Shellbmb

Looking for a hard-top convertible that's fun to drive and has some umph. Had an M roadster previously and loved the transmission, but the looks wore on me. So looking at a pre-owned SLK55 for me and the wifey.

I currently have a C63 as my daily driver and am curious how the 55 engine compares to the 63. I know the SLK is lighter than the C63, but I'm not sure by how much.

anyone have a chance to compare the two? The only 55's close to me are private sellers and i don't want to bother them for a test drive unless I'm really serious.

Also, any model years to stay away from? They don't look like they've changed much since 2005.

chucknorris

I was deciding between a C63 and an SLK55 a few years ago and ended up choosing the SLK55 since I didn't need the extra 2 doors. Straight-line performance is pretty similar. When my car was still stock, I had an informal drag race from 0-100mph with a stock '09 C63 and I came out on top by 1.5 car lengths. Neither of us had any passengers and I was barely pulling on him. Doing a comparison of stock cars at dragtimes.com, they put up similar numbers in the quarter, with the C63 posting slightly higher trap speeds on average.

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...onName=Compare!

The C63 is higher revving and has a more aggressive exhaust note. Handling and transmission are also probably a little better in the C63. The SLK55 has close to a 600 pound weight advantage, but with less hp, it is essentially negated. C63: 3993lbs. SLK55: 3395lbs. I had numerous opportunities to drive the C63, but never back to back with an SLK55 so I have limited insight into the fine points regarding their driving dynamics. The SLK55 definitely has it in the looks department. I get lots of compliments and shouts on the street.

With a couple of bolt on mods, I have been able to keep up with with my friend's unmodified '06 W211 E55 (which is faster and heavier than both the SLK55 and C63 stock). See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmQ94HHK7BE

Regarding the year, it depends on whether you care about the facelift or not, and whether you want the 6-piston/4-piston brake setup. Personally, I would get an '07, since I think that is the last year they offered the 6-piston brakes on standard SLK55s. I think they are still available on the 030 performance package versions, though. Reliability-wise, I have had a few issues: leaking valve cover gasket, faulty CD-changer, and most recently a faulty ESP Control Module. Though they added up to a couple thousand in repairs, they were relatively minor issues. In general, I think the 55 motors are pretty reliable. My friend has put over 60k daily driver miles on his supercharged 55K, with no issues whatsoever. Now if torque is what you are looking for, go with the 55K motor in the SL55 (I'd recommend '06 or later).

My SLK55 is almost fully loaded, but here are a couple of options I would recommend: air scarf (for top down motoring in colder weather or evenings), navigation, digital climate control.

Good luck with your choice, and post some pictures when you get it!

UK-C200

Chucks' hit the nail on the head - if you can live with 2 seats, go for the SLK. Agree with him as well on the options - you want airscarf for sure. Digitial Climate control is a trivial retrofit, and navigation on the non-facelift cars is will - dated.

If you can find a F/L '55 with the 030 package, you'll have a great car. If you don't like the F/L look, go for a my05-my07 with the proper AMG brakes - I catch P-Cars out regularly with my ability to stop!


EDITED : So for sure go drive a '55 before you get really excited. The seats are a "love 'em / hate 'em" sorta thing, although I do find the AMG seats to be more comfortable than the non-AMG. If you are over 6 feet, you'll spend some time getting comfortable. I'm 6"2', and have driven from one end of the UK to the other (about like driving across Texas, but more traffic), and from Louisiana to CA and Maine - so obviously I find the car quite comfortable.

roadtalontsi

i agree with all the above. The slk55 is faster then a stock c63, but obviously the c63 will respond much better to a chip +80hp. The c63 rides rougher and transmission shifts quicker and also does the throttle blips. Its all a matter of preference in the end.

wawy

The SLK is faster than a stock C63?? I'd like to see that...

roadtalontsi

I raced my friends cruiser bike with both from a 20 punch. The slk reeled him in and passed him at 100. Where the c63 was side by side at 120 and not even inching away. I know its sad and hard to believe. Like an slk32 beating an sl550. But thats life.

chucknorris

If you can understand German, these videos are quite good:

C63:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9lip...el_video_title

SLK55:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCyL0...el_video_title

C43AMG

+ 1 ...with how much of a lead ?

BIGjohnny

Although these video clips show that the SLK55 AMG post a faster time lap when compared to the C63 AMG, I would have to disagree that the SLK55 AMG is faster than a C63 AMG. On a straight-line performance (based on multiple magazines' statistics) the C63 will outrun the SLK55. I've never raced a C63 on a straight line but wouldn't mind for a challenge but I'm certain I won't be pulling away from a C63.

chucknorris

I also believed that with perfect conditions and a perfect launch, the C63 would have a slight edge, especially up top. However, my experience shows that it is at least possible for an SLK55 to come out ahead in real world situations. We were both alone, and had seemingly perfect launches from a dig to 100. The other driver was definitely surprised to see me pulling on him. After a couple of bolt-on mods on my SLK, my friend in his stock W211 E55 was also surprised to see me keep up with him on a little run we had. I have never formally raced the E55, however. I should try one day.

In the videos, it confirms that the C63 attains a slightly higher speed on the straight, compared with the SLK55. The lap times are essentially a wash.

MIKESV8

+1...big time

Lizard

I owned an Slk55 for 3yrs and also drove a c63 on numerous occasions and the c63 was definitely faster than my Slk.
Maybe my car was a lemon ?

AMS Performance

The 55 is far less thirsty than the 63 engine. The SLK is about 33xx lbs the C63 is about 38xx lbs so its a massive weight penalty. The 5.5L M113 has a much torquier low end but sacrifices top end, the 63 motor is the exact opposite: no low end but a monster up top.

A stock SLK55 is definitely quick, but a Stage 3 or Stage 4 SLK55 is a monster, with that much power and such a low curb weight, it really gets moving down the road. Getting the SLK55 to 400HP+ is real easy and the results speak for themselves. It is a great platform as long as you don't need two extra doors and you are not very tall. If you are over 6ft, the SLK is probably not for you.

hope that helps

roadtalontsi

i think you guys are forgeting about gearing too. The final drive gear in the rear diff. is the same size for all slk's. so all the gears go by alot quicker. Thats fine if yall dont want to believe me, then dont. And go find a c63 and go race it!! come back and post the results. Im sure the c63 will eventually catch the slk around 120-130mph but until then slk will hold the lead.

BIGjohnny

If a C63 is willing to challenge... i'm up for it I already know the outcome C63 > SLK55