Welcome Guest. ( logon | register )   
FAQ Member List Albums Today's Posts Search

PointedThree :  Coupe and Convertible Forums : W215 CL Class : V12 or Blown 55 ??

Page 1 of 1 1
V12 or Blown 55 ??
Topic Tools Message Format
Author
Posted 4/12/2007 8:55 AM
Higgie

Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
V12 or Blown 55 ??

Hello eveyone !!

After almost two years of enjoying my 2002 CLK55 AMG Cabriolet, I have decided that I am not realy a convertible guy. This car is my only drop top out of the 23 I have owned. I have been looking into an 2003 Cl car to replace the CLK.

My question is V12 vs 55AMG. I saw a short review on a non-Benz site, that claimed the 2003 V12 is problematic, a poor design, and a real $$ trap. While I find this hard to belive, I would like to hear a few words from real world owners, or true Benz experienced Mechanics.

THX
#69843
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Author
Posted 4/14/2007 9:01 AM
cmitch
Expert




Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: Ala-Tenn
Vehicle(s): 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4Matic, 2010 F150 Super Crew
Posts: 3412
2000
RE: V12 or Blown 55 ??

There is scattered info around about the V12. There were not a huge number made so the bad publicity surrounding them just may not be information that circulates readily. I wished I'd kept links to the few articles that I've read about them. I can only tell you what I know from memory (I even googled it and couldn't find it). The V12's have cooling problems, probably from the resulting large engine in such a confined compartment. I also remember reading that the crank shafts were too weak to handle the increased length (they basically took the same crank from the V8 and just lengthened it). I remember reading that one owner said his 'just wasn't running right'. After much research and an engine tear down, his mechanic had discovered the crank had actually twisted, resulting of course, in a timing problem in relation to piston position and valve position on the twisted side. But, I'm not sure this issue still exists with the 2003, since it was an issue in the '90's, and I feel that they would have corrected it by now. I do know that to fix one IS mucho bucks. Again, this is all from memory and I hate to tell you something, unable to immediately back it up with written articles, but this can send you in the right direction. Eventually, I'll turn it up.
#70090 - in reply to #69843
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Author
Posted 4/14/2007 11:31 AM
Higgie

Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
RE: V12 or Blown 55 ??

Thank-you for your effort. I also now understand a little better why my posts (running one in the S section too) are being read, but not replied to. Since I started this thread, I have found two other posts that give really great info. on the 55 AMG engine. I know the non-blower one in my 2002 CLK55 is a great engine.

My current budget, and banking options, limit me to a 2003 or newer vehicle, and I need to target around $50k for the purchase. The 2003 S and Cl cars have recently dropped into this price range. I really like the concept of V12 turbo torque and power. However, I have to be realistic about service costs.

What little I can find to read, is good for the supercharged 55 V8 engine, making this direction seem a better one (maybe only because of lack of V12 turbo information).

Again thank-you for your time to help research my question.

Hig

Edited by Higgie 4/14/2007 11:33 AM
#70102 - in reply to #70090
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Author
Posted 4/14/2007 12:12 PM
AsianML

Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
Re: V12 or Blown 55 ??

I heard that turbo'd cars are prone to more problems in the long run. I'm not sure how true that is, but in almost any case a V12 will be much more $$$ in almost all ways compared to a V8 (repairs, maintenance, etc.).

IMO, take the 55.
#70108 - in reply to #70102
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Author
Posted 12/16/2007 10:22 PM
twstrchasr

Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
Re: V12 or Blown 55 ??

I was in the same situation you are in about 2 years ago. I really wanted the V12 and talked to my longtime MB technician (30 yrs) about it. He steered me away from the 12. He stated that the 12 was a very tempermental engine. And, unless I drove it very often and very fast that it would have drivability issues. I hate to say this but I do not remember exactly what he said but it had to do with some sort of deposits collecting in the engine. I trusted his opinion as he had no reason to lie, either about a 55 or 600. I got a CPO 2003 CL55 and have been quite pleased. My buying experience through MB Chicago was an absolute horror story..That's another story to tell at some other time though !! Hope this was of some help to you.



Edited by twstrchasr 12/16/2007 10:24 PM
#100910 - in reply to #69843
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Author
Posted 7/16/2009 12:36 PM
ivanj
Member


Date registered: Jun 2009
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Vehicle(s): 2002 G500, 2005 AMG CL55
Posts: 13

Re: V12 or Blown 55 ??

I have the AMG book. The basic CL55 engine has a production of over 50k units in various cars since it was first introduced. It is a workhorse that many MB dealers know. It has been refined over the years and is still in production.

The v12 has many fewer units in the field and I too have heard many horror stories.

I recently met a Brit who has a V12 in his 99 something and he has had no problems with it but I guess the engines over there, and of that vintage, have a different configurations that the later cars.
#153979 - in reply to #69843
Top of the page Bottom of the page
« View previous thread :: View next thread »
Page 1 of 1 1
Forum Jump :
All times are EST.  The time is now 12:26:44 PM.

Execution: 0.171 seconds, 91 cached, 10 executed.