CLK55 AMG or CLS55 AMG?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I Have to say out of all the cars I listed I like the E500 (which he's badged with US Badges - they refered to them as 550's over the pond).

It's younger, has lower mileage but a lovely spec including panoramic roof.

You could probably get that at £17.5K with some good haggling. Plus it has the 388hp motor. It's no slouch.

My mind would be like yours - I wouldn't want big mileage on one of these cars.

But I always like to buy as young a vehicle as possible, as nice as the CLK is, it's a 7 year old car.

Personally I think the E class looks nicer than the CLS.

All very personal though.

I don't dislike the AMG at all, I just think the 500 motors are fantastic value for money as they are simply overlooked so often.

I agree with you on the E500 - it did look lovely and it is very good value for money - but my comment earlier about the missus has triggered something in my mind - if she is always reluctant to get behind the wheel of such a big car, I could end up losing the free taxi service I currently enjoy. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that would be a tragedy :eek:

Hence why the CLK might be the saner choice. Yes it is a 7 year old car, but I would hope that having had an owner on the forum, it would have been treated very well, at least in his ownership, and perhaps for it to have een been bought by him in the first place, would needed to have been of a good standard prior to his ownership (car looks immaculate on his site too).

Perhaps I am answering my own question here....:dk:
 
Hence why the CLK might be the saner choice. Yes it is a 7 year old car, but I would hope that having had an owner on the forum, it would have been treated very well, at least in his ownership, and perhaps for it to have een been bought by him, would need to be of a good standard (car looks immaculate on his site too).

Perhaps I am answering my own question here....:dk:

The member in question owns Mercland - He's a dealer and this is his business.

He has a very good reputation though particularly for customer service and back up.

Don't think it's a privately owned member car though.

I would be comfortable buying anything from Mercland - you only need to taek a look through the forum to understand that.
 
An AMG less than 400BHP is not what I would hanker for, having owned a CLK 500 (300 and a bit BHP) I was disappointed to see the CLK AMG was only 380 (ish) and that the more modern 500 was 354 (approx). The AMG has to be something special e.g. 500+ HP, given the weight of modern mercs to give you the "comedy" performance factor.

That said, my S3 held it's own off the lights against a CLK black edition (he/she may have left their foot dragging on the brake pedal) :D
 
Guys I'm still trying to keep an open mind and having seen this I'm really confused now.

Obviously I need to drive these cars and get a better idea of what they are like behind the wheel, but this CLK is so intriguing given its price, it's hard to justify spending so much more on a CLS55/E55/63.

Real world performance? Not sure 367 bhp will feel like a slouch compared to 467; obviously it would side by side but would I really feel diminished day to day? Not so sure...

All the 55k engines are meant to be close to 500 bhp, the CLS and E may say a few less on paper but lots of people have dyno ed them and found them all to be similar.
 
An AMG less than 400BHP is not what I would hanker for, having owned a CLK 500 (300 and a bit BHP) I was disappointed to see the CLK AMG was only 380 (ish) and that the more modern 500 was 354 (approx). The AMG has to be something special e.g. 500+ HP, given the weight of modern mercs to give you the "comedy" performance factor.

That said, my S3 held it's own off the lights against a CLK black edition (he/she may have left their foot dragging on the brake pedal) :D

Hi moonloops, thanks for your comments.

Not sure if I'm getting my information wrong, but from what I understand the power figures are as follows:

non supercharged 5.0 develops ~306hp
non supercharged 5.4 amg develops ~370hp
non supercharged, non AMG 5.5 motor develops ~388hp
supercharged 5.4 amg develops ~470hp
non supercharged 6.2 amg devlops ~450hp
supercharged 6.2 develops ~500hp+

While I realise of course that this CLK in question is the least powerful of not just the AMGs, but of all the 5.4 engines, I feel I should also take into account it still has AMG pedigree in terms of the other parts used and how the power is delivered - am I wrong?
 
I am lucky I guess not to have been in a supercharged 55 or any 63 Merc, so 367 bhp as standard seems more than adequate (gets to 100 in 12.7s). Goodwood this weekend may change my perception though :)

What else is different between AMG and non-, in terms of mechanical bits... Brakes? Gearbox? Suspension? I expect if there are enough distinct parts it makes a noticeable difference to the driving experience.
 
Real world performance? Not sure 367 bhp will feel like a slouch compared to 467; obviously it would side by side but would I really feel diminished day to day? Not so sure...

it's not just the hp, it's the torque :)
 
That said, my S3 held it's own off the lights against a CLK black edition (he/she may have left their foot dragging on the brake pedal) :D

or just not bothering to race with you
 
non supercharged 5.0 develops ~306hp
non supercharged 5.4 amg develops ~370hp
non supercharged, non AMG 5.5 motor develops ~388hp
supercharged 5.4 amg develops ~470hp
non supercharged 6.2 amg devlops ~450hp
supercharged 6.2 develops ~500hp+

There is no such thing as a supercharged 6.2,

The 457bhp 6.2 found in the c63 is a de-tuned version of the 6.2L V8 found in the bigger mercs with over 507bhp

All 6.2L 63's are N/A.
 
There is no such thing as a supercharged 6.2,

The 457bhp 6.2 found in the c63 is a de-tuned version of the 6.2L V8 found in the bigger mercs with over 507bhp

All 6.2L 63's are N/A.

My bad - I guess Parker's are full of sh** :dk:
 
Guys I've seen some early ('53) CLK55's (coupes) going for an absolute song on the trader - around £10k. Are these worth considering? Did they suffer from any early build issues or is the major price difference just due to being pre-facelift?

From all the info on here, could be a fun project to bring the dash up to date for relatively little money, and the depreciation would be very low since they are already so cheap.

Any thoughts?
 
If you can afford the CLS its the only way, unless I'd suggest the E55k.
 
Go and play with a few, you'll know when you sit in the right one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom