m3
I agree with all of your post vraa, except for the Bush/Cheney banner.LOL

It's just temp until I find time to make a decent sig.
Unfortunetly I'm not a Kerry/Edwards supporter so that's out of the question 
And the girl, well I'm already on the edge with that avatar as itself!

Trying to sneak shots of my cousins W208 to turn into my sig. He has some nice Carlsson's and it look pretty with the black car.
We may have a lot of gun$ out here in SoCal, but in Texas they have bull's eye accurate aim and they will shoot back!
I'm not a Kerry supporter either....go Arnold!
Don't Mess With Texas!
We may have a lot of gun$ out here in SoCal, but in Texas they have bull's eye accurate aim and they will shoot back!
I'm not a Kerry supporter either....go Arnold!
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
I'm not really a Kerry fan either I was just kidding. I do like him more than George W. though. I was actually hoping John Edwards would be the Democratic nominee, but I'd still be happy if he was #2.
Is there a MB club in Houston? I'll be out there the week after the 4th of July to visit my grandparents and to Austin to visit a client. Just wondering if there might be a meet going on during that week somewhere.
Chappy,
Although on face value, the time differential appears minimal, it is quite deceiving. A couple of factors that are found much deeper in the testing data is that the CLK 55 that was tested ran a 5 speed manual tranny,(not the sluggish auto versions we are used to in the states, damn those lucky europeans). This allows for full advantage of the torque rates that the CLK has over the M3. This is one reason the overall track times are so close.
However, the M3 really dominated the braking and slalom testing.
The last factor that is huge was track and air temps. The BMW test favored a 61 degree F track temp. This affords much better tire grip and consequently, handling. The CLK test was held during a chilly 37 degree F track temp. Though less grip would be available, the motor would certainly generate more horses with the cool air temps. Based on the data, the CLK would certainly enjoyed much better top end / straight away speeds while the M3 would have been much quicker in and out of the corners based on tire grip.
There's also a good chance that since there was a 7 month difference in testing dates, the same driver did not run each car.
It's always more complicated than it seems isn't it? So, the debate rages on...
Chappy,
Although on face value, the time differential appears minimal, it is quite deceiving. A couple of factors that are found much deeper in the testing data is that the CLK 55 that was tested ran a 5 speed manual tranny,(not the sluggish auto versions we are used to in the states, damn those lucky europeans). This allows for full advantage of the torque rates that the CLK has over the M3. This is one reason the overall track times are so close.
However, the M3 really dominated the braking and slalom testing.
The last factor that is huge was track and air temps. The BMW test favored a 61 degree F track temp. This affords much better tire grip and consequently, handling. The CLK test was held during a chilly 37 degree F track temp. Though less grip would be available, the motor would certainly generate more horses with the cool air temps. Based on the data, the CLK would certainly enjoyed much better top end / straight away speeds while the M3 would have been much quicker in and out of the corners based on tire grip.
There's also a good chance that since there was a 7 month difference in testing dates, the same driver did not run each car.
It's always more complicated than it seems isn't it? So, the debate rages on...
The Audi was very high-tech and great low-end torque, but handled LIKE A COUCH. The S4 is an iron pig and not a driver's car. The CLK has a better weight distribution (although not by that much) and with the BRABUS springs, it handles a lot better than my B5 S4.
If your replacement car for the CLK was a new Porsche 996 C4, then talk on this board all you want about handling. But being that you bought the new S4 (which is better than the Old S4) and how "wowed" you are by this new S4, really de-values your opinions on handling to me.
"Blah, blah, blah" means everytime you post YOU SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.
Chappy,
Although on face value, the time differential appears minimal, it is quite deceiving. A couple of factors that are found much deeper in the testing data is that the CLK 55 that was tested ran a 5 speed manual tranny,(not the sluggish auto versions we are used to in the states, damn those lucky europeans).
The Audi was very high-tech and great low-end torque, but handled LIKE A COUCH. The S4 is an iron pig and not a driver's car. The CLK has a better weight distribution (although not by that much) and with the BRABUS springs, it handles a lot better than my B5 S4.
If your replacement car for the CLK was a new Porsche 996 C4, then talk on this board all you want about handling. But being that you bought the new S4 (which is better than the Old S4) and how "wowed" you are by this new S4, really de-values your opinions on handling to me.
"Blah, blah, blah" means everytime you post YOU SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.
My previous statement stands, the 430 would feel like the greatest car on the planet, coming from that platform type.
You honestly think, stock to stock that the 430 handles better? Ok, I guess you like the recirculating, loose touch with the road feeling the the MBZ has to offer. Enjoy...








