Why hasnt this CL65 sold ?
Discussion
It's the small details that put me off. It's had paintwork down the drivers side in the past judging from the horrific pictures. The number plates?! Seriously, they need to learn how to present a car for sale.
A few hours of fitting new plates, adjustment to front panels and lamps and some decent pictures in good light would make all the difference.
A few hours of fitting new plates, adjustment to front panels and lamps and some decent pictures in good light would make all the difference.
V12 AMG said:
It's the small details that put me off. It's had paintwork down the drivers side in the past judging from the horrific pictures. The number plates?! Seriously, they need to learn how to present a car for sale.
A few hours of fitting new plates, adjustment to front panels and lamps and some decent pictures in good light would make all the difference.
Agree about the presentation, I almost considered making a phone call about it when I first saw it a few weeks ago, but bottled it.A few hours of fitting new plates, adjustment to front panels and lamps and some decent pictures in good light would make all the difference.
There's a w220 65 on auto trader suffering from similar presentation...
Sad, really, considering their rarity and performance. I'm hoping we're at/near the bottom of the curve now... Surely these should settle in years to come above the relatively ubiquitous 55s and 63s - especially if some are ending up in this part of the market.
BobTurner said:
V12 AMG said:
It's the small details that put me off.
Agree about the presentation, Happy to give feedback as ex 230 SL65 owner regards the characteristics of the 65 AMG engine.
Zero to 60 and 100 are limited by tyre choice and surface, 2WD, and 10 yr old TC technology.
Once rolling the in gear acceleration is epic, 1000nm does the talking, is a monster. In rain had TC flashing on private autoroute at the ton on full boost with worn rears.
I remember on my only track day in car at SS reeling in then new 997.2 GT3RS down the straights (was diff round the bends
)
There is no substitute for monster torque in such motors. Am sure the 63 and new 55 are great but the old skool 65 engined experience with long geared fairground ride 'please can I get off now' 5 speed box is something to savour and cherish.
Enjoy BH weekend all
Martyn.
Zero to 60 and 100 are limited by tyre choice and surface, 2WD, and 10 yr old TC technology.
Once rolling the in gear acceleration is epic, 1000nm does the talking, is a monster. In rain had TC flashing on private autoroute at the ton on full boost with worn rears.
I remember on my only track day in car at SS reeling in then new 997.2 GT3RS down the straights (was diff round the bends
) There is no substitute for monster torque in such motors. Am sure the 63 and new 55 are great but the old skool 65 engined experience with long geared fairground ride 'please can I get off now' 5 speed box is something to savour and cherish.
Enjoy BH weekend all
Martyn.
I've been reading this with interest. As a 215 cl65 owner, I thought I'd give you my opinion.
You cannot compare the 65 with the v8 cars. Different experience altogether. The whole pleasure of the big v12 is the way it delivers, you can stick it in manual, stay in 5th on the motorway and whoosh past Almost anything without even going over 3000 rpm. Soo effortless. That's the point of this car. At "normal" speeds and accelleration, you can't even tell when the auto changes gear, it doesn't really need to and you don't hear it. Super smooth. You can engage warp factor speeds in 1 or even 2 gears up from where you think you would need to be. At town speeds the boom and cackle from the exhausts turns heads, but it never shouts, just a little reminder of the sleeping monster below. However, push it down at 40-60 to overtake and you really do the supercar thing, it goes like f%#*.. I had not yet been beaten until I went to the scd runway day and lost out to the 700 bhp + cars without the annoying limiter I still have (for now)
This engine is also so under used. A simple tune on the ecu and intercooler pump and you have 705bhp and 889 ftlb of torque. That's seroius stuff even with a 2 ton car. Yes very powerful, lighter slimer cars can be faster, but this car has its special place for smooth effortless and very fast delivery with little fuss. You can embarrass many shouty cars without changing gear. That's the v12 thing and why I keep buying them!
You cannot compare the 65 with the v8 cars. Different experience altogether. The whole pleasure of the big v12 is the way it delivers, you can stick it in manual, stay in 5th on the motorway and whoosh past Almost anything without even going over 3000 rpm. Soo effortless. That's the point of this car. At "normal" speeds and accelleration, you can't even tell when the auto changes gear, it doesn't really need to and you don't hear it. Super smooth. You can engage warp factor speeds in 1 or even 2 gears up from where you think you would need to be. At town speeds the boom and cackle from the exhausts turns heads, but it never shouts, just a little reminder of the sleeping monster below. However, push it down at 40-60 to overtake and you really do the supercar thing, it goes like f%#*.. I had not yet been beaten until I went to the scd runway day and lost out to the 700 bhp + cars without the annoying limiter I still have (for now)
This engine is also so under used. A simple tune on the ecu and intercooler pump and you have 705bhp and 889 ftlb of torque. That's seroius stuff even with a 2 ton car. Yes very powerful, lighter slimer cars can be faster, but this car has its special place for smooth effortless and very fast delivery with little fuss. You can embarrass many shouty cars without changing gear. That's the v12 thing and why I keep buying them!
Wills2 said:
That car hasn't sold because of who is selling it, they have a clientele but I doubt they'd want an old cl65, it may be a good example but I wouldn't buy a pack of chewing gum from them.
They are a bunch of pirates, but fortunately they took a complete nail off me in part-ex when I got a car from them so it evened out the deal. Expect this thing to need a G+ service and to be on worn budget tyres with the wrong battery in it.Clevercurves said:
I've been reading this with interest. As a 215 cl65 owner, I thought I'd give you my opinion.
You cannot compare the 65 with the v8 cars. Different experience altogether. The whole pleasure of the big v12 is the way it delivers, you can stick it in manual, stay in 5th on the motorway and whoosh past Almost anything without even going over 3000 rpm. Soo effortless. That's the point of this car. At "normal" speeds and accelleration, you can't even tell when the auto changes gear, it doesn't really need to and you don't hear it. Super smooth. You can engage warp factor speeds in 1 or even 2 gears up from where you think you would need to be. At town speeds the boom and cackle from the exhausts turns heads, but it never shouts, just a little reminder of the sleeping monster below. However, push it down at 40-60 to overtake and you really do the supercar thing, it goes like f%#*.. I had not yet been beaten until I went to the scd runway day and lost out to the 700 bhp + cars without the annoying limiter I still have (for now)
This engine is also so under used. A simple tune on the ecu and intercooler pump and you have 705bhp and 889 ftlb of torque. That's seroius stuff even with a 2 ton car. Yes very powerful, lighter slimer cars can be faster, but this car has its special place for smooth effortless and very fast delivery with little fuss. You can embarrass many shouty cars without changing gear. That's the v12 thing and why I keep buying them!
100% agree. Had many high performance cars over the years and owned a Cargraphic tuned 997 turbo before I thought I would like to try an SL 65 AMG . So many people make negative comments about the SL65 without actually owning them.The performance of the Porsche was about the same but the delivery is what makes the SL65 in my experience unique.Also previously owned an SL55 AMG pace car version and can confirm it just does not compare.You cannot compare the 65 with the v8 cars. Different experience altogether. The whole pleasure of the big v12 is the way it delivers, you can stick it in manual, stay in 5th on the motorway and whoosh past Almost anything without even going over 3000 rpm. Soo effortless. That's the point of this car. At "normal" speeds and accelleration, you can't even tell when the auto changes gear, it doesn't really need to and you don't hear it. Super smooth. You can engage warp factor speeds in 1 or even 2 gears up from where you think you would need to be. At town speeds the boom and cackle from the exhausts turns heads, but it never shouts, just a little reminder of the sleeping monster below. However, push it down at 40-60 to overtake and you really do the supercar thing, it goes like f%#*.. I had not yet been beaten until I went to the scd runway day and lost out to the 700 bhp + cars without the annoying limiter I still have (for now)
This engine is also so under used. A simple tune on the ecu and intercooler pump and you have 705bhp and 889 ftlb of torque. That's seroius stuff even with a 2 ton car. Yes very powerful, lighter slimer cars can be faster, but this car has its special place for smooth effortless and very fast delivery with little fuss. You can embarrass many shouty cars without changing gear. That's the v12 thing and why I keep buying them!
popeyewhite said:
Because the newer equivalents (CL, CLS) can be had for a bit more. They're faster and much nicer inside. Because the 65 isn't any real world faster than it's brother the 63. Because potential massive bills with turbochargers. Because considering the powerplant in standard format disappointing power @ 600 bhp.
Lovely looker though.
The 2007 CL 65 AMG (C216) is heavier than C215 and so isn't faster, at all (even with the 630 HP upgrade in 2011 facelift). Plus, I think the C215 is one of the best looking Mercedes ever made.Lovely looker though.
I can assure you that the 65 AMG literally destroys the 63 AMG. I had the opportunity to race with a C63 Black Series, the 65 AMG won. We even kicked an SLS from a rolling start (would be different from a stand still, I know....)
As a CL 65 (C215) owner since 2008, I would like to share my experience. In one word : MAGNIFICENT.
That car potential is just phenomenal. There are a few cars able to follow the V12 bi-turbo once it starts flying from a rolling start.
Those are a real bargain and I am sure the value will increase over the years, as they are so rare : only 777 ever made world-wide from 2003 to 2005 (for example, only 194 went to the US market and in France, only 9 were delivered new !!!!).
This car mixes incredible comfort with astonishing performance, even 12 years after. You can not imagine how other exotics' cars owners were surprised to be destroyed by this Mercedes, they really didn't expect it.
Pagani uses the same engine (with a bit more HP) in the Hyuara... that shows that this engine is still in the league. For sure one of the best engines ever made.
About maintenance cost, not so expensive until you bring the car to service regularly. Much more reliable car than the 2000-2002 CL, pre-facelift.
I didn't get any ABC issues, the car has 55 000 miles.
And, you can't get bored with that esthetic... so beautiful car. Catch it while you can !
Personal photos :
Armen said:
I can assure you that the 65 AMG literally destroys the 63 AMG.
The current CL 63 does the 0-60 in less than 4 secs. This is a road test figure. I believe your model year completes 0-60 in a sprightly 4.2 secs.Whilst the v12 is no doubt an intoxicating prospect - and I enjoyed the one I owned until it was stolen - the newest model has far better looks externally and the inside is just leaps ahead of the old model. Have you sat in one? The esthetic (sic) is striking and leagues ahead of the opposition.
Popeye, I sat in the C216 and also in the new S-Coupe.
When I talk about performance, I'm not about the 0-60 time. Yes, from a stand still from 0 to 60, a CL 63 AMG with the 5.5 bi-turbo will be a bit quicker than the 65 AMG, because of a better traction (and because less power and torque).
But, once the traction control stops getting crazy, the V12 bi-turbo starts flying and pulls like a rocket. The 0-200 km/h (around 124 mph) is done in 12,8 seconds, that's the time of a 997 Turbo and F430. (those can not even follow the 65 AMG from a rolling start, here is a video with S65 W220 which is heavier than CL 65 C215 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLeuDZz-PZo and here SL 65 same weight than CL 65 against F430 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF598pbYJs ).
You would need the 5.5 bi-turbo with performance package but even with that, the 65 AMG will still be faster.
About the dry weight, the C215 is at 2055 kg. The C216 is at 2140 kg and the C216 facelift with 630 hp is even heavier at 2170 kg. I test drove the 65 AMG C216 facelift and I assure you the C215 is faster.
I admit the interior is really beautiful but I do prefer the esthetic of the C215, to my eyes much classier and pure as a Mercedes should be.
When I talk about performance, I'm not about the 0-60 time. Yes, from a stand still from 0 to 60, a CL 63 AMG with the 5.5 bi-turbo will be a bit quicker than the 65 AMG, because of a better traction (and because less power and torque).
But, once the traction control stops getting crazy, the V12 bi-turbo starts flying and pulls like a rocket. The 0-200 km/h (around 124 mph) is done in 12,8 seconds, that's the time of a 997 Turbo and F430. (those can not even follow the 65 AMG from a rolling start, here is a video with S65 W220 which is heavier than CL 65 C215 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLeuDZz-PZo and here SL 65 same weight than CL 65 against F430 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF598pbYJs ).
You would need the 5.5 bi-turbo with performance package but even with that, the 65 AMG will still be faster.
About the dry weight, the C215 is at 2055 kg. The C216 is at 2140 kg and the C216 facelift with 630 hp is even heavier at 2170 kg. I test drove the 65 AMG C216 facelift and I assure you the C215 is faster.
I admit the interior is really beautiful but I do prefer the esthetic of the C215, to my eyes much classier and pure as a Mercedes should be.
Aesthetic.
Couldn't find qtr mile figures for the old CL65.
The '14 CL65 does the qtr in 12.4, the '13 CL63 in 12.1.
All that torque's coloured your judgement. Actually as you say I'm sure the old model 65 is quicker above 100, but I couldn't find figures. If it's quicker than 12.1 secs for the qtr I'll be pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
Couldn't find qtr mile figures for the old CL65.
The '14 CL65 does the qtr in 12.4, the '13 CL63 in 12.1.
All that torque's coloured your judgement. Actually as you say I'm sure the old model 65 is quicker above 100, but I couldn't find figures. If it's quicker than 12.1 secs for the qtr I'll be pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
I found 11.8 for the C215 CL 65 : http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_cl_65_amg.htm...
And 12.3 seconds for the '13 CL 63 with performance package : http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_cl_63_amg_fac...
And as you can see, also on the 0-200 km/h (0-124 mph), the C215 CL 65 is still faster (12.8 vs 13.9 seconds).
For sure the performance is closer than before (6.2 N/A). The 5.5 bi-turbo is an impressive engine, but the V12 bi-turbo is just insane.
And 12.3 seconds for the '13 CL 63 with performance package : http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_cl_63_amg_fac...
And as you can see, also on the 0-200 km/h (0-124 mph), the C215 CL 65 is still faster (12.8 vs 13.9 seconds).
For sure the performance is closer than before (6.2 N/A). The 5.5 bi-turbo is an impressive engine, but the V12 bi-turbo is just insane.
Armen said:
The 5.5 bi-turbo is an impressive engine, but the V12 bi-turbo is just insane.
Arguably the same +/- qtr mile and slower to 60 is insane? You need to re-calibrate your insane-ometer.The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
popeyewhite said:
Arguably the same +/- qtr mile and slower to 60 is insane? You need to re-calibrate your insane-ometer.
The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
Are we still comparing a £15k car with a £48k one? Can you remind me of the relevance? Shall we start quoting sprint times for the new AMG GTs?The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
popeyewhite said:
Aesthetic.
Couldn't find qtr mile figures for the old CL65.
The '14 CL65 does the qtr in 12.4, the '13 CL63 in 12.1.
All that torque's coloured your judgement. Actually as you say I'm sure the old model 65 is quicker above 100, but I couldn't find figures. If it's quicker than 12.1 secs for the qtr I'll be pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
Act surprised, may even be true: http://mbworld.org/forums/s55-amg-s65-amg-s63-amg-...Couldn't find qtr mile figures for the old CL65.
The '14 CL65 does the qtr in 12.4, the '13 CL63 in 12.1.
All that torque's coloured your judgement. Actually as you say I'm sure the old model 65 is quicker above 100, but I couldn't find figures. If it's quicker than 12.1 secs for the qtr I'll be pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
V12 AMG said:
popeyewhite said:
Arguably the same +/- qtr mile and slower to 60 is insane? You need to re-calibrate your insane-ometer.
The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
Are we still comparing a £15k car with a £48k one?The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
V12 AMG said:
Can you remind me of the relevance?
See answer above.V12 AMG said:
Shall we start quoting sprint times for the new AMG GTs?
Knock yourself out.popeyewhite said:
Arguably the same +/- qtr mile and slower to 60 is insane? You need to re-calibrate your insane-ometer.
The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
The facelift C216 CL 63 with performance package is a bit faster until 60 mph but that's it, then it can NOT follow the 65 AMG.The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
Try to do a 0-320 km/h with both cars (if unlimited), you'll notice that the the difference increases at high speeds.
Armen said:
popeyewhite said:
Arguably the same +/- qtr mile and slower to 60 is insane? You need to re-calibrate your insane-ometer.
The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
The facelift C216 CL 63 with performance package is a bit faster until 60 mph but that's it, then it can NOT follow the 65 AMG.The old car was good 'in the day', with huge amounts of torque, which is nice. It makes you feel you can waft and take on fast cars on the dash with little effort. However the new CL63 is faster and looks better. My question is - if the old CL65 was 'insane', what does that make the new CL63? Over to you and your thesaurus.
Try to do a 0-320 km/h with both cars (if unlimited), you'll notice that the the difference increases at high speeds.
BobTurner said:
Act surprised, may even be true: http://mbworld.org/forums/s55-amg-s65-amg-s63-amg-...
Noted. I saw an S65 in Sainsbury's the other day, black on cream leather. Absolutely gorgeous.Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff