Improviz

Oh, I'm a bit more than that, loser...I've been street racing for, oh, about 22 years now.

Then I would suggest you write the good Editors of Car & Driver magazine up and tell them they're full of ****, because I linked to the test they conducted in my previous post. Here it is again; this time you might even bother to read it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...pes-page5.html

Yes, in the same test where they also ran a 5.1 5-60, which is 0.6 slower than the CLK55 tested above, so guess what? It's all in the launch. Again, this was a six-speed manual, not a four-speed auto. Two extra gears and a clutch make a bit of difference when a skilled driver at the wheel.

Which Edmunds.com discovered when they tested the C6 four-speed auto: they ran a 4.8-second 0-to-60 time and a best quarter-mile of 12.8 seconds at 107 mph. Not quite at your 4.1 seconds, there, eh speedy? And certainly not enough to blow a CLK55 away by "buslengths" as you're contending....and that's what I'm taking issue with.

Show some respect.

Could've fooled me; I could have sworn you came in here trolling about how you'd beat a CLK55 by buslengths.

Yeah, I'm sure your four-speed auto is waaaay quicker than a six-speed, right? Not unless you've modded the **** out of it, in which case you're into stock vs. modded territory, and stock vs. modded comparisons are lame...there are ten second Honda Civics out there, after all....

I'm not a liar, and I'm getting goddamn sick of you accusing me of being one, so you can suck it, pal. If you ever repeat that to my face, we'll see how goddamn fast you *really* are. Wtf is your goddamn problem anyhow? *****.

Improviz

Hmm, well, maybe Mercedes just slightly underrates their motors a bit, ya think, Einstein:

2003 E55: weight = 4250 pounds, 469 rated horsepower => 9.06 pounds/horsepower.

2005 Corvette: weight = 3280 pounds, 400 rated horsepower => 8.2 pounds/horsepower.

And yet which one tested faster in Car & Driver, *and* Road & Track, *and* Motor Trend?

Hint: it ain't the Chevy.

Or, more to the point, let's look at the C5 auto versus the CLK55 auto, given that both motors were rated pretty close in power...(344 for 'vette, 342 for CLK55)

Here's Sport Auto's 2003 test of the C5 auto:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/chevrolet...c5ta2003-1.htm
Gewicht 1504 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 16,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 19,5 s

Supertest of 2001 CLK55 AMG in sport auto 05/2000
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...mgst2000-1.htm
Gewicht 1593 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 19,8 s

So, the CLK55 weighed in at 90 kg (198 pounds) more than the C5 auto, and yet somehow managed to beat it. With less horsepower. Hmm....wonder what's going on here??

Jaki

make sure to get this on tape, that's if it goes down.

Improviz

Well, I disagree. Here's a guy from the Corvette forums who ran his C6 auto three times at the strip. Other 'vette owners said they'd never seen a C6 auto break into the 12's. Here's the post:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...5&forum_id=101

...and he's not stock; he has an exhaust.

At the bottom of the page, another guy with a C6 auto lists his 1/4 times, and this guy is modded to the hilt:

And this is heavily modded, yet even with drag radials he was barely into the 12's, and both his & the first guy's trap speeds are right in the same speeds as a CLK55. So, bottom line is, despite what this trolling jerk is claiming, I'd run him in a heartbeat, because this is by no means cut and dried, and there's no way you'd get "killed" if this guy's stock or close to it.

Thericker

Improviz I'm sorry to break it to ya your overweight merc will get destroyed!!
I can harken up just as many mid-to low 12sec stats for 1/4 mile C6 's also there is a guy running the A4 C6 "Dennis500" over @ Corvetteforum go check it out w/ just bolt-ons Headers, CAI, tune, 160 stat, stall convert, on STOCK RUN FLATS!! he just hit an 11.9xxx so get over your magizine, or fact #'s anytime anywhere I'll leave you standing still Please, oh please, don't you live in CA?????

Thericker

You want real data guy? I ran E55cent Mario, he has a 1999 E55 w/SC'er 370rwhp 380rwto he weighs less than your CLK55!! I beat him by 2-3 car lengths from 0-100 on city streets then the same 2-3 on freeway roll-on 65-120
That was BONE STOCK!! Also Mario E55cent raced Brandon's 05' C55 and beat him by 3 lengths, So do the math! = 6 + lengths on your CLK can you say bus lengths? I will own you all day every day.

The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason you are seeing guys in the high 12's an low 13's at the strip is because these cars are extremely hard to launch nothing but wheel spin!

Improviz

I googled the site vetteforums.com for "Dennis500", and it doesn't appear. Just to be sure, I read the forums, picked some other users' names at random, and googled them as well, and badda-bop, badda-bing, found their posts, no problem.

So where is "Dennis500"? Either you've botched his name, or you're lying out of your ***.

And even if he does exist, well, la-de-fvking dah; he's heavily modded. What can YOU do?

Why don't you post some slips and/or video of yours? You're the one claiming it's going to destroy our poor li'l ol' CLK55's.

Put something on the table. Because all I've seen from you so far is **** talk, and both the car mags' test results AND the numbers of forum users show that the four-speed autos are running a helluvalot slower than you're claiming. And whether or not a heavily-modded one will run 11's or not is beside the point. We're talking stock vs stock here.

Thericker

Man you need to chill out home girl....
I mighta botched the Name I'll get it for you w/link, my point in posting his data was A)he has an A4 tranny like me & simple bolt-ons He ran 12-2xxx minus the stall converter!
And You ask what I can do I just posted real world data, Not your hyped up fairy tale bullshi*t ask E55cent if you don't believe me..Toolbag


Here go look this up Dip-shat! Dennis50NJ -05-A4-CAI-catback,headers 11.95x @112mph

Improviz

My CLK55 weighs 3450 pounds. Don't know what you're thinking of. Perhaps a 209? You don't even have a clue, do you?

And if he only beat a C55 by three lengths from 0-100, I have a hard time believing he's putting down 370 rwhp, because A) C55's run very low 13's, so three lengths puts him at a hi 12, and he should be in the mid 12's with 350 rwhp, and B) 350 rwhp translates out to about 450 crank, 100 more than that car put out bone stock, and 210 E55's ran low 13's bone stock. With that kind of power, he should be running mid 12's and trapping at 115+. Dyno runs are one thing, I'd like to see some slips of his traps....

And I'd also like to see some slips of yours, and a list of your mods.

Improviz

Man, you need to stop calling people liars and bagging their cars, beeyutch.

Why is it you always have to use modded cars when you're talking about a stock CLK55?? Who the **** gives a **** what a modded C6 can do to a stock CLK55? I can send you a video of a 10 second Honda Civic....so what??

You're talking **** like stock to stock, a C6 auto four will stomp the guts out of a CLK55, and you're full of ****. I posted numbers of multiple runs from two users, AND test data from Edmunds.com.

Oh, so your "real world data" is The Final Word, but of course the real world data I posted is worthless. Typical hypocritical scumbag...

And yeah, big boy, let's see your mid-to-low second 12 slips, since your C6 auto is oh so fast. Have you ever even taken that thing to a friggin' track?

Thericker

Listen I'm gonna cutt the name calling and calm down here, we are both enthusiasts I just came here cause I disagreed w/the other guys kills since I've raced some on his list we straightened that out, now you & I are heavily disagreing but facts are facts that's why I'm here stating I'll put an *** whoppin' on a clk55 I've raced a few and Mario's race really put it into perspective just how fast these C6's are when properly launched.

My car @ race time still had dealer plates on it, had it for a week when we raced BONE STOCK, Now I installed a Vararam intake, that's it.
Proofs there I'll happily go outta my way for a friendly race w/anyone here to prove my point please lets keep it civil I have a temper, but am trying to keep it fun o.k.?

Thericker

Yes your stories are just that STORIES!! I have E55cent who'll back me on this in a second go ask him please??????

You are showing no restraint here, I'm trying here so calm down a bit guy! I guarantee you wouldn't be saying this crap to my face

vette

is an 05 clk55 convertible as fast as the coupe? just a question

vette

what about a C5 vs a 03+ CLK55 convertible?

Improviz

....I looked up your Dennis, he is MODIFIED; his runs DO NOT appear on the "Showroom Stock" portion of the list. These runs are listed by the guy maintining the list under the ENGINE MODIFICATIONS secton, NOT under the "Showroom Stock" section...so again, you have to resort to trickery and blathering about how a modified 'vette is faster...well, what a shock! You mean that modifying a car for performance makes it faster? Holy ****!!! Next thing you know, you'll be educating us about other fasciniating facts, like if you drop a brick off of a building, it will hit the ground!!

Oh, the wonders of science!!

But let's return to what a STOCK 'vette C6 A4 will do, shall we?

Here's the list, maintained by Tommy D:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...&postcount=696

And here are the "Showroom Stock" numbers for the four-speed autos:
12.56 @ 112.00 - Orange C6 - 05 Z51 A4
12.71 @ 111.00 - Demented - 05 Z51 A4
12.74 @ 108.67 - Shooter 49 - 05 A4 3.15
12.83 @ 109.44 - Tommy D - 05 A4 3.15
12.97 @ 108.00 - Ginny C6 - 05 F55 A4
12.98 @ 108.00 - Tampa Vet - 05 A4 3.15
13.26 @ 105.30 - Joeking - 05 Z51 A4
13.62 @ 106.18 - Rich28 - 05 Z51 A4

Now, you will note that Dennis whatever is not on this list; he is listed on the list below it, under the ENGINE MODIFICATIONS section. In any case, they do NOT list him as running a low 12 "bone stock".

Now, look at the times above: All but two trapped in between 105-109 mph--THE SAME AS A CLK55. All but two were in the very high 12's to low 13's, meaning that 75% of the BEST auto runs were in the upper 12's to low 13's.

The *average* of the trap speeds is about 108.5. The *average* of the ETs is about 12.9. And this is the BEST. As I showed before, there were many others who weren't in this ballpark.

So you can talk **** all you like, but the "real world data" shows that most of these things aren't fast enough to run off and leave a CLK55 in the manner in which you described earlier.

Now, again: if you've modded your car, then la-de-dah...you're faster than stock. Congratulations. But what the hell does that prove, exactly, in a discussion about the capabilities of stock cars??? Sheesh!

Improviz

So, the reports of C6 owners, from a C6 forum, are JUST STORIES, while your run with E55Cent is the be-all, end-all, Final Word on the subject, and is the only evidence we should look at, right?

Why?

Why should we ignore what C6 owners are reporting, and what magazines have tested, for stock C6 A4s, and only pay attention to you? Because you say so? Wtf kind of argument is that??

I can promise you that I would. Really. But if you want to keep it civil, then stop calling me a liar, not once but twice (I read your reply to me in the other post that you've deleted). Otherwise, I'll respond to your insults with insults. I will treat you with as much civility as you treat me...

Improviz

Nope. They're 3-400 pounds heavier and correspondingly slower.

Improviz

Well, unfortunately, the list maintained over at vetteforums.com shows that the absolute fastest stock C6 4 speed auto trapped about 2 mph faster than the CLK55 tested by Car & Driver, as well as our very own Chappy.

And most of them trapped in the same range as a CLK55.

So your one, lone run is contradicted by multiple runs by multiple other drivers.

I know that you would prefer that we all ignore the mountain of evidence contradicting your anecdote, but guess what? That mountain ain't going anywhere.

And you don't even have a timeslip. Only one race. With all of the attendant innacuracies that entials, such as driver reaction time, which we have no way to measure.

Fine, so start by not calling people liars, OK?? I don't take kindly to it.

As to your runs with E55Cent: so what? If your reaction time is 0.3 better than him, this alone would account for 3 lengths! And we have no way to measure this....this is why timeslips, like those I cited from vetteforums.com, are better: they contain things we can compare, like ET and trap speed, and the ET and trap speed of the C6 A4s posted at that forum show that it is simply not producing enough trap speed to run away and leave a CLK55 like you're claiming.

And now yours is modded in any case...but we have timeslip data from ten (counting the two I reported earlier) STOCK C6 A4 owners, and their BEST trap speeds break down as follows:

112
111
108.67
109.44
108
108
105.3
106.18
108.73
109.15

Now, four were 108, two were 109, one was 111, one was 112, one was 106, and one was 105. So 80% of them trapped in the same range as the CLK55, and 20% trapped a few mph faster. No matter how you slice it, this does NOT add up to some huge, buslengths-style victory, and in fact in many instances would add up to a tie, or a loss, depending upon other factors like traction, reaction, and driver skill.

So please, stop acting like you're running against a Honda Civic or something...CLK55s are plenty fast, and the data show that they're going to hold their own against a STOCK C6 A4 just fine. Further, as I pointed out earlier, you're modded, and this is a discussion about STOCK cars.

vette

damn, those Auto C6 times are pathetic. my intake and catback Auto C5 is just as fast . in that case i'll run a stock clk55 or intake and catback one

Improviz

What kind of ETs and traps are you laying down, and with what rubber?

vette

well since my tires( runflats) are bald, the last time i went to the track in the summer heat, i did a 13 flat @109mph cuting 2.1-2.2 60 ft's

Improviz

Excellent runs for high-temp conditions, especially for a four-speed auto!! From what I saw over at vetteforums, the new A6s have picked up a bit of time, as you'd expect.

So are you still thinking of getting an SLK55? Have you driven one yet?

vette

yes i am still thinking of getting the SLK55, but right now im having to deal with certain personal matters, i have to attend to. for this reason is why i haven't had the chance to drive an SLK55 yet. people say it is faster than my C5, and i really don't know about that but of course i don't just want to get the 55 for just speed. i know for a fact that the 55 has way better gearing though

vette

hey do you think i can take my father's CLK55 vert? i've tryed to look up 1/4 times for both the CLK and SLK, but have come up with nothing. bythe way my father doesn't race

Improviz

I haven't seen a test of one either, but given that the convertible weighs in at about 300 pounds heavier (double-checked this, it is right about 300), and that gearing and rated power are the same, I'd expect the convertible to be a bit slower, *BUT* the big limiting factor for these cars with 390 lb-ft of torque, 255-series rear tires, and no limited slip (thanks to the ***HOLES at Mercedes) is traction; these mothers are very tricky to launch! And with most of that extra weight pushing down on the rear wheels, a stock ragtop could well get a better holeshot than the coupe, but once rolling, the coupe should be faster.

But since each 0.1 reduction in the 60' time nets you about 0.2 in the 1/4 mile, what you might see is the ETs being the same in a standing-start 1/4 run, with higher traps for the coupe...but then again, you might not even see the ETs the same, depending upon how much the traction control was improved (I am told it is better).

How's that for a fudged answer?? I'm hesitant to flat-out claim that the higher weight would cost it that much time given that both cars are saddled with those ridiculously skinny tires...slap some 275's on the back of 'em, and now I'd put my money on the coupe.

But back to your race: with your trap speeds and 60' time, it would be very, very close assuming whomever was driving the CLK knew how to launch and you both had good reaction times. I'd think that if you're pulling pretty consistent 13.0's and trapping at 109+, though, you'd probably take him by a few lengths if you both launched at the exact same moment in time (which ain't gonna happen, lol).