Drove a CLK550 yesterday... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #1 09-26-2007, 10:32 PM

During brokers tour I had the chance to get about two hours worth of wheel time on an 07 CLK550 Cab. Rolled it over 5k miles actualy.

That new V8 is awsome! All you ever need is 1,500 rpm, and its about as fast as the SDL at WOT.

Its very quite and extremly refined. Around 3k it starts to really pour on the power and make some noise, above 3k a lot happens fast!

I beleive it has damn near 400hp, and typical for MB its a strong 400hp. The exhuast and engine note is sweet!

The car itself was ok, I'd say 7 out of 10. The interior was nice, and it drove fine. Breaks and steering, are typical MB, excellent. Wasn't as stiff as I would like, the Porsche Cab felt like it was a solid block of metal; the CLK felt kind of floppy over the bumps. If I hadn't driven the Porsche the week before I wouldn't have noticed this, but I did.

I have mixed feelings about the 7spd trans. It shifts great, just a bit to often. Its very busy a lot is going on down there. IMHO its got to many gears, a 722.6 would be better. The big V8 has a ton of power, you really don't need the extra gears. Its nice on the highway though, the engine is barely off idle at 70. The F1 style paddle shifters are nice, but a toy. I wouldn't pay extra for them. They are fun for like 5 minutes. You really could only use them on a track, the car is to fast to really work out on public roads. You sneeze and its doing 100.

I was not a big fan of the previous CLK, and this one leaves me with similer feelings, it costs about $70k. Sure its a 4 seater but not really, the rear seats are kind of tight. Thats about the only advantage it has over the SL, and its a small one IMHO. My first thought after hearing how much it cost, was how much more is an SL550? I have not driven the new SL but I have driven the old R129. IMHO the R129 is a better car, its stiffer, more sporty, and has a better interior. The new SL seems the same way.

So if you want a drop top Mercedes get an SL.

G-Benz · #2 09-27-2007, 11:37 AM

My wife traded in her 95 SL500 for the 01 CLK430 for the following reasons:

- Her knee issues made climbing out of the SL difficult...the CLK sits a bit higher in this respect.

- Wife defines convertible as "ragtop"...didn't care much for the hardtop that came with the SL, and was only installed when we took delivery and when it was sold.

- Tossing the tot in the cargo space in the SL wasn't a safe option.

- She fell for the paint color.

I don't know if it's age, but the W208 chassis doesn't feel rock solid either...you can feel the structure twist and groan at highway speeds.

Hatterasguy · #3 09-27-2007, 03:21 PM

Nah I think MB messed up. Because I have ridden in CLK coupes and they are stiff. They must not have done the convertable properly. This car was pretty much new and it wasn't that stiff. I would interested in knowing what AMG does to it for their versions. I bet the AMG cars have some wicked bracing underneath.

The new SL has a folding hard top, so you get the best of both worlds!

I younger so I don't care how low the car is. I'd buy the Porsche before the CLK, even though the Porsche is slammed to the ground and rides pretty hard. I rank exhuast note higher then ease of entry!

Dee8go · #4 09-27-2007, 03:23 PM

That seems like a lot of engine for a car that small. I liked the previous body of the CLK's better than the current one.

Dee8go · #5 09-27-2007, 03:24 PM

I can afford to be choosy since I can't buy any of them right now.

The Swede · #6 09-27-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

So if you want a drop top Mercedes get an SL.

Agreed, never was a CLK fan.

Ara T. · #7 09-27-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

That seems like a lot of engine for a car that small. I liked the previous body of the CLK's better than the current one.

They aren't that small at 4000 lbs.

Hatterasguy · #8 09-27-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

That seems like a lot of engine for a car that small. I liked the previous body of the CLK's better than the current one.

Its a big car actualy. Weighs more than my W126.

Pete Geither · #9 09-27-2007, 08:31 PM

The comment about the 7 speed shifting a lot is enough to turn me away. I drove a friends' S55, and I don't know what tranny it had, but it shifted a LOT. I will be called an idiot and liar, but I love the 4 speeds in our cars. I can go up some pretty steep inclines and the torque of the engine gets the job done without a lot of frantic shifting. I have pretty much dismissed a new or newer Benz, as they just seem to have all the new gee gaws just for drawing the masses in. But my age gives me away.

Hatterasguy · #10 09-27-2007, 08:36 PM

I love the 5spd 722.6. I have driven many and the 5th gear is nice on the highway, lowers the RPM's.

If I were ever to buy an SL500 I would look for a 97+ to get the 722.6.

Ara T. · #11 09-27-2007, 08:59 PM

The 7 speed sure is nice on the smaller V6 engines though. They shift smooth enough at least. I agree it isn't needed at all on the big engines.

iwrock · #12 09-27-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I love the 5spd 722.6. I have driven many and the 5th gear is nice on the highway, lowers the RPM's.

If I were ever to buy an SL500 I would look for a 97+ to get the 722.6.

96+ for 722.6

I have ridden in a new SL550, and the trannie is always hunting for a good gear. The 722.6 in our SL600 is much better at finding a good gear for speed.

But when you kick it into manumatic mode, that trannie is amazing. Its got power all through the speed band.

I am not a CLK fan, as I would rather have an SL. Keep it simple, and keep the kids out of it. Keep it clean.