I beat an M3
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
I beat an M3
I raced my buddy with his '02 M3 6 speed manual. We rolled at 20mph and hit it all the way up to 100. I reacted slower than him so he got ahead of me and it looked like he was going to beat me (he was pulling on me slightly). Then at about 60 my car just crept up on him until I was about a 3/4 car length ahead. I felt like I would have kept pulling him even more and the difference would have been even better if I started the same time he did (I started maybe 1/2 second after he did). I used 93 octane, I usually use 100 octane but I just didn't happen to have it last night. I just couldn't believe it, I always thought the Mercedes torque would win at the beginning of a race but the M's high revving hp would take over. Maybe it would be a different story if it were up to 130mph? But I'm just happy that I took down a legendary car 
like the M3.
And I raced an M3 SMG before I got my ECU and although it was close, I felt like he had the advantage. The ECU must have made a pretty significant difference, those extra 25+ ponies must really be there.
This was also posted in the Kill Stories forum
Note: Of course, this was done in the Need For Speed video game
like the M3.And I raced an M3 SMG before I got my ECU and although it was close, I felt like he had the advantage. The ECU must have made a pretty significant difference, those extra 25+ ponies must really be there.
This was also posted in the Kill Stories forum
Note: Of course, this was done in the Need For Speed video game
Last edited by ItalianStallion; Aug 18, 2006 at 07:51 AM.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
SpeedTuningUSA.com
$300.00 + shipping
If you call, speak to Oliver and tell him I reccomended you. He is very helpful and will answer all your questions, as well as walk you through the removal of the ECU. Just make sure to turn off your car with the windowshield wipers in the up position.
$300.00 + shipping
If you call, speak to Oliver and tell him I reccomended you. He is very helpful and will answer all your questions, as well as walk you through the removal of the ECU. Just make sure to turn off your car with the windowshield wipers in the up position.
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Malibu, CA
2005 CLK500
I raced three M3s already. I beat the convertible ones from zero and from about 70mph. The coupe was a tie. I beat it from zero. When we reached about 80mph he caught up with me but never pulled ahead. We took our cars up to 145mph. We were right next to each other the whole time. I thought the BWM would smoke my benz but it didn't. Haven't done any engine modifications yet. Only major weight savings.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 583
Likes: 14
From: South Florida
2019 AMG GT63S, 2020 Ferrari 488 PISTA
I’m NOT impressed at all with the M3’s. I too thought they would be a lot faster. It must be that LOW torque on a heavy car or something. I have raced numerous M3’s with only ONE able to pull on me. And it had ACTIVE AUTOWORKS Exhaust & Chip, that expensive intake, and headers. I think the guy mentioned something else to me also. And even with all that it barley pulled on me. I know some of you think I’m being bias, but I’m not. These are my true life experiences. Oh, one more thing. Is it just me, or does the M3 exhaust sound like crap?? I love the look of it, but the sound???
Last edited by Verb04; Aug 19, 2006 at 06:39 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
M3 exhaust sound...
Originally Posted by Verb04
I’m NOT impressed at all with the M3’s. I too thought they would be a lot faster. It must be that LOW torque on a heavy car or something. I have raced numerous M3’s with only ONE able to pull on me. And it had ACTIVE AUTOWORKS Exhaust & Chip, that expensive intake, and headers. I think the guy mentioned something else to me also. And even with all that it barley pulled on me. I know some of you think I’m being bias, but I’m not. These are my true life experiences. Oh, one more thing. Is it just me, or does the M3 exhaust sound like crap?? I love the look of it, but the sound???
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,386
Likes: 1
From: Bay Area, CA
01' CLK55
wow. after reading these threads, it just sounds like CLK500's can eat up M3's all day, which sounds very strange.......because W208 CLK55's are usually what is being compared w/ the E46 M3's, and CLK55's have 50 more HP than the 500's.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 583
Likes: 14
From: South Florida
2019 AMG GT63S, 2020 Ferrari 488 PISTA
Actually 40 more HP. 302-342. It could be the M3's low 262 lb-ft of torque on a car that weights over 3,400 pounds. And the convertible weights almost 3,800 pounds.
Last edited by Verb04; Aug 21, 2006 at 12:51 AM.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
I raced a coupe. I'm pretty suprised with the results too, I thought I was gonna lose or at least tie but I actually pulled on it. I'm guessing that the cars should be close enough when comparing stock, but because my car is modded I was able to beat it. I wonder how it would have gone from a dig.
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Malibu, CA
2005 CLK500
Originally Posted by ItalianStallion
I raced a coupe. I'm pretty suprised with the results too, I thought I was gonna lose or at least tie but I actually pulled on it. I'm guessing that the cars should be close enough when comparing stock, but because my car is modded I was able to beat it. I wonder how it would have gone from a dig.
Remember that you have a 7-speed. It's a bit faster than the 5-speed W209.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
Originally Posted by pisces777
Remember that you have a 7-speed. It's a bit faster than the 5-speed W209.
Lol. But yeah, I did notice that the 7 speed does make a difference. It's what made me actually get my car, when I found out that the '05 CLK500 came with the 7gtronic it became the deciding factor and made me really happy with my purchase.
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Malibu, CA
2005 CLK500
Originally Posted by ItalianStallion
That's what makes our cars special Lol. But yeah, I did notice that the 7 speed does make a difference. It's what made me actually get my car, when I found out that the '05 CLK500 came with the 7gtronic it became the deciding factor and made me really happy with my purchase.
Lol. But yeah, I did notice that the 7 speed does make a difference. It's what made me actually get my car, when I found out that the '05 CLK500 came with the 7gtronic it became the deciding factor and made me really happy with my purchase.What are your thoughts on that Green Highflow Air Filter? Is it worth it? I wanna install one as well.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
Yeah, I'm not too sure about the filters. I think it might help, but if it does then it isn't by much. But if you look at the stock filters and compare them to the green high flow ones, you will see there is a pretty big difference. Not sure what that means in terms of hp...I think it says on the box you can get like 7% gains in hp or something, which is of course BS. I felt much more of a gain from the exhaust and from the ECU, the filters were very minimal. But for $100, like Verb said, it can't hurt.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
SL/M6
Originally Posted by durbrain
The only M3 that any of your CLK500s can beat is the diecast 1:18 model one that I have sitting on my desk.
LOL....this is going to be a good one.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
Originally Posted by durbrain
The only M3 that any of your CLK500s can beat is the diecast 1:18 model one that I have sitting on my desk.
According to Road and Track http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3, the 0-60 times for the '04 CLK500 was 5.2 seconds and 1/4 mile was 13.7. The '05 CLK500 got a new transmission which included an extra 2 gears. The '05 CLK500's are faster than the '04 CLK500's by maybe .1 or .2 seconds.
Road and Track also tested the M3 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3 and got a 0-60 of 5.0 seconds and 1/4 mile of 13.5 seconds.
That would mean that these cars are pretty damn close in acceleration times. Even if you want to say the M3 is a bit faster to 60 (I have seen some reports of the M3's making the 0-60 in 4.8), the probable .2 second difference is still very close.
Now, when you factor in that the CLK500 has 339lbs/ft of torque and the M3 has around 260lbs/ft of torque, the CLK500 has approximately 80lbs/ft more of torque. When rolling from a speed of 20mph, this advantage in torque really makes a difference.
If you go even further and realize that my car is modded you will realize my hp and tq is even higher than a stock CLK500. I am supposed to have about 30 more hp just from the ECU. If you factor in the exhaust and high flow air filters, I should have at least just as much hp as a stock M3. If you look at the tq numbers, I probably have over 100lbs/ft more tq than a stock M3.
This is why I was able to beat the M3.
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Malibu, CA
2005 CLK500
Originally Posted by ItalianStallion
Obviously you have never been in a CLK500 before.
According to Road and Track http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3, the 0-60 times for the '04 CLK500 was 5.2 seconds and 1/4 mile was 13.7. The '05 CLK500 got a new transmission which included an extra 2 gears. The '05 CLK500's are faster than the '04 CLK500's by maybe .1 or .2 seconds.
Road and Track also tested the M3 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3 and got a 0-60 of 5.0 seconds and 1/4 mile of 13.5 seconds.
That would mean that these cars are pretty damn close in acceleration times. Even if you want to say the M3 is a bit faster to 60 (I have seen some reports of the M3's making the 0-60 in 4.8), the probable .2 second difference is still very close.
Now, when you factor in that the CLK500 has 339lbs/ft of torque and the M3 has around 260lbs/ft of torque, the CLK500 has approximately 80lbs/ft more of torque. When rolling from a speed of 20mph, this advantage in torque really makes a difference.
If you go even further and realize that my car is modded you will realize my hp and tq is even higher than a stock CLK500. I am supposed to have about 30 more hp just from the ECU. If you factor in the exhaust and high flow air filters, I should have at least just as much hp as a stock M3. If you look at the tq numbers, I probably have over 100lbs/ft more tq than a stock M3.
This is why I was able to beat the M3.
According to Road and Track http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3, the 0-60 times for the '04 CLK500 was 5.2 seconds and 1/4 mile was 13.7. The '05 CLK500 got a new transmission which included an extra 2 gears. The '05 CLK500's are faster than the '04 CLK500's by maybe .1 or .2 seconds.
Road and Track also tested the M3 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3 and got a 0-60 of 5.0 seconds and 1/4 mile of 13.5 seconds.
That would mean that these cars are pretty damn close in acceleration times. Even if you want to say the M3 is a bit faster to 60 (I have seen some reports of the M3's making the 0-60 in 4.8), the probable .2 second difference is still very close.
Now, when you factor in that the CLK500 has 339lbs/ft of torque and the M3 has around 260lbs/ft of torque, the CLK500 has approximately 80lbs/ft more of torque. When rolling from a speed of 20mph, this advantage in torque really makes a difference.
If you go even further and realize that my car is modded you will realize my hp and tq is even higher than a stock CLK500. I am supposed to have about 30 more hp just from the ECU. If you factor in the exhaust and high flow air filters, I should have at least just as much hp as a stock M3. If you look at the tq numbers, I probably have over 100lbs/ft more tq than a stock M3.
This is why I was able to beat the M3.
Any stock M3 owners here? Come and race. I'll meet you anywhere in LA.
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Like I said I have owned both cars and
can tell you that the m3 is faster. If you guys have beaten an m3 it was only because of sloppy shifting. My clk cant even put down the power it has because of all the traction and electronic nannies. Not to mention the the auto sucks most of the torque advantage the clk has over the M3.
I havent put the cars back to back but after 6 months of clk ownership and 3 years of M3 ownership I can assure you that the M is faster to 60, to 100 and to 150. The clk is a different type of car then the M3 and thats why I bought the clk.
Dont want to start a flame war just giving you my opinion from an owner of both cars.
I havent put the cars back to back but after 6 months of clk ownership and 3 years of M3 ownership I can assure you that the M is faster to 60, to 100 and to 150. The clk is a different type of car then the M3 and thats why I bought the clk.
Dont want to start a flame war just giving you my opinion from an owner of both cars.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 583
Likes: 14
From: South Florida
2019 AMG GT63S, 2020 Ferrari 488 PISTA
Don’t really care about the numbers. What I know from my real life experience is that I have pulled on many m3's. Now I know my car isn’t completely stock, and I think I know how to drive it very well. Or maybe it could be because the M3 driver was shifting sloppy. Don’t know why exactly. But I promise you I have pulled on many. Anyone want to do a friendly race in S. Florida, let me know? On another note, I had a crazy race last night driving my brother’s 2002 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe (Stick), versus a Chrysler 300 SRT8 (425HP). Wow, it was CRAZY!!!!
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 6
R35 GT-R, EvoX
I'm not saying that a CLK500 is faster than an M3. What I am saying is it is very possible to beat an M3 with one, especially from a roll and especially if the CLK500 is modded. That said, it shouldn't be that amazing that there are members on these forums that have beaten M3's before with their CLK's. Around a track is a different story, remember we are just talking about acceleration.
How fast did you guys go and who won? I've heard those SRT8's are beasts.
Originally Posted by Verb04
Don’t really care about the numbers. What I know from my real life experience is that I have pulled on many m3's. Now I know my car isn’t completely stock, and I think I know how to drive it very well. Or maybe it could be because the M3 driver was shifting sloppy. Don’t know why exactly. But I promise you I have pulled on many. Anyone want to do a friendly race in S. Florida, let me know? On another note, I had a crazy race last night driving my brother’s 2002 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe (Stick), versus a Chrysler 300 SRT8 (425HP). Wow, it was CRAZY!!!!
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Malibu, CA
2005 CLK500
Originally Posted by ItalianStallion
I'm not saying that a CLK500 is faster than an M3. What I am saying is it is very possible to beat an M3 with one, especially from a roll and especially if the CLK500 is modded. That said, it shouldn't be that amazing that there are members on these forums that have beaten M3's before with their CLK's. Around a track is a different story, remember we are just talking about acceleration.
How fast did you guys go and who won? I've heard those SRT8's are beasts.
How fast did you guys go and who won? I've heard those SRT8's are beasts.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 583
Likes: 14
From: South Florida
2019 AMG GT63S, 2020 Ferrari 488 PISTA
0-60 SRT8 had me by about 1/2 car. 60-130 The 911 gained the lead and beat him by about a 1/2 car. The race was INTENSE. The SRT8 is a monster. I shifted picture perfect and all.
Last edited by Verb04; Aug 23, 2006 at 02:31 AM.
