5439cc

Amigos
In the past on this forum I have posted various stories of my racing (in various modes, off the line, roll ons at 80mph – 155mph etc.) And I have been met with negative and doubtful comments regarding the ability of the CLK55 and the driving skills of the person in the other cars (BWM M3 and M5) At least twice a month my brother (2001 – M5, who is a very completive person and great driver) and a friend (2002 M3 – another good driver which attended various driving schools) go to various locations to perform high speed driving skills and test the ability of the cars own. We would met at 7am on a Sunday (Local State Troopers Sleep Time) and perform three lane roll ons from various speeds, 75 – 150 – 90 -155mph etc – without a problem the CLK55 ///AMG stays with them from beginning the end, there is no clear winner. From 0-60 sprints the ///AMG is within a half a car length with both cars, I don’t know about any other CLK55 driver, but I beat the **** out of mine, and she moves like the F^$^$ Wind. It troubles me to think that some of you are disbelievers, perhaps you are not as aggressive with your ///AMG – Trust me The Beast Can Handle anything you throw at it. The only change I made to the Stock was a K&N Filter. I also traded with my friends to confirm my findings – After various runs the results are the same. They both are now believers of this extremely capable car. Agree the M5 and M3 both setup better on the track (suspension is awesome) and the steering is dead on, the CLK55 is a little soft in comparison. But straight-line, high speed driving they are first cousins of a very capable and fast family of high performance European Cars. With My APG I’m avg 5.0 sec – 5.1 sec 0-60. – For All You Disbelievers I Offer This – Come By My Neck Of The Woods And I Would Be Glad To Display the Truth – For the Truth Shall Set You Free

Timster

Sounds like a fair comparison.
I'm taking mine to the track on Feb 9th. I hope it handles as well as I think it will. I do wish the steering had better feed back.
Even if it doesn't burn up the track, I'll be very comfortable while I’m practicing.
Tim

5439cc

Timster - I Went To The Track Twice - Depending On Your Tires I Found That The S02 - Worked Best, Less Wheel Spin And Better Conering - Take Off And Tracking Were Good - I Agree, Regarding The Steering. I Also Wish The Steering Had Better Feedback. P.S. Love You Color - Very Sweet :p

Timster

I've always liked red.
I've used (Michelin Pilot Sport) MPS on the track, and on Open Road Races before, I’ve had no complaints.
I’ve had them at some pretty high speeds (190MPH) they shined all the way there and back (Different car not this one).
I've had such good luck with the Michelin Pilot Sport. I find it hard to consider another tire, even though I should. The MPS are beginning to lean towards old technology compared to the New Pirelli’s and Bridgestone’s.
I never get put allot of miles on them usually around 4-5K. I dump them and get new ones.
Even though they have life left. To me it’s cheap insurance. I run tires at a high rates of speed for many miles.
Tim

skidz1

I concur. I have been to the drag strip and raced an m5 and an (e46) m3 several times and they are all very equal. I would go as far as to say the M3 lags slightly behind. My times vary from 13.25-13.5 @106ish all day long. No mods not even a filter. I just lowered my rear tire pressure to about 23 and my 60 foot times(grip) improved quite a bit. We clearly drive the ultimate sleeper. My favorite are vets that are stock, the look is priceless.

It makes perfect sense if you look at the horsepower/weight ratios. The only different factor is that we are geared long 2.82 vs. 3.64 for an M3 and 3.15 for an M5. Give us equal gearing and it would be on. My car stock would possibly poke into the high 12's in the quarter mile.


BMW M5 weighs 4024lbs and has 394hp=10.21hp/weight ratio. It has 368lb feet =10.93torque/weight ratio.

M3 weighs 3415lbs and has 333hp=10.26
It has 262lbs of torque=13.0

CLK55 weighs 3573lbs and has 342hp=10.45
It has 376lb feet of torque=9.5

Our car is a torque monster.

AmgBoy

There are guys on www.bmwm5.com who have hit 12.9 1/4 mile time with a STOCK M5 and they have time slips posted to prove it. I dont think an CLK55 can do that. After 100 mph the M5 is an absolute monster and this is where it excells, and there is no way an CLK55 can keep up!(this has been proven by magazines) As for the M3 well it is definetly a competitor to a 60 MPH sprint but then after that its out of it's league.

With that being said I am not taking anything away from a CLK55, it is a great car! But an M5 is an Performance/Luxury car where the CLK55 is a Luxury/Performance car. Think about it, BMW's target the sport aspects of driving before luxury, and many Mercedes owners on this forum have admitted it.

I am guessing the M5 driver missed his shifts or didn't get a good launch or start. That combined with your K&N's (which produce around another 10hp) will explain your findings. Again I am not calling you a liar just saying something happened like miss shifts M5 driver not as good as you etc. to create these outcomes.

Looking for no flaming here, just a discussion.

-Amgboy

skidz1

You are talking magazines and I am talking real world experience. Yes above a certian speed the m5 may have an advantage but this is strictly related to gearing as I discussed above. All cars are limited to the horsepower to weight ratio, torque, grip, drag coefficient and gearing. Between the M5 and the clk55 they are even in almost every one of these except gearing where the m5 has an advantage. I will state again that if I have an equal gear I would easily be in the upper 12's. Add some drag radials and I would run high 12's without a gear change.

5439cc

I've Been To Two M5 Gathering And During My Time There I Have Never - NEVER Seen Anyone Post A Time Of 12.9 - Everyone Was Avg Around 13.4 - 13.3 - My CLK55 Ran A 13.3 And 13.5 - In Regards To Your Comments About A Missed Gear - I Would Agree With That If Only We Raced Once Or Even Twice - But We Race WEEKLY - HELLO - Also Switching Cars To Remove Driver Error - Again I Say - For Those None Believers I Say Come By - The Truth Is In The Pudding - The CLK55 If Driven Hard Is A True Match For The M Badge Cars Regardless Of Type M3 - M5 - I Could Not Argue The M Cars Are Better Handling Cars - But Straight Line And Braking - The CLK55 Can Hang - Anytime, Anyplace. Lastly If Your Quoting What A Magazine Has To Say- Name Me One Magazine Out There Which Is Not bias - Also Have You Ever Notice The 0-60 and 1/4 Times They Quote - For Instance My CLK55 ///AMG Is Measured At 0-60 in 5.3 - How Can That Be When The Same Car Is Avg 5.0 - 5.02sec With My APG And On The Track - Also 1/4 Mile Times Are 14.5 When I And Other AMG Brothers Avg 13^ -
Again Let The Truth By KNOW - By No Means Is The M5/M3 A Slouch, They Are Both VERY CAPIBLE Cars - But In The Same Breath So Is The ///AMG -

AmgBoy

Skidz1- I totally agree with your statement and what you are saying. But the comment about drag radials confuses me. These guys running high 12's and very low 13's were on street tires (Michelin Pilot Sports and S03's mostly) not on track tires. So of course you could run high 12's with them they could run a better run with them two.

5439cc- Although you have not witnessed it doesn' mean it's not possible. I agree with you on the fact that AMG cars are great cars, hell I own one myself and love it. But in every catagory discussed I beleive an M5 would stomp a CLK55 as far as handling and defintely win in a straight line blast. Again I am taking nothing away from your or AMG cars and I beleive what you are saying, I have just heard and seen different than you.

By the way I may be a little biased to the M5 because I am thinking about trading my E55 in for one.

Anyways guys, it's good to hear your opinions and have the discussion and I respect them. The bottom line is or I beleive it is that these two cars are targeted at a different crowd, atleast to a certain extent. They are both great machines no matter what.

-Amgboy

5439cc

Goodbye, Z8. Hello, dark side…
Ok, ok, please no flames for my move to "the dark side." Just traded in the Topaz Z8 for a CLK55 AMG. Really enjoyed the Z8/M5 experiences. Jeesh, this car-ADD (attention deficit disorder) can drive someone crazy.

Other than the # of doors, it is beyond me as to why the CLK55 AMG is compared in the magazines to the M3. Both the CLK55 and E55 should be compared to the M5, darn the # of doors on the CLK. The M3 is an excellent car, have driven the E46 a few times, and it is well-suited to a younger crowd, whereas the CLK55 AMG is more refined and luxurious and intended for a relatively older buyer. The CLK55’s price over the M3 is well-justified when comparing the two. Never quite knew why until sitting and driving the AMG and it then became readily obvious; the double-stitched leather, the weight and “thump” of the vault-like doors as they close, the use of higher-quality plastics (all cars use them somewhere), the deep reserves of V-8 torque from down-low, and more. Not a knock on the Bimmer; just a compliment to the AMG.

This CLK55 has the unusual Espresso Designo option, which is a package of Mocha Black paint (a near-Black that doesn't show water spots (!) and under direct light has barely perceptible silver metallic flecks), Light Brown Nappa leather throughout (about two shades darker than Bimmer's Caramel), and Natural Maple Wood trim.

Below is a write-up in semi-organized stream of thought format regarding what stood out to me about the CLK55 AMG when comparing it to the M5 on multiple back-to-back drives. Left out comparing the Z8 to these cars since the Z8 is so different in so many ways. The terms “55,” “CLK,” and “AMG” are used interchangeably for the new car. My comments about the M5 are consistent with my past impressions.

The CLK55 feels to have a tad less torque than the M5 below 2500 rpm, but a bit more torque and power feel than the M5 as the revs rise. 55’s on-center steering has the same ever-so-slightly loose feel of the M5 but the M5 has a bit more linear of a feel (not heavier, though) the more you turn it. The firm ride of the 55 is a bit stiffer than the M5 during daily driving, fortunately. Handling and road feel on highway / straight-aways is similar. In the curves, the M5 is better setup as a performance car, with more progressive weight transfer, though “public road lapping times” seem to be equal, due probably to the CLK’s weight advantage (500 pounds lighter than the Bimmer) and virtually dummy-proof manushift gearbox. Nice V-8 rumbling exhaust note is much more noticeable, fortunately, than the M5’s note. Also, the 55 has a cool "whooshing" sound above 4K rpm, as though the engine is sucking in lots of air. You have to go a bit deeper into the brakes on the CLK than on the M5 for real bite, which actually makes sense in an auto tranny, especially for stop-and-go traffic livability. Stopping capability independent of travel depth is equally impressive in both cars.

It’s so easy to launch the Merc off the line – just hit the gas and go, though it’s easy to break the tires loose throughout 1st and 2nd and, in the wet, on the 2-3 shift, too. An M5 driver would have to be a clutch and throttle modulation master to beat the 55 off the line. I now have even more respect for the drivers who can click off 5-second M5 0-60 mph runs. The Touch Shift transmission works surprisingly well but simply does not provide the feel of control that a real stick offers – no doubt about that, can’t even pretend. The ESP/ASR traction system works and feels similar to the M5’s DSC. Like DSC, ESP can be turned off with a center console switch.

The M5’s 18” wheels are definitely more striking than the AMG’s monoblocks, which wear smaller 225/45/17 fronts and 245/4017 rears. CLK’s stereo is crisp and excellent, far superior to M-Audio. Lots of adjustable air bladders make 55’s seats more supportive and gripping of my body than the M5. At last, an MB seat in which I’m very comfortable and supported. Driver and front passenger space is similar in both cars. Back seat leg room is surprisingly good in the Merc but not quite as good as the 4-door M5. I hopped into the rear driver-side seat after driving the CLK55 and certainly had enough leg room sitting back there in a natural position. But headroom for rear passengers seems about 1 ½ inches less in the CLK than in the M5, such that my head just touches the roof when sitting upright in the CLK’s rear seat while there’s no head-touching in the M5. Trunk space / usability is pretty much the same for both cars. The CLK steering wheel is a bit more meaty in the hands. 55’s interior luxury and parts/materials quality is a notch above the high standards of the M5, though this perception may be due primarily to the Designo package.

I look forward to sticking around this board. Where’s that E60 V-10 when you need it? Soon enough, we all hope. Hopefully, I’ll be welcomed at the next M5 meet, too.

Improviz

Here is a comparo of the Auto Motor und Sport supertest numbers for the CLK55 AMG and the M5. AMS is one of the most respected auto mags in the world, and they really wring the cars out. You'll notice that they also track test them, on two tracks: Nurburgring, and Hockenheim. They use the same driver (Horst von Saurma) every time for the track testing, which rules out differences due to driver. As can be seen by reading them, the CLK55 pulls faster lap times than the M5:

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...Car1=30&Car2=3

And bear in mind that with 380+ ft-lbs of torque on tap with 245mm tires on the back, it's a bit tougher to keep a fast line without going into oversteer in the CLK than with the M3, for example, which has 269 ft-lbs of torque and 255mm tires on the rear, or the M5, which has 369 ft-lbs of torque and 245mm/275mm tires front/rear. Slap a set of 245mm/275mm on the CLK55, and you'd easily shave several seconds off of that 'ring time.

The same holds true for the 1/4: the car easily overwhelms its rear tires, and is extremely difficult to get off the line quickly without tons of spin. It is *impossible* to brake-torque this thing at anything over 1000 rpm (if even that) without smoking the tires. The M cars can be launched a bit more quickly, since they have more rubber and less torque; if you compare the cars' 0-30 times versus the 30-xx times, you'll see that most of the difference is in the launch.

But frankly, this doesn't explain it all, and I'm getting somewhat suspicious of the cars that BMW is providing to the mags, given the very consistent results I've seen on the street, time and time again: I've raced over a dozen different M3's from a roll and from a dead stop, and the CLK beat them all, by three or four lengths; I've also raced M5's down low *and* up into triple digits, with the CLK still coming out ahead. Other drivers, both CLK55, C32, and M3, have reported the same results. Don't believe everything you read in the mags; go race a few of 'em and find out for yourself!

Finally, here are some stories of the mighty CLK (and one or two other AMGs) versus M cars, from both CLK owners and M owners:

One..

..two..

..three..

..four..

..five..

..six...

...M3 vs E55!

skidz1

Nice post.

5439cc

Improviz - Thanks For The Post - You Placed A Smile On My Face To Last The Rest Of The Week - Thanks Again. :p

Improviz

AmgBoy

I have been saying all along that the CLK55 is a great car no doubt. My only problem with your post is you are using a car magazine to defend your points and back them up. Yet at the end of your post you say don't beleive car magazines? There are a ton of variables and explenations to what can happen on a track and many things can go wrong. I have never heard of a CLK55 beeating an M5 on the track, never. Even CLK55 owners admit it would get torn apart on a track. Also as for you beating M5's well I beleive it. The reason being is that atleast half of the M5 owners dont know how to shift and will loose time in there shifts. With the CLK you just stomp on it and go, which is the beauty of it. Anyways like I have said many times both are great cars and this argument could go on forever.

By the way nice post.

-Amgboy

Improviz

Well, thanks for the compliment.

As to the mags: I didn't say "don't believe *all* of them", only "don't believe everything you read"; and, imo, the number of people who have, both in this forum and in others, had the exact same results I've seen in runs against M3's/M5's makes me suspicious that they're tuning the cars they're giving the mags. I've also been to the strip, and those things aren't running low 13's either.

Track-wise, the reason I posted the Auto Motor und Sport stuff is to illustrate that, all other factors (driver and track) being equal, the CLK55 IS a faster track car than an M5. Horst von Saurma is not some run-of-the-mill driver; he is a pro race car driver and a seasoned track veteran, and one helluva better driver than most of us could ever wet-dream of being. And he, on the same two tracks, got better times in the CLK55 than he got in the M5.

Also, did you read Car & Driver's comparo? Even against the M3 (which handles *much* better than the M5), the CLK fared very well, although the M3 is definitely a faster track car, but the CLK55 is very close, and an M3 turns *much* better lap times than an M5. Go to that site I linked to in my post yesterday; you can compare the M3 and the CLK55, and as expected, the M3 gets better times (again, driven by von Saurma). For that matter, compare the M5 and M3: the M3 with von Saurma pulled an 8'22" on the ring, seven seconds faster than he got in the M5.

Anyway, when someone posts that they beat car X in car Y, you *have* to keep in mind that these cars don't drive themselves, and if you put a very good driver in a slower car against a novice in a faster car, the very good driver will get the better times. That's why comparos with people like von Saurma are useful: it takes the driver variable out of the equation, and gives you a good idea of what each car is capable with in the right hands. And clearly, the CLK55 is a faster track car than an M5. For pete's sake, it weighs about 500 pounds less! No way is a big, heavy car like an M5 going to get through turns as fast as a CLK55, any more than a CLK55 would get through the turns as fast as a Boxster S (which weighs about 500 pounds less than it does).

But the driver is *the* most important factor. Micheal Schumacher could probably pull a better 'ring time in a Civic than you or I in a CLK55, but that doesn't mean that the Civic a better track car!

5439cc

AMEN - BROTHER - You Do Have A Witness

AmgBoy

The only thing that I dont agree with is that a CLK55 is a better track car. The M5 has a better suspension (for track use), manual transmission which will give another edge, and is atleast as fast as a CLK55 in every aspect. Now have you witnessed in person a CLK55 beating a skilled driver in an M5? Or is this from a magazine? Your asking me to beleive what a magazine said when you yourself said don't beleive everything you hear from a magazine?

I would like to get another persons opinion in here such as Mach430, Outpalik etc. These guys I am sure would know.

-Amgboy

5439cc

I Agree, I Don't Think The CLK55 Is As Good As The M5 In Handling, Especially On A Track, When I Drive My Brothers 2002 M5, The Car Handles Like My Porsche 996 - The Handling Is Awesome, Far Better Than The 55 - The Setup In Turns Is Level and Controlled, very little if any body lean, The Suspension Is Great, It's Like The Car Anticipates Your Every Move, The Steering Is Perfect, - My Only Argument Was A Comparison Straight Line Performance And Braking Between The Two. If I Was In The Market For A Four Door Beast, The M5 Would Be My Target - I Truly No Other Sedan Can Match Is Performance And Power.

P.S. I'm Attaching A Picture Of My Brother's M5 -

Improviz

Look: I clearly stated that, in *straight line races*, the BMWs are NOT performing anywhere near as well as the mags time would indicate, which is why I called some of the American mags' straightline acceleration times into question: because you were arguing that the M5 is faster in a straight line, remember? In your first entry in this thread? All I was pointing out was that in my experience AND in others (including BMW owners whose posts I provided links for), this is NOT the case.

My suspicions with the (American) mag's times stems from the fact that this is NOT the case for other cars I've played around with, such as Corvettes, Porsches, etc....those cars perform much more in line with what their times in the mags would indicate. So, I am quite suspicious, particularly in the case of the M3, that they've been providing tuned cars to the mags. It would not be the first time this has happened; there was a notorious case of GM providing the car mags with a "stock" GTO for testing in the '60's which had a full race engine, and numerous other cases.

THIS is the magazine data I was questioning, specifically, the AMERICAN magazines, which are always getting very low 13's in the M3's: If you look at the Euro mags, such as Evo, Car, Auto Motur und Sport, etc., their times are NOT as good as the American mags. Whereas, the CLK55's times are typically better than the stateside tests. These more honestly reflect what myself and other CLK55/C32 owners are seeing on the street: if the M3 is a 13.3 car, then if I'm consistently beating it by three lengths, it means I'm a 13.0 car (1/10 per carlength is the rule). And I'm not that fast.

As to the track: my point is very, very simple: whichever car can generate the best numbers, in the hands of a skilled professional driver, is the better track car. Why? Becauseimo, the better track car is the one which is fastest around the track. So, I provided data from Auto Motor und Sport, which you obviously are not familiar with, wherein the cars were tested by the *same* driver, Horst von Saurma, who you are obviously not familiar with, at the *same* tracks, which you are obviously not familiar with. It would be nice if you'd take a minute or two to examine exactly what it is I'm posting, btw, and who the driver is, as well as the numbers he obtained: there are very, very few drivers capable of hitting these times in these cars. He is *good*.

Your response was that you personally have seen people in M5's lap faster than people in CLK55's. My point is that while that's certainly true in your case, it really doesn't prove anything, other than the drivers you witnessed in the M5 were better than the drivers in the CLK55. I've personally seen people in Audi S4's (stock) turn faster times than people in 996's, but there's no way I'd ever argue that the S4 is a better track car than the 996. The ONLY way to determine which one is *capable* of lapping faster is to remove the driver variable from the equation, which is why the AMS test is relevant.

Think about it: do you think you could turn the same time in an M5 as Micheal Schumacher? Of course not, and neither could I, in a million years. All drivers are NOT created equal, which is the point I've been trying to make for the last few posts. Otherwise, why even have races? Races are to *determine* who is the better driver. For this reason, you've got to compare the cars' capabilities with the same driver, to eliminate this variable. And the data I linked to shows that with the same driver, the two cars are very, very close, with the edge going to the CLK55 on short, low-speed tracks and to the M5 on longer, high-speed tracks.

Look at the website again: it not only posts the lap times, but also the max speeds of each car through each of the *turns* on each of the race courses. Click on the "Detailed" link, and scroll down: look for "Nurburgring" and "Hockenheim". There are a series of names with speeds in Km/h next to these; the names are the names for certain select turns on the race courses, and the speeds are the max speeds the cars were able to carry through the turns. In some turns, the M5 carries more speed, while in others, the CLK55 carries more speed. On the shorter course, the CLK55 wins and carries higher corner speeds, while on the longer course, the CLK55 wins and carries higher corner speeds. Why? Weight. The heavier weight means more momentum, which means slower corner speeds on shorter courses, which have sharper turns. This is in fact borne out by the numbers. So, I guess the real answer is "it depends upon the track", but most American tracks are more akin to Hockenheim than to the Nurburgring.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...r1=30%26Car2=3

Anyway, have a look at the curve speeds:

Nuerburgring CLK55 AMG M5

Lap time 8.29 min 8.28 min

Schwedenkreuz 228 Km/h 225 Km/h

Aremberg 92 Km/h (0,8g) 90 Km/h (0,7g)

Fuchsroehre 202 Km/h 204 Km/h

Metzgesfeld 178 Km/h 178 Km/h

Bergwerk 100 Km/h (1g) 98 Km/h (0,9g)

Kesselchen 200 Km/h 203 Km/h

Klostertal 1 157 Km/h (0,7g) 158 Km/h (0,7g)

Klostertal 2 82 Km/h (0,85g) 80 Km/h (0,8g)

Pflanzgarten 172 Km/h (0,8g) 174 Km/h (0,8g)

Galgenkopf 136 Km/h (1,05g) 134 Km/h (1g)

Doettinger Hoehe 248 Km/h 248 Km/h


Hockenheim CLK55 AMG M5

Round time 1.18,2 min 1.18,5 min

Nordkurve 113 Km/h (1,1g) 109 Km/h (0,9g)

Ausg. Querspange 78 Km/h (0,9g) 76 Km/h (0,8g)

Sachskurve 78 Km/h (0,8g) 80 Km/h (0,8g)

Opelkurve 100 Km/h (1g) 93 Km/h (0,7g)

The fact is, the CLK55 does quite well, despite its ridiculously small rear tires. As I pointed out: give it a bit more rear rubber to allow it to handle higher corner speeds without oversteering, and the CLK would run away from the heavier M5.

But I've really wasted too much time on this already, and it's frankly not *that* big of a deal to me what you choose to believe, so I'm done. Have fun!

skidz1

Well said. I think some of the disconnect between the M crowd and the AMG crowd is the actual handling feel which we all know has nothing to do with the raw undisputable lap times and corner speeds. The M5 feels smoother(maybe less body roll, better steering feel or response, etc..) wich people equate to a better track car. They are putting all the weight on the subjective feel and really ignore or are unaware of the objective numbers. Hope this makes sense. I have fealt this way for some time.

AmgBoy

skidz1- Hey, that is very true and well put. I feel the the whole feel of "M" car is tighter, less body roll, etc. You are right, this doesn't neccessarly mean a batter track car. But it may be a better feeling car and more fun, for some.

Anyways it has been a good discussion and I have PM improviz to say my last thoughts on the subject.

Later Guys,
-Amgboy

Improviz

Heck, face it: we're lucky to be able to get toys like this! Have fun out there, and be careful!