How would our 430's do against the E36 M3's?
03-16-2004, 11:57 AM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Randolph, New Jersey
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C32 AMG
Just Kidding
Yes, We did perform the race - three times, Once I drove the FX45 and WON ! Then we switched cars and The CLK430 lost everytime. I have to agree with Lou the CLK430 is not as quick as I keep hearing. As my Son say's "WHATEVER DUDE " !
03-16-2004, 12:06 PM
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFF YOU JACKIE
Like i said in my previous post, your car is a POS. Take it back and get something else that works properly...
03-16-2004, 12:14 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Randolph, New Jersey
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C32 AMG
100K in mods - Get The Hell Out Of Here
Who in there right mind would spend 100K on mods for a C-class platform ? I don't think you could spend 100K on mods - That sounds like a bunch of BULL ! if someone invested 100K on mods -I would love to read the list. 
Regarding Lou's comments, when I drive his CLK430 and another amigo of mine (CLK430) they seem equal in power, to that end the CLK430 is a great cruiser, but far from a sprint car - it's simply too dam slow of the line, I use to play with Lou when I had the CLK55, I would just blow by him off the line, what a blast - Now with My Porsche, it's not even funny - Just launch and look in the rearview and there he is... So for those of you non-believers, we can simply put an end to this. Come on down to Northern NJ and we can have a friendly test of speed, grab a bite and finally agree with Lou. Lou is a straight up guy, and I respect his non bias opinion.
Regarding Lou's comments, when I drive his CLK430 and another amigo of mine (CLK430) they seem equal in power, to that end the CLK430 is a great cruiser, but far from a sprint car - it's simply too dam slow of the line, I use to play with Lou when I had the CLK55, I would just blow by him off the line, what a blast - Now with My Porsche, it's not even funny - Just launch and look in the rearview and there he is... So for those of you non-believers, we can simply put an end to this. Come on down to Northern NJ and we can have a friendly test of speed, grab a bite and finally agree with Lou. Lou is a straight up guy, and I respect his non bias opinion.
03-16-2004, 12:17 PM
#82
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFF YOU JACKIE
I think we need to take the FX45 and Porsche head to head now. Seing as how the 45 ate my 430 for breakfast, I wonder how that cross over would do, all wheel drive and all, against the Porsche..
03-16-2004, 12:53 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West Toluca Lake, CA.
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SL55 AMG
Interesting thread. It's been generalized that cars going to 60MPH around the 5-6 sec mark, every 0.1 sec is almost equivalent to 1 full car-length. There's a huge difference between the CLK55 and CLK430 if you reference the 0.6-0.7 secs only. I'd say at least 6 car-lengths.
Last edited by RU_MATRX; 03-16-2004 at 01:00 PM.
03-16-2004, 12:58 PM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West Toluca Lake, CA.
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SL55 AMG
I have a 2003 FX45 and until recently a 520HP 2002 996TT, 6sp. Those cars are AWDs and will summarily beat most anything 0-30-40MPH in their respective classes and vehicle outputs/weight. There's very little opportunity for driver error on launching due to GREAT traction. Very easy, aggressive launches. That's why they have great 0-60MPH times. Case in point, 996TT X50 AWD vs. RWD GT2 0-60MPH even though GT2 weighs significantly less.
Last edited by RU_MATRX; 03-16-2004 at 01:01 PM.
03-16-2004, 01:27 PM
#85
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFF YOU JACKIE
RU, good point. If you notice on this thread the original post was how a 430 would rate against a 95 M3, now according to all the stats, and the thought process that ever .1 secs is a car length, then in fact the 430 should get crushed. Agreed?
But the Bobo's on this thread insist that the 430 is out right faster then the M3.
But the Bobo's on this thread insist that the 430 is out right faster then the M3.
03-16-2004, 01:41 PM
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
03-16-2004, 02:12 PM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
01' CLK55
Originally posted by Josh K
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
03-16-2004, 02:12 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
01' CLK55
Originally posted by Josh K
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
03-16-2004, 02:12 PM
#89
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
01' CLK55
Originally posted by Josh K
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
I can only go from personal experience - while I've gotten my *** handed to me by the newer m3's I've never lost to an e36. I've raced both auto's and manuals, and I never said I killed them, I said that I had a couple of cars on them and kept them (didn't pull away). Some possible reasons:
1. My car with the automatic tranny was capable of a faster launch.
2. My small performance mods were enough to give that little extra.
3. The races were only light to light (barely an 1/8 mile if that). Had the race been a full 1/4 mile the outcome might have been very different.
Seriously, I never expected this thread to get this long or complicated - magazine stats are just that - in the real world there are many more factors that will determine the outcome of a quick race.
Also, something most people don't think about, all things being equal, some cars are faster or slower than an identical car - it all depends on the build. As automated as the process is, some motors will slip thru that are faster and some will silp through that are slower. Back when I had a mustang, there was a good article on this about a guy who had a stock Mustang GT notchback and was getting close to the high 13s! In a bone stock car! Everyone thought he was hiding a bottle, but absolutely nothing was done to his car (original owner) and no one could figure out why it was so much faster than an ordinary notchback.
And DON'T flame me, cause I'm not saying I have one of these "super-fast" production cars - maybe I've just been lucky enough to race slower than normal M3's ;0)
03-16-2004, 02:48 PM
#91
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
01' CLK55
Originally posted by ldangeli
CLKAL - POSTWH)%E! 3 times al? LOL...
CLKAL - POSTWH)%E! 3 times al? LOL...
03-16-2004, 03:17 PM
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: FLUSHING, NY
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2006 E350
Originally posted by clkal
sorry guys....i dont know what's up w/ mbworld today. It's stalling everytime i click on submit, and just freezes up, so I click again, and then 3 posts come out....sorry...don't wanna be a post *****.
sorry guys....i dont know what's up w/ mbworld today. It's stalling everytime i click on submit, and just freezes up, so I click again, and then 3 posts come out....sorry...don't wanna be a post *****.
03-16-2004, 03:35 PM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West Toluca Lake, CA.
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SL55 AMG
This thread is controversial just like my active thoughts and debates on the 3.6 sec SL600 (R230 SL55 AMG/ R230 forum).
I just wanted to add my thoughts after taking an interest to this entire thread. Let's also not talk about 99 percentile production cars and such, just mainstream dealer-prepped stock vehicles. I've seen e36 M3s '95-'99? range from 5.5-5.8 secs consistently 0-60MPH. I haven't really checked CLK430 times recently though the 302 HP CLK500 is in the realm of 5.8-5.9. The e36 M3 definitely has a firmer suspension which will help with a better launch than a softer Mercedes although it's 240HP? is peaky. I've raced against several of those e36M3s manuals ('87 300HP Mustang GT, 5sp when I was in college) and have to state that they are definitely quick when worked. Anyways, It's not realistic that the average CLK430 can beat those older M3s given the same driver/driver skill. Any real world races will be won based on street conditions and most obviously, the drivers. Any manual RWD sportscar is much harder to launch and replicate "mag rag" times due to the much higher possibility of driver error/launch style. Now highway speeds would help the higher torque output/HP of the heavier CLK430 though I couldn't relate how much will it compensate for it's own weight and comparative gearing after 60MPH. They are close enough that the CLK430 could win more often than not if the M3 driver gets too excited on the launch (read spins the wheels/misses a "perfect RPM shift") or isn't that great of a driver in the first place. Not as many issues and more focus with AWD of course.
Auto e36M3 vs CLK430 0-60MPH? I place my stakes on a convincing win for the e36M3.
I just wanted to add my thoughts after taking an interest to this entire thread. Let's also not talk about 99 percentile production cars and such, just mainstream dealer-prepped stock vehicles. I've seen e36 M3s '95-'99? range from 5.5-5.8 secs consistently 0-60MPH. I haven't really checked CLK430 times recently though the 302 HP CLK500 is in the realm of 5.8-5.9. The e36 M3 definitely has a firmer suspension which will help with a better launch than a softer Mercedes although it's 240HP? is peaky. I've raced against several of those e36M3s manuals ('87 300HP Mustang GT, 5sp when I was in college) and have to state that they are definitely quick when worked. Anyways, It's not realistic that the average CLK430 can beat those older M3s given the same driver/driver skill. Any real world races will be won based on street conditions and most obviously, the drivers. Any manual RWD sportscar is much harder to launch and replicate "mag rag" times due to the much higher possibility of driver error/launch style. Now highway speeds would help the higher torque output/HP of the heavier CLK430 though I couldn't relate how much will it compensate for it's own weight and comparative gearing after 60MPH. They are close enough that the CLK430 could win more often than not if the M3 driver gets too excited on the launch (read spins the wheels/misses a "perfect RPM shift") or isn't that great of a driver in the first place. Not as many issues and more focus with AWD of course.
Auto e36M3 vs CLK430 0-60MPH? I place my stakes on a convincing win for the e36M3.
Last edited by RU_MATRX; 03-16-2004 at 03:40 PM.
03-16-2004, 07:16 PM
#96
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The President must win the Peace
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
::::Thread hijack attempt::
am I the only one upset @ the bull**** snow storm we got today in ny? Its bull****!... im so upset...it was so nice yesterday and today this nonsense.1!!!!!!!!$L!#QWR
am I the only one upset @ the bull**** snow storm we got today in ny? Its bull****!... im so upset...it was so nice yesterday and today this nonsense.1!!!!!!!!$L!#QWR
03-16-2004, 08:09 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: FLUSHING, NY
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2006 E350
Originally posted by J Lucas
::::Thread hijack attempt::
am I the only one upset @ the bull**** snow storm we got today in ny? Its bull****!... im so upset...it was so nice yesterday and today this nonsense.1!!!!!!!!$L!#QWR
::::Thread hijack attempt::
am I the only one upset @ the bull**** snow storm we got today in ny? Its bull****!... im so upset...it was so nice yesterday and today this nonsense.1!!!!!!!!$L!#QWR
03-17-2004, 07:43 AM
#100
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFF YOU JACKIE
why thank you, my love =)
SNOW - SUCKS!!!!
RU, I totally agree. What I want to know is why has Lucas jumped all over your post, since it seems you and I are in agreement, for the most part?
Why is that JLucas, because you think my MB is a POS? HAHA. Honestly I feel MB has gone down hill. What do you really get for the dollar? What can you get for that dollar? A lot more car, that is for sure. Don't get me wrong, love the car, the look, and the prestige of MB ownership. Not happy with reliability or inconveniece factors associated with owning an MB. But 90% of the members of this forum are overly sensitive when it comes to the CLK. Face it, it is a beautiful car that is in a class all by itself, and honestly cannot be compared to much else, however I really think a lot of members who are so sensitive, deep down are extremely dissapointed with the vehicle they have purchased or lack of performance from the vehicle they have purchased.
In other words, "we" and I use that term loosely, were sold a vehicle that was compared to many others, and honestly has a hard time holding that candle. Let the flamming begin.
:o
Last edited by ldangeli; 03-17-2004 at 07:50 AM.
