Improviz.....Your posts are painful to read there like monologues! I never meant this to be a 1/4 mile challenge, I was reacting to STREET RACING STORIES! Your exhaustive blow hard retorts w/magazine hp to weight ratio blah blah Shut it guy

Also the reason I thru up info on Dennis50NJ was for you to see how well a properly driven C6 A4 w/minor BOLT-ONS performs the 1/4, You are severely mistaken guy has no head, cam, work ect.. He did 1/4 BONE STOCK @12.5XX

What part don't you get? All your comparisons are 1/4 mile this reaction time that?? Dude we were talking about STREET RACING MORON! I have ran some of those faster cars on the original list that'll eat your precious clk alive and guess what some were 0-80-0-100- freeway rolls 70-130 none were at a DRAG STRIP! Hence this thread isn't titled 1/4 mile CHALLENGE!

I thru the gauntlet down no one has replied (PM meet for a race) to try & prove me wrong. I have a measly CAI I'll take it off & run anyone here BONE STOCK I will pull you from ANY SPEED 6+ lengths so please step up or shut up Improv the blowhard! once again I wish to have some friendly runs here so if any of you Sothern Calif guys wish to run me please PM me

 

Improv I don't know where you get your data but Ahh Bullsheet man...

Autotrader.com
2003 CLK55 Weight--3635 HP--362 TO--376

2005 CLK55 Weight--3635 HP--362 TO--376

1999 E55 Weight--3680 HP--349 TO--391

2005 C6 Weight--3179 HP--400 TO--400

Now factor in Mario's E55 has more torque STOCK than your little clk and he has a SuperCharger I beat him on freeway rolls as well as the 0-100 run I already talked about. Your a JOKE IMPROV!! No contest man!! facts don't lie like your made up Kill Stories!

 

its still vette ..................................

 

I dont mean to be rude about it but the vette offers a sportty fast car and thats all it is .A c6 will beat a clk55 without quetion.

As far as the other cars :
STI .... I beat him by a foot but we were door to door the whole time

M3............Killed by like 3 cars i dont think he knew how to drive.

GTO...............Beat it bearly

AUDI s4 s46645754 whatever it is bring it ................That was funny

mustang gt or cobra N/A ............. beat

COBRA supercharged ............ lost

Viper ........ lost

EVO MODDED ........ lost

Im sorry im not a vette guy but they are some dam fast cars.

 

Hey that's a cool pic' It's not my intention Vettes better than benz or anything like that, I love Mercs Had a blown 2001 S430 for 4 years.

I'm simply pointing out the obvious benzos are heavy luxury cruisers and fast, but CLK55, can't touch C6 handling twisties, or straight line racing

Don't get me wrong If I had the funds I'd be behind the wheel of an SL65 Love the Mercedes styling.

I'm not a Vette guy either, just changed it up w/new C6 for a while.

Your kills sound very believable, unlike some peoples, like Ooohhh I don't know maybe Improv

 

For people with limited intelligence, I would have to say yes.

Wow, that's pretty funny, dude...especially since in your very next post, you start citing torque and weight stuff. But consistency and intelligence are not exactly your strong suits, now are they *****y?

As usual, you've responded to the actual timeslips presented by actual owners with, well, nothing. Why am I not surprised? No answers to my questions, nada....the reason for which is quite obvious: you have neither the data nor the skill to debate, and so you instead take the cheap tactic of trying to dismiss the 1/4 mile times supplied by your own fellow 'vette owners, as well as magazine tests.

Yes, why should we listen to little annoying things like scientifically conducted magazine tests or 1/4 mile timeslips, when we have The All-Knowing, All-Seeing Expert, Ricky the *****y, here to basically wave his hands and shout "DON'T LISTEN TO THAT GODDAMN EVIDENCE; LISTEN TO ME!!"??

Yeah, sure; so why is it that they don't have this time listed on their SHOWROOM STOCK list, sweetie? They DO list him under their MODDED section, but they have NO listing of him running a 12.5x "bone stock" that I can find....and even if he did, by your "logid" we should, of course, just ignore all of the other drivers' timeslips, because why? Well, because you, The*****er, are the way, the truth, and the light, and that's just that.

As I said before: you can divert and gesticulate like a clown all day long, but the timeslips are there, and timeslips talk, while your walks.

Ah, what was it you said about refraining from personal attacks and insults there, *****y? Looks like you held to that promise about as tenaciously as your overworked brain holds onto facts.

So I guess what you're trying to say is that a car can be very fast on the street but not on the 1/4 mile track?? Your "logic" is truly enlightening, *****y.

None of the cars on that list will eat a CLK alive, as anyone who's ever read the test results from. You really are an idiot.

Again, *****y boy, I present the 1/4 mile trap speeds for a DOZEN C6 A4 Corvettes. For you to pull six lengths on a CLK55, you'd have to be trapping at 115+. So let's see a slip, loser.

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

Again: stock CLK55s trap at 109. Your auto four doesn't trap, stock, at 115+, and none of these guys did either. And to pull a car by six lengths, that's where you'd have to be.

Idiot.

 

LOL, oh this is pathetic...and I guess all of those corvette owners' timeslips were 'made up', as were the three road tests I provided, right *****y? Yes, that's it, I keep forgetting: only your runs count, and nobody else's do. And you, who have not taken your car to a strip at all, will be the final judge of what does, and does not, constitute realistic performance for a C6 A4.

Yes, if 100 guys run 13.0's and trap 108-109, and one guy pulls a 12.5, why, by golly, it's not that the average four-speed auto C6 corvette will run 13.0 at 109; it's simply that 99/100 guys can't manage to extract the true potential from their cars. And oh, never mind that trap speed doesn't drop by 7 mph if you spin at launch...oh, no no no no, little things like that don't matter to a twit who's never been to the strip and doesn't know any better.

And you keep calling me a magazine racer? So if you're such a hot**** racer, why haven't you taken your car to a strip, *****y Boy? You're a street racer, a wannabe, nothing more. Put up some slips and we'll talk, because you haven't shown me ****, boy.

And I already listed the rated horsepower and torque ratings for the E55k, which showed your vette having a 15% horsepower-to-weight advantage over it, and yet somehow, magically, the Benz pulled the faster time--and then there was the actual road test data showing that the CLK55 tested faster than the Corvette auto despite having lower rated horsepower and higher weight...

But oh, no, we can't have any of that evidence that you don't want to listen to, now can we *****y?

Again: your anecdotal evidence is just that. The timeslips tell the tale, and AT BEST you would take a CLK55 by a few lengths unless you got the jump on him.

Let's see what a great driver you are: take it to the track and show us some videos/slips. Otherwise, you're nothing more than just a ****-talking tool, and a jealous ***** at that.

Now, as to your stupid argument about torque: well, you see, *****y, there's this wonderful phenomenon called *gearing*. And *gearing*, you see, multiplies the torque produced by the engine. So, if you're making 400 ft-lb of torque but your gears only multiply this by 4, and you run up against someone with 300 lb-ft whose gears multiply it by 6, well, guess what: you'd lose.

So let's take a look at the two cars' gearing. We'll look at both the standard 2.73 and optional 3.15 Corvette rearends, compute their max possible torque at the wheels from the 400 of the engine, and do the same with the CLK55.

So, here we go. 2005 Corvette tech data:

Rearend: 2.73, or 3.15 (optional), 400 lb-ft of torque. Here are gears, product of gears and rearend, and max possible torque at wheels for each of your four gears:

3.06 8.3538 3341.52
1.63 4.4499 1779.96
1 2.73 1092
0.7 1.911 764.4

How about the CLK55, which has a 3.06:1 rearend and more agressive gearing, and 376 lb-ft of torque (my owners' manual lists it at 384 lb-ft, but we'll use your lower figure):
3.6 11.016 4142.016
2.19 6.7014 2519.7264
1.41 4.3146 1622.2896
1 3.06 1150.56
0.83 2.5398 954.9648

Wow, it sure looks like the CLK is putting more torque to the wheels, there, *****y: what does that work out to percentage-wise compared to the 'vette, gear by gear??
1st gear: 124%
2nd gear: 142%
3rd gear: 149%
4th gear: 151%

Wow....looks like the gearing kinda works in our favor, eh *****y? (I only used four gears, because, well, that's all your sorry *** has; at least Chevy was nice enough to put a six-speed in the new cars, although that's still one behind the new CLK55 )

So does it improve with the optional 3.15:1 gear in the 'vette? Yes, of course, but unfortunately, not enough:

3.06 9.639 3855.6
1.63 5.1345 2053.8
1 3.15 1260
0.7 2.205 882

Which means that even when the 'vette has the optional 3.15:1 rearend (btw, does yours have this option, *****y??) the CLK55 has peak torque of the following percentages higher than the 'vette's:
107%
123%
129%
130%

So, you still wanna try and scare us with your 400 lb-ft motor, *****y? All that torque doesn't do **** if you're not running it through decent gears, boy!!

But then, I wouldn't expect a know-nothing twit who's never been to a strip to know the first thing about gearing and its effects upon acceleration, and thankfully, you did not disappoint.

 

Dude, do you think that a car with a four-speed auto is gonna run as fast as a six-speed manual? Because the times you're thinking of in the mags are all six-speeds. The four speeds aren't as fast, because, um, well, gee, stop and think about this for a second: they're missing two gears! So they're not as fast, as the timeslips and road tests I produced prove.

And you're also missing what it is I'm arguing: I'm not arguing that the CLK55 is going to beat the 'vette; I'm saying he's full of **** when he says he's going to run away and leave a CLK55 "like he's at the bus stop", which is how he put it before.

Bull****. Not with a four-speed auto with a 2.73 rearend. See my previous post.

 

Improviz, you do know that the 06 C6 has a paddle shift A6 tranny right? but anyways, its true that the CLK55 has better gearing?

 

Yeah, I know about the new one (I think I mentioned it somewhere in this thread, but too lazy to look! ) But he's got the '05, which has the 4-spd auto.

In fact, that six speed is fantastic, from what I've heard....but here, I'm just commenting about the four speed, and wouldn't even bother with that except that I enjoy dismantling little ricky's lameass arguments.

 

is a C55 faster than a CLK55?

 

Driver's race. Very close in weight, same horsepower, gearing, etc...

 

Guy your a Legend in your own mind!

You think you know everything You only need 3 gears to rip thru the 1/4 know it all, I wonder why topfuel dragsters only have 2 gears??

Also as I stated NUMEROUS TIMES!! before, The C6 suffers at the strip due to serious lack of traction, (Can you say runflats? dipshi*t?) pull your head outta your fat *** Improv & look at the 60ft times on Corvette forum they suck, You also pulled the highest 1/4 mile times/ lowest trap speeds you could find to list as examples!
Talk about twisting the facts for you to be able to continue existing in your dreamworld where 3635lb mercs are as fast as C6's hahahaha

I had to add those Accurate vehicle weights because you flat out lied! you said your clk55 weighed 3450 ?????What did you just by an slk55?? because that's what they weigh.

Here it is I said it enough but...... Find someone, Hell anyone w/clk55 we can video it for all to see, Come on make it happen BLOWHARD!!
My PM is waiting you seriously need a dose of reality.

 

He child prodigy Improv Why don't you elaborate on the 1999 E55 comparison???
You only weigh 45lbs less than them and yet have less Torque, I beat one w/SuperCharger. I guarantee if he didn't have a blower it would've been UGLY bus lengths man your a toolbag Improv. I eagerly await your overzealous response full of the size of a small city phonebook....Jackass hahaha you're to funny

 

I'm doing a pretty good job of beeyutch-slapping your dumb *** around this forum. You quote torque: I quote gears. You quote anecdotes; I quote times reported by actual vette owners.

This is too stupid to even qualify as an argument. The data I provided shows that in gears 1-3, the CLK55 is putting 124%, 142%, and 149% of the torque at the wheels as yours is, because yours has sucky gearing.

Admit it, dude...you tried to make a point with torque, but you were too stupid to understand the effects of gearing, and I slapped your ignorant *** down.

And so does the CLK55, because it has high torque, *and* its peak comes in at a lower RPM, *and* it has skinnier tires than your 'vette. So the same argument is applicable here, moron. But it sure is funny how many 6-speed 'vettes managed to go much faster...oh, gee, that might be because they actually have six gears and decent gearing, which to anyone but a brainless ignorant moron like yourself explains why they are faster...you, being totally ignorant of physics, drag racing, cars, and pretty much anything else, cannot comprehend this, of course.

Can you say 245's, brainless?

No, you lying ***** I listed ALL of the times for the C6 A4 cars from the list of the fastest C6's that is maintained by user Tommy D. This list is from a thread where C6 owners, at a Corvette forum, were invited to report their fastest times. They did, and Tommy D created this list:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...&postcount=696

So, you lying little POS, what I did was take ALL of the SHOWROOM STOCK cars with FOUR SPEED AUTOS like YOURS from that list, and list them here. Got it, moron? If there's ONE A4 car from his list under the Showroom Stock car that I left out of my list, produce it now, or admit that you're lying through your crooked goddamn teeth, because I faithfully reproduced all of them. So suck it, loser...that list is accurate, and anyone can click on the link above and see for themselves. All cars with a four-speed auto are designated "A4", and your Dennis IS NOT ON THE LIST of Showroom Stock (i.e., UNMODIFIED) cars. So that's TWO lies from you in one thread.

Hahaha, well, if you have no clue or concept of the fact that gearing does affect a car's ET, then, yeah, I guess it makes sense to you, but that's just because you're a moron. And oh, well, the guy in the blue C6 auto I spanked four times last week sure seemed real to me...of course, you'll say I'm lying, because that's all you can do; you goddamn sure can't prove it. But I'm not arguing that in general, CLKs are faster; all I'm arguing is that you're a ****-talking fool when you say that you'd take down a CLK55 by "buslengths", which you later modded to "6 lengths". I said that if you win at all, it'd be by no more than a few lengths, and that's IF.

Oh, bull****, you were trying to make a dumb argument about how the weight and the torque gave you such an advantage, but the only problem is that you're so stupid and ignorant that you don't even know what gearing your car has, or ours for that matter. Oh, and FYI: my car is a W208, not a W209. The W209s are heavier. My car weighs 3450 pounds. Christ, you're an ignorant idiot....see the pic below; Car & Driver weighed a 208 in at 3520, a bit heavier than mine. Ignoramus...

You need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. You haven't refuted a single fact I've produced over the course of this debate, haven't even tried, and every point you've attempted to make lies on the floor in shreds.

Like, for example, my car's weight:

 

So this must be your ideal wet dream? Because now your back peddling saying I would beat you no doubt, but only by 3 lengths Get your stories straight stupid!

 

I see what the problem is now: you're too fooking stupid to understand plain English. What I said was what I've said all along: that based upon the trap speeds and ETs that the A4 vettes are running, you would not win by "buslengths", IF YOU WON AT ALL.


Got that, dip****? Pulled your head out of your *** long enough to read it? Can you comprehend it?

I mean, look at this:

In what universe does the above translate to "you would win, oh mighty *****er, of this there is no doubt!" What are you, some kind of fooking retard, or just severely dyslexic? I mean, seriously, dude, I've come across some pretty stupid people in here, but I've gotta tell you: you're the king.

YOU came into this thread and said that you'd leave a CLK55 behind like he was at the busstop. I argued that no, you wouldn't, that IF you won you'd win by no more than a few lengths, unless you hopped on it first and got a jump. I said this not because I divined it, but a) because I beat one personally; b) because I looked at road test numbers for it; c) because I looked at the vette owners forum and checked out the trap speeds.

In other words, I, unlike you, actually took an objective look at the evidence that's out there, and found your claim to be what it is: pure bull****. And I also produced evidence to back it up. And you haven't refuted a single shred of this evidence, only thrown tantrums and acted like an idiot.

Now then: I've answered your question. Answer some of mine, or find someone else to play with.

How is it that if four-speed auto C6 vettes are all capable of stomping the **** out of CLK55s, that they're only for the most part trapping in the 108-109 range, the same as CLK55s? Traction? Great...we have traction issues too, Einstein, so if you try to explain it away by citing low traction, it doesn't work, as this is applicable to us too. Further, why is it that the six-speed manuals seem to be trapping so much faster??

The SLOWEST M6 on that list trapped at 110. The FASTEST hit 116.

But the SLOWEST A4 on the list trapped at 105. The FASTEST hit 112.

That's a CONSISTENT 5 mph difference--and yet you act like the auto is just as fast. Bull****. It ain't trapping as high, and you can't use traction as an excuse, because if anything, manuals are HARDER to launch.

So please: explain how it is that the M6 guys are trapping so much faster.

You're really stupid enough to think that your four speed is gonna run with a six? Get a grip. You don't have the gearing, boy...the six-speeds DO!

Answer the question, or argue with someone else. I'm sick of wasting time on you. If you want to debate, debate, because this little kid throwing a tantrum routine is getting old fast.

 

Actually, I weigh about 200 pounds less than them and have 4 lb-ft less torque, according to my owners' manual. But as usual, you're quoting 209 weight figures, blissfully ignorant of the fact that I own a 208.

And I already did address it, and I'm not going to waste time doing it again. Try reading my posts for a change.

Now why don't you address the fact that I beat a C6 4/4 times a few weeks ago? Oh, I forgot: I'm a liar, but you're the Great Oracle of Truth

The funny thing is that you seem to think these moronic rants of yours are actually proving and accomplishing something other than making you look stupid.

 

well 3450lbs aint 3520lbs get it straight there Clinton did you or didn't you dumbass Improv the "Great Drag Racer Know it all Extraordinarie" You should be a Circus Act.

 

I weighed mine, moron. You see, drag strips have this nice thing called a "scale". You would know this if you'd ever been to one.

And it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. Now how about addressing some of the other points, loser? For someone who seems so sure of his mastery of the facts, you're doing a damn fine job of avoiding them, and of not presenting any.

 

One thing is for sure you have diarrhea of the mouth there cowgirl, My posts have your panties in quite a twist! Ever thought about D-Caff ??

 

....wow, no facts, just insults...trying something new, eh? Oh, wait.....you're not.

Like I said: come back when you've got a timeslip and some video of you running it.

 

Well now I actually have a viable witness to my race, all you have is hott air flappin outt your lips bit*ch boy.

 

...and the timeslips from the other A4 vette owners, and the magazine tests, etc...it wouldn't matter if I had a video, you'd just ignore it. Facts cannot penetrate the little truth filter you've got going there, sparky.

And as anyone can see by looking at all of the facts you've gotten wrong, and the lies about me you've told in this thread, there's no reason to doubt your honesty...right?

 

Can you subtract correctly? your weight 3520, E55 3680 = 160lbs less + a SuperCharger = your not in the same league there Shakespeare

Talk about lying that's all you do I've cited you on multiple