Mercedes SLK World banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 

·
Premium 2006 SLK55 AMG (Kleemann K2)
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
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:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
Discussion Starter #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?
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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
 

·
Premium 2006 SLK55 AMG (Kleemann K2)
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
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
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Well as i said feel free to correct me so i take my comment back however do you think the effect will be the same with the larger engine the extra power making up for the increased weight
 

·
Don - Founding Member #4
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium 2006 SLK55 AMG (Kleemann K2)
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
easty said:
Is it heavier? I'd expect so, but not seen the specs. I'm also thinking the next SLK will be a much lighter car.
Ive got the same idea you share, I think those limited edition ones are a hint to whats to come from MB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
easty said:
Is it heavier? I'd expect so, but not seen the specs. I'm also thinking the next SLK will be a much lighter car.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
Still, I thought it was 20lbs lighter. Not a huge difference but still awesome considering it's larger displacment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,197 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
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. :)
 

·
Premium Member 2006 SLK55 AMG
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
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?
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top