http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=3447
CLK: to 60 mph in 5.0 seconds and through the quarter-mile in a healthy 13.6 seconds at 106 mph
M3: passing the 60-mph mark in 4.7 seconds and tripping the quarter-mile lights in 13.4 seconds at 106 mph
:o :o

http://www.bmwcca.org/Roundel/2001/1...ureStory.shtml

Acceleration figures for E46 M3 according to Auto Motor und Sport:

M3 6-speed tested in 2/2001
0-100 km/h 5.1 sec
0-160 11.7
0-200 18.8
Standing kilometer 24.7 sec
Vehicle weight 1560kg

M3 SMG II tested in 11/2001
0-100 km/h 5.5 sec
0-160 12.6
0-200 20.5
Standing kilometer 25 sec
Vehicle weight 1590kg

M3 6-speed tested in 18/2001
0-100 km/h 5.4 sec
0-160 12.2
0-200 19.5
Standing kilometer 24.6
Vehicle weight 1572kg

M3 “unknown transmission” in 01/2003 (Onur what was the trans. on tested car?)
0-100 km/h 4.8 sec
0-160 10.9
0-200 16.8
Vehicle weight 1570kg

This M3 is significantly faster than the rest, especially in the 0-100 and 0-200 acceleration times. Could it be that BMW did something to this particular car or all 2003 M3 cars had some technical changes? I read somewhere here that BMW changed the following items:
Crankshaft from 11/02
New Connecting Rod from 11/02
New Connecting Rod Bolt from 11/02
New Bearing Shell from 11/02
New Camshaft from 12/02

lLook this: https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...threadid=43249

 

CLK55 won... no doubt about it. there really isn't anything to fight about is there?

 

It is cool and fancy to post the results of the professional drivers of various magazines and claimed the M3 is faster than CLK55. But for most of the "ORDINARY" M3 owners, I highly doubt they can even achieve half of what the professional can do. Therefore all these debate and quote is really meaningless. I am begin to realize most of the M3 owners are very good at quoting data but very unlikely to back up the claim themself. I, however can garantee, without much effort, can and will give M3 owners a health dose of humility.

John

 

you forgot to mention the oil pump that caused all the bearing failures, the upgrade was to keep them running and not enhance performance, they as in bmw dont do campaigns to upgrade they do them to correct mistakes, another thing to keep in mind is most race circuits or open roads are more than a 1/4 mile long and neither flat or straight

 

Well, as I pointed out before: the accounts I posted were written not by CLK55 owners, but by ***BMW*** owners, who admit that despite what the magazines would have you believe, they lost to CLK55's.

And again: I produced four tests, from Motorweek and Edmunds: two for the CLK55 and two for the M3. Both of these publications tested faster in the CLK55. Here they are again:
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

Also, the Car & Driver test you are quoting is for the Euro stripper version of the M3 tested last year, which was imported from Europe for them by BMW "specifically for this test" as quoted in the magazine article. You will also note that in the rolling-start 5-60 race, both vehicles scored an *identical* 5.2 seconds, meaning that without a perfect launch, even with a pro driver piloting the lightweight stripper M3, the two were equal at best from a roll.

And this is with a pro driver launching and shifting the M3. Most drivers aren't in the same league...

Subsequent tests by this publication have NOT gotten the same results. The latest test they ran, which was on a production version, was as follows:
0-60: 4.8
5-60: 5.3
1/4: 13.6@105

So, with the latest *production* car they tested, the 1/4 was a tie for the CLK55, and the 5-60 rolling-start time was slower.

Also note that Car & Driver tested a new CLK55 in their November 2003 issue. They got:
0-60: 4.7
0-100: 11.3
1/4: 13.2@107

Which is faster not only than the production version, but even the lightweight stripper provided by BMW before!

It may just be that with a very good driver, the M3 is capable of doing much better than the ones I've encountered, but what impresses me is the consistency: in every encounter, the margin has been about the same: 3 carlengths to 60, and a gentle walk at speeds above that, then a pretty noticeable pull at triple digits.

I'll also admit that I was initially surprised, given the numbers I'd seen in the magazines, but the thing to remember is that while the M3 puts out 262 lb-ft of torque onto 255 mm rear tires, the CLK55 puts out 380+ lb-ft onto 245 mm rear tires, so the times you see are traction limited: if one tries to launch the CLK55 agressively, one's ET will go *down* because of excessive wheelspin. It is easier to get a good launch with the M3, with its wider rear tires and lesser torque.

With more traction, the CLK55 is capable of much better times than those gotten in the mags! I ran a 13.4@106.5 in mine with the stock tires by simply stepping on the gas; if I tried to get a better 60' time by power braking, I lost ET due to massive wheelspin. With the 265's I now have on the back, I've lowered my 60' by 0.2, which puts me at more like a 13.0 (not verified at a real strip, but it will be!! ) With wider tires or drag radials, I can promise you it would be in the 12's.

 

You guys should join us for the drag racing GTG on March 28th

 

In fact M3 won in circuit:
http://www.track-challenge.com/comp...1=2&Car2=30
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236

 

Do the following:

1) pack your M3 on a crate;

2) ship it to the US;

3) join it;

4) we will race for $100/race.

You will lose. As I said: I've beaten well over 20 M3's, and I'd be delighted to beat another one.

And for every test you've posted which has the M3 faster, I've posted one which has the CLK55 faster, along with testimonials by numerous M3 and M5 owners about losing to CLK55s.

The fact is, BMW is notorious for providing tuned cars to the magazines, and if you're reading carefully (which you aren't), you'll see that both Car & Driver and Road & Track ran *mid* 13's, not low 13's, in their recent tests of M3s and M5s. This happened before with the previous series: the first E36 M3 tests were somehow miraculously faster than later E36 M3 tests...what a coincidence.

So, frankly, either put your money where your mouth is, or buzz off. Got more important things to do than waste time arguing with you. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the original poster's claim that the CLK55 will beat the M3. If you don't believe it, fine, but I'd wager that's because you haven't raced one yet.

 

My "lira" is on Improviz

 

I use to raced any M3 I could find when I drove My CLK55 - I never lost once, Yes the M3 is a better handler, but that is it !

 

Whatever you do, Don't mess with a M5 - They will Spank Your A^^ Bigtime.

 

I have raced this is sure and i won always, this the story. In Italy CLK 55 is more slow than M3
Quattroruote (italian papers):
CLK 0-100 km/h 5.6" C32 6.3"
M3 SMG 5.3
CLK 0-170 km/h 12.6" C32 13.9"
M3 12.5"
CLK 0-1000 meters 24.3" C32 25.2"
M3 24.1"

 

The funny thing is, for the price of the CLK55, any of us here could have gotten an M3 *and* a 325i, or for that matter a 996 which thrashes an M3 around any track...but for some reason when we looked at the M3, we chose not to buy an uglier, slower car with over 120 documented cases of blown engines. But we *chose* not to...what's wrong, are you sorry you had to settle for less?

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

As I said: let's go, $100/race. You can fly over to America and make some easy money...so, what are you waiting for?

Ciao, dude...I'll be thinking of you when I thrash my next M3!

 

How do you say "OWNED" in Italian?

 

I've never raced an M3 in a stop light. Never encountered one in stop light for the past 2 years while driving my 55 everyday. But from 65 or roll on, it's no contest. There was this black E46 M3 last year tailgating behind me. Then he does a quick lane switch to my right. I tried to match his speed and I could tell he is pressing it hard. After hitting 100, his nose is at my right passenger door. Then I started to pull away slowly to about 3 or 4 car lenghts and my speed was between 135 or 140.

 

100 Euro Ahahahahahahahaha Come in Italy!!!! I'm waiting

 

a 996 which thrashes an M3 around any track.......

It's very difficult, my job is the drive

 

Euro please......better than USD

 

Another valet posing as an owner. We get a lot of those here!

Yes, sure, make it 100 Euro. Wouldn't want to stress your wallet...you did opt for the budget model, after all!

Arreviderci!! Come back when you have something to contribute.

 

That is a good one He is probably a pimpled face teenager who still lives with his parents and ********** to his dream M3 every night. Another dreamer with no substance. BTW, 100 Euro is too much!!! Don't take his monthyly allowance away.

John

 

 

The only mods are wheels, pullies, and tires

http://www.daftproductions.com/video...638_106-34.mpg



Bye bye CLK aemmegi

 

Oh, and btw: ba fangol, strunzo.

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

 

gabe, your comments about the technical updates mentioned up above are far from factual, this work was done to correct a bad oil supply problem, the parts used to correct the problem first of all DID NOT INCLUDE CAMS, and was once again a correction of a problem,second bmw DID NOT have any cam changes until 4/03 and it once again WAS NOT any kind of performance enhancement, so when you quote all this data you should quote based on facts and not some publication who is blowing sunshine up all you m3 owners ***'s, data is one thing but it does not replace real world experience/results due to these people who do these tests are more experienced and also plain beat the **** out of these cars to get the data, due to these people dont care about the car being it does not belong to them as in running the tach to redline and dropping the clutch with no consideration of the effects, you may have raced people with your E46 M3 but how committed were they to winning, say you got everything out of your car to win and he short shfted just to see how competitive you would be, so like anything else your experiences are just that, yours only

 

Weekly I check in to see what is new with this forum and weekly I see the same Sh^t, My CLK55 burned a M3, A S200, etc. Guys, There is more than just straight line numbers to a car, that's all you guys ever talk about, my CLK55 is faster than a Honda and Acura etc, for the dam dollar MB charges for the CLK55 it should be - If the CLK55 was so dam great, why did it not win any international awards, not one. No special recognition, (like a 996 or M-power vehicles) when I was looking into this car, I could find a dam solid word on it (I should have realize then It was not the car for me). Do get me wrong, I enjoyed my time with the CLK55, the straight line performance was pretty cool (provided that you can keep the power on the pavement and not burn rubber) but I felt that was all she had, handling sucked, steering was as numb as a hammered toe, electronics were just ok, the traction control intervene to dam much to have fun with. On a track driven by an average Joe the M3 would win, when you comparing a M3 (6cly) to a Monster V8 - how can that be fair, why not go for something your size M5 (V8) then let's see you place your money where your mouth is, trust me you will lose every time. Once my brothers M5 was broken in, I couldn't touch him. An M3 are not that hard to beat with a high performance V8 (which I really thought was the best part of the CLK55) I know most of you will get your panties in a bind, but the truth is simply that ! Learn to deal with it. I am so Out of here, a Forum is suppose to be about sharing information, both insight and technical, not this boy racing BullSh^t, bragging about how fast you can beat a car half your price. Try racing something within your price range, then let's talk. (M5, 996, Z06, etc) Why buy a overprice luxury coupe and turn it into something it is not - A sports car - dropping that kind of dollar into a Benz when there are soon many other fine SPORTS CARS to choose from. The CLK565 is really only a C-Class on steroids. For all you non-believers, drop by Randolph New Jersey sometime and I will be happy to prove my point to you.