OK, I will not be buying a car this expensive for a while, but everytime I compare the CLK55 to the E55 the CLK seems not worth the price. The two largest factors for this are both performance characteristics; when compared to the E55. The brakes on the CLK are the C32 brakes which are only 4-piston, the E55 has the 8-piston brakes. The HP is also the next factor, since the CLK lacks the supercharger it has aroung 100 less HP than the E55. When comparing the price to the E55 the CLK55 is only about 7k cheaper which I don't think justifies those performance differences. Am I crazy or what, the E55 seems to be the car to get.

__________________
1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E
2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500

Yep, I'd say the new ones are a total rip-off. Buy a used one and you will have the same fun. They are great cars but the power is waaaaay down when comparing the other 55 AMG's. The difference is huge. A CLk55 will put down around 290 RWHP and the other 55 AMG's put down around 400-430 RWHP. 110 - 140 RWHP is a huge difference in performance. I'd get the new E55.

I've heard that the CLK55 offers better handling, braking and overall driving experience over the new E55. This comment came directly from a AMG Exec who's owned both according to my friend. I guess the reason is the weight difference between the two cars. I've heard the older E55 has better handling characteristics and with the addition of a Kleeman supercharger the car has superior performance.

__________________
Afshin

Current:
02 C32 AMG

Previous:
92 500E
84 190E 2.3 5 Spd

Yup ... I agree - the CLK55 is a better overall car than the new E55.


... didn't Pirelli say "what is power without control"? ... something like that.

__________________
1992 500E (Daily Driver)
2004 Porsche RUF 955 Dakara 550

And then of course you're comparing a coupe to a sedan, so don't forget that. Some people don't WANT a sedan, and others will find a coupe to not be practical.

Almost apples and oranges.

Gilly

The New E55 weighs a lot, that is why the w210 E55 handles better. The new E55 is fast though, but it has a lot of body roll, etc.

CLK55 Cabriolet is a really cool car, I would get that just because 2002 was the only year made and about 500 of them were made in total. They certainly are not slow.

My friend dynoed his new E55 he had 470 hp at the rear wheels. Mercedes always lies about their figures, they under rate everything.

__________________
Current Stable:
1994 S500 v140, 210k miles, white with grey.

Former Mercedes in the Stable:
1983 300CD Turbo diesel 515k mi sold (rumor has it, that it has 750k miles on it now)
1984 300CD Turbo Diesel 150 k mi sold
1982 300D Turbo Diesel 225 sold
1987 300D Turbo Diesel 255k mi sold
1988 300 CE AMG Hammer 15k mi sold
1986 "300E" Amg Hammer 88k mi sold (it was really a 200, not even an E (124.020)
1992 500E 156k mi sold
etc.

470 RWHP? Wow, that is around 70 RWHP higher than what I've seen the 211 E55 dyno at on a DynoJet. He must have some mods done to it for that kind of power. 470 RWHP = 552 crank hp.

Some people felt the same way on the lot back in 1991 when choosing between two $80,000+ cars: The 1991 560SEC and the 1992 500E

Two different animals.

You are 100% correct. It would be the perfect 'meld' of my current coupes

They should have made a 500CE, but then that would make their flagship car the 560SEC not sell as much, and it wouldnt be as fast.

__________________
Current Stable:
1994 S500 v140, 210k miles, white with grey.

Former Mercedes in the Stable:
1983 300CD Turbo diesel 515k mi sold (rumor has it, that it has 750k miles on it now)
1984 300CD Turbo Diesel 150 k mi sold
1982 300D Turbo Diesel 225 sold
1987 300D Turbo Diesel 255k mi sold
1988 300 CE AMG Hammer 15k mi sold
1986 "300E" Amg Hammer 88k mi sold (it was really a 200, not even an E (124.020)
1992 500E 156k mi sold
etc.

Did you know they're replacing the current C32 AMG (w203 - CORRECTION) with a C55 AMG, with the same ~360bhp naturally aspirated V8 as in the new CLK55?


Looking at things that way round.. a C class with a 5.5 V8 can't be bad, possibly a rather better car than the new E55 given its lesser weight etc.

Is the CLK C-class-like in weight and handling?

__________________
190E's:
2.5-16v 1990 90,000m Astral Silver
2.0E 8v 1986 107,000m Black 2nd owner
http://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall.jpghttp://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall2.jpg

I would imagine that the CLK would be more like the E-class in weight and handling. The first generation CLK was basically a 2 door E-class.

__________________
1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E
2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500

The first gen. CLK was based on the w202 platform, wasn't it?

__________________
'90 300SE 298k
-300K and it gets put into retirement.
'80 300D 255k Purchased new by family in 1980.

Had a:
1973 220 (gas)
1980 300SD
1992 400E

Yes the old CLK was based on the old W202 C-class, while the new one is based on the new W211 E-class

__________________
190E's:
2.5-16v 1990 90,000m Astral Silver
2.0E 8v 1986 107,000m Black 2nd owner
http://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall.jpghttp://www.maylane.demon.co.uk/190esmall2.jpg

Yes.