Anyone Race The Following Vehicles?
The thing is, though, *****y Boy, I could, and did, afford it new. You, obviously, could not, because you bought a C6 auto instead of a Z06, which you, given your penchant for bragging about speed, obviously would have, had you had the scratch. I could, right now, drive down to my local Chevy dealer and buy a brand spanking new Z06 if I were so inclined...could you? I doubt it, given the venom you've been spewing towards the CLK55 since this thread started. Your jealousy is quite obvious, *****y Boy.
Your making this to EZ clownboy!
Last edited by Thericker; Jun 27, 2006 at 10:21 PM.
i personally think its gay, just by the fact that the C6 is not running to its full potential. this is one reason of why im considering to buy an SLK55




So why is it that you're not driving a Z06, speed demon? And why is it that you're so jealous of CLKs? You came trolling here for a reason, after all...and a quick search of your posting history reveals that pretty much all you've been doing is trolling here about how your big bad 'vette will beat all of the "almighty benzes" as you called them in this post:
Last edited by Improviz; Jun 28, 2006 at 12:08 AM.
i personally think its gay, just by the fact that the C6 is not running to its full potential. this is one reason of why im considering to buy an SLK55
Did they stop it with the 6-spd auto, btw??
Did they stop it with the 6-spd auto, btw??
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
they got 4.5 0-60 in my car, that might be possible with some slicks
Maybe you should sell the AMG and get a vette; seems like you're more enthusiastic about them!!
I mean, come on, man...it's more than a bit of a stretch to claim Car & Driver didn't test the car and report accurately what they'd run. So, they just made it up? Invented it? No basis in reality? And they did this as well with the C55?
Oh, and I guess Motor Trend did it in this test, when they, too, ran a 13.1 @ 108 in a 2004 CLK55 AMG?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
And lied again, when they tested the C55 AMG at a 13.2 @ 107.3?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
So, that's five lies in all, by two major mags??
Get real. Wtf do you think your car would run, a 14.0 or something??
Maybe you should sell the AMG and get a vette; seems like you're more enthusiastic about them!!
I mean, come on, man...it's more than a bit of a stretch to claim Car & Driver didn't test the car and report accurately what they'd run. So, they just made it up? Invented it? No basis in reality? And they did this as well with the C55?
Oh, and I guess Motor Trend did it in this test, when they, too, ran a 13.1 @ 108 in a 2004 CLK55 AMG?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
And lied again, when they tested the C55 AMG at a 13.2 @ 107.3?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
So, that's five lies in all, by two major mags??
Get real. Wtf do you think your car would run, a 14.0 or something??
....I
just got off yours
***....
Or here, as you did in this post:

And of course, 1/4 mile times posted by corvette owners are "real world data"--when YOU post them, as you did when you posted a (modded) vette's times in this post:....but of course, when I post timeslips from the same forum, which were posted by owners of STOCK corvettes, why, that, of course, is NOT "real world data", right?

Your kill stories are the gospel, mine are all lies.
Lol...really, to call you an idiot is an insult to idiots everywhere.
Last edited by Improviz; Jun 27, 2006 at 11:57 PM.
I can't believe this abortion of a thread has gone on this long.
Both cars are wonderful and fairly quick and were made for very different people/purposes. /The End
I can't believe this abortion of a thread has gone on this long.
Both cars are wonderful and fairly quick and were made for very different people/purposes. /The End
Last edited by Improviz; Jun 27, 2006 at 11:48 PM.



