CLK 320
#5
CLK320 has same power, 10% more torque and only weighs c 10-20% more than a WRX (2.2 tonnes ). On the move differences will be minimal, especailly has she will have more response from NA engine rather than turbo, and auto box giving 'right gear' wuicker than changing down.
The CLK430 or AMG CLK55 are 'f' quick (300/350bhp respectively).
Merc don't do the 3.2 kompressor in the CLK - waiting for new model in summer. Also rumours of the 450bhp supercharged 5l V8 AMG lump from the SL/CL/new E being put in new CLK to create an extreme model Same engine in the 25% heavier new SL already gets it to 200mph
The CLK430 or AMG CLK55 are 'f' quick (300/350bhp respectively).
Merc don't do the 3.2 kompressor in the CLK - waiting for new model in summer. Also rumours of the 450bhp supercharged 5l V8 AMG lump from the SL/CL/new E being put in new CLK to create an extreme model Same engine in the 25% heavier new SL already gets it to 200mph
#6
I had one of these back in 98 when they came out first. Real nice car but no match for the Scooby under acceleration. Mine was an auto. Lovely cruiser with all the comforts and build quality, but definately not a back road car !
Trending Topics
#8
I had ago against one in my T5 ages ago, the 230's are no problem but the 320 was pretty much identical performance, therefore not as quick as a Scoob from a standstill, once moving though....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ATWRX
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
88
01 February 2016 07:28 PM
Uncle Creepy
Other Marques
43
27 December 2015 04:02 PM