CLK55 AMG v's CLK500 (W209 - Convertible)

[richard300]

With regards the W209 CLK – Does anyone have experience of the CLK55 AMG against the late model CLK500 Sport.

I think the CLK55 AMG has around 347BHP and 376LB/FT and does the 0-60 sprint in 5.4 with an average return of 24.1MPG.
I understand that the CLK500 has 382BHP and 391LB/FT and does the 0-60 sprint in 5.3 with an average return of 24.4MPG.

So in ‘Sport’ spec – with the AMG bodykit and firmer suspension. And with the 7 speed gearbox and more developed engine – Is the CLK500 the better car?

…..Or is there more to it than that?

(currently) the CLK500 looks like a no brainer. For the same kind of money you get a newer, faster, more developed, better equipped (better command etc) more powerful car. With potentially cheaper parts and servicing? And lower insurance costs?

But I guess you lack the AMG badge and hand built engine kudos and potentially (say over 5 years) the AMG may depreciate less?

 

[Will]

You're almost there, but I think 209 CLK55s have a bit more power than that - something like 362bhp (vs 342 for a 208 CLK55)

The 5.5 CLK500 is 388ps (~382bhp), but the earlier ones will have a 5.0 M113 with a shade over 300bhp. I think MB introduced the later engines somewhere around the 209 facelift period - you would need to check!

I guess the AMG will always be the more special car - M113 is bulletproof, plus you'll get all the AMG goodies and spec - seats, cluster, wheels, bodykits, exhaust, suspension etc.

I would buy the AMG unless you happened to find a really nice example of a facelift '500. If you want more power how about a CLK63 or if you've got deep pockets a CLK DTM cabriolet should settle the score!

 

[sjmaxwell]

I had a pre-facelift CLK500 Avantgarde and now have a facelift CLK55 and the big difference I noticed was how the CLK55 is easier to drive where as the CLK500 was a bit more of a handful, it just seemed to be heavier and felt more difficult to stop!

So I think the CLK55 is the better car with alloy suspension parts and bigger (more pots) brakes that are far more effective and what feels like a better set up

 

[NAZ_]

I would go for the AMG just for the sound! The V8 rumble through the AMG exhaust just sounds simply awesome. I would imagine the CLK500 is more sedate to drive with less of a punch. I have previously owned a w209 CLK320 which although is no comparison to the 500 in relation to the engine but the trim/suspension is the same. The CLK55 is a completely different car and an amazing one too!

Good luck.

 

[sjmaxwell]

I would go for the AMG just for the sound! The V8 rumble through the AMG exhaust just sounds simply awesome. I would imagine the CLK500 is more sedate to drive with less of a punch. I have previously owned a w209 CLK320 which although is no comparison to the 500 in relation to the engine but the trim/suspension is the same. The CLK55 is a completely different car and an amazing one too!

Good luck.

I found the CLK500 louder for some reason, perhaps the CLK55 has more sound proofing

One thing the CLK55 does have are superb deeper bucket seats which the sport model doesn't have!

 

[Oli]

The earlier CLK 500 has 310 ish BHP and the same era CLK55 has 360 ish,

the facelift 500 has 382 but this age group one competes with the CLK63 AMG not the 55, the 63 has 525 BHP in the CLK doesn't it?, or is it slightly detuned like the C Class was?.

If it was a choice between the facelift 5.5 CLK 500 or an earlier 55 AMG, I would take the later 500.

 

[Will]

The earlier CLK 500 has 310 ish BHP and the same era CLK55 has 360 ish,

the facelift 500 has 382 but this age group one competes with the CLK63 AMG not the 55, the 63 has 525 BHP in the CLK doesn't it?, or is it slightly detuned like the C Class was?.

If it was a choice between the facelift 5.5 CLK 500 or an earlier 55 AMG, I would take the later 500.

302 vs. 362 for the earlier cars (5.0 CLK500 vs. CLK55). 60bhp is significant as is the difference in torque

CLK63 isn't 525bhp, should be 475bhp. Even the BS is only just over 500?

CLK DTM is still quicker, rarer and more powerful than the rest

I think Maff has one still?

 

[Oli]

302 vs. 362 for the earlier cars (5.0 CLK500 vs. CLK55). 60bhp is significant as is the difference in torque

CLK63 isn't 525bhp, should be 475bhp. Even the BS is only just over 500?

CLK DTM is still quicker, rarer and more powerful than the rest

I think Maff has one still?

I wasn't sure about the CLK63s power, I know the W212 E63 is meant to be 525 BHP, likewise the S Class,CL etc, I wasn't sure if the CLK was given the same power or detuned slightly like the C63 is, not that it makes a difference, they all have tons of power.

 

[Mistreku]

(currently) the CLK500 looks like a no brainer. For the same kind of money you get a newer, faster, more developed, better equipped (better command etc) more powerful car. With potentially cheaper parts and servicing? And lower insurance costs?

But I guess you lack the AMG badge and hand built engine kudos and potentially (say over 5 years) the AMG may depreciate less?

It's not faster.

Mercedes CLK 55 AMG (W209) vs Mercedes CLK 500 (W209) [32483861]

 

[vealige]

The CLK 63 AMG is 481 Bhp for info

 

[Will]

The CLK 63 AMG is 481 Bhp for info

What's your source? I thought the correct figure was as posted

 

[Rashman]

CLK63 is 481hp as standard.

 

[Will]

CLK63 is 481hp as standard.

That's 481ps (metric horsepower). This thread has been quoting bhp throughout

The correct figure is 475bhp or 481ps (hp) which was posted correctly not 481bhp

 

[Rashman]

That's 481ps (metric horsepower). This thread has been quoting bhp throughout

The correct figure is 475bhp or 481ps (hp) which was posted correctly not 481bhp

Details details....

 

[Will]

Details details....

Yeah - but they were correct to begin with

Old thread. Some people!

 

[W4E300]

The AMG is certainly the 'better' all round performer and the nice pretty bits really make it worth the extra cash, but having had my 500 convertible now for three years, they really are very close. I was seriously considering the 55 when I got mine, but was scared off by the fear of high service costs and a reported '£1k a corner' for brakes, so I found a very tidy 500 and spent a bit on getting it lowered and re-exhausted, so it sounds and rolls better. The 7-speed box makes long distances a doddle - we've just done Monaco and back and stepped out as fresh as a daisy. I have even recorded a 37 mpg 150 mile trip once - a challenge, but do-able. Servicing is around £300 a year and although I haven't timed it, the big old V8 is plenty quick enough for me and it takes off like a scalded cat when you push on a bit. It sat at 130mph on the autobahn for an hour without missing a beat.

I'm now evaluating the replacement & it's going to be tough thing to improve on to be honest - and am considering the new E400 and another CLK - the 63 this time.

Sent from my iPad using MBClub UK