I wonder why MB posts the 0-60 time for the M3 and M5 at a much higher number than the BMW web site? Of course, you do the comparison of the cars on the BMW site, they use MB's official numbers.

First of all, good drivers know how to shift properly, and can win 9/10 times over the CLK55. And with SMG, I imagine it will be 10/10 times.

These cars are two separate cars for different purposes. The M3 is boy-racer. I know, I own one. And with the difference in price between the M3 and CLK55, I've put in about $15K of goodies that would end up being no contest with a CLK55.

The 55 is a nicer ride, and in the LA area, I would enjoy the automatic transmission.

As for the challenge of the two cars on the track, I think the suspension of the M3 and steering feel would definitely give the advantage to the M3.

But again, I think if you took the average age/maturity/etc. of an M3 driver vs. a CLK55 driver, you get two separate markets. IMHO.

This flame war between everyone is silly. And to accord, the moderator, your logo/icon...pathetic.

Different cars for different markets...once again, you rarely see a BMW driver walking over to a Mercedes dealer (myself excluded), and you rarely see a MB driver walking over to a BMW dealer. Well, usually the MB driver (myself excluded) requires a walker to make it over to the BMW dealer. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Damn, people get touchy about their cars. I can say that BMW Z8, BMW M5 and Honda S2000 owners came over to check my car out the other day. The Honda wasn't a contender so he rode with me. Even with his fat *** in my passenger seat we absolutely ripped apart the M5 and Z8. I was shocked because where we really blew them away was from 70 to 120 mph... they just couldn't keep up. After letting them each drive my car, they were unanimously dumbfounded that my car could be so smooth yet so powerful. They were equally impressed and surprised with the handling. At the end of the day, no egos were bruised... we were all just psyched to have so many cool cars sitting in my driveway.

 

You're making my mouth water! 4 more hours!

 

I don't race, so I really don't care what the 1/4 mile times are, etc. Mostly my driving includes commuting on the 101 at about 90mph. Either car could do that. I go to the mall with my kids. My m5 could do that, along with the M3 and CLK55.

But when I have fun in my car, that is driving it quickly through the canyons, using heel/toe to great effect, that's where the BMW's excel. But take me out to a well paved two lane road in the country or in the mountains, and that's where driving skills can be developed. That's where a car's all around attributes are best shown. And hand's down, the M3/M5 is the best. I can/will have fun with my CL600, but the steering isn't as precise, the downshifting isn't as clean, and the torque curve aren't made for the maximizing of fun in the twisties.

I actually got rid of my K1200RS and R1150RT because I was having more fun in the mountains with my M3 and Z8.

So right now, the better driving cars for performance are the M cars. The better driving cars for long distance touring...maybe an AMG, definitely not the M3, but I could go a long way through twisties, straights and long distance with my M5.

 

.

 

link is dead

 

magazines say alot of things.... dont base everything on magazines... especially since alot of magazines say alot of different things....

dont b a magazine racer....

 

As it's late here and I really didn't have the time to read all 11 pages here. I do think that I may be well qualified to comment on the differences between the E46 M3 and the C209 CLK55, being that I owned both. I'll start off by saying that performance wise, the two cars are amazingly similar. I'll discuss their performance from two aspects, both engine power and acceleration, and also chasis performance and handling. Note that I had a 2002 M3 with the SMG transmission (Which was fantastic ).

As I mentioned, acceleration performance is so close as it's almost a wash. While I never took either car to the dragstrip, nor did I attempt to get any accurate performance measurements, I can tell you what I felt strictly by the "seat of my pants". I believe that from a standing start, the M3 does hold something of an advantage, mainly due to the excelent M-lock electronic rear differential and it's more liberal traction control. Using what BMW refers to as the "Acceleration Assistant", or launch mode, the M3 can be launched surprisingly hard. The US version of "AA" is different from the world market M3s as the US "AA" holds the engine to 1800 rpms, versus 3000 +/- of the world market launch control...

The Acceleration Assistant worked like this. First you had to disengage "DSC", BMW speak for traction control, then you had to select the "S6" shift program, which enables the fastest and most aggresive shifts (As fast as .08 seconds). Then you would hold the shift lever forward, and then depress and hold down the go-pedal. Pressing the gas pedal slowly called for more of a clutch controlled launch, whereas slamming the gas pedal down quickly would call up more of a clutch-dumped, loads of wheel-spin launch. All you had to do to start the launch was to release the shift lever...

As soon as you let go of that lever, it felt as if the car was just swatted by Paul Bunyans giant golf club. You would hear an instantaneous "BAM!!!" as the car launched off the line, and immediately after you would hear the tires chirping like mad as the clutch pulsates 8 times a second... "BAM!!! chirp-chirp-chirp-chirp-chirp-chirp" then "BAM!!" again as you hit second. All within a few seconds at the most. Even in the slightly slower "S5" shift program, you had to disable DSC as the traction control would otherwise bog the car out when you hit second gear. It's quite impressive, and I once had a friend with me who said that
I "Tweaked his back" when I launched because he hadn't expected it to launch with such intensity!

So off the line, I do have to say that even with or without the Acceleration Assistant, the M3 is quicker by virtue of it's fabulous M-lock diff, wider tires, slightly less weight (Assuming it's a coupe) and more libral traction control... I can't recall the final drive ratio for the M3, but I do think that it was geared shorter (Numerically higher).

However, it's my opinion that things change when it's a "roll-on" race, which I find are far more frequent types of encounters. Hitting the throttle from 80 mph, I feel that the CLK55 has a definite advantage which only increases as the speeds increase. While I can't be absolutely sure, I do believe that a CLK55 does pull harder from a running start, and most likely would beat an M3 to their restricted 155 mph top speed. I still keep in touch with some guys from the M3 forums, and I intend to do a friendly, objective comparison at some time...

A very valid argument between the two cars are the potential power gains available through aftermarket tuners, or the lack thereof. As I'm sure most, if not all of you are aware, it's very easy, albeit very expensive, to modify the CLK55 engine to make close to 600 horsepower, and as of right now, there is very little available for the M3, and you'd be lucky to get even a measly 30 horsepower out of the potentially over-stressed, under-square, long-stroke S54 engine. Forced induction on the S54 would certainly close that gap, if not eliminate it entirely, but to do so reliably seems to be very elusive at this point. I suspect that unless some major revisions are made, the S54 E46 M3 engine will NEVER make anything over 400 horsepower reliably. Another reason I traded out of my M3...

And now about handling. I do have to say that the M3 is the better handling car, but in my opinion it's a much smaller margin than you might expect. Small enough where the real determining factor would always be the driver. Both cars handle and accelerate well enough that for one car to beat the other, that particular driver will have to utilize every ounce of both his, and the cars performance potential. So much so that it would be absolutely insane to push that hard on the streets. If both cars were fitted with similar larger wheels and tires, and upgraded performance suspension/coil-overs, I have no doubt that the CLK would handle every bit as well as the M3.

To finalize my opinion about the performance aspects of the two, they are so close as to be a wash. Oh, I do have to say that the CLK55 definitely has superior brakes...

What made me decide to trade my M3 in on the CLK55 was because it's just a nicer car overall. Better looking, being ever so slightly less "boy racer" (Yes, unfortunately, even some E46 M3's are getting the oh-so-hated Fast&the Furious treatments, but not as many). Also, you're much more of a target driving the M3, as every F&F wannabe wants to race you all of the time. Most of the giant wing, stickers, and fart can racers ignore my car, which is fine by me.

Being that I'm getting a bit older, and certainly wiser, I've realized that I just can't be a boy racer anymore as it's just too damned dangerous. I still have plenty of performance available should I need it, and the car itself is just soo much nicer to be in when I'm not in a highway battle. I hope this was interesting enough to read, and I'd be more than happy to elaborate on either car, or any of the differences between them. Feel free to ask...



Best regards,
Matt


p.s.) To LucyCat, I know that this would have been more helpful to have given you when you asked about the two in your e-mail, but there was a whole lot of drama going on at the time, and I sincerely apologize for not responding to your request...

 

 

I dunno if my C32 is actually faster than the W209 CLK55 or not... but id much much rather have a CLK55

 

well bmw power your flat wrong, i manage a bmw dealer parts dept. and had a young mouthy E46 M3 owner telling everyone who would listen"how bad his M3 was" talking smack about his F1 shifters and super perf this and that, so i asked him about why no M3 compete in DTM and his reply was "racing dont mean a thing, bmw has already made their reputation" i then asked if he would put that reputation on the line against my clk500, he laughed until his friends convinced him to as they say PUT UP OR SHUT UP, we went to a span of hiway 166 and agreed on about 7 miles of twisties and open road, both cars had 2 people, it was close for about 2.5 miles, mostly high speed and curves, when the tight stuff came,i was down to 3-4, he was so busy trying to keep the manual trans in the power band he could not find the right line thru the turns, when i hit D he would fade, his embarrasement was overwhelming, especially after revealing all his trackday experiences and autocrossing, he then realized the world is not flat and straight or just a 1/4 mile long

 

With PSS-9 on CLK(or similiar setup), M-power myth isn't that shining
Though they're still one of the best sport cars.

 

until FrOzen chimed in, the last post in this thread was kingman18's, which was dated 3/27/2002!!

 

i did not make my point very well, the content that i did not make clear was the powerband of the V8 vs. the M3 six cyl. the V8 has a wider powerband with the torque curve and brings a better power delivery in a road going race, not 1/4 mile, so when your trying to keep the sewing machine powerband of the rev happy six, you work the engine much more, so in and out of the turns run, the manual trans in the hands of an educated driver and not a pro, really is not that big of an advantage, all these car have a 155 mph limit so its really the driver thats going to win or lose the race between these two cars

 

The M3 guy just doesn't know how to shift, period.
Most people who drive manual well doesn't mean they can launch with quick feet and hands, which need A LOT of practice.

I heard a lot of CLK55 owners say they're never lost to a M3 and I never lost a race to a CLK55 till 105 mph. Speed after 105mph, CLK55 would cream M3.

0-60 M3 by two ¡V three car lengths
0-90 M3 by three - four car lengths
0-95 M3 by 2.5 car lengths (the most)
0-100 M3 by less than a car length
0-105 M3 standing still watching the CLK55 fly by

When you add curve to the road ¡V M3 will hand down.
M3 tailor made for curve¡K not even a M5 can follow

 

...I've run well over twenty M3's, from 0-60, 0-xxx, and from mid-high speed rolls-xxx, and walked them every time. Even when they've gotten the jump off the line, they've never gotten more than a fender length before I blew by them.

I can see shifting coming into it at lower speeds, but I'm walking them all the way through the gears, not just at the shift points. If it was just in the shifting, I wouldn't be seeing this: they'd be even with me *until* the shift points (which are easy for me to judge because the shift points in both cars are very close), at which case they'd fall back. But this is not what's happening; from the moment we're both on the throttle, I pull, even in third gear runs where shifting wouldn't be a factor until triple digits.

If you're in Texas, let me know...we can hook up, videotape this, and settle it once and for all.

 

Thats what im talking about Improviz, talk is cheap! Lets your cars speak for themselves.

 

i think you missed the point where i mentioned that these were pulls out 60-80 mph turns with bursts up to 110-120, the first part of the run was road speeds of 60-90 negotiating traffic but when we broke free on some open spots there was a flat out run about 1.5 -2.0 miles and he faded at a noticeable rate i was already 1/2 a mile ahead

 

Excuse my ignorance but how can you measure a 0-60 between 2 cars and then quote the difference in car lengths. Car lengths can only be used when racing to a finish line. In a 0-60 race, the slowest car reaches 60 over a greater distance.

Am I missing something ?

Also, does anyone know where the video at the start of this thread is now located ?

Paul
CLK55 arrives today
M3 leaves today

 

...two cars line up. Light turns, both cars punch it. By the time the cars hit 60 mph, one car is ahead of the other. A carlength is roughly 15 feet, so three carlengths is about 45 feet.

Now, obviously the driver of the winning car cannot, unless he's telepathic, tell the exact moment at which the losing car hit 60 mph, but he can certainly guesstimate how far ahead he was of the losing car when *he* hit 60.

 

Thanks for explanation Improviz.

OK, so it means the distance between the cars at the point the fastest car hits 60, the speed of the slowest car being irrelevant.

I've never seen this way of measuring it before and I doubt the distances quoted.

When the motoring press are quoting 0.1 difference in 0-60 speeds they would more likely be virtually neck and neck with the M3 a few feet ahead.

To gain two to three car lengths after less than five seconds would incicate a BIG difference between the performance of the two cars.

Having raced my M3 against a few cars of lesser power (eg 330Ci/Audi TT) two to three car lengths between the cars would be about right after sub 5 seconds.

If the true times are 4.8 vs 4.9,

M3
Distance covered approx = 30 mph avg speed / 60 mins / 60 secs *4.8 secs * 5280 feet per mile = 211.2 feet travelled

CLK55
After 4.8 secs (assuming linear acceleration) the CLK will have travelled 211.2 *4.8/4.9 = 206.9 feet

Distance between cars = 4.3 feet

2-3 car lengths = 30 to 45 feet

This distance between the cars would be about right if the CLK55 0-60 was 6 seconds. BUT IT ISNT.

IMO, the CLK55 driver in this race must have left the parking brake on.

Paul

 

...and the distance was substantial. Of course, the actual distance might have been less than what I perceived (these were mostly at night, so I'm guaging the distance by headlights in a rearview mirror, although streets were well lit), but I would say that it was definitely on the order of 2.5-3 carlengths.

One thing you're doing is assuming a constant linear rate of acceration, but I think the rate you're using for the average is a bit too low. If you want to get a true average, you could assume linear accelation for the 1/4 mile and divide 1320 ft by the cars' 1/4 mile ET & get an average...for the CLK55 (the new one, although in my experience the old one is also capable of this with sufficient traction), avg. acceleration over 1/4 mile is: 1320 ft/13.2 seconds = 100 ft/sec.

So, every tenth of a second difference comes out to about ten feet,...and remember: due to both gearing and aerodynamics, the rate of acceleration is much faster in the lower gears, which means if you beat someone by a few tenths down low the distance will be greater. For example, if we assume that the cars accelerate 30% faster in first and second gears, a few tenths could well translate into 30 feet or so.

To be honest, I think the M3 is really more in the 5.2 second range when well driven than a 4.8 car...at least I can promise you that none of the ones I've come up against were 4.8'ers, because I can GTECH 4.9's all day long, and I kill those things.

 

Look this:
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...Car1=2&Car2=30
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236

 

look at the current info, the clk55 has been upgraded and the m3 is still same as 2000, results will NOW be different, due to the improvements and a 3.06 diff ratio that improves 0-60 times, lets not compare apples to oranges

 

...but real-world experience trumps magazine tests every time, and these tests are trumped by the number of M3 headlights I've seen in my rearview mirror, simple as that. Plus, as can be seen below, the mag tests are *not* all in agreement...and if you haven't noticed, the newer tests on *production* M3's (not massaged press cars as before) are settling into the mid-13's, which is more believable. The same thing happened with the E36: early test cars ran several tenths faster than later production cars...(wonder why?)

You might also want to look at what actual M3/M5 owners have said about their *own* experiences with CLK55s, the previous E55, which had same motor & drivetrain, and was 200 pounds heavier, and the C32 for grins:

E46 M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: multiple races, CLK55 wins all

CLK55 owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55 owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than M3s)

M5 owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3 owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

(note that W210 E55 is about 200 pounds heavier than W208 CLK55, with same HP and gearing, so from a roll CLK should be quicker, i.e., based upon these results it would pull M3)

add another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

And here are four more for you:
Motorweek's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds's test of M3: 13.5@105

Finally, a few C32 stories:

C32 vs M3: guess who won?

Another C32 vs Another M3: guess who won?