Mercedes SLK World banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

SLK 63, Is it going to happen?

8K views 34 replies 16 participants last post by  -1- 
#1 ·
I've read reports that the gear box cannot handle it, the engine bay is too small the torque would be too much. What do you think?

Something I wonder about is the 55 engine, currently it's makes business sense as it's used in various models. But when the bigger cars are using the 6.3 it's going to be more expensive to keep the SLK a 55.
 
#2 ·
Well, What Can I say, I think its possible for MB to put the 6.3 V8 in the SLK55 but the overall feel will be no that good; Due to the fact that its alot of Horsepower to a small car, I think they should focus on how to get the SLK55 faster in the track because the Boxster S is faster than the SLK55 , SL55 and BMW MZ4 at the track:)
 
#3 ·
"the Boxster S is faster than the SLK55 , SL55 and BMW MZ4 at the track" Not to sure about that. Well not in my experience.
Reading some car sites it's general opinion the sl63 is a no-brainer, but they also think the nose is going retro. err.. ah what do they know?
 
G
#4 ·
From what i have seen and heard the gearbox should survive it OK but the fit in the engine bay would be tight but then if MB plan on waiting until the overhaul in what 2008? then the bay could be modified enough to receive the engine OK i guess i am also quite sure the chassis will need to be modified to handle the extra torque as i don't think just adding an LSD would do the trick.

And as alroumi says this car is marketed as a roadster sticking even more weight up front could impair its handling i agree that AMG should spend more time on the track homing the cars skills
 
#5 ·
DansSlk said:
From what i have seen and heard the gearbox should survive it OK but the fit in the engine bay would be tight but then if MB plan on waiting until the overhaul in what 2008? then the bay could be modified enough to receive the engine OK i guess i am also quite sure the chassis will need to be modified to handle the extra torque as i don't think just adding an LSD would do the trick.

And as alroumi says this car is marketed as a roadster sticking even more weight up front could impair its handling i agree that AMG should spend more time on the track homing the cars skills
Thank you for agreeing with me
 
G
#6 · (Edited)
I have never tracked my car as of yet so i cant comment on whats fastest on it.
What i think i am trying to say is that if AMG fit a larger engine to the car then it will need some major track time to get the handling just right as it will be nose heavy big time i don't think the current chassis can handle the increased power output from the engine that would affect its track performance i imagine as and feel free to correct me on this one but it's the corners that are the most important anything can go fast in a straight line but they soon loose the ground in the corners.
What do you guys think?
 
#7 ·
I've done 14 tracks days in mine and there's a way to drive a nose heavy car with a lot of power on the rear wheels. all that power actually makes the nose lift quite well. You have to be smooth with the car but it drives a treat. I love it on the track. Here's some helmet footage of my most recent fun weekend
 
#9 ·
easty said:
I've read reports that the gear box cannot handle it, the engine bay is too small the torque would be too much. What do you think?

Something I wonder about is the 55 engine, currently it's makes business sense as it's used in various models. But when the bigger cars are using the 6.3 it's going to be more expensive to keep the SLK a 55.
:confused: I'd like to see it happen. Two things. I hope MB makes a decision, go or no go, in the near future for those contemplating a new SLK (me). Second, I hope it's only moderately priced (within reason) above the current SLK 55 so it's still affordable.
 
#14 ·
RacerCub68 said:
No it isn't heaver it's almost 100 lbs. lighter.

The 55 has an Iron block, the 63 is all aluminum, with many other weight saving mesures in it.
Actually, I found out that the 55 has much more weight is because the weight differences are weighing a 55 with the supercharger on it.

So, taking the supercharger off probably makes them a wash.
 
#16 · (Edited)
Nope... Rob Allan from MBUSA on 9/20/2006 (AMG private lounge) definitively said there will be no SLK63. It will not fit in the engine compartment. However, as a good salesman stated there will be performance improvements.

I'm thinking SLK55 Biturbo. I checked out the MB design (V12) at Brabus. The turbocharger(s) is incorporated in the exhaust manifold(s) and compact. All you need is room for an intercooler and extra gadgets to make it work without raising the height of the hood (supercharger).

Makes sense to me….

Best Auto Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 
#17 ·
RacerCub68 said:
No it isn't heaver it's almost 100 lbs. lighter.

The 55 has an Iron block, the 63 is all aluminum, with many other weight saving mesures in it.
Actually the '55 engine is all aluminum as well, block and heads. :)
 
#18 ·
honestly though, the black series engine should be plenty of power for the updated SLK. i doubt the 63 is gonna go into the current generation SLK for mass production. i've heard rumours that the next C class AMG will be a 55?
 
#34 ·
honestly though, the black series engine should be plenty of power for the updated SLK. i doubt the 63 is gonna go into the current generation SLK for mass production. i've heard rumours that the next C class AMG will be a 55?
i'm pretty sure i heard that AMG would be putting in a 6.2 liter v8 with 450 horsepower to the new 08 C-class. i read it in autoblog and i think it's official.
 
#19 ·
I think the entire SLK line could benefit from shedding a few pounds. Rather than just adding more horsepower, MB should really make the cars lighter. This would make them relatively faster, more agile and more fuel efficient. I think this is one of the Boxster's key attributes (power to weight ratio) that makes it perform so well.
 
#20 ·
fastnfurious said:
I think the entire SLK line could benefit from shedding a few pounds. Rather than just adding more horsepower, MB should really make the cars lighter. This would make them relatively faster, more agile and more fuel efficient. I think this is one of the Boxster's key attributes (power to weight ratio) that makes it perform so well.
No the Boxster is slower then the SLK. How it performs so well is what Enzo Ferrari rightly stated as "Mid-Engine is the best handling layout in the world." It's low gravity boxer engine amid-ships gives it physics properties that are hard to beat.

Now if we could get Benz to develop a mid-engine sports car like they've done in the past, especailly the more reasonable sized Diesel and Rotary ones they did in the 70's, that would be wonderful!

PS: Could the Iron Block be the supercharged one I was reading a comparison from AMG about?
 
#21 ·
Tslick said:
Nope... Rob Allan from MBUSA on 9/20/2006 (AMG private lounge) definitively said there will be no SLK63. It will not fit in the engine compartment. However, as a good salesman stated there will be performance improvements.


I spoke with Rob at the AMG Challenge in Joliet Ilinois the Summer, the 6.3 can fit, the problem is fuel delivery in the current chassis will not work. Apparently the cost of modifying the existing chassis is not viable at this time. What a ride it would be though!! After driving the CLK63, and the E63 I was very impressed with the new engine, an SLK63 would be sweet!!
 
#22 ·
Tslick said:
Nope... Rob Allan from MBUSA on 9/20/2006 (AMG private lounge) definitively said there will be no SLK63. It will not fit in the engine compartment. However, as a good salesman stated there will be performance improvements.


I spoke with Rob at the AMG Challenge in Joliet Ilinois the Summer, the 6.3 can fit, the problem is fuel delivery in the current chassis will not work. Apparently the cost of modifying the existing chassis is not viable at this time. What a ride it would be though!! After driving the CLK63, and the E63 I was very impressed with the new engine, an SLK63 would be sweet!!
Maybe they are planning it for the redesign. They will have to do something, the 55 is not going to last with the upcoming emissions standards that the 63 has already taken into account.

What I'm wondering is if they have throught about putting 4 valve heads on the existing 55 block, if there is even room to do that.

I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman who said what the SLK55 needs is less weight before worrying about more power. Hell the 350 could use to shave 400 lbs.
 
#24 ·
^^The only problem with that timeline is that the C63 has already been seen and is all over the place, whereas the SL and SLK that supposedly come first are totally unknown...
 
#25 ·
If 2008 SLK's are in the pipeline now (if you ordered today), and there was no mention at the NY auto show, I can't see them bringing this out in the Spring of 08. Could be a limited edition version intro'd at next years show like they just did with the CL and CLK. That might jive up time wise (sort of). Thoughts?
 
#26 ·
If 2008 SLK's are in the pipeline now (if you ordered today), and there was no mention at the NY auto show, I can't see them bringing this out in the Spring of 08. Could be a limited edition version intro'd at next years show like they just did with the CL and CLK. That might jive up time wise (sort of). Thoughts?
There are no build dates yet for the 08's, and the dealer doesn't know anything yet...meaning my order is still just a piece of paper at the dealer for the forseeable future. :(

What I'm wondering, if that timeline is accurate, is if "Spring 2008" would mean MY09 or laaaaaate MY08 (meaning no new AMG for the next 10 months)...
 
#28 ·
I believe that the SLK63 will get the 450HP from the C-class. May be 480HP because of the new M3. And what happens to the gap to the 350? A SLK500 with the new 5.5 V8 and 388HP?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top