REPORT: Mercedes says it has no plans for new CLK63 AMG

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Apr 21, 2009 | 03:46 PM

#11

bmoores

Banned

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 2,272

From: Houston/Manchester

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo_Switzer

Quite a bit of weight, though - not all that much better than a well-sorted C63.

Haven't had a chance to drive C63 on the track yet. But I was very impressed when I finally got the CLK on the track. I honestly can say I put it right up there with a GT3 for fun factor and track capability.

Apr 24, 2009 | 06:03 PM

#12

Jo_Switzer

Banned

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 1,247

From: Oberlin, OH

Jo_Switzer has a reputation beyond repute

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmoores

I agree 100%, the CLK BS is a great car - but we had more than one on the scales while I was at RENN and I was SHOCKED at how heavy they were. I remember they were significantly heavier (300 lbs., I think?) than what the MB site was quoting at the time.

Apr 24, 2009 | 06:24 PM

#13

"The JC"

Teamspeed Pro

Joined: Feb 2009

Posts: 6,926

From: Houston, TX

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW

You mean doing donuts in parking lots?

It's actually a pretty well sorted track car.

No, not donuts in parking lots, got that out of my system in high school. I mean that its a fun car to go around a corner give it a sharp bit of throttle and let that ass end hang out for a bit.

Apr 24, 2009 | 09:43 PM

#14

DFW

Teamspeed Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo_Switzer

The only numbers I've ever seen MB quote are 3,911 and 3,948 (in the brochure).
I had mine on the scale and it came in at 4,150 including the lard butt driver (me) and 1/2 tank of gas.