...beaten them all, except one. The one guy who got me's M5 was modded (talked to him afterwards). He'd run a 12.9 at Ennis, local racetrack here in TX, and he got me by about 1/2 carlength from a standing start race. All of the rest I raced went down, but they are definitely faster than M3's...still, in all other cases save the one, I've pulled them. This includes six 80-xxx rolling-start races (three guys, all of whom wanted to try their luck twice), and several from stoplights as well.

If you had stock-width rubber, with a good driver I'd say advantage: M5, because it'll get you on the 60' time, and the CLK55 can't get much better than a 2.1 60' time on those skinny 245's...the M5 has 275s and weighs 500 pounds more (more weight = more traction), so with the same weight/hp it *will* get better 60' times than a stock CLK, if the driver is really good...most aren't, though.

But with fatter rear rubber, the CLK55 does just fine, thank you. I ran a 13.4 with a 2.1 60' time on stock rubber; with the 265's I'm GTECHing more like 1.9-2.0, which translates into a 13.0-13.2 (0.1 in 60' = 0.2 in 1/4), which I'll verify at Ennis as soon as it warms up. What was your 60' when you ran your 13.4?? I'm betting a 2.2, possibly a 2.1. Do you still have your slip? I can *promise* you that this car is capable of better 60' times than an M5: it has the same weight/hp more torque, and weighs less. The issue is traction, period.

E46 M3 owner: multiple races, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; CLK55 wins all

And you know, I'm really happy that you enjoy your Porsche, but that's no reason to come in here and put down CLK55's...what's your point? Any of us with CLK55's can easily afford a 996. We didn't choose to purchase one...that hardly means that we *couldn't* get one. So, the CLK55 wasn't right for you (although judging by the kudos you used to heap on it, I'd say you may just fickle with cars), and you had bad dealer service...doesn't change the fact that it *is* right for us, and some of us have *good* dealer service.

Yes, I've driven 996's, and they're great. But it wasn't what I was after.

And you sure have changed your tune about CLK55s vs M5s; you used to claim you could hang with 'em:

Anyway, this is about M3's. But I've had enough run-ins with M5's not to worry about them much either. Impressive cars, though.

 

You are a gentlemen, very good!

 

I stand corrected - In the past, when I raced my Brothers M5, it has yet to be broken in, once it was, it was all over - he will consistently pull away. When I brought the AMG to the dealership, my service advisor test drove it and advised me that she pulls harder than most he has driven
Yesterday I have to apologies about my demeanor, It was not is the best of moods and I humbly stand corrected.
My experience with the CLK55 was not as positive as I hoped it to be, perhaps your correct, it just wasn't the car for me and I really shouldn't put down the platform, they are good cars with amazing engines. Coming from a more dynamic platform as Porsche to AMG was too much of a change in handling and driver communication. Best Of Luck To You all with your AMG's...
Improviz I always enjoyed your comments and wouldn't want to offend you, we often thought alike in past postings, So I hope you will forgive my silliness.

 

5439 - you're still welcome here

 

Thanks...definitely no hard feelings on this end, and I hope you continue to contribute here!!

Fwiw, I do agree with you on a few of the CLK55's negative points!! I have yet to find a "perfect" car; all of them trade off something for something else...it's all about finding the best compromise, & getting what you love the best.

Dang, I didn't know that the situation had changed once your bro's car got broken in...I don't know if mine is some kind of factory freak, or if I've just come across some M5 slugs, but that one, who was modded w/exhaust and intake, was the only one so far to take me. I've definitely had it handed to me by other cars, Z06s, a few heavily modded LS1s, one of the new Cobras, etc., but against the M cars, I'm undeafeated save the one.

I am curious about your E-town run: do you still have the timeslip? I'm interested in seeing the 60', 1/8 ET/mph, etc...

Anyway, all of these are fantastic cars (including the M3; some of its drivers leave something to be desired, but...), and we should count our blessings to own 'em.

 

Improviz - I still have the slips, (Have to find them) I was runing high 13's and a couple of low 14 - (No grip in my launches) My brother was runing low 13's all night. I went against him once and he slapped my a$$ - oh well, as long as it's in the fam... I will scan it and forward it to you.. The good thing is that whenever I want to drive the AMG it's just a phone call away..

P.S. Thanks for understanding... I would love to post some Pictures of my new baby, but you know the deal with this forum.

 

and I don't take kindly to being accused of lying. Nor, might I add, do any of the Italians I know. If you want to be treated in a gentlemanly fashion, you might try it yourself.

 

I'm not surprised, though...I saw your bro's 60' times on the M5 forum, and he nailed a 2.1. Sounds like yours were more in the 2.4 range...that would cost you at least 0.6.

The 60' is absolutely critical...that M3 video of the track whiz who got the 1.75 60' time shows what a low 60' time will do! His trap speed was still 105-106, same as M3's and other CLK55's, but his 60' was about 0.4 better than most M3 guys are getting. At 0.2 in the 1/4 for each 0.1 in 60', he's right where he should be, about 0.8 faster than most in the 1/4, with that 60' time.

 

I have a question.

If you HAD to leave the car stock, which would you buy?

 

And even if I did, I'd rather start with a lowly-stressed 5.5L V8 than a maxed-out 3.2l I6, especially one which has grenaded in over 130 M3s!!

Do you seriously think that we CLK55 owners didn't consider a car costing some $20K less before deciding on ours? Money is not the issue here...we bought the CLK55 because we preferred it, simple as that.

 

That`s it !

Looking forward to the next season

Stefan

 

At the same time, many M3 owners could have bought the CLK55 and did not (me included). (BTW, i am researching the multiple pages on the Benzworld.org forum regarding the G500 as my next SUV.)

BTW, i think the new CLKs look pretty damn nice and classy!

 

No, seeing as I never said/thought that...

 

Both have pluses and minuses. I say enjoy whichever one you're fortunate enough to own!

 

Seems as though I didn't catch your original point.

 

Someone post a valid link for the video.

 

I wanted to see which car leaves more for the driver to go after with modding. I've read in many places that the CLK55's suspension isn't up to par with the M3s and the M3's torque and raw power isn't as awesome as the CLK55's. So the question's purpose was to see which is the better, all around sports car bone-stock while taking all aspects of performance into account. Does the CLK55's power outweigh what it lacks in handling and vice versa for the M3?

 

...in terms of sheer power, you'll always be able to ultimately get more with 5.5L than with 3.2.

In terms of suspension: the M3's is basically tuned more stiffly, while the CLK55's is a bit softer. You could easily tune up the CLK55's to match, but I haven't driven a modded CLK55; I'd start a separate thread if I were you to answer this.

The CLK's weakest point is its steering, which is simply not as accurate or linear as the BMW steering. Short of replacing the system with rack and pinion, not much you could do there...

Handling-wise, the M3's chief advantages are its wider rear rubber (255 vs. 245 on the CLK), a limited-slip differential, and less torque; the last two allow it to get better corner exit speeds than the CLK55, as the CLK55's hugely higher torque through an open diff can (and does) easily break the rears loose in corners.

So, to rectify this, one could install a limited-slip and upgrade the rear tires to a wider size; I went with the 265/35-18's, on 18" E55 (210) wheels.

Hope this helps.