FrankW

late to the thread.

I think it depends on what do you want in a car. If there's little money lose I'd trade the CLK430 for the e46 M3, but considering the E61 3-series is just around the corner why not just keep the 01 CLK for a little longer and see what future BMW has to offer perhaps the new M3/M4 in 2007. IMO your 2001 is not that old.

ldangeli

NickV I totally agree. That is not to say that the MBZ is not a fantastic car, however, apples to apples or apples to pauly walnuts, the M3 is a race car compared to the 208 CLK55. Even the 209-55. Handling is far more superior. As far as straight line, I would go for the 55. For comfort, 55, for interior, M3 (209 based on the C-class interior, as nice as it's appointments, to me screams cheap mass produced car). So again, as I have said in the past, they both serve two different purposes, it all depends what you want. MBZ is like driving your couch, the M3 is like driving a pretuned track car. IMO

ldangeli

Hmm.. no one else responded / agrees / disagrees / agrees to disagree.

Chappy

LOL!...you MUST be a writer for Car & Driver, Motor Trend or Automobile Magazine

ldangeli

No, but actually, reading past threads on this forum, I guess I should have put "" around my last post, as someone else had said it first, others agreed, many others agreed, and I was simply re-iterating.

Face it, the CLK is a boulevard cruiser with great styling and looks.

The M3 is geared more towards aggressive driving. No doubt.

ldangeli

And one more thing for all of you non-believers. One of your Holier-than-thou sponsors that is revered on this site as a "know all, end all" has nothing but BMW M3's, new and old on their site. Why do you think that is?

I am just as curious as they come. Call me george.

Chappy

I'd like to get a better perspective of where you're coming from. On the track, do you think the CLK55 is what 60% the M3 is? 80%? 95%? I would venture that the CLK55 is more close than your statements imply in the following categories:

Braking
Acceleration
Lap time around racetrack
Lateral g's

My point is that the CLK55 (W208) is probably 98 or 99% of what the M3 is, judging these criteria. Frankly, I am comfortable with that

Most track instuctors I've talked to say it's easier to drive a Mercedes-Benz at 8/10th s or 9/10ths, but requires significantly more driver skill to wring the same 8/10ths or 9/10ths out of an E46 M3. So, on the street, where we do 99.99% of our driving, whom do you believe will have an advantage?

The M3 is a beautiful car and is very fast. But really, the advantages are limited to the track, and by a slimmer margin than you elude to.

Oh, we also have to assume that the drivers are equal.

DPHILSPUD

I JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED MY CLK 430 CABRIO. I BOUGHT FOR ITS GOOD LOOKS AND TOP DOWN APPEAL. I HAD ONE OF THOSE AFOREMENTIONED RICE ROCKETS 300GT VR4 WITH MODS MAKING WELL OVER 400 HORSE POWER WITH GREAT HANDLING AS WELL. BUT THE BENZ IS A MUCH MORE REFINED DRIVER FOR LONG DRIVES. DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD WANT TO DRIVE THE M3'S SPORT TUNED SUSSPENSION FOR MORE THAN 3 HOURS ON A HIGHWAY?

ldangeli

Again, the benz cannot hold a flame to the M3, or any BMW's handling. The MBZ is a car maufactured for it's styling and sense of prestige. On the highway, I would definitely go for a MBZ over any BMW. If i wanted to track a car and the only choice I had was the MBZ or the BMW, I would have to respectively take the BMW. Suspension is tighter, cornering and over all handling is 10 fold over the benz, which is fine. Both cars are designed for two different things. MBZ has yet to make a mass-produced sports car. BMW makes them every day. The 55 of any model is a SPORT coupe / sedan with amazing power and grace, just not the handling of other sport sedans out there.

FrankW

Agree w/ most, but better make that to just the road cars and not include those limited production "special" road cars because any one of those will own all road cars Bimmer put on the road so far. i.e. the CLK GTR, Mc-Merc SLR, and that new CLK GT thing.

Chappy

Again, I seek an answer to my earlier post:

*******

"I'd like to get a better perspective of where you're coming from. On the track, do you think the CLK55 is what 60% the M3 is? 80%? 95%? I would venture that the CLK55 is more close than your statements imply in the following categories:

Braking
Acceleration
Lap time around racetrack
Lateral g's

My point is that the CLK55 (W208) is probably 98 or 99% of what the M3 is, judging these criteria."

********

My argument is not that the CLK55 handles better than the M3. I had better repeat myself. MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT THE CLK55 HANDLES BETTER THAN THE M3.

I just don't buy your exaggerated statement of "Suspension is tighter, cornering and over all handling is 10 fold over the benz, which is fine."

So, based on your statistics, being 10 fold over the Mercedes, the BMW driver should be able to make it around the track, take a shower, nap, fix lunch and boff the wife before the CLK55 crosses the finish line?? LOL!

ldangeli

Um, yes. Obviously this site is very biased towards 55's in general which is fine, just shows a lack of open - minded thoughts.

Go to www.track-challenge.com, and take a look at the numbers. They are posted by German drivers a lot more qualified to post numbers than say you, or I or 99% of this forum for that matter.

Azeteg

Well, since girls tend to like the MB's better than BMW's, if you happen to own that race-track BMW you won't have a wife to boff :-)

/Martin

Chappy

I've been on their site many times. I respect their numbers.

Round Time Nuerburgring 8.29 min 8.22 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.18,2 min 1.17,6 min

The CLK55 (W208) figues are on the left.

Results?: 7 seconds difference around the Nurburging, and .6 seconds difference around Hockenhem. I fail to see where the BMW's handling is "over all handling is 10 fold over the benz, which is fine." Please keep things a little more in context.

You are talking literally of fractions of a second around one lap on a track. Point being, unless we're all professional drivers (most of us aren't), the difference is really negligible.

This negligible difference can only be extracted on the track. You'll likely never see the difference on the street.

*********

Let's compare the rest of the stats on track challenge (the entire range):

Power 347 PS (255 KW) @ 5500/min 343 PS (252 KW) @ 7900/min
Torque 510 Nm @ 3000/min 365 Nm @ 4900/min
Transmission 1 (5) 0 (6)
Weight 1593 Kg 1584 Kg
Weight / BhP 4,6 Kg / PS 4,6 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 5,3 s 5,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 19,8 s 18,1 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 25,5 s 23,2 s
Top Speed
250 Km/h * el. begrenzt 250 Km/h * el. begrenzt
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 0 s 5,2 s
100 - 0 Km/h hot 40,2 m , 9,6 m/s 36,4 m , 10,6 m/s
Transverse Acceleration 1 g 1,1 g
Slalom Course 36 / 110m 119 / 124 Km/h 123 / 136 Km/h
Round Time Nuerburgring 8.29 min 8.22 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.18,2 min 1.17,6 min

**********

Please, tell me, where Mercedes-Benz CLK55 can be compared to (your words) "MBZ is like driving your couch".

nickv

Wow!! I think that depends on the type of girl you are talking about, but that is an entirely different discussion!!!

ldangeli

Again, Chappy, you're right there against me, thats cool... IMHO, after driving numerous MBZ and numerous BMW's, I honestly feel more response, better handling and over all "driver appeal" more from the Bimmer, than the BNZ.. Styling I like the BNZ. There is less body lean in the BMW, less roll / yaw / pitch.. BNZ feels sloppy..

FrankW

M Gmbh = better track car, but it's not for all people. Some people perfer little less extreme.
AMG = better road car, but not for all as well since they only available in auto. Some perfer to shift on their own.
Audi S division= for those that don't care for M or AMG.


as far as track time and all that I really hate that site mainly because they don't tell you if all the track driving are done by the same guy over and over for all the cars.

I still like most of the Top Gear tests better because you know they only have that one guy/Stig driving all the cars on the same test track. Even tho they didn't test all the cars, but they do have some of the most recent popular cars, sports cars, exotics, etc.

ldangeli

Have you drive an S, or RS lately?? You'd be astonished.

And NickV if it's my wife, you could put her in a honda, and she'd think it drives the same...

Improviz

It is an argument which is, on its face, quite lacking in logic.

Why? Well, because for the cost of an M3, one could purchase a Corvette Z06, a car which will thrash an M3 pretty handily in every performance measure, and around any track, without too much difficulty....in more than one test, I've seen it generate track numbers equal to, or better than, a Porsche 996TT.

So, if one's argument is that track numbers alone are what determines the "superiority" of a car, then one is left asking why one would have chosen an M3 over a Corvette Z06.

Answer: because one chose to make a compromise, and clearly did NOT use track performance as the sole criterion as to which car to purchase.

Well, guess what: the same is true for us. While track numbers are great for those who are interested in bragging about numbers that they could in all likelihood not duplicate, ever, in this lifetime, to those of us who are more, shall we say, "realistic" about the type of driving for which these cars will be used on a daily basis, they take on a somewhat lesser importance...

This is because we drive not on the track, but on the street, and realize that in street driving, torque is better than horsepower, and leads to longer engine life, and that the extra ride stiffness which results from a more highly-tuned suspension gets kinda old and annoying after a while.

It is also rather disengenous to claim that one car is vastly superior to another when less than one second separates them in the hands of a pro on a track. Which means that unless one is driving at 10/10 on the street, one will not be able to extract any meaningful difference between the two cars.

"Superiority" is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that an M3 scores superior track numbers to a Bently Arnage hardly makes it a superior car...a superior *track* car, maybe, but then you are left to explain why you aren't driving a Z06.

SoCalCLK

Thank you for writing the truth, Improviz. In addition, to your comment about the importance of torque, I would like to add that the E46 M3 only makes about 230-240 torque and that peak hp only comes at 8000 rpm.

This makes the car extremely weak in everyday driving conditions, and when NOT at redline (which is most of the time).

The CLK, with 295 torque and a rumbly V8 engine is the more solid, attractive choice in my mind.

ldangeli

If the interior of the Z06 wasn't made by AC Delco IE, my 4 year old, it would be a fantastic car. Hands down it is tremendously fast, however, go to rentech.com read the posts of many 996 owners who own both the Z06 and twins, regular and c4's, and they will all say the same thing. The Z06 is crazy fast, but handling wise, is a little squirely. However, why choose, the M3? How about a back seat. How about the reliability and value of a BMW over a Chevy. Again, they all have fantastic qualities, everyone, but you cannot for that matter put a Z06 in the same sentence as an M3 / CLK55. It is a completely different vehicle. For that matter you cannot honestly say that a CLK handles quite as well as the M3, or any BMW for that matter.

But each car is purchased for different reasons.. I.E. MB, prestige and looks.. Obviously..

Azeteg

Well, the difference is not that big - if you run the E46 M3 at 500rpm higher than the CLK430, you will have the exact same power output.

I made a quick excel diagram to show the difference:



For the diagram, I used torque readings at various rpms, then calculated power using the standard formula for Torque-Power conversion ( Power = Torque * RPM / 7023 ), where Torque is measured in Nm and power in Ponies.

Hope it helps(?)


/Martin

Improviz

...I agree, track numbers alone are not the sole reason why we purchased our cars.

I disagree as to the relative handling of the M3 vs CLK55. In fact, having driven both, I can state that during severe cornering loads, the M3 has *more* body roll than the CLK55, which was also pointed out by Car and Driver in their comparison article. The M3 definitely has better steering, but in terms of absolute grip, the two cars are close enough to where on the street, it is a moot point. Look at the skidpad numbers; both cars are in the high 0.8 range to 0.9 range, while the Z06 is in the 1.0 range. Also, we own a BMW 325i (wife's car) with sport package, and to say that this car handles as well as the CLK55 is waaay off the mark. It handles very, very well, but suffers from much more body roll than (in order of decreasing roll) M3 or CLK55. However, its steering is much better than the CLK55's precision-wise; I don't give either of them (or the M3 for that matter) very high marks for road feel, where Porsche kicks all of their *sses.

Anyway, yes, you are right: the CLK55 and M3 should not be in the same sentence as the Z06, because the Z06 will absolutely kill either of them around a track. It is in a different league in that department.

But then, as we both have admitted, neither of us chooses our car solely based upon its track numbers. Yes, these cars have a trunk, etc., but this adds weight, which hurts track numbers...all cars are a compromise, after all...one has to make one's selection based upon what one is, or is not, willing to live with, or without.

All of these are great cars; the devil is in the details. I very seriously considered an M3 (and a 996) before getting the CLK, and for overall compromise settled on the CLK...but I had likes, and dislikes, about all three. Always a compromise...

ldangeli

Always a compromise. That is why I picked up the S4, get it tomorrow. Wanted the RS6, but went for the 6 spd. Compromise. I wanted the best track car for less than 125, i.e GT3, but went for the all wheel drive capabilities of the Audi, again, S4.. I would love to get teh GT3, but need 4 doors, compromise....

Improviz

Audi is really doing some great stuff these days. And I've always loved their interiors. Enjoy!

RS6 is a beast, but it's a bit overpriced imo...S4 is at a much more realistic pricepoint to its competitors'. And that Quattro is *the* sh*t in the rain! It's amazing to be able to drive a high-horsepower car like that in the wet.