Sorry, your are off by a sec in the 1/4 for a stock 208 CLK55. We need a little help to get into the low 12s. The 209 CLKs should have been closer to low 12s in stock trim... if they added the supercharger like a lot of the other 2003+AMGs.

The truck in the commercial a a Dodge with a hemi.

DC

 

i'll have to disagree to that.

0-60: 5.2 Transmission: Automatic
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 104
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/search/choosemake.aspx

 

 

here is a silver Lightning

 

Sorry need a new place to host my pics.

Thanks for the help and answers most people have helped with.

I think i am going to go with a new M3 this time. I will own a MB one day for sure, but for what i am looking for i think the M3 will do what i want.

The CLK 55 is a great car, but i think i want something new and don't really want to pay 70k right now for one.

 

we scared him off

 

No you guys were more then helpful. This is my first big purchase like this and i would prefer to buy something brand new. I am not quite ready to jump into a new 70K plus yet purchase.

I do appreciate the friendly chat though.

 

And I'm not mistaken. I know cars, and these were Lightnings, my friend.

You seem to be very ignorant of the performance capabilities of the CLK55. I'd suggest you research the issue a bit further.

Well, when someone insinuates I'm not being truthful or that I'm too ignorant about cars to tell the difference between a rebadged F150 and a Lightning, how exactly should I take it?

And my point, which you seem to have missed, is that if the CLK55 is three hundred pounds *lighter* than the E55, with the same gearing, drivetrain, and horsepower, and if there are people here who've run 13.1's in their E55's, then one would expect the CLK55 be quite capable of running a bit faster than a 13.1, if it could find enough traction.

Or, are you arguing that Physics no longer works, and that therefore a heavier mass is easier to move than a lighter mass?

Otherwise, please explain to me why the heavier E55 manages to turn faster 1/4 times in the mag tests than the CLK55 when both have identical engine and gearing, unless it's the traction.

Feel free to show me any magazine test that's tested a stock Lightning at faster than a 13.8. Here are the other mags' results, since you conveniently ignored the times I posted from Autoweek. But I'll post them again here, along with links if I have them, for it and several other mags, all of which are the 380 hp version you're claiming is in the low 13's stock:

Autoweek: 0-60: 6.04
1/4 mile: 14.51@97.9
Autoweek's test of the 380 horsepower Lightning

Car & Driver: 0-60: 5.2
1/4 mile: 13.8 (4/01, 380 HP version)

Motor Trend: 0-60: 6.20
1/4 mile: 14.51 (5/01, 380 HP version)

Motor Week: 0-60: 5.4
1/4 mile: 13.9@101 (4/01)
MotorWeek's test of the 380 horsepower Lightning

Edmunds.com: 0-60: 5.6
1/4 mile: 14.1@98.5
Edmunds' test of the 380 Horsepower Lightning

So, if as you claim these Lightnings are running 13.1's stock, can you explain to me why none of the mags even got close to that, why few of them got into the 13's, and why several were in the mid 14's??

The rest of your message was concerned with what modded Lightnings will do, which is irrelavant. As I said: I beat *stock* Lightnings, and that is what we are debating: you are implying that a stock Lightning will run a low 13, and that a CLK55 is no match for it in straight line acceleration. The performance of a modded Lightning has nothing to do with this dispute, now does it?

 

I said that a Lightning would have to have considerably more horsepower than 380 to be in the LOW 13's, i.e. a 13.1 to a 13.3. Thank you for proving my point that they are no faster than the high 13's stock, tho...

 

Yes, exactly. And with equal force, if mass decreases, then acceleration increases. Example: set force = 1. So if mass goes from 3 to 2, then acceleration goes from 1/3 to 1/2. And 1/2 is greater than 1/3, yes?

Therefore, the CLK55, with less mass than the E55, should have greater acceleration, given that the force is essentially equal, therefore the mags' getting slightly slower times in the CLK55 is clearly the result of a traction issue, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

if u get authentic davin wheels then yea..but if their those copy bootlegg lookin thats GHETTO... Ive seen Davin wheels on an S55 and it was the best S55 Ive ever seen on a red light

 

Originally posted by Ashenor
[B]You might be racing F-150's with Lightning badges on them if you are wasting them =).

Notice the smiley face, i was joking with you. I am sure you guys get your fair share of AMG want to be's badging there cars.

Improviz glad you could get worked up over a internet thread, as i said i was looking for info on CLK 55's and M3's.

I also think most people would attest to times in magazines being pretty whack most of the time compared to real track experence. Feel free to visit www.f150online.com to do some research for yourself if you would like.

When you get back from the track this spring, let me know how your car runs though please.

Again for everyone else thanks for the information and the help.

 

...there's a difference between having a different opinion and inferring someone is lying or ignorant, and imo you were accusing me of the latter when you basically told me that there's no way I could have beaten a stock Lightning in a CLK55 after I'd said that I'd done exactly that. And I really don't care if you believe me or not, but it's pretty rude of you to imply that I'm a liar...as I said, I've raced a few of those things, and had no trouble whatsoever with them.

And, as the results I posted show, the mag tests universally show that the CLK55's test faster than the Lightnings. Not one of the five tests I posted of the 380 horsepower Lightning even managed to match the *slowest* tested time for the CLK55 (Road and Track's laughable 13.7 run), let alone get close to the 13.4 runs obtained by MotorWeek and Edmunds.com . And you're telling me it'll magically pick up over a second at the strip? Come on.

And yes, I am aware that mag times are sometimes a bit out of whack (the aforementioned Road & Track test being a prime example), but you're telling me that 5/5 of them are nearly or over *one second* out of whack on the Lightning? Give me a break. Normally, the mags' times are no more than 0.5 seconds off of what a car can do, and one reason for this is because they don't powershift as some (dumb) track junkies do...apparantly, they value the trannies more than do some owners. And you can't powershift an auto tranny, so how are the owners of Lightnings making up this one-second deficit with the car mags' results?

Anyway, I would again suggest you research the capabilities of the CLK55 a bit more, because your view of what the car's capabilities are are totally whacked. No way is a truck with 12 pounds/horsepower and a four-speed auto going to beat a car with 10 pounds/horsepower and a five-speed auto. The CLK55 is *extremely* quick, and you'd learn this in a hurry if you came up against one in a stock Lightning.

Lightnings are quick, impressively so for a 4700 pound truck, but they're not in CLK55 territory.

 

btw I had a Nite package truck b4 the lightning came out
was getting 8 mpg average and it was too damn light in the back, had some fun with it though heh

 

haha i was going to look for the picture to post.

 

i feel guilty of starting this

 

Naw AMG you are cool, it was fun chatting. Some people just take things a bit more serious

Starting to call around some dealerships today, going to order my M3 this week. Not sure if i am going to go with Silver or White yet though.

Hopefully in a few years i will be able to get a MB also.

I will send you a pic once i get it !

 

Silver

white is nice but doesn't show off the fine curves like a silver color would.

better get the 19s

 

Ya i am 99% sure it will be silver. Have any pics of your car? Any mods or anything you plan to do to it this spring?

 

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...threadid=35198

 

Very nice, thats going to look sweet for sure !

You could have probably fed a 3rd world country for 2 years for what those cost i am sure

I will be on the lookout for some pics when you have them on.

 

Pic of Lightning out in the snow today =/.

Driving to work sucked.

 

Ashenor - I like those wheels on that truck. It also sounds like it might give my CLK55 a good run. I'll be on the lookout for these from now on. I've already been aware of the SVT label on the 'stangs but never had an opportuinty to run one. I hear that I would come out on the wrong end of a run with the SVT 'stang (but only certain versions/years I think).

 

...that you think a truck with 12 lbs/hp and a four-speed auto can take a car with 10 lbs/hp and a five-speed auto. I've beaten four BMW M5's now, which weigh 800 pounds less than a Lightning, have two more gears, twenty more horsepower, and are slightly more aerodynamic. But I suppose you'd say I'm lying about that too.

I suppose you'd also think Pocholin was lying about the following encounter, where he spanked a Lightning, twice, in his E55 (same motor, drivetrain, and gearing as the CLK55, but three hundred pounds heavier)...anyway, enjoy your M3.

Another Mercedes owner who's obviously lying...

 

You talk a lot of smack and numbers. Feel free to post your timeslips so we can see what sort of internet racer you are.