CLK completely KILLED by 2003 Accord
09-22-2002, 06:07 AM
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLK completely KILLED by 2003 Accord
is new 2003 Accord faster than the new CLK 320?
accord has 240hp while clk has 215....
what's the 0-60 of the new accord?
is accord faster?i personally think the clk will still be the same speed as the new accord....
what do you guys think?
accord has 240hp while clk has 215....
what's the 0-60 of the new accord?
is accord faster?i personally think the clk will still be the same speed as the new accord....
what do you guys think?
09-22-2002, 10:17 AM
#3
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 20,081
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volvo V90 CC
CLK320 goes 0-60 mph in 7.4 sec, which then means 0-100 km/h in 7.5.
Yes Honda accord is faster than the CLK320, but then again what would you rather drive?
Yes Honda accord is faster than the CLK320, but then again what would you rather drive?
09-22-2002, 11:58 AM
#5
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 20,081
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volvo V90 CC
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
.........Actually the 0-100 time for the W209 CLK is 7.9 secs and the 0-60 time is 7.4 secs as you stated.
Ted
.........Actually the 0-100 time for the W209 CLK is 7.9 secs and the 0-60 time is 7.4 secs as you stated.
Ted
09-22-2002, 10:53 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally posted by Ted Baldwin
.........Actually the 0-100 time for the W209 CLK is 7.9 secs and the 0-60 time is 7.4 secs as you stated.
Ted
.........Actually the 0-100 time for the W209 CLK is 7.9 secs and the 0-60 time is 7.4 secs as you stated.
Ted
09-26-2002, 01:45 AM
#7
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Lean runner
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by pocholin
i guess you read that at a magazine or somewhere, but it just doesn't make any sense that to increase the speed from 60 mph to 62 mph any car is going to take half a second (0.5 secs), specially if yo are already accelerating as on a 0-62 mph test.
i guess you read that at a magazine or somewhere, but it just doesn't make any sense that to increase the speed from 60 mph to 62 mph any car is going to take half a second (0.5 secs), specially if yo are already accelerating as on a 0-62 mph test.
Quarter mile is an equal index no matter feet or meter used
we use 0~400 m as long as quarter mile in western.
Trending Topics
09-26-2002, 12:20 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: House of Imports, MBZ (So. Cali.)
Posts: 1,384
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'06 ML500 w/Apperance pkg & '07 SL550 w/AMG pkg
Re: CLK completely KILLED by 2003 Accord
Originally posted by vodc4
is new 2003 Accord faster than the new CLK 320?
accord has 240hp while clk has 215....
what's the 0-60 of the new accord?
is accord faster?i personally think the clk will still be the same speed as the new accord....
what do you guys think?
is new 2003 Accord faster than the new CLK 320?
accord has 240hp while clk has 215....
what's the 0-60 of the new accord?
is accord faster?i personally think the clk will still be the same speed as the new accord....
what do you guys think?
09-26-2002, 05:43 PM
#9
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington,DC
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 320 CLK
Who cares rather a Honda is faster than a CLK? If you have a Honda perhaps you should check out a Honda forum. I think most CLK owners love their cars and could care less about what a Honda can or can't do.
09-26-2002, 09:26 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 CLK430 Cabriolet
Why do people have to speak of the Honda Accord as though owning one is some sort of disease. Motortrend tested the 2003 Accord V6 at 6.56sec for 0-60. As far as safety goes, Accord and Civic are among the safest vehicle tested. And one of the "other issues" that people who buys an Accord rather than a CLK320 have to deal with is having an extra 30K in their pocket. Love your Benz but no need to diss a cheaper but more reliable and dependable car like the Hondas. And yes I do own an Accord and I think it's the best value for the money out of all the cars i've ever bought.
09-26-2002, 11:20 PM
#13
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 20,081
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volvo V90 CC
Originally posted by KevinV
Why do people have to speak of the Honda Accord as though owning one is some sort of disease. Motortrend tested the 2003 Accord V6 at 6.56sec for 0-60. As far as safety goes, Accord and Civic are among the safest vehicle tested. And one of the "other issues" that people who buys an Accord rather than a CLK320 have to deal with is having an extra 30K in their pocket. Love your Benz but no need to diss a cheaper but more reliable and dependable car like the Hondas. And yes I do own an Accord and I think it's the best value for the money out of all the cars i've ever bought.
Why do people have to speak of the Honda Accord as though owning one is some sort of disease. Motortrend tested the 2003 Accord V6 at 6.56sec for 0-60. As far as safety goes, Accord and Civic are among the safest vehicle tested. And one of the "other issues" that people who buys an Accord rather than a CLK320 have to deal with is having an extra 30K in their pocket. Love your Benz but no need to diss a cheaper but more reliable and dependable car like the Hondas. And yes I do own an Accord and I think it's the best value for the money out of all the cars i've ever bought.
09-28-2002, 12:38 AM
#14
..............in fairness to the W209 CLK 320, If the accord V6 actually does 0-60 in 6.56 secs as was stated previously in this thread..........then the Accord is both faster than both the W209 CLK320(0-60mph 7.4secs) and the W208 CLK320(0-60mph 6.9secs).
Ted
Ted
