Im about to purchase a 2001 E55 or Clk55. I still cant decide which is best for me. Im mainly looking for excellent handling and performance. I currently drive a ML55 and it ride likes a beast. Its just a bit to big for me and dosen't handle that well. I have test drove a CLK55 and I was truly impressed. Never drove the E55. Any advice on which would be best for me. Thank you.

 

For me, the E is more seductive...Go and buy the W210

 

I agree with HDS500, i.e., the quality difference! My neighbor and I bought our AMG's at aprox. the same time! I bought the E55 AMG; he bought the CLK 55 AMG. I've driven his car and he's driven mine. Verdict: If he had to do it over again he'd have bought the E55 AMG! Otto

 

I have never had a problem with my CLK55. It is a great car and the quality is excellent. I have an Eclass wagon (MY2000) that had to have a new transmission and the doors don't shut properly. If you want to drive what is basically a souped up German taxi, get an E55. If you want to drive a monster of a sports coupe/grand tourer, get a CLK55.

 

The CLK has too many draw backs. These are facts and not just opinions:

CLK has a harsher ride, because the wheels base is shorter from the older W202 C-Class.

It has recirculating-ball steering which is problematic, E55 has better Rack & Pinion steering.

The CLK has 342 HP, while the E55 has 349.

The CLK only has 376 lb-ft of torque, E55 has 391.

18 inch rims are natural for E55 and putting 18 inches on CLK55 makes the ride more harsher.

The E55 has wider tires.

The CLK is absent the 4 way tilt/telescoping power steering column.

Mercedes-Benz does not make Taxi's! Cab drivers buy the E-Class sedans and convert them into taxi's. That says something about the W210 reliability doesn't it. If money is no object buy the E55 instead of a souped up W202 chassis!

 

Coming from someone who hasn't owned either...wow. You read the brochures! AMG gave the E more HP and more torque because it weighs more. Duh.

Perhaps you should hurry up and go to HBL and buy an E55, so that your opinion will be based on more than reviews and brochures. Of course your car will start depreciating as fast as you can drive it off the lot as the ships circle off shore with the new E-class.

Mr. Vanos has had both. He likes his E55. Great. But I think he is also a little bias toward the M3 in the coupe catergory. And he does need a larger platform for displaying the wonders of Evosport. You know...I think that it makes a lot of sense to own and tune an E when there are what...5-10 times as many Es as CLKs. Good business sense.

Is it a coincidence that they just got a C32 as well...I don't think so.

 

I agree with hmrdwn...I've driven BOTH (Bone stock) extensively and feel that both cars in box stock condition, bear out MBZ's published specs of each respective model. And for the naysayers; a basic math lesson. Seven horses and fifteen pounds of torque DOES NOT make up for the extra 250+ pounds of additional weight(according to MBZ'z #'s) carried by the E 55. Power to weight ratios tip the advantage to the CLK (~10.2/1) While the "E" factors in at roughly 10.8/1....Gearing and transmission ratios are identical. The only problem/disadvantage the CLK has , imo, is not enough rubber to get the power to the ground, thus losing time due to excessive wheelspin over what can/is experienced by an "E" driver. I do admit that I lament the lack of rack and pinion steering though compared to the steering in my Porsche, both MBZ systems pale in comparison but that's another issue.....
As for the taxi comparison, I asked an independent "E" class taxi driver in Paris if he owned his wheels. He responded to the affirmative. I then proceeded to inquire in my best broken French if the car was built as a taxi by the factory or was it done in the aftermarket. He responded the he bought a bone stock model with standard accessories and had the "taxi" stuff done by a company that does the conversion. (meter, communication system, etc.) Yes, he did say it was very reliable, but to E55 KEV; bad analogy on your behalf...I speculate that his needs are best met by four doors in order to run an efficient taxi business, so the CLK is definitely out of the question and your analogy does not apply in this example...Perhaps you wish to try again??.

 

hmrdwn, are you saying I can have no response to this debate because I do not own a E55? Funny, that is like stating that only an ex-NBA or NFL player can coach a NBA or NFL team. Or an ex-NFL coach has no business in NASCAR. Many Olympic skaters and gemnists have coaches who never competed in those events.

The weight of the car issue is moot because the ML55 outweighs them all and has 342HP. Using your logic it should have 360+HP. My facts were not based on actually driving either car, they are based on actual features and the dynamics of chassis dimensions, etc. There are E55 & CLK55 owners that know little about their own cars and they probably do not care. There are owners and there are Enthusiants. One does not have to be a owner to be an Enthusiant. Using your logic I need to have a stock car sitting in my driveway to be knowledgeable of NASCAR.

There are many folks that are knowledgable or experts in Mercedes-Benz or BMW aspects and do not own the cars. Of course you know this but you want to flame me.

Obvisouly, you know little about auto depreciatiion. 2002 W210 will not depreciate any more or differently than any other due to the 2003 W211 coming in the Fall. However, any real AMG fanatic knows that the next AMG E-Class is not due until a 2004 model. I don't want to wait until then to drive an AMG. When the W211 AMG models arrive and I like it I will buy another, or not, my choice.

The CLK must not have been a success because Diamler-Chrysler has replaced it in the shortest time frame of any Mecedes chassis in history. Only a 5/6 year run if replaced in 2003/2004. The E-Class is the all time leader in sales of all Mercedes model.

When you discribed your CLK55 don't you say - "it's like a 2-door E55"? No one ever says "an E55 is like a 4-door CLK"!

 

Brian Yee:

Did you get your poster's mix-up? I (E55 KEV) am the one that said that MBZ taxi's are converted and I said that the E-Class was more reliable for taxi use.

hmrdwn, gave the analogy about the E-55 being a souped up taxi.

 

No, I didn't make a mistake....Of course the "E" makes a "more" reliable taxi....Ever seen a two door taxi?? Though somewhat off topic....Most very high end Asian and European Hotels use "S" class vehicles as their "taxis". Does that make the CL class any less of a car?? As for your comparison of model "runs" I believe the previous generation CL class(prior to W215 CL chassis, and NOT the S class coupe) was the model with the shortest run (two years). Applying to your analysis and speculative conclusions of MBZ's corporate condition, then its the "old" CL that qualifies as the biggest failure of recent history, requiring the redesign and creation of the 215 CL based model....
Another pary to you analogies...I may know a lot about military aircraft, but my good buddy (who admits I am up on specs more so than he is by the way....) and ex- F 4 Phantom/T-38 pilot says NOTHING replaces seat time.

 

Brian Yee,

I used to be a Military Aviation Enthusiast also. Test your knowledge for fun:

1. Which version of the F-4 has the Vulcan built in?

2. What is the model number for Wild Weasel F-4?

3. What model are you flying if you say "Click, Click your dead"?

4. Can the RIO take off or land on the carrier from the F-4 backseat?

 

Hmmm...Okay here goes:

1. F4 E AND F; G had gun replaced by APR radar and RHWR antenna.

2. F4 G (guess here...)

3. F4 E in an extended nose housing.

4. USAF version has full flight controls front AND rear; USN does not. Therefore, no landing for Navy RIO's... bad visibility in the rear anyway....

 

kev,
No rapid depreciation? LOL.

Having trouble selling your E430? LOL

Just keep dropping the price until you find the market. LOL

I could pick up an E55 for below sticker at three dealers in your area. If you are paying list...you are talking to the wrong guys. Try the Richmond dealer. Last I heard they had a new tectite grey E55 sitting there unsold for going on 4 months.

I really have nothing against W210 E55. Just sick of hearing folks poke at the CLK55. It really is just a different car for different purposes kind of thing. But spare me the crap about "Quality issues" with the CLK --- that just is so much BS spread by whiners. I have never had a problem in over 20k miles.

Good luck. I will be getting W211AMG -- top five on the list at ACS in Arlington.

 

kev,
I just checked McGeorge-mercedes.com, they still list the same Tectite Grey E55 that I spoke to them about in October as being in stock. If it's there, it is gathering dust and needs a buyer. You could probably get it for a steal.

$35k for your car? Edmonds is nuts. Edmunds had my car at $61k, ACS would only give me $50k as a trade...not because of issues with the CLK, but because they had two E55s and a couple of CLK55s sitting on the lot brand new. It is a buyers' market.

 

So of the 3 cars a c32, e55, and a clk55, which car is more likely to have the best performance and which would be most comparable to an M5 .

 

I can't believe someone who would have the cash to buy one of these vehicles would ask such a question...

The E55 is clearly more comparable to the M5 since it has 4 doors and is based on the same class of car.

 

Brian Yee

You the Man on the Aviation stuff. However, "Click Click Your Dead" is the motto of Recon pilots flying the RF-4E which carries no armament - only Cameras. The F-4E Vulcan canon is removed from the nose and replaced with cameras.

hmrdwn

There are a few new ones in the area. EuroMotors has 2, American Service Center had 2, one with Designo Mocha Black, one at Herb Gordon and one at HBL. HBL & EuroMotors have a used one. Most of these new cars have been sitting for months. I have received discount up to $4800. However, I refused to be low-balled on my trade and I rather sell it than trade it. ASC has a E430 like mine starmarked for $43,995 and they want to give me $28k for trade-in.

hmrdwn - take it easy on our fellow Members. This board is about giving information and help.

 

Hey E55 KEV,

I'd throw you a few, but I don't think there's a forum catagory for Mr. Vanos or the moderators to move this to...Though the quiz was fun and appreciated. I couldn't remember the designation of the damn Camera models... OK; back on topic. CLK's rule. There.... That should keep the watchdogs happy. BTW, I just got back from my friendly MBZ dealer and was just offered a great spot on the list for an SL 55. Maybe Karl "Benz" could chime in on this.... SL 55 or a Porsche Turbo. Different cars I know, but either one would look damn fine in my garage. I would keep the CLK, so perhaps I shouldn't burden you guys for input though perpetually appreciated!

 

I will be purchasing on of these vehicles next week. I like the looks on both bodies but never driven the E55. Was wandering which vehicle would be most fun to drive considering their high performances.

 

I have never driven any and I should have an E55 before weeks end. I prefer the E55, but the maximum Fun Factor is probably in the C32. Why?

Lighter, Quicker in the turns, Quick in the Sprints, Supercharged engine and Newer chassis and platform.

 

Both are GREAT cars. If I were to deduct a fraction of a point from either one I would have to say that the E55 errs juuuust a little bit on the big side. You KNOW you're driving a four door sedan....If that's what you want and/or need the added space for passengers to ride in comfort. I rarely carry passengers in the back,( twice in fifteen months) so the coupe fills the bill for me. Either way, you will have made a great choice.

 

55Lover, with the subjective nature of the questions you are asking i am surprised we haven't gotten more input from clk & E55 owners. both clk and e-class are great cars and you can listen to opinions all day, but in the end only one counts. and that is yours. so get out there and test drive the E and formulate your own opinions. don't try and choose between two cars when you have driven one but not the other. apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

personally (as it always comes down to), i own an E55 with the koni/h&r set up but i love that clk55. especially if i could get one in orion blue.... but i'm going to put a deposit on the coming w211 E55 this weekend myself. if the sl55 is any indication of things to come from merc, the 211 will be a beast!

good luck with the purchase.

 

Oy! *smacks forehead*

I know I've been out of the loop when I couldn't answer all the F-4 questions. We need an Off-Topic Forum here! (BTW, the closest I got to flying a fighter was 45 minutes of T-34C stick time when I was a Navy ROTC midshipman. )

Getting back on-topic: before you buy, test drive. Decide which one you like better. See if it meets your needs (i.e., number of doors, number of seats, cargo space, etc.). Then buy what you like. The rest is all semantics.

All I know is that when the time comes, I'll be in an E55, for no other reason than I can only have one car at a time, and two-doors ain't gonna cut it for me.

 

Interesting enough the April 2002 issue of Motor Trend tested the E55 and CLK55 against its BMC competition.

The CLK55 0-60 was 5.23 whereas the E55 0-60 was 4.99 ...

I would have to say the wider 18" tires on the E55 get the power to the ground better.

 

Having nothing better to do this afternoon, I stopped by my local newsstand and read the afformentioned Motortrend article...The CLK referred to was a CLK55 cab weighing in at a "portly" 3800+ lbs,(heavier than the MBZ claimed weight of the E55!) turning a 5.23 0-60 time.... A good 350+ pounds over the coupe. I speculate that the ONLY reason why the coupe doesn't get better times than five flat is there's just not enough rubber to get the power to the tarmac. I also speculate that if the coupe had the same wheel combo as it's four door brethren, high fours would be the norm. In other words, I'm sure a car such as, say a 450 horsepower Viper handicapped with the same wheel /tire combo as the CLK coupe would easily get it's butt kicked in a 0-60 sprint by cars with far less power, but more efficient means of putting the power to the ground all things being equal...