roughly the same, while C63 has 120hp more. Tell me if I'm crazy, but that does not sound fair to me

And with the new M3 coming out with 410hp, SLK55 needs to have 450hp minimum.

Originally Posted by SLK 55 Kleemann
True!
My car delivers at the moment, 513 Hp and 700 Nm, and in August I will add Camshafts and ofcourse their Exhaustsystem -
Do you have a dyno by any chance? How much hp at the wheels?
Old 07-11-2007, 12:14 AM
  #16  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
SLK55R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
heh

The SLK does NOT need 450 hp. Look at the weight differential with the C63. The reality is that at anything over 400hp at the wheel the biggest problem is traction already.

If the SLK does come with around 400hp RWHP stock they better make a serious changes to allow greater traction.
Old 07-11-2007, 12:50 AM
  #17  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
AdamG@NorCal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fremont, Ca
Posts: 2,915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EVOTECH Mercedes AMG
Don't worry, we can always beef her up to 450 hp , no problem....
Old 07-11-2007, 12:52 AM
  #18  
Almost a Member!
 
mbSLRwannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2007 SLK55 AMG Iridium Silver
Originally Posted by SLK55R
The SLK does NOT need 450 hp. Look at the weight differential with the C63. The reality is that at anything over 400hp at the wheel the biggest problem is traction already.

If the SLK does come with around 400hp RWHP stock they better make a serious changes to allow greater traction.
if the SLK gets the 6.3 liter engine i'm sure MB would HAVE TO fit atleast 305+ rear tires for the traction.
Old 07-11-2007, 01:19 AM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by SLK55R
The SLK does NOT need 450 hp. Look at the weight differential with the C63. The reality is that at anything over 400hp at the wheel the biggest problem is traction already.

If the SLK does come with around 400hp RWHP stock they better make a serious changes to allow greater traction.
Oh please... if C and CLK classes can handle it no problem, so can the SLK. The reality is that SLK is the only Mercedes AMG sports car not to recieve this upgraded engine... if C and CLK are getting it, so should the SLK. SLK is not getting any love from AMG


AdamG, its true you can upgrade it no problem... i just think that for $63,000 MSRP, it should have the 6.2L engine just like C63. Why should it get a lesser engine? That 5.5L V8 is like a decade old, c'mon...


P.S. I'm kinda tired of hearing the "6.2L engine was not meant for the SLK, it doesn't fit.. bla bla bla" R171 is an 2005 model, Mercedes should've thought about making the 6.2L engine fit during its development. Keep in mind that C and CLK bodies are much older, so there really isnt any excuse to be made here...

Last edited by Tuskir; 07-11-2007 at 01:26 AM.
Old 07-11-2007, 01:21 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by mbSLRwannabe
if the SLK gets the 6.3 liter engine i'm sure MB would HAVE TO fit atleast 305+ rear tires for the traction.
No they dont. CLK63 and C63 both have 255 rear tire. 265 would be more than adequate for the SLK63... which fits in the back no problem.
Old 07-11-2007, 01:26 AM
  #21  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
bfnnrgn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SL65
Originally Posted by Tuskir
No they dont. CLK63 and C63 both have 255 rear tire. 265 would be more than adequate for the SLK63... which fits in the back no problem.
That's true, but they also weigh 3800-4000 lbs. The SLK is much much lighter.
Old 07-11-2007, 01:37 AM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by bfnnrgn
That's true, but they also weigh 3800-4000 lbs. The SLK is much much lighter.
300-400lbs lighter than CLK63 coupe is not a huge difference in weight really... with that 6.2L engine in place, the difference in weight would probably be even smaller.
Old 07-11-2007, 05:04 AM
  #23  
Super Member
 
Shinigami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by Tuskir
300-400lbs lighter than CLK63 coupe is not a huge difference in weight really... with that 6.2L engine in place, the difference in weight would probably be even smaller.
I disagree, 300-400lb's is quite a lot of weight (10-15% lighter is a big deal in a car), and the 63 engine is lighter then the current 55.
Old 07-11-2007, 06:23 AM
  #24  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
ProjectC55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: City with Tall buildings!
Posts: 5,475
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
C43/55,2k11 Volvo S60 T6AWD,2k Audi B5 S4,95 Eagle Talon Tsi AWD 500+awhp
Originally Posted by Tuskir
300-400lbs lighter than CLK63 coupe is not a huge difference in weight really... with that 6.2L engine in place, the difference in weight would probably be even smaller.
LOL! Ok you try bench pressing 300 to 400lbs and you tell me how light you feel it is. That's a BIG difference in weight especially ifthe cars are using the same motor and have the same HP more or less.
Old 07-11-2007, 08:21 AM
  #25  
Almost a Member!
 
SLK 55 Kleemann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLK 55 Kleemann -06 Lotus Esprit V8 Biturbo -96 Harley Lowrider -06
Originally Posted by Tuskir
The sad part is that C63 and SLK63 cost roughly the same, while C63 has 120hp more. Tell me if I'm crazy, but that does not sound fair to me

And with the new M3 coming out with 410hp, SLK55 needs to have 450hp minimum.



Do you have a dyno by any chance? How much hp at the wheels?
No its measured by Kleemann and its not at the wheels:


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: SLK63 coming next year



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 PM.