0-60 Times
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 50
From: Yokohama, Japan
2000 CLK 320
0-60 Times
How about everyone breakout their Smartphones download some apps and post their 0-60s.
I hear that for iPhones the "Dynolicious" app is good. As for the Android, I used the "aDyno" app but according to my research people with slower phones aDyno is not that great.
Drag Strip (Data Rate 10ms)
Acceleration
Peaks
I hear that for iPhones the "Dynolicious" app is good. As for the Android, I used the "aDyno" app but according to my research people with slower phones aDyno is not that great.
- 2000 CLK 320
- 85K miles
- 0-60 in 6.17s
- aDyno v1.0.4 Android Application
Drag Strip (Data Rate 10ms)
- 60' : 2.719 secs
- 330' : 6.562 secs
- 1/8 mile : 9.639 secs @ 82.5 mph
Acceleration
- 0-10mph : 0.870 secs
- 0-20mph : 1.782 secs
- 0-30mph : 2.712 secs
- 0-40mph : 3.683 secs
- 0-50mph : 4.884 secs
- 0-60mph : 6.174 secs
- 0-70mph : 7.493 secs
- 0-80mph : 9.122 secs
Peaks
- Acceleration : 0.697 g
- Speed : 82.6 mph
- Distance : 864.9 ft
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 50
From: Yokohama, Japan
2000 CLK 320
0-60 Perspective - Thanks MarcusF
w208 CLK55..............4.9s
Curb weight................3,485
Horsepower @ rpm.....342 @ 5,500
Torque @ rpm:............376 @ 3,000
w208 CLK430.............6.1s
Curb weight.................3,365
Horsepower @ rpm......275 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm:.............295 @ 3,000-4,000
W210 E430...............6.2s
Curb weight................3,757
Horsepower @ rpm.....275 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm.............295 @ 3,000-4,000
R129 SL500 (2001)....6.2s
Curb weight...................4,165
Horsepower @ rpm........302 @ 5,600
Torque @ rpm................339 @ 2,700-4,250
R129 SL500 (1998)....6.3s
Curb weight...................4,165
Horsepower @ rpm........315 @ 5,600
Torque @ rpm................347 @ 3,900
w202 C36 (1996).....6.3s (6.9 per MB USA)
Curb weight................3,757
Horsepower @ rpm.....276 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm.............284 @ 4,000
w208 CLK320............6.9
Curb weight.................3,265 (3,140 Japan)
Horsepower @ rpm......215 @ 5,700
Torque @ rpm..............229 @ 3,000-4,600
Curb weight................3,485
Horsepower @ rpm.....342 @ 5,500
Torque @ rpm:............376 @ 3,000
w208 CLK430.............6.1s
Curb weight.................3,365
Horsepower @ rpm......275 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm:.............295 @ 3,000-4,000
W210 E430...............6.2s
Curb weight................3,757
Horsepower @ rpm.....275 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm.............295 @ 3,000-4,000
R129 SL500 (2001)....6.2s
Curb weight...................4,165
Horsepower @ rpm........302 @ 5,600
Torque @ rpm................339 @ 2,700-4,250
R129 SL500 (1998)....6.3s
Curb weight...................4,165
Horsepower @ rpm........315 @ 5,600
Torque @ rpm................347 @ 3,900
w202 C36 (1996).....6.3s (6.9 per MB USA)
Curb weight................3,757
Horsepower @ rpm.....276 @ 5,750
Torque @ rpm.............284 @ 4,000
w208 CLK320............6.9
Curb weight.................3,265 (3,140 Japan)
Horsepower @ rpm......215 @ 5,700
Torque @ rpm..............229 @ 3,000-4,600
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 26
Likes: 1
00 clk 320
"someone I know" raced a BMW 530i maybe a 2005 or 2006 on the freeway. and "this person" had a CLK 320 2000 and hit the 131mph mark making the engine shut off. But the BMW kept on going. So I'd imagine his was llimited at 155mph? How could a 530i beat a CLK 320?
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 50
From: Yokohama, Japan
2000 CLK 320
"Car and Driver" lists the 0-60 test results for a 2005 BMW 530i at being 6.9 seconds which is the same as the CLK 320.
My 320 numbers are an exception because I have tuning done.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 50
From: Yokohama, Japan
2000 CLK 320
I used a few other apps to measure pitch and came up with my Pitch being 4.0. I did a run with the default 2.0 and there was only 0.02 difference in speed calculations. Not even sure if that had anything to do with it because the afternoon run at lunchtime was 6.19 and the run the next day late night was 6.17.
I think I will remeasure. I found some interesting information.
Last edited by Williams707; Oct 2, 2011 at 10:51 PM.
