.
I don't know about how much extensive mods did Ben do to his car, but the one CD put in the test is provided by Kleemann. Traction won't be much of a factor if the driver knows how to ease the throttle. If high torque result in wheel spin wouldn't the Viper's 500hp/500lbs of torque slow it down. Same goes for SL55, 360, 996 Turbo, etc.

.................It is sometimes hard to let people know what you know because one's mind is already made up. But those interested, a CLK55K blows away a Dodge Viper. HERE IS THE LINK

Besides that..........when you set out to build a sports car, a lot goes into it besides raw HP. Viper, NSX, 360 996, SL55 etc........these were set out from the beging to be supercars. The chasis, suspension, etc were made such that the car can utilize the HP. A CLk55K started out life as on a C-class chasis and it shows. If you drive a CLk55k before upgrading its suspension and brakes you will understand what I mean. Seriously, just pumping Hp into a C-class chasis car has its drawbacks and one of them is lack of traction. Even with that, the CLk 55K is an an incredible car. But if you were adding a Kleemann to a CLK 55 just to get monster 0-60, you may be dissappointed because of lack of traction, but when you drive the car everyday, passing, changing lanes, etc trust me you will love it.

Ted

 

Ted,

No disrespect intended, but would you really consider the NSX a supercar? i dont think it is anywhere near any of the other cars you listed...under 300 hp am i right?

Eric

 

No disrespect intended, but would you really consider the NSX a supercar? i dont think it is anywhere near any of the other cars you listed...under 300 hp am i right?

.........None taken. I don't own an NSX so I am not pumping it up for that reaon. You are right, it has less than 300Hp, but Hp is just one factor. There is rear differential ratio, compression ratio, weight, suspension, body roll, etc that goes into building a true sports car. A comptech NSX is an example of how raw HP is not the whole story. The car can do 0-60 under 5secs, yet so easy to drive with little body roll, excellent traction and last forever. This is not really about NSx, but more so about how 0-60 and HP is not the whole story about super cars.


Ted

 

without looking it up, what kind of 0-60 time does the stock NSX put out?

Eric

 

I check out that link and it does not say much except they edited Kleemann name on the timeslip. They should put it on video if they want to prove it like www.giacusa.com did with their's Audi S4 high 12s and high 11s cars.

 

Petie,

A stock 3.0 NSX goes 0-60 in any where from 5.3 seconds to 5.8 seconds depending on which magazine you are looking at.

The newer 3.2 goes from as low as 4.8 to 5.3 seconds, again depending on which magazine you are reading...

Too wide of a range to be consider as hard fact to me... I would just average it out...

 

A stock 3.0 NSX goes 0-60 in any where from 5.3 seconds to 5.8 seconds depending on which magazine you are looking at.

..........Don't average it out. The NSX 3.0 was made pre-1997 and has a 0-60 time of 5.3 secs for the manual and 5.8 secs for the automatic. The 3.2 liter engine was made post 1997 and has a o-60 time of 4.8 secs for the manual and 5.3 secs for the automatic. No big confusion. Imagine then adding a comptech supercharger to the 3.2 liter Acura NSX.


Ted

 

yo TED, what does my quote have to do with the Viper losing to CLK55k??

BTW I think NSX is definitely a supercar, but definitely not worth the money. Seems weird, but it is true. No Honda is worth 90k (especially one that is 12 years old) unless it is a factory race car. The NSX is one of the best handling sports car exist today, but the quality and material used to furnish the interior is really poor (Honda style). The fit and finish can't match Porsche, or Ferrari. The 3.2 engine is as typical honda as it can be. (high rpm, no long end torque). NSX is fast because it is very light, and it's handling is top notch because it is very low and wide. Do any of the descrption remind you another Honda car? YES, the S2000.

 

going back to the drag race thing...

theorectical performance and actual performace are 2 very different things...

I used to run an xkr..... 5.1 to 60 and my mate ran a v8 esprit twin turb.. 4.4 to 60... so how come i beat him away at the lights?

is he inept ? an i a god? are Lotus/ various magazines lying? was his car faulty - or was the surface to blame?


nobody knows... the clk55k and the viper could run again with differing results.. although the auto would always have an advantage in my opinion cos so much potential "**** up" factor is removed....

your thoughts please..?

 

I agree with FrankW, NSX is a great car, but not for that price!!!! I am not going to pay $90K+ for a Honda, AND keep reminding my self I am driving a Honda everytime I look at the corner of every window!!!!! Incase you guys are wondering... every corner of the window has HONDA on them.

I remember when it fist came out is was only about $50K+ now it is almost 2x as much!!!!! Just can't talk my self into spending $90K on a Honda...

Pffelan, I totaly agree with you on the automatic has the advantage!!! Not everyone can really drive a stick... even if you do know how to handle one, there are fewer that knows how to launch a high power car correctly.

I use to have a E36 M3 and would always run with my friends E39 M5, 4 out of 5 times I would beat him... His M5 was stock, and all I had was a few bolt on parts...

Driver makes the biggest difference....

The best thing you can do to make your car faster, is go to a driving scholl!!!!

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the NSX introduced with a ticket price of about $70K...

 

not sure, but i think that is about right

 

yo TED, what does my quote have to do with the Viper losing to CLK55k??


..........you were puzzled by why the Viper and the other cars you listed were immune from traction problems and the CLK55 was not. Just wanted to show that even with the CLK55's traction problems, it outperforms the the Viper you hold in high esteem. I don't work for Kleemann. Kleemann supercharged MB's are truly great performers. I think people who have not driven these cars are very suprised by all the accolades and are perharps understandably skeptical. However, these accolades you here are well founded. For instance, If you were told that a CLK 55K leaves a Viper in the dust, you would not have believed it.There is no one that has a Klemann supercharged car that is not smiling. Of course an F-16 is faster than a Kleemanized car. My problem with the Kleemann sopercharger is that it is pretty expensive and for all practical purposes you loose your mb engine warranty.

Ted

 

Okay, so I went a little crazy... I was wrong... but not by much. The NSX was introduced in 1991 for $60K.

I remember, cause at that time I was driving my 300ZX TT, and was going to trade it in for the new Acura.

Was turned off by the windows.... with the Honda.... maybe it's just me...

 

im not a fan of the NSX either......

Eric

 

i hear ya.... i was quite interested in an NSX a while back myself

a few things an NSX has going for it is:

- high exclusivity
- reliability
- classic ferrari-like styling

although, still a little hard to swallow when sticker price is in the CL/SL range

 

Actually i meant to say that the driver is what counts, not the cars.

 

Yup, Driver skill is very important!!!!!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
. For instance, If you were told that a CLK 55K leaves a Viper in the dust, you would not have believed it.


Why should he believe it? It isn't true.

.................It is sometimes hard to let people know what you know because one's mind is already made up. But those interested, a CLK55K blows away a Dodge Viper.

Maybe in this particular instance a single modified (Kleeman) beat a stock viper by a few tenths..."blown away???" please. Any kind of comparable mods to the viper or stock vs. stock would have the Viper clearly ahead of a CLK55. Car and Driver has the Kleeman CLK55 in the low 13s and a search on dragtimes.com listed 48 vipers posting times and the worst of all of them was about 12.8, with about 40 of them sub 12 secs. Certainly, some of these had mods.

Before you try to "let people know what you know", you may want to get your facts straight.

 

 

Ktm,

................You are funny. Your post actually illustrates my point. You view a car's performance as static. So because a Kleemann CLK55K was listed somewhere as doing the quatermile over 13 secs, that to you says it all. As a result you are shocked that a CLK55K did a 12.5 in the quatermile and beat a viper. My point all along has been that particularly for supercharged cars, temperature, traction and other environmental conditions GREATLY determine the cars 0-60 and quatermile times and if you are adding a supercharger to your car in order to get excellent 0-60 and quater mile times, you may be dissappointed because under the conditions you test your car these numbers are either phenomenal or dissappointing. So the reason to supercharge your car is the excellent trottle response and rush of driving it which cannot be explained unless you drive one of these cars. The best way to tell between two cars is to test them under the same conditions by experienced drivers, and in this instance the CLK55K clearly won. The only thing missing is that there was no video, so if you doubt the authenticity of the results thats is another issue. Go back to the link, the viper did its qutermile at 12.7 secs and the CLK55K did its at 12.5secs. The time of 12.7 is consistent with the published results from many other vipers including those mentioned in your post. So we can accept that a viper's quatermile time is about 12.7 secs. The question is what is the CLK55's qutermile time? Is it in the low13's as you stated or is it in the 12's. The funny thing is that both answers are probably correct depending on traction and temperature conditions. This a point that Ben and others in this forum have been trying to convey. To compare the viper and the CLK55, you need to do so under the same conditions and the only test I am aware of where this has been done is the one I showed you and CLK55 clearly beat the Viper. I don't own a CLK55 nor a Viper but I own a Kleemann car and your post illustrates that there is a lot of misunderstanding about superchargers on this forum.


Why should he believe it? It isn't true. ..........Yes, it is actually true.

Ted

 

This is comical at best. The Viper driver probably missed a gear in the post on your site. Go ahead and throw in the humidity, barometric pressure, crosswinds - any other factors you'd like to add - but don't consider the skill of the drivers or the fact that this was a stock Viper. A pro driver behind the wheel of a Ford Focus could beat an amateur in a Viper if he didn't know how to drive a stick...so what's the point here?

If you reread my earlier post, only the SLOWEST 6-8 Viper times (out of almost 50) for the quarter mile were high 12s. Most were sub 12 and some sub 10 with the avg probably low 11s. I don't care what the weather was like or who the driver was, I'm unable to find anybody in a CLK55 going sub 10 with any amount of mods. So if you want to do apples and oranges, I guess I'll start talking about oranges too.

I've owned 2 Vipers and easily ran sub 12s in each with very little mods - and I'm not a very good driver. Why would I buy a car, then do 15 to 20K in mods (and void the warranty) just to be able to read the license plate on the back of a Viper at the end of the 1/4 mile? Not to mention the curb appeal.

I own a basic stock 02 CLK320. Only some benz owners and others who are really into cars even know the deal with the 55s being juiced up and even fewer get into Kleemans. I guess I am missing the point of spending this kind of money for such high performance on a CLK body. I have always separated luxury and performance. Sure it's nice to have a luxurious car with nice performance - like a stock 55 - but when some of you guys want to compare a 55 to a vehicle that was designed to have 1/4 mile times as a measurement of success, I think it's gone too far.

 

I have an nsx and a 430clk and i have to say that I would take the Nsx over the clk any day! It def. is a supercar. I have owned and driven alot of different cars and there is no other car that makes you feel so in control of the road.Its like an oversized go kart.And with the engine screaming right behind your ear its amazing. Dont get me wrong I think the clk is a great car but when doing some spirited driving the nsx rules!

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/paulmil17...c=ph%26.view=t

 

If you reread my earlier post, only the SLOWEST 6-8 Viper times (out of almost 50) for the quarter mile were high 12s. Most were sub 12 and some sub 10 with the avg probably low 11s. I don't care what the weather was like or who the driver was, I'm unable to find anybody in a CLK55 going sub 10 with any amount of mods. So if you want to do apples and oranges, I guess I'll start talking about oranges too.


...........I'm trying to follow you. I thought we were comparing a CLK55K to a non-modified viper. The vipers that did sub12's were modified vipers. What is your information regarding the quatermile times of a non modified viper when tested against a CLK55K under the same conditions. If you have info, kindly provide it. If not kindly acknowledge that you don't and lets talk about something else. I understand that you separate luxury and performance and many people do. But you don't have to. What the Kleemann supercharger does is allow you to have luxury car, in my own case with command integrated with DVD player, TV, playstation 2, XM radio, automatic transmission, voice activated phone............all together with great performance. It is achievable.

Ted


Ted

 

Do you consider a Kleeman CLK55 to be "modified"?