SLK55 Supercharger
08-18-2004, 09:10 AM
#27
Member
Will there be SLK 63/60's? From a CLK55 perspective; etc. ...
The Magnuson-Moss act is N/A in Canada -- we have not annexed it yet, something about French as 3rd language probably has Bush scared to -- but maybe our Northern friends have something equal or better.
In the US one can file intent-to-use trademark applications. On July 21, 2003, DaimlerChrysler AG filed such for both "SLK 55" and SLK 63". [I am trying to attach GIF copies of the US Patent and Trademark Office records on these but have never tried to attach images to a post here. Anyway, anybody can drill down to the trademark search engine at www.uspto.gov and confirm this for themself.]
I know at least one MBZ dealer's employee who has ordered a SLK55 and E/SL55 SC parts to upgrade it, but that is for track use rather than as his daily ride.
My 2001 CLK55 (non-SC) has been very enjoyable, but there have been plenty of little "firts year with that pkg" type things.
So some months ago, I ordered a 2006 model year SLK??, getting the #1 spot on a major dealer's list. I will be happy with a 55, and I will be real happy with a 63. My tentative plans are to put on a SC, but I still want to keep the car street usable, e.g, unlike most Roush Mustangs that I have seen.
In the US one can file intent-to-use trademark applications. On July 21, 2003, DaimlerChrysler AG filed such for both "SLK 55" and SLK 63". [I am trying to attach GIF copies of the US Patent and Trademark Office records on these but have never tried to attach images to a post here. Anyway, anybody can drill down to the trademark search engine at www.uspto.gov and confirm this for themself.]
I know at least one MBZ dealer's employee who has ordered a SLK55 and E/SL55 SC parts to upgrade it, but that is for track use rather than as his daily ride.
My 2001 CLK55 (non-SC) has been very enjoyable, but there have been plenty of little "firts year with that pkg" type things.
So some months ago, I ordered a 2006 model year SLK??, getting the #1 spot on a major dealer's list. I will be happy with a 55, and I will be real happy with a 63. My tentative plans are to put on a SC, but I still want to keep the car street usable, e.g, unlike most Roush Mustangs that I have seen.
08-31-2004, 01:07 PM
#28
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 Porsche Cayman S
Have you tried Brabas
Brabas in Newport Beach California can turn up the volume on any Mercedes.
Brabus can tune the SLK55 up to 457 hp and they do terriffic work.
Check out this web site: http://www.brabus.com
Brabus can tune the SLK55 up to 457 hp and they do terriffic work.
Check out this web site: http://www.brabus.com
08-31-2004, 02:50 PM
#29
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: No specific place
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by Bilal
Superchargers put a great deal of stress on the engine and the ensuing parts, like transmission and axles and driveshafts etc. etc. The SLK55 wasn't built to take the extra stresses a supercharger and additional strengthening will impose/require.
The Carlsson supercharger is your best bet. The Brabus conversion will cost too much and a 6.1 engine with additional reinforcements will add extra nose weight, a big no no for such a little car.
You get 480hp and 650NM I think, coupled with 7G tronic, it should possibly keep up with or beat the SL55, due to its power to weight ratio. However I don't think the transmission could cope, its limit is 600NM in each of the gears. Plus engine longevity will greatly suffer as will fuel consumption. If you risk blowing up your engine, a new one will cost in the order of 35-40K dollars.
Personally, I wouldn't do it. Its not that the cost is too much or anything, its more to do with engine longevity than anything else. The SLK55 is a performance car, any additional stresses on the engine and co. components could cost a lot and warranty won't cover it since you have done a very technical mod.
But at the end of the day, your money, your car.
The Carlsson supercharger is your best bet. The Brabus conversion will cost too much and a 6.1 engine with additional reinforcements will add extra nose weight, a big no no for such a little car.
You get 480hp and 650NM I think, coupled with 7G tronic, it should possibly keep up with or beat the SL55, due to its power to weight ratio. However I don't think the transmission could cope, its limit is 600NM in each of the gears. Plus engine longevity will greatly suffer as will fuel consumption. If you risk blowing up your engine, a new one will cost in the order of 35-40K dollars.
Personally, I wouldn't do it. Its not that the cost is too much or anything, its more to do with engine longevity than anything else. The SLK55 is a performance car, any additional stresses on the engine and co. components could cost a lot and warranty won't cover it since you have done a very technical mod.
But at the end of the day, your money, your car.
09-01-2004, 05:01 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500E -92 and 560SEL -90
Originally Posted by JohnSLK
Sleestack with regards to the SL i assume that your pig reference refers to the weigh of around 1900kgs. If so i agree with you it's just too heavy. For me it's disappointing that MB who constantly claim to have superoir techology build such a heavy beast. The new Jag XJ8 is about 1600kgs and the yet to be released new XK8 Jag will probarly be about 1550kgs, both use aluminum. There is scope for MB to do alot better.
Yes the SL may be fast but in my mind it is way to heavy to be a objective of admiration for a techo car nut point of view.
Yes the SL may be fast but in my mind it is way to heavy to be a objective of admiration for a techo car nut point of view.
The other factors are more important to the Mercedes brand than light weight. So the SL is the result of those priorities made.
09-01-2004, 10:38 PM
#31
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Henrik
It's more due to all the technology incorporated in the SL that makes it weight that much. It's not due to LACK of technology. Mercedes have higher goals than ANY other carmanufacturer I would say when building a car.. incorporating safety, chassi regidity, long lasting components, all sorts of things. You can not brake the laws of physics and then ALSO make it superlight... yet.
The other factors are more important to the Mercedes brand than light weight. So the SL is the result of those priorities made.
The other factors are more important to the Mercedes brand than light weight. So the SL is the result of those priorities made.
Long lasting components - very questionable as MB's reliabity ratings slip below those of many US brands.
Laws of physics - why break them? Just use them, aluminuim is signficantly lighter than steel. The lighter car, the smaller the engine, brakes, tyres, etc. are needed.
Chassis regidity - how much do you need and what does this do? A Lotus Elise weighs 800kgs, has 190hp and is faster around a track than the SL55. Despite the chassis regidity of the SL it still rattles and shakes.
Safety - an 1950kgs SL55 will slam into a wall with about 20% more momentum than a 1600kg Jag at the same speed.
MB having higher goals than any other manufacturer - I assume you are not talking about enviromental goals for example but financial goals.
It not due to a LACK of techology - sorry to say but techology does not equate to weight, nor the near useless gadgets that MB packs into it's cars that are so prone to faults.
Look under the bonnet, where is the techolgy? A 3 valve V8 designed 10 years ago that is redundant (MB is replacing it's 3 valve engines with 4 valve engines) with a supercharger, that is also redundant it is a well know fact that MB is getting out of superchargers. The power and tq output is slightly less than Alpina's BMW 4.4L with a centifugal supercharger bolted only giving less boast than the SL's supercharger.
The AMG "tuned" naturally aspirated 5.5L V8 at 360hp does not even come close to GM's 5.6L 405hp OHV LS6 V8 but weights 80lbs more.
So the SL is the result of those priorities made - hmmm. My point is that i don't respect this car,
09-07-2004, 04:50 PM
#32
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 2003 Acura MDX
You are totally correct but people still keep on buying MB's. It is a very strange! Three pointed myth?
MB had 318 problems per 100 vehicle in the "J.D. Power and Associates 2003 VDS"! The "Industry Average" was 273! Lexus had the least with 163! Only nine "Nameplates" had more problems than MB in that study! I know I know:” You don't like it go buy a Lexus"!
The Z06 version of the LS6 will have around 500hp and 500 pound of torque. It will also be lighter, cheaper and more rigid than the SLK55. It might even have more technology and be as safe as the SLK55. That is why I might cancel my SLK55 order and wait for the new Z06.
MB had 318 problems per 100 vehicle in the "J.D. Power and Associates 2003 VDS"! The "Industry Average" was 273! Lexus had the least with 163! Only nine "Nameplates" had more problems than MB in that study! I know I know:” You don't like it go buy a Lexus"!
The Z06 version of the LS6 will have around 500hp and 500 pound of torque. It will also be lighter, cheaper and more rigid than the SLK55. It might even have more technology and be as safe as the SLK55. That is why I might cancel my SLK55 order and wait for the new Z06.
Originally Posted by JohnSLK
Henrik,
Long lasting components - very questionable as MB's reliabity ratings slip below those of many US brands.
Laws of physics - why break them? Just use them, aluminuim is signficantly lighter than steel. The lighter car, the smaller the engine, brakes, tyres, etc. are needed.
Chassis regidity - how much do you need and what does this do? A Lotus Elise weighs 800kgs, has 190hp and is faster around a track than the SL55. Despite the chassis regidity of the SL it still rattles and shakes.
Safety - an 1950kgs SL55 will slam into a wall with about 20% more momentum than a 1600kg Jag at the same speed.
MB having higher goals than any other manufacturer - I assume you are not talking about enviromental goals for example but financial goals.
It not due to a LACK of techology - sorry to say but techology does not equate to weight, nor the near useless gadgets that MB packs into it's cars that are so prone to faults.
Look under the bonnet, where is the techolgy? A 3 valve V8 designed 10 years ago that is redundant (MB is replacing it's 3 valve engines with 4 valve engines) with a supercharger, that is also redundant it is a well know fact that MB is getting out of superchargers. The power and tq output is slightly less than Alpina's BMW 4.4L with a centifugal supercharger bolted only giving less boast than the SL's supercharger.
The AMG "tuned" naturally aspirated 5.5L V8 at 360hp does not even come close to GM's 5.6L 405hp OHV LS6 V8 but weights 80lbs more.
So the SL is the result of those priorities made - hmmm. My point is that i don't respect this car,
Long lasting components - very questionable as MB's reliabity ratings slip below those of many US brands.
Laws of physics - why break them? Just use them, aluminuim is signficantly lighter than steel. The lighter car, the smaller the engine, brakes, tyres, etc. are needed.
Chassis regidity - how much do you need and what does this do? A Lotus Elise weighs 800kgs, has 190hp and is faster around a track than the SL55. Despite the chassis regidity of the SL it still rattles and shakes.
Safety - an 1950kgs SL55 will slam into a wall with about 20% more momentum than a 1600kg Jag at the same speed.
MB having higher goals than any other manufacturer - I assume you are not talking about enviromental goals for example but financial goals.
It not due to a LACK of techology - sorry to say but techology does not equate to weight, nor the near useless gadgets that MB packs into it's cars that are so prone to faults.
Look under the bonnet, where is the techolgy? A 3 valve V8 designed 10 years ago that is redundant (MB is replacing it's 3 valve engines with 4 valve engines) with a supercharger, that is also redundant it is a well know fact that MB is getting out of superchargers. The power and tq output is slightly less than Alpina's BMW 4.4L with a centifugal supercharger bolted only giving less boast than the SL's supercharger.
The AMG "tuned" naturally aspirated 5.5L V8 at 360hp does not even come close to GM's 5.6L 405hp OHV LS6 V8 but weights 80lbs more.
So the SL is the result of those priorities made - hmmm. My point is that i don't respect this car,
10-07-2004, 04:18 PM
#33
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 slk55
Originally Posted by Sleestack
I have 2 tuned MBs and am considering building a Kleemann SCed SLK55 or C55 as my next daily driver. I'm not into roadsters, but the thought of a 500+ hp SLK55 has me reconsidering. I think it would make for the ultimate MB roadster.... maybe not as pretty as the SL, but certainly not the pig the SL is either.
10-07-2004, 08:02 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Cuba/West Bimini
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars and boats!
all the SLK55 needs is some ECU tuning, custom exhaust, and higher flowing intakes... the car has a great weight distribution already.. dont ruin it.. if you want to drop a s/c into a car do it with a C55!!
03-27-2005, 03:26 AM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 2,554
Received 161 Likes
on
130 Posts
R129 SL55 AMG & W208 CLK55 AMG
Thats strange...
I walked into our MB authorised dealer a few days ago and BANG!!!! There it was.... in the showroom.... abrand new spanking white SLK55 AMG with a KLEEMANN S8 package installed!
Totally warrantied! No questions asked! Kleemann upgrade done by the dealer themselves!
I walked into our MB authorised dealer a few days ago and BANG!!!! There it was.... in the showroom.... abrand new spanking white SLK55 AMG with a KLEEMANN S8 package installed!
Totally warrantied! No questions asked! Kleemann upgrade done by the dealer themselves!
03-27-2005, 05:03 AM
#37
Originally Posted by AndrewM
I've got two SLK 55 AMG's schedules for February 2005 delivery (I'm in Canada.. so I think we get screwed a bit on the delivery). One is mine, the other is for my business partner.
My question is, to anyone's knowledge, are there any performance upgrades that may be done? We currently have two 2003 SLK 320's, so understanding the significant increase in HP and torque of the 55's, I can already appreciate the speed... however, specifically, I'm curious if there is a supercharger that one could purchase. If so, from where? What is the cost? How much HP and/or torque would it add?
Thanks guys!
My question is, to anyone's knowledge, are there any performance upgrades that may be done? We currently have two 2003 SLK 320's, so understanding the significant increase in HP and torque of the 55's, I can already appreciate the speed... however, specifically, I'm curious if there is a supercharger that one could purchase. If so, from where? What is the cost? How much HP and/or torque would it add?
Thanks guys!
04-10-2005, 09:26 PM
#38
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55, Mustang 480hp, CBR600rr
Why bother? There is no point in adding more power to this car unless your going to shoe-horn bigger feet under it. With only 245s in the rear anymore power will give very diminished returns if any. It's like pirelli says "power is nothing without control". Granted you could have traction control on nerfing you, but then why add the hp if your only going to have it nerfed?
My toy car is a mustang with 520hp I run 275s Nitto 555 RII Road Race tires (they only last about 7-8k miles), race Z06s and others all the time and they can't figure out how I get off the line so fast while they are sitting there doing a burn-out contest trying to keep up with me.
My toy car is a mustang with 520hp I run 275s Nitto 555 RII Road Race tires (they only last about 7-8k miles), race Z06s and others all the time and they can't figure out how I get off the line so fast while they are sitting there doing a burn-out contest trying to keep up with me.
04-11-2005, 01:50 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 Ppower
Why bother? There is no point in adding more power to this car unless your going to shoe-horn bigger feet under it. With only 245s in the rear anymore power will give very diminished returns if any. It's like pirelli says "power is nothing without control". Granted you could have traction control on nerfing you, but then why add the hp if your only going to have it nerfed?
My toy car is a mustang with 520hp I run 275s Nitto 555 RII Road Race tires (they only last about 7-8k miles), race Z06s and others all the time and they can't figure out how I get off the line so fast while they are sitting there doing a burn-out contest trying to keep up with me.
My toy car is a mustang with 520hp I run 275s Nitto 555 RII Road Race tires (they only last about 7-8k miles), race Z06s and others all the time and they can't figure out how I get off the line so fast while they are sitting there doing a burn-out contest trying to keep up with me.
The F1 Saftey Car has 265s in the rear. You can fit 275s in the rear, but thats about the limit or the tire starts sticking outside of the rear wheelwell/bodywork.
-Matt
04-11-2005, 02:24 PM
#40
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 2003 Acura MDX
I looked a little bit deeper in that LSD
thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!
I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Err, you put bigger rims/tires (and DRs if necc) as well as a limited slip differntial. No traction problems.
The F1 Saftey Car has 265s in the rear. You can fit 275s in the rear, but thats about the limit or the tire starts sticking outside of the rear wheelwell/bodywork.
-Matt
The F1 Saftey Car has 265s in the rear. You can fit 275s in the rear, but thats about the limit or the tire starts sticking outside of the rear wheelwell/bodywork.
-Matt
04-11-2005, 04:11 PM
#42
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 Teufel
I looked a little bit deeper in that LSD thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!
I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
You are worried about "safe" when you driving a 450 - 500 RWHP sports car? I guess "safe" is all relative.
Its safer than my 2,700 lbs, 360 RWHP RX-7 (the SLK55 has more airbags, weighs more, & has traction control). I just don't drive my RX-7 in the rain & likely won't drive the SLK in the rain either (there is a significantly higher proportion of accidents in the wet vs dry). See ya,
-Matt
04-11-2005, 05:53 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55
Originally Posted by Teufel
I looked a little bit deeper in that LSD thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!
I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
thing and I am not sure if it is a good idea!?! I was told it is very dangerous on the SLK55 because of the short wheel base and light weight rear!?! And that is why AMG didn't put one on the SLK55 but they put one on the SL65!?! Also, I was told MB Canada would not cover anything that was damaged because of the LSD; not even tires and brakes!I know very reputable tuners do offer SLD for the SLK. Therefore, I am not sure whom to believe!?!
Cheers
04-11-2005, 07:24 PM
#44
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 2003 Acura MDX
I just wanted to get some more opinions
By the way, I live in Vancouver, Canada and a day without rain doesn't exist here! In the rain, my SLK55 is all over the place! Even if I am extra extra extra gentle on the gas pedal and steering wheel!
I don't even want to think passive safety; airbags...!
By the way, I live in Vancouver, Canada and a day without rain doesn't exist here! In the rain, my SLK55 is all over the place! Even if I am extra extra extra gentle on the gas pedal and steering wheel!
I don't even want to think passive safety; airbags...!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Putting a LSD in a car is not "unsafe", it allows the car to get the power to the ground in a more efficient manner.
You are worried about "safe" when you driving a 450 - 500 RWHP sports car? I guess "safe" is all relative. Its safer than my 2,700 lbs, 360 RWHP RX-7 (the SLK55 has more airbags, weighs more, & has traction control). I just don't drive my RX-7 in the rain & likely won't drive the SLK in the rain either (there is a significantly higher proportion of accidents in the wet vs dry).
See ya,
-Matt
You are worried about "safe" when you driving a 450 - 500 RWHP sports car? I guess "safe" is all relative.
Its safer than my 2,700 lbs, 360 RWHP RX-7 (the SLK55 has more airbags, weighs more, & has traction control). I just don't drive my RX-7 in the rain & likely won't drive the SLK in the rain either (there is a significantly higher proportion of accidents in the wet vs dry). See ya,
-Matt
04-11-2005, 08:00 PM
#45
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 Teufel
I just wanted to get some more opinions
By the way, I live in Vancouver, Canada and a day without rain doesn't exist here! In the rain, my SLK55 is all over the place! Even if I am extra extra extra gentle on the gas pedal and steering wheel!
I don't even want to think passive safety; airbags...!
By the way, I live in Vancouver, Canada and a day without rain doesn't exist here! In the rain, my SLK55 is all over the place! Even if I am extra extra extra gentle on the gas pedal and steering wheel!
I don't even want to think passive safety; airbags...!
.See ya,
-Matt
04-12-2005, 12:40 AM
#46
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Putting a LSD in a car is not "unsafe", it allows the car to get the power to the ground in a more efficient manner.
You are worried about "safe" when you driving a 450 - 500 RWHP sports car? I guess "safe" is all relative. Its safer than my 2,700 lbs, 360 RWHP RX-7 (the SLK55 has more airbags, weighs more, & has traction control). I just don't drive my RX-7 in the rain & likely won't drive the SLK in the rain either (there is a significantly higher proportion of accidents in the wet vs dry).
See ya,
-Matt
You are worried about "safe" when you driving a 450 - 500 RWHP sports car? I guess "safe" is all relative.
Its safer than my 2,700 lbs, 360 RWHP RX-7 (the SLK55 has more airbags, weighs more, & has traction control). I just don't drive my RX-7 in the rain & likely won't drive the SLK in the rain either (there is a significantly higher proportion of accidents in the wet vs dry). See ya,
-Matt
Many muscle cars carried warnings when they were fitted with LSD re the above.
If you want more power it will be cheaper to trade up to the 4 valve 5.5L V8 in 18 months rather than go for a Kleenman superchargers, exhaust, etc. The 4 valve will have 410hp and a much fuller torque curve.
04-12-2005, 12:38 PM
#47
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 JohnSLK
LSD can allow both rear tires to break traction under acceleration which can induce the car to spin whilst corning. The SLK being compartively torquey, automatic (can change down without the drivers contol) and having a short wheel base would be more prone to this than most cars.
Many muscle cars carried warnings when they were fitted with LSD re the above.
If you want more power it will be cheaper to trade up to the 4 valve 5.5L V8 in 18 months rather than go for a Kleenman superchargers, exhaust, etc. The 4 valve will have 410hp and a much fuller torque curve.
Many muscle cars carried warnings when they were fitted with LSD re the above.
If you want more power it will be cheaper to trade up to the 4 valve 5.5L V8 in 18 months rather than go for a Kleenman superchargers, exhaust, etc. The 4 valve will have 410hp and a much fuller torque curve.
In any case, you are mistaking the fact the SLK55 has Traction Control. The LSD allows more power to get to the ground (ie harder acceleration) while the traction control still intervenes if/when wheelspin through 2 tires (not ONE) begin to break loose. An LSD on an SL55 cuts 5/10nths off the 0-60 time vs stock (I've got a friend in Santa Cruz that just did it 8 months ago).
Muscle cars? Are you serious? You are taking some warning from cars that were produced 40 YEARS ago, had unbalanced chassis, horrible brakes, a high center of gravity, no modern electronic traction technology, inferior tire compounds & aspect ratios, etc. & drawing the conclusion that a blown SLK55 with an LSD is more unsafe than one without the LSD? I hope you are kidding.
Another point, its Kleeman, not Kleenman, & its not going to be cheaper to take a $20k depreciation hit on the value of an SLK55 & then pay more than the SLK55 sticker or a 4 valve version down the road. Furthermore, the torque curve of a blown V8 is much FATTER than a N/A 4 valve motor (look at the curves for an E55 vs a Ferrari quattro or pentavalve powerplant, or even your 410 Hp motor for reference). Superchargers produce WAY more usable low end grunt than a high reving N/A motor with similiar displacement. $15k buys an installed & tuned blower with 530+ ft lbs of torque. Its less expensive, has a fatter curve, produces more output, and is available now (not 18 months per your 410 Hp N/A example).
-Matt
04-12-2005, 06:14 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Another point, its Kleeman, not Kleenman,
04-12-2005, 07:19 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 fredfromny
Actually it's Kleemann with 2 n's. But I agree with everything else in your post. This future "vaporcar" exists in some minds as a rationalization for not pulling the trigger on the 55. The next AMG SLK may well be the "63", but the sticker will be closer to $80K than $60K.
! "Vaporcar"...pretty clever (but true....its a ways off & it will cost additional cash if/when it is launched). My wife is going to drive this new car (arrives prior to 4/24 according to my Sales guy). If I (ehem, she) wants more power, I'll get the Klemann kit. It might be enough as is, but I doubt it
.See ya,
-Matt
