Mercedes SLK World banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The SLK55 engine is made out of Iron or Alu?

And is it the same engine block from the SL55?

How much better is the new 6.3 engine compared with the 5.5?

Thanks.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Its more than one material but no iron.

It's the same block as the E55

Less torque on the 63 but more overall go
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
thats what i think too, since the SLK is derived from the C class, i bet the R172 would be much bigger and heavier than the R171 but with that 6.3.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Not sure where the C class info is from mate, it stands on its own to be honest with you.

Mo's right on the engines it will be 172, but they do have some mods for the facelift but not for the 171473 (SLK55)
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Not sure where they got that info from its wrong because a convertible car cannot share any shell components from a fixed roof car, the shell would not be able to support the loads so they use a system thats related more to the ladder chassis of old where the floor pan takes all the loads and the body sell itself is largely redundant.

You can make a coupe from a convertible but not the other way around (safely at least).

171473 is the model code for the SLK55 AMG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Yes, I agree. I have an SLK and a C class parked side by side in my garage. They share few components. For example, the cowel height on the C class is over 6" higher than on the SLK. I think that the author of the article meant to say was that the C class and the CL class shared components -- and that would be true. However, the engine and transmission in my SLK is shared with the current model C class.

But I think the OP askes a question I have asked often -- why do we not have an R 171 SLK 63 AMG? Would I buy one? I'd certainly try.
 

·
Premium 2006 SLK55 AMG (Kleemann K2)
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
The SLK63 has been discussed lots of times and I dont mind to reply and explain why it cannot be done, you see the engine bay of the R171 is too tight to accomidate the 6.2L 63 Engine in which it has two fuel pumps and cannot be installed, to have it done MB should alter its existing SLK chassis make the front longer so it can support this engine which I highly doubt MB would do things more than a facelift. The SLK63 will def be in the R172.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Yes, I agree. I have an SLK and a C class parked side by side in my garage. They share few components. For example, the cowel height on the C class is over 6" higher than on the SLK. I think that the author of the article meant to say was that the C class and the CL class shared components -- and that would be true. However, the engine and transmission in my SLK is shared with the current model C class.

But I think the OP askes a question I have asked often -- why do we not have an R 171 SLK 63 AMG? Would I buy one? I'd certainly try.
I think you mean the CLK mate, the CLK uses parts from a C.

The CL is an S.

alroumi's done a good job explaining, basically its just effort.

From the measurements AMG could just about shore-horn it in but it has a lot of ancillary components that have to be accommodated (2 additional oil coolers for instance) and another fuel pump that would have to fit into a space barely big enough for one, then you would need a new engine design because the engines for each different model are all slightly different to allow for mounting and its all just effort.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top