Test Drove CLK63
11-25-2007, 02:37 PM
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
Test Drove CLK63
Reading all the debates of 55 Vs. 63 and having owned a CLK55, I wanted to try out the new CLK63. A full review is not necessary, as it is basically the same CLK with just a different engine and tranny.
However, one thing definetely noticeable was that CLK63 was not nearly as responsive as my (currently) stock E55. It felt sluggish. It did feel like it 'could' be a fast car if I just let it pick up speed at WOT, but it definetely lacked the punch I am used to. Overall was not impressed at all for daily driving.
I hope that the E63 and CLS63 models are more thrilling rides. MB does say they have more HP... If they do or don't... well let's just say I hope they do.
Not trying to start anything here, but many people haven't really driven both. To be honest I could really care less since I will not get rid of my E55 any time soon, as there is no replacement for it in the current market.
However, one thing definetely noticeable was that CLK63 was not nearly as responsive as my (currently) stock E55. It felt sluggish. It did feel like it 'could' be a fast car if I just let it pick up speed at WOT, but it definetely lacked the punch I am used to. Overall was not impressed at all for daily driving.
I hope that the E63 and CLS63 models are more thrilling rides. MB does say they have more HP... If they do or don't... well let's just say I hope they do.
Not trying to start anything here, but many people haven't really driven both. To be honest I could really care less since I will not get rid of my E55 any time soon, as there is no replacement for it in the current market.
11-25-2007, 02:49 PM
#3
Super Member
Thread Starter
I had a CLK55... back then the difference was vast between E55 FI & CLK55 NA, now that margin has shoretened by a lot in 63s. Some say there is almost no significant margin of difference (resembling E55 Vs SL55 HP cases?), and CLK vert is lighter than E and CLS.
11-25-2007, 02:50 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
The E55 and E63 actually put down the same hp numbers on the dyno regardless of what Mercedes claims. I've looked at so many E55 charts vs SL55 charts vs E63/CLS63 charts and excluding very few exceptions, all these cars dyno around 410 whp on average.
Looking past the numbers, the cars do drive slightly different but perform surprisingly close at the track. The E55 has more brute power down in the low rpm band and weaker at the top while the E63 is weaker in the low rpms but produces that same brute power up in the high rpm range.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
Looking past the numbers, the cars do drive slightly different but perform surprisingly close at the track. The E55 has more brute power down in the low rpm band and weaker at the top while the E63 is weaker in the low rpms but produces that same brute power up in the high rpm range.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
11-25-2007, 02:59 PM
#5
Super Member
Thread Starter
That did seem like the case. 
I guess I'm hooked on brute force as rarely do I get a chance to really open up my AMG on normal streets.
I guess I'm hooked on brute force as rarely do I get a chance to really open up my AMG on normal streets.Looking past the numbers, the cars do drive slightly different but perform surprisingly close at the track. The E55 has more brute power down in the low rpm band and weaker at the top while the E63 is weaker in the low rpms but produces that same brute power up in the high rpm range.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
11-25-2007, 03:10 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
The E55 and E63 actually put down the same hp numbers on the dyno regardless of what Mercedes claims. I've looked at so many E55 charts vs SL55 charts vs E63/CLS63 charts and excluding very few exceptions, all these cars dyno around 410 whp on average.
Looking past the numbers, the cars do drive slightly different but perform surprisingly close at the track. The E55 has more brute power down in the low rpm band and weaker at the top while the E63 is weaker in the low rpms but produces that same brute power up in the high rpm range.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
Looking past the numbers, the cars do drive slightly different but perform surprisingly close at the track. The E55 has more brute power down in the low rpm band and weaker at the top while the E63 is weaker in the low rpms but produces that same brute power up in the high rpm range.
I've driven both cars and love both cars. Essentially, the choice depends on what the driver likes: one has linear power distribution and smooth delivery and the other is more brute force and gives the feeling of aggressive driving.
there are days..I want to put the stock pulley back on.. and days I'm glad I have a bit more boost than stock.
I use my E for my family.. and linear power is probably more ideal.
The CLK63 should run just as fast any other 63.. except the ML.. which would be a bit slower.
11-25-2007, 03:30 PM
#7
Senior Member
Moved from C55 to CLK63
Having made that transition I feel that I have some opinion to chime in on this thread. All-be-it the detuned 55 engine the C55 would set you back in the seat and had the rip the tire off the rim at launch feel. In going to the 63 I too notice that it feels a bit more soft than the 55 at launch however has a much better driveability at highway speeds.
The 55 having the 5 speed transmission would give you more of the neck jerk that so many people like compared to the 63's 7 speed. The 7 speed has a smoother feel to it. I let my friend drive the 55 one time and he was amazed at how strong it felt. The same guy drove the 63 a while back and while was still impressed with the 63, he said the 55 felt faster at launch. Thats comparing 362HP to 475HP. Obviously the answer does not lie in the HP but in the transfer to the ground. Heres another example, at around 80 mph the 63 is at around 2100-2200 rpm in 7th. Manually tap 2 gears down and it only rises by about 900 rpm up to around 3000, still below is power curve. Drop that another gear and now you are getting into the fun stuff. Compare that to the 5 speed in the C55, go from 5th to 3rd at 80mph and you are going to definately going to feel a bigger difference in "available power." I wander how the 63 would do with the 5 speed tranny? Probably less gear changing would translate into a stronger feel.
I really liked the 55 and am not disappointed with the 63. It seems like alot of people here are picking these cars apart on insignificant stuff. The 55s and the 63s are DIFFERENT cars by engine AND transmission. Get what you like.
TP
The 55 having the 5 speed transmission would give you more of the neck jerk that so many people like compared to the 63's 7 speed. The 7 speed has a smoother feel to it. I let my friend drive the 55 one time and he was amazed at how strong it felt. The same guy drove the 63 a while back and while was still impressed with the 63, he said the 55 felt faster at launch. Thats comparing 362HP to 475HP. Obviously the answer does not lie in the HP but in the transfer to the ground. Heres another example, at around 80 mph the 63 is at around 2100-2200 rpm in 7th. Manually tap 2 gears down and it only rises by about 900 rpm up to around 3000, still below is power curve. Drop that another gear and now you are getting into the fun stuff. Compare that to the 5 speed in the C55, go from 5th to 3rd at 80mph and you are going to definately going to feel a bigger difference in "available power." I wander how the 63 would do with the 5 speed tranny? Probably less gear changing would translate into a stronger feel.
I really liked the 55 and am not disappointed with the 63. It seems like alot of people here are picking these cars apart on insignificant stuff. The 55s and the 63s are DIFFERENT cars by engine AND transmission. Get what you like.
TP
Trending Topics
11-25-2007, 03:42 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: orange county NY
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55(sold)'05 E55(sold)'06 911C4S(sold)'06 ML350 '06 CLS55(sold),buncha slo bikes
The CLK63 Vert has a higher(numerically) rear end ratio,which would equate to a slightly quicker 0-60,1/8&1/4mi if all other things were equal with the E&CLS.But since they are not,and the CLK is said to have slightly less power then the E&CLS due to exhaust routing differences they are all very very close to each other when you mash the gas.
I drove a CLK63&then an E63 back to back and could not tell any difference between the two acceleration wise
I drove a CLK63&then an E63 back to back and could not tell any difference between the two acceleration wise
