It is physically impossible for a CLK55 with light mods to outrun a 211 E55 at triple digit speeds. This is not plausible, credible, believable, take your pick.

And gee, guess what? If you post a story on the Internet, you're pretty likely to get called out on it. If you post two, in the same thread, you've just covered yourself in napalm and invited people to light a match. Welcome to the Internet.

If someone posted that a 330i had outrun a CLK55 at highway speeds, would you believe it? if not, why? After all, the 330i traps at 95 mph, about the same amount less than the CLK55 traps than the 211 E55...

There is simply no way this could have happened unless a) the "E55" was a poseur, a rebadged E500, or b) something was very seriously wrong with it.

And there is simply no way that a 209 could run a 13.3 on bald tires in the rain either. This would translate to a mid 12 on dry pavement with good tires. NO WAY!!

if you want to believe these fanciful anecdotes, fine, but I hardly think it's fair to chastise us for well-deserved skepticism....I mean, I'm so much of a CLK55 fan that I actually went out and bought one, but I'm also knowledgeable enough about its capabilities, *and* those of a 211 E55 to know that these stories are basically ridiculous on their face.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If he says he beat an M3 or something similar, it's a lot more credible than saying he's beating cars which run 12.0 bone stock in highway runs.

Finaly, did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?? It's true; look it up!

 

I've been to a few dragstrips in my time including Epping, NH. I've never heard of one allowing you to run while wet or raining. That story amazes me almost as much as pulling on the E.

 

Lowphat, are you a lawyer?

 

In a previous post JLee asserted that his CLK55 was very similar to the C55 when compared head to head: "C55 AMG vs Modified CLK55 AMG:
Tonight I had an opportunity to run with stock C55 AMG, which is 2 months old, which has about 4k miles. A well settled car. We had total of 6 pulls and we concluded that the acceleration is eventually same".

So, all comments taken together, JLee is claiming that the C55 should be in the same ballpark as the E55? (Since his CLK55=E55, and his CLK55=C55)?

 

Now, if it had of been a M3 CSL with or without light mods this may have been a little more believable. A CLK 55 AMG would need to be pushing 450 HP, the E55 has around 476 HP in Australia and one would assume the same specs in the US.

Give it a rest, even the E55 Estate wagon (4.8 sec) is faster than a CLK, it was dark when he had this drag wasn't it, maybe he was racing a E55 Estate with a blind driver who was late for church.

Those E55's are mean cars, if that motor was in a CLK now then we would have something to talk about. Has anyone come across a CLK 55 supercharged up against a E55, we would then be on more even ground.

My brother-in-law races a Honda NSX 450-500 HP double turbo, beats Porches, Ferrari but not the Lambo here in the GT Series in Australia, he was looking a buying the E55 and reconds not much here in Australia in that price range (bang for bucks) would beat it. A Lambo here starts at $380K, a E55 $225k and a CLK 55 $218k, what would you buy?

I have just bought a new CLK 55 Amg convertible, I was put off by the 4 door thing, I am one of those believers in that sports cars should have two doors, call me old fashion, but should not a sports car not only go well, it should look like it goes well.

We will get some modes done to CLK 55 and we hope to be able to push close to the 400Hp mark without going to a supercharger, which is relatively easy. ( Chip & Intake Box, exhaust, 98 octane Fuel = 33HP)

Robert

 

wow ching lee or whatever
impressive huh?!

ok you beat the hell outaf the devil.. E55K , then? did you get any **** dude?

 

i would get the lambo dude....

 

Lets Give JLee a break here and give him the benefit of the doubt......

He was an active part of this forum in the past and has not once lied or throw BS abouts these forums..... What benefits does he have to lieing???

We all know the facts... E55 is faster than CLK55..... thats proven in the numbers....

But lets look at the variables.... driving conditions, driver, and full functionallity of the car.... what i mean by functionallity is if the E55 was doing what is was suppose to do or did the super charger kick in or not etc..etc...... we don't know those variables....

THink Jae is claiming that evening, that specific race, that he beat an E55.... Is he claiming that he will beat ALL stock E55's that he races? Lets close this thread...!

 

Ahhhhhh...If only people weren't lazy enough to read through the post. If you read any of his previous post, you would see he is full of BS, and is in total denial.

13.0 with bald tires on a frozen lake...I mean a wet track.

 

I did read thru the thread, and I know Jae personally..... He has nothing to gain by lieing....

 

IMPROVIZ - OK... I'll get off my horse... I agree with you that he should have packed some flame retardant after the drag strip post - and you're right about the nature of the virtual world - but if you boil down his high speed run claim, it's not impossible if you can accept that the E may not have been functioning at full potential and factor in that JLees ride is not speed limited (as I think he's stated in previous threads) and the E that he challenged probably was. Is that so improbable that it deserves a presumption of falsity? Had he pounded his chest about it, then he might have deserved the flame - but that wasn't the tone of his posts - that's all I'm trying to say.

And on the drag strip claim - yes it's "incredible" - but to insinuate that he would post a slip that does not correspond to HIS run puts his credibility/reputation in a pretty low place.

Gullible was missing but kill-joy was there... nothing wrong with one of each.

I never really paid attention - but I guess you deserve some additional respect in light of your status as a fellow-CLK-owner.

BENZZ - yes.

 

Then you my friend are a true friend. True friends have their friend's back even if they're wrong.

 

Hey, lowphat -

Well, there are several factors affecting my opinion of his credibility:

1) he claims that his CLK puts down "344rwhp and 360rwtq". With an 18% driveline
loss, this would amount to 500 lb-ft at the crank--133% of stock torque of 376--
from doing nothing more than a few bolt-ons, and 477 crank horsepower, an increase of 116 from stock. Exhaust and an intake mods will maybe get 20-25 at most, so where's the other 90 coming from? A chip? No way. Car & Driver tested a bunch of these, including the vaunted Dinan BMW chips, several years ago in an article entitled "Chips Ahoy", and the most performance increase they got from *any* non-turbo car was a tenth, and most didn't get any increase at all, one or two was worse. The turbo cars get a big jump, but that's because they're dramatically increasing the boost-- not an option in our cars.

2) he claims to have run a 13.3@107 in the rain. firstly, as others have pointed out, drag strips don't open when it rains. secondly he claims to have gotten, a 2.2 60' when he did this. this time is a pretty good 60' time, and is indicitive of what a good run in a stock CLK55 on a dry, properly prepped drag strip. On bald tires in the rain, it is simply not possible for this car to get sufficient traction to get that good of a launch, and its 60' times would drop precipitously, and this would only get *worse* with more horsepower, not better. It's not possible. I've taken this car to the strip, know what she'll do, and know what a wet slick surface does to her launch capabliites with *good* tires, let alone with bald ones.

3) he made a fanciful claim of a fast run before. I linked to this post up above, but what happened is I asked for a video and a timeslip. he provided neither, instead providing me a link to a site where he claimed the video was. But being a rather careful surfer, I investigated before clicking, and the file was not a video file, but a .php file, which is a script file. I asked him to provide an actual link to a video; he declined. He also declined to post his timeslip.

4) the E55 story is even less believable. he said he pulled away at 240 km/h, which is below the E55's limiter. someone asked him about this, and he said that it was before the E55 hit the limiter.

5) the E55 would absolutely slaughter the CLK55 from 100-125; at this speed, the CLK would be mostly in fourth gear, while the E55 would still be in third due to its taller final drive ratio. I can show you the math if you'd like, but I ran the numbers real quick, and calculated the E55 accelerating at 145% the rate of the CLK55. The E55 would be so far out in front by 150 that it wouldn't be funny.

So yeah, I doubt his credibility, despite the fact that he drives a CLK55.

 

OK, OK..... so call me "Fox Mulder" (maybe I just WANT to believe) - I mean all this talk of CLK's getting raped and slaughtered is making me just want to

 

actually, he says that was his 2nd best run of the day. He couldn't find the "slip" for this one:

 

I love my W208 CLK as well. It's a car I hope to keep forever. Having both the W211 E55 and the CLK55 in my garage, I know for a fact that the CLK can not hang with it in terms of straight ahead speed. But, puts some turns in to the equation, and things start to even out. The E55 just isn't a very nimble car, but man can it haul some major A$$!

If JLEE would have posted he beat a stock E55 in the twisties I probably would have believed him.

 

Lol, yeah, me too! I'll never, Never, NEVER forgive MB for NOT sticking the S/C V8 into the CLK, or at the very *least* bumping the bloody motor up to a much more respectable, and still very easy to obtain, 400 hp! The bastages!!!!

 

There's always Kleemann for those who can't get enough

 

It's off topic, but what's a bastage?

 

Oh, man...some show business type, I forget whom, always use to say "the bastages" instead of "the *******s"...pronunciation was close to "bastages", but more of a cross between a "b" and a "g".

 

From the movie Johnny Dangerously with Michael Keaton. The line is "you fargin bastage". Sound it out.

 

Will this question be ever answered ??

 

Improviz,

I can you explain how 344rwhp = 477 hp @ crank? I would assume w/ 18% loss it is more like 420 @ crank..

 

Crap...er, yes, I can explain: it was derived using a very clever methodology I developed, wherein I subtract 18 from 100 and get 72...either that, or I managed to hit the '7' key instead of the '8' key twice...so yes, you are correct: this would come out to 420 crank hp, and 440 lb-ft of torque, still far more than the mods he's listing would get you. This would require internal engine mods.

 

So what do you think with the mighty SLK 55 .... been playin'with the big boyz lately