When it comes to Porsche's, you have to get up a little earlier. You realize that '96 was the first year of OBDII. What do you think operates the traction control??? Of course your car doesn't burn as much oil as a high revving engine. It shut's down at 5,750 rpm......why do I know, guess who had one when the were new. You mentioned a F430, at 8500 rpm it will burn oil, that's just the nature of the beast. In regards to price bracket: You want to own a car you can FEEL everything and with a 6 speed manual? How about the new GT2RS? 2 wheel drive and a true Porsche. I hope you're going to be in a situation to do that one day, as it will change your attitude for the better and you might appreciate other peoples choices of cars.

Whether you like a CLK63 BS or not, that's not the point and doesn't anger me in any way. I just can't stand hypocrites that have nothing but negative things to say, that's all.

 

Lol, I may be a hypocrite (don't really think so), but you must have a fairly bad memory.

OBD II is a way to access the emissions sensors, which are associated with the engine computer. With the exception of the immobilizer unit, those are pretty much the only computers in the car. The 993TT does not have traction control beyond the extremely limited ABD, which is nothing like PSM. Its awd is a viscous system, just in case you wanted to go there.

The turbo only revs to 5750? You happen to be off by 1000 rpm. The black series gets to 7200rpm. Neither are exactly high revving these days.

Seems someone else needs to get their porsche facts straight.

The GT2 RS is a fantastic car and I would without question purchase one instead of a CLK BS or 458. But as you correctly surmised, I currently am not able to pay the $180k+ they go for. Die hard porsche owners may disagree about it being a true porsche however, due to their silly basis on method of engine cooling as the determination of a "true porsche". Then again, is a 993TT now a "true Porsche"? In my view, the 993TT has much more input feel than the 996 GT2 (one of my other considerations while shopping and in the same price range as a nice 993TT). The 997TT is even more sterilized from the road.


The CLK BS is a nice looking car, with great seats, a nice sounding engine, and decent enough handling. In fact, if you'll note my first post said that I would consider a CLK BS if it had a manual tranny (that indicates that I like the car, sans auto).

However, I'm not blind. I can see that the car is too heavy, the automatic transmission is not something I enjoy on a sports car, and I wasn't terribly impressed with the steering feel of the vehicle.

That is my honest assessment of the car. A manual transmission would make the car better in my view.


I'm really unclear about your views that I am a hypocrite.

I said I like cars that give a lot of feel and have a 6 speed manual.

I happen to drive a 6 speed sports car with arguably a lot of interaction through the inputs. Just because it doesn't have a carb doesn't mean its technologically advanced.

Care to elaborate?

 

It's been 14 years ago when I bought that car new, but it produced 400 hp at 5,750 ....and what a light weight it was 3,300 pounds dry

I keep editing: Silly method of cooling??? The 993 turbo didn't need water, because it was a 2 valve per cylinder stone age technology. You need water for 4 valve heads. Porsche did that with the 935's before you were born.

 

wow--how did this turn into a P-car debate
who gives a $*****, go to rennlist and slap your diccks together there--jeeeze
I thought the title was CLK 63 vs. C63--this is a MB forum

 

I agree a true manual gearbox would be better, but sadly MB couldn't produce a decent manual to save their life. IMO the automatic is great for what it is, but in the context of this thread the transmission issue is immaterial since it's the same in both cars. Maybe someone can correct me, but I thought the ratios were different. Also I'm not sure if the C63 has a transmission oil cooler like the black.

 

ok, peak power and fuel cutoff are two different things

3300lbs with awd vs 3800lbs and rwd. Please don't tell me you think 500lbs is trivial.

Once again, the reading comprehension deficiencies show up.

I said:

"Die hard porsche owners may disagree about it being a true porsche however, due to their silly basis on method of engine cooling as the determination of a "true porsche"."

This implies that some porsche owners view only air cooled cars as "true Porsches". I think thats stupid.

I never said, or even remotely implied, that water cooling was silly. It is clearly superior.

As you said, the 993TT engine is stone age technology, which agrees with my point that I don't buy techno-laden sports cars.

 

Tell that to the dozen or so F430's I have spanked at the track. I have never, I repeat NEVER been passed by a 430 on any race track. So kowing that, I ask you this, what is worse, being a 3800lb car with an oil burning V8 and an automatic gearbox or getting beat by one?

Good Day.............

 

1. Are you a better driver than the ferrari owners?
2. If all I cared about was track times, then maybe that would be all I would need in a sports car. Unfortunately, I appreciate many other aspects of a car than whether it can lap a track .xx seconds faster than something else.

 

 

Yada Yada Yada...Ummmm you are the one talking about "true sports cars" and "sports car perfection"...the last time I checked lap times are the only thing that really defines a great sports cars performance. Dude, you can't even keep your agenda straight. Do you own a P car? If so you are probably one of the douchebag P Car owners that walks around the track with your shifter up your azz looking down your nose at other people. I love doechbags like you, right before I pass you I think about how friggin sweet it would be to ram you in the next turn and watch you cry about your dinged up Porsche. Go work your way over to one of the P car forums and ask them about the Black Series that was at their Porsche Club event at Road America last year, they will tell you that the only 3 Porsches that could keep up or pass me that day were full blown Porsche Cup race cars with pro drivers piloting them and when I handed the keys to my car over to one of the pro drivers and he laid down a few laps and just came back shaking his head and smiling and said "when is Porsche going to build something like that", I think that comment speaks for itself. BTW, how does that 6 year old S500 handle on the track?

 

 

 

wow, quite the aggression you have there.

You argue that the only thing that defines a sports car is performance on a track. If that was the case, we would all be driving corvette Z06s, Corvette ZR1s, Lotus Exiges, or ariel atoms. In fact, we'd probably all drive kit cars with LS7s in them.

I think a Cayman S is a better sports car than a Corvette ZR1. Does the vette kick the **** out of cayman at the track? Sure. Is it as involving to drive? Do you actually get any feel out of the inputs? These things matter to me. I don't drive a g-meter or a stopwatch, and I don't care if someone is faster around a track.

FWIW, a ZR1 with even half the modifications you have would wax your CLK. Why didn't you buy that?

You think about how sweet it would be to run into another person at the track? Thats really a very poor attitude to have. Simply because you don't think a person has good taste in cars you want to "watch them cry about their dinged p-car". Thats pretty pathetic. I always thought you lacked maturity, and you show it continuously.

Who was this "pro driver"? I want a name. I'm curious then, why wouldn't he just campaign a black series? Certainly not that hard to get, and certainly cheaper than his cup car.

I wouldn't have the slightest clue how my 5-year old s500 handles at the track. Its a luxury boat that handles like **** on the street. Then again, what does that have to do with this thread. I never claimed it to be a performance car, nor did I even mention it.

Seriously man, why are you so angry?

 

I feel bad for the OP..............and really bad for that lost boy in the wrong forum........."peak hp and fuel cut off" and going 1000 rpm over redline in a stock car says it all

BTW, just because your shrink doesn't mind you rambling on and on because he/she gets paid by the hour, doesn't mean you should do the same here. In case you haven't noticed .........this forum is for AMG's

 

This is good comedy. So far, no winner has emerged.

What I can't figure out, and this isn't the first thread, is why do the CLK BS guys get so upset when somebody says their car isn't perfect or they wouldn't want one?

There are so many cars out there, and not all suit every car-owners taste. Just seems like everytime somebody says, "I like the CLK BS, but not for me", all the CLK BS owners jump on that guy.

Just curious.

 

Maybe this will put things in perspective....

This is a snapshot of Nurburgring lap times from wikipedia.....

 

True, you can spend an additional $100K for 11 secs

If only the C63 had 275's on the back during this, pretty sure it would have turned in a few seconds faster...I love the C63, but it is not a great handling car...it has a limit that you can encroach pretty easily with all the torque and uneven weight to the front.

 

Oliverk: fwiw, you change a 993TT into RWD only very easily. I did it to a 993C4S which is the same chassis as the 993TT (minus the FI motor, of course.)

fwiw, my next P-car would be a PDK with the SC option......

 

I think the point is being missed by some of the posts on this thread.
Lets see, Blond, Brunette, or Redhead, which is the perfect
Date?
One night stand?
Girl to take home to mother?
Wife?

Not exactly apples to oranges but close.

I think that it is truly amazing that Mercedes bothered to make the CLK Black. It shows that Mercedes still has a soul. That their interest in Motorsports is more than just throwing money at a F1 team for propaganda (advertising) purposes. Having the opportunity to drive one recently at Road Atlanta, I have a new found respect for the CLK Black, and indeed all the current AMG models.
With both a C63 and SL55 in the garage, I see an amazing dichotomy. My wife claims that the C63 makes her do BAD things. And yet we drive the SL55 on the weekends, for it provides a much more refined experience and yet just as capable a vehicle.
The Porsche 993 Turbo is obviously an incredible sports car. It's continued high value reflects the respect everyone has for it. And yet thousands of other sports/enthusiast cars in the same price range, both new and used, are purchased every month. Not two people will use exactly the same criterion to pick a car. In fact, the same person may pick a different car depending on the day (Boy do I know about that!).
Bottom line is that whether a real sports car has a clutch pedal is immaterial if the traffic sucks where you live or your knees are getting creaky. Or at some point that no matter how much you enjoy driving your toy, you realize the you spend 95% driving just to get where your going, and only 5% of the time REALLY enjoying your ride. THEN you start appreciating the direction Mercedes, Ferrari, and others are going these days.
If my wallet and garage was the size of Jay Lenno's, I would probably own most of the cars mentioned on this thread. Since that's not the case, I can't think of two others I would rather own. Except maybe a Black

 

Lets not be disrespectful to each other. We are all enthusiats and it shows how passionate we are. Jeez guys, I bet if we all sat and debated this out over burgers and beer we would all still be friendly and laugh it off.

My main question was ( and please forgive me as I really don't know much about the BS), if it has the same engine as the C63, and a relatively same chassis and build, besides it missing the rear seats, how much faster or better or accurate is the car?

Yes or no, THE BS is BETTER THAN THE C63 by every measure and a C63 would NOT be able to perform as well or out preform the BS?

Just wanted to get a comparison guys. Lets not act pompus.

 

+1

 

Whats amazing is that of the 20 or so Black Series imported into Australia, there are 6 for sale on used car websites, all with ultra low mileage. Strange

 

No doubt bought by people who wanted one, but not to keep forever. You have to sell them with ultra-low mileage in order to get something back; before they depreciate into oblivion like all AMGs.

 

The driving instructors at Road Atlanta all were driving C63's with P31 carbon bits and compound brakes. On our taxi rides at the end of the day, they REALLY pedaled them around the track. Since I was so impressed with the CLK Blacks that we were made available to us, I asked my instructor about it. Even though he loved the C63 and new SLS (ME TOO!), he seemed to have a special respect for "the black". Incredible grip, well balanced, awesome brakes, razor sharp steering, like the C63 made over by a Trans Am team. And yet, not a rock hard "track only" ride. What a car!

 

[QUOTE=MB_Forever;4112436]Maybe this will put things in perspective....

This is a snapshot of Nurburgring lap times from wikipedia.....

The snapshot is a little incomplete, Bernd Schneider turned a 7:45 in Clk63 BS at the Ring as reported by Car&Driver. Ring conditions vary significantly due to the weather so I thought I'd add a reliable time that was achieved in good weather.

The published weight for the CLK63 BS includes the addition of a 160 lbs driver, full gas tank (89lbs) and 22lbs of luggage which most european manufactures use as the DIN weight. Porsche is the exception choosing to weight it's cars on the moon and without fluids.

As far as track prowess, the BS will destroy a F430 with equal drivers, the exception for be the F430 Scuderia. Those that choose to drive their cars rather than their key boards know this.