BoBcanada

Just curious? Anyone raced an m3?

Thai

Well, based on the recent C&D test, i say, YES to straight line acceleration. 4.5 seconds is quite impressive! I am gonna wait for other magazines to test it before coming to a definitive conclusion...but damn, the latest-CLK55 is fast!

Hats off to you guys....

pnadin

I assume you have discovered that the forum search can't cope with the word 'm3'

You probably need to be more specific on the type of race.

There is a previous thread on this at prev thread

I think this thread is mainly about the w208 but is still worth the long read.

To summarise,

1. the clk55 needs moding to beat an M3 in a 0-60 race - wider tyres to put down the extra power.

2. the clk55 needs suspension mods for track racing to put its handling on a par with the M3. A limited rear slip diff would be useful too.

4. power mods certainly NOT required to beat the M3. Any straight line races from a rolling start and the w209 will win.

When I had my M3 i had an SL500 in my mirror on exit from a roundabout and could not leave him behind from 15mph up to 70 mph. At that point my wife's screams reminded me to slow down and let him pass. I was stunned and well miffed.

As the stock w209 has better handling and steering than the stock w208 the differences are not so great.

My previous car was an M3 and the differences are still fresh in my mind (changed 1st March). I am not going to mod the car because the m3s handling edge is not that great and I dont want to compromise the w209's beautiful ride. However, I am seriously considering wider rear tyres to solve the loss of traction problem on take off.

Cheers
Paul

AMIL

i think they are dead on tie

Gabri343

http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=245
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=38

Improviz

Reason: the CLK55's tested times are very traction-limited. See the following:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ert/index.html
With nearly identical curb weights and horsepower, this pair runs comparable 0-60-mph times-5.02 sec for the M3 and 5.23 for the CLK55. The difference closes slightly at the end of the quarter mile, with the M3 recording a 13.63/103.76, while the CLK55 runs a respectable 13.74/104.44. MT test driver Chris Walton noted that the CLK55 produces lots of wheelspin off the line, while the M3 stays better hooked up. The CLK's five-speed automatic transmission performs nearly perfect shifts, thanks to the Touch Shift manumatic gear selector. However, Walton found it harder to drive the M3 once it gets rolling because it's easy to hit the 8000-rpm rev limiter on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts of the six-speed manual transmission. A possible solution is BMW's optional Sequential Manual Gearbox ($2400). Derived from BMW's F1 cars, the system uses a manual transmission, an automated clutch (no pedal to push), and steering-wheel-mounted shift paddles. Despite being down 114 lb-ft of torque, the M3 won our acceleration test by a hair, thanks to better traction and even more aggressive gearing.

"Lots of wheelspin" means lost time. Lost time means a deceptively slow ET.

The same held true when Motor Trend compared the M5 vs. W210 E55. Again they noted that the difference in acceleration times was due to traction:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._m5/index.html
These cars aren't quick. They're genuinely fast: The M5 blisters 0-60 mph in a 911-like 4.6 sec. The Mercedes stays in the fours by 0.01 of a second at 4.99. The BMW's approximately 4/10 advantage hangs on through the quarter mile (13.08 at 109.41 mph versus 13.46 at 106.71). The difference isn't so much the old saw about power losses with an automatic transmission as that the Mercedes was all too happy to just smoke 'em at the starting line. In spite of a clutch that takes some practice to be smooth with, Senior Road Test Editor Chris Walton actually found the M5 easier to launch.

And bear in mind that the E55 weighed in 200 pounds heavier than the 208 CLK55, *and* had 275mm rear tires (compared to the CLK55's 245mm). Which means that the CLK55 would have less traction, with lighter weight pressing down narrower tires. Which means that its times would suffer more.

Road & Track noted when they tested the CLK55 in '01 that its best times were obtained by simply stepping on the gas...considering that they *always* attempt to use brake-torquing on automatic transmissioned cars, this is indicitive that they had traction issues as well; with sufficient traction, a car's best times will be gotten by launching closer to its power peak, which isn't obtained at an 800 rpm launch!

The M3 and M5 obtain better times in tests because they have better off-the-line traction. On the street, it is different:

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, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; 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 a few other road tests:
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

Bottom line is that CLK55 will pull M3 from a roll, and off the line if the owner doesn't botch his launch.

Gabri343

But the M3 is a 3200cc 6L and CLK is a 5500cc V8........very little difference

Improviz

...so what's your point?

The M3 is a very highly-stressed, low-torque, high-horsepower I6, with over 130 documentated cases of blown engines already...the CLK55 has a lowly-stressed, high-torque, high-horsepower V8 with none blown that I know of. At 5.5L, it also has a lot more displacement, which makes it modable to ultimately produce far more horsepower than 3.2L is capable of, if one is so inclined..

Bottom line is, if I'd liked the M3 enough to have bought one, I would have. I didn't, and there are reasons for this. So the M3 turns faster lap times? Great, except I don't track my cars, I drive them on the street. And I felt that hands down, the CLK was a better street car. The M3 rides like a truck, is noisy, is not as luxurious as the CLK, and is not as attractive.

So, you can keep coming in here trolling all you like, but the only person you're convincing is yourself. Enjoy your M, and I hope your motor doesn't blow!

Gabri343

Don't worry, my motor is perfect. Benz are the best motor......

Poor Mercedes

Thai

Now, i would hope that your research showed that the M3 engine blow-ups are due to DEFECTIVE parts in the early models...NOT defective design. Later models have engine failure rate similar to other cars...aka, very rare.

The M3's engine has won every award out there...including best in class for 3 years running, beating out Porsche excellent 3.6L Flat 6 (found in GT3 and turbo version in GT2). It won International Engine of the Year in '01 when it first came out.

Unlike the other naturally-aspirated high-rev engines (e.g. Honda S2000), the M3 engine does have pretty good torque at low rpms. It makes at least 80% of it's torque from 2000 rpm to REDLINE! That's a 6000 rpms spread...something that only a few engines in the world can claim! The M3 engine also has individual throttle bodies (rarely seen on street cars), resulting in lightening quick, but accurate throttle response.

Then, you add in 6 forward gear ratios, aggressive gearing, and a very effective limited-slip differential (M-variable lock differential). LSD is superior to any traction control at all speed and especially during cornering. The M3 is quite effective at putting power down to the road...it will surprise a lot of cars on the road.

However, i would say this...the NEW CLK55 (w209?) is probably faster than M3 in a straight line. The older clk55 (w208?) is probably a bit slower or equal to M3. Again, it's just not HP/Torque, but it's also gearing and traction.

Improviz

Lame, dude... Right back at you:

Improviz

Yes, I'm aware of the defective parts, which doesn't excuse the fact that it happened, unless you're prepared to argue that it's perfectly fine to release a $50,000+ car with defective engine parts.

And yes, I've read the BMW advertising material, no need to repeat it here...I'm aware of this engine. I drove one before I bought the CLK55, and it really doesn't light up until it hits 4,000 rpm...the CLK55 motor will light 'em up from just off idle. Nice car, but wasn't the one for me.

As to new CLK55 vs. old: the weight/hp ratio of each of these cars is the same; the new one's increase in hp is offset by its higher weight. Only difference is a slight increase in rearend gear for new one, which might help it a bit, but I haven't been able to run one yet and find out. Still, I'd suspect the 208 and 209 will be pretty even straightline; the new one has better traction from higher weight, which will help its 60' times, which is why it's testing faster imo. The old one is perfectly capable of a very low 13, even a high 12, if it could find the traction.

My *personal* research also shows that your claim is off the mark about the 208; I've pulled each and every M car I've run, including well over twenty E46 M3's. Haven't lost to one yet, even before I upgraded to wider rear rubber.

Heck, I'm not alone in this; did you read those links I gave? They're from E46 M3 owners who'd run CLK55's, etc...most of those were 208's.

You're in Texas? So am I... Where are you? We can meet up and do a few friendly runs if you'd like to settle this battle of the brands...let me know. Heck, we can even film it; got a videocam?

Gabri343

It was the gear not the engine
0 - 200 Km/h CLK (347hp) 19,8 s M3 18,1 s

Improviz

Here's the link, again. Read the last paragraph:
It was a bad day for the two previous winners of the race. Ralf Schumacher, who won in 2002, barely lasted half the 56-lap race when the engine of his Williams-BMW blew up.

And I hate to point this out to you, but not all Euro mags tested the M3 faster than the CLK55.

Evo magazine:
E46 M3: 0-60 5.1 0-100: 12.3
W208 CLK55: 0-60: 5.1 0-100: 11.8

And then, of course, there are all of these pesky liars who own E46 M3s:
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, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; 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

Thai

Improv,

Defective parts from defective supplier. I don't think BMW had much to do with it. BMW did switch supplier after that...thus, no more problem. (Oh yeah, please let's not get into cheap suppliers...DC is notorious with that!)

The good side effect from this early problem is that my M3 motor ('03.5 model) has a warranty to 100K miles for free.

It's not MY claim, it's from DIRECT COMPARISON done by Car & Driver. All of your post above is from different tests by different drivers in different environment. The only way is to compare two cars IN THE SAME TEST BY THE SAME DRIVER.

Here is the exact comparo you are looking for: CLK55 (w208) vs. E46 M3

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

Like i said above, i am not sure how (gearing), but the W209 is clearly faster than the older model...and faster than my M3. The W209's engine may be underrated, which would not surprise me giving MB's recent HP ratings (e.g. E55).

C&D tested the W209 CLK55 twice! The first test showed 0-60 in 4.7 seconds...and now this comparo test showing 4.5 seconds. Those are pretty consistent fast numbers...you did not see that in the previous CLK55 (w208). Sorry, the new one is faster. I have admitted that the W209 is faster than my M3, why can't you?? Accept it and move on.

Improviz

Hey, DC might have cheap suppliers, but there is no "blown CLK55 engines" page!

But back to the cars: your sig says you're in Texas. I am in Texas. Where are you? If you think your car will beat mine, let's hook up for a few friendly runs and settle it...heck, I'm always up for a good run. Heck, maybe we could round up a 209-er and see how all three of 'em do...

The bottom line is this: tests do not tell the whole story, which is that the car's times are traction-limited. It loses time when it sits there spinning its tires, and Motor Trend noted in *their* comparison of both the M5/210 E55 and the CLK55/M3 that the cars' slower times were a function of *traction*. I quoted from these tests and provided links to them earlier in this thread...here it is; have a look:.

Why is it that people have so much trouble accepting that loss of traction slows a car's times down?? Shoot, drag racers don't use slicks because they like the way they look! This car has nearly 390 ft-lb of peak torque, almost as much as a Z06, yet is shod with 245-series tires on the rear, 10mm narrower than the M3's, and 30mm narrower than the E55's; even with the 275 series and two hundred additional pounds of weight, the 210 E55 *still* lost time from wheelspin according to Motor Trend!

Or consider the Cadillac CTS-V...the car has the same general figures as the CLK55: a bit more torque at 400 ft-lb, but only 10-20 ft-lb...same size tires, 245mm...and lo and belold, every US mag to test it has said that the car suffers from severe traction problems, to the point of having axle hop. Road & Track also explicitly stated that this limited its times. And this car weighs nearly 400 pounds more than the 208 CLK55; more weight pressing down on the tires = better grip.

As to the W209: simple, I'm suspicious. Road and Track provided the following number some time ago for determining the crank horsepower of a car given its as-tested weight (i.e., including driver, equipment) and 1/4 mile trap speed. I ran the calculations, and the Car & Driver car had to be producing nearly 400 horsepower at the crank:

...109 mph trap speed with 3740 pounds curb weight and 362 horsepower? Let me see....180 pounds for driver + test equip gives an as-tested weight of 3,920.

crank hp = (as-tested weight)*(trap speed/234)^3.

= 3920(109/234)^3
= 3920(0.101072)
= 396 crank hp.

If you run this on the 208 (3450 + 180 pounds driver & equip), which trapped between 106 and 107, you get 3630(106.5/234)^3 = 342, *exactly* its rated horsepower.

So, yes, I'm suspicious of C&D's times. The W208 CLK55 had a weight/horsepower of 3450/342 = 10.08:1. The W209 is 3635/362 = 10.04:1. Physics is physics, and it simply doesn't have the power to weight ratio to trap that much faster than the 208. FYI; the E46 M3 has 3450/333 = 10.36:1, i.e. both of the CLK55s have better weight/hp ratios. :p

Also, MotorWeek tested the 209 CLK55, and got a 13.7@104; they ran a 13.4@107 in the 208 CLK55 they tested, a 13.7@106 in the 208 CLK55 cab they tested, and a 13.5@107 in the E46 M3 they tested. Plus, the CLK500 tested by Road & Track also got ridiculously high trap speeds for its weight/power ratio; it calculated out to almost 350 horsepower--the same as a CLK55! Something is amiss here...

And other recent M3 road tests aren't nearly as fast as the early Euro versions tested (the "blue special" which Car & Driver said BMW had "flown from Europe specifically for this test" in the article for the test you're citing); that one tested at 13.4@106; more recently, Car & Driver tested it at 13.6@105. This is the same ET, and a slower trap speed, than the 208 CLK55 they tested. Also note that the "blue special" was a stripper: it did *not* have power seats, which would lighten it up by 150-200 pounds, netting it about 0.15-0.2 in the 1/4 (100 pounds lost = 0.1).

Finally, there's one number you're not citing: the 5-60 test. Look at the M3/CLK55 shootout article you gave the link for: it shows that the M3's acceleration advantage was *all* launch, which once again lends credence to the traction issue: even though the M3 tested 0.3 faster from 0-60, from 5-60, both cars ran 5.2. But what's interesting is the delta: the M3 lost a full half second (5.2 5-60 vs. 4.7 0-60), whereas the CLK55 lost only 0.2 (5.2 5-60 vs. 5.0 0-60). And the newer M3 they tested ran 5.3 in this test.

If all of the above doesn't prove that the 60' time is what *really* won these tests, let's hook up and do some runs, dangit!

Thai

I live near Houston...just PM me. I am ordering a set of Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 for the rear. Whenever i have it in, i am good for it. (The damn PS2 in stock size (255/35/19) are reserve for Crossfire!!)

What's up with challenging me?! I don't even think that i have said anything bad about the CLK in this whole thread. Quite the opposite, i have praise CLK55 (w209)'s acceleration numbers. And i believe that W208 and M3 are equal in acceleration. All of a sudden, Improv jumps in with his "theories" on why w208 is better?!! WTF! ***** envy at it's worst! Geez...Grow up man!

READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE. You can ONLY compare acceleration times when two cars are compared DIRECTLY IN THE SAME TEST. Otherwise, the numbers are for general idea, especially if you look at 0.1 second differences! Think about it.

BTW, besides MotorTrend, no other magazines had any problems launching the CLK55.

Damn, and MB owners say that M3 owners are ****y?! Geez! No difference.

Improviz

you use "challenging you" as though I'm getting all huffy; I'm not. I just like to race...what's wrong with a friendly race??? Heck, I've run plenty of M guys, 'vette guys, Porsche guys...no hard feelings with any of them...

I never said you'd said anything bad about the car; I'm simply saying that we get M3 guys in here all the time talking smack, and I'd really, really love to get some runs on video.

And why the overreaction in general? I'm simply making a case that the car's times were deceptive, and providing links to prove my point. What's wrong with that??

Btw, you did not say that the 208 was a tie for the M3; you said that the 208 was probably a bit slower, or equal. I take issue with the slower part.

I *did* read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? Do you grasp the rather obvious point that traction issues can limit a car's acceleration times?? Do you think your car would be capable of the same times with 225's on the rear that it will hit with the stock 255's? Or with 215's? Or bicycle tires??? Or do you simply feel that traction is a non-issue in drag racing? Have you ever actually been to a drag strip? Have you ever actually drag raced a high-torque automobile? Do you comprehend the obvious yet? Has it started to penetrate? TRACTION IS A HUGE FACTOR IN DRAG RACING. THIS IS WHY DRAG RACERS USE SLICKS!!! Get it? Not a difficult concept, really...

Traction is an issue with these torque monsters, and I gave you links from magazines which had tested these cars "ON THE SAME DAY, WITH THE SAME DRIVER", which *plainly* stated that the M cars won *not* because of superior power, but because of the Benzes' traction issues. Honestly, I can't put it any more plainly than that. Actually, what proof do you have that these magazines test the cars in their comparos "on the same day, with the same driver", particularly in light of the fact that recently, an alert reader busted Road & Track using results from previous tests in a comparo, wrote them a letter about it, and they admitted it in print? So much for that theory...

Theories? Lol...I suppose. As I said: the equation I used was provided by those crackpot theorists at Road and Track, and I've run it on dozens of road tests. The only time I've ever seen it vary by more than about +-3% from rated is with the new Benzes...now I have seen independent evidence that the supercharged cars are putting out well above rated horsepower stock, and so I accept that. Until I see it for the CLK55, I'm reserving judgement.

And do you think that a car's weight and horsepower are *not* major factors to its acceleration? You already seem to think that traction isn't an issue, so I guess it's possible...

Anyway, you might be willing to believe everything you read, but I'm not. And I've run these cars, side by side, from a standing start, and from a roll, many times. And at least in my case, the CLK55 pulls the M3 easily.

I also said flat-out that I really don't *know* whether the 209 is faster, because 1) I haven't raced one yet, and 2) I don't consider the trap speed Car & Driver got possible for the car's rated horsepower. Hell, if I believed everything the car mags wrote, I'd be in trouble after what happened with all of the M cars!

And I really don't appreciate your insults or hostility...if anyone needs to grow up here, it's you. What I've posted is not *theories*, it is road test data. The facts remain that:

1) the 208 CLK55's weight/hp ratio is superior to that for the M3, and equal to that of the 209 CLK55;

2) Motor Trend wrote in both their test for the CLK55 and the 210 E55 that traction was a major issue for both cars, which was the predominant factor in their slower as-tested times;

3) Car & Driver's lightweight stripper barely beat the CLK55 in a launch race, and tied it in the rolling-start race;

4) Car & Driver's second M3 tied the CLK55 in the 1/4 and was slower in the rolling-start race;

5) using the crank hp equation provided by Road & Track, the CLK55 would have to produce 396 crank hp to trap at 109 mph...it is rated at 362. MotorWeek tested this car at 13.7@104, which also casts some doubt on Car & Driver's results.

6) MotorWeek, Edmunds, and EVO all three tested the CLK55 faster than the E46 M3. I.e., the test results are NOT unanimous!

You haven't produced anything to counter any of these...I suspect that's why you're getting all huffy and acting like a jerk...because you don't have enough facts to win the argument.

Thai

You mean that in all 20+ races with M3's, you don't have ONE video to prove your point???!!! Too funny!

Hp/weight ratio...do you know that is what most Corvette owners argue about too?! Gearing and tractive devices are very important, along with tires. M3 has all of them. CLK has 1 out of 3. You should blame Mercedes for overlooking such necessities! I wonder why Mercedes don't put fatter tires on AMG models...is there an engineering problem that we're overlooking as consumers?? (btw, this is an honest question) I also wonder why AMG models don't have LSDs...this would improve acceleration AND handling/cornering! Miatas and IS300 all have Torsen LSD as an option. It doesn't make sense, especially for a high-performance company like AMG.

Don't get *****y with M3 owners because we have an equally fast car despite having a much lower displacement (and significantly better handling/braking)...talk with DC/MB, they are the ones resposible for your relatively slow 0-60 times. Geez.

Thai

Barely?? 4.7 vs. 5.2 is not "barely"! Sorry, i just had to laugh at that.

Improviz

...which is why I asked *you* if you had one...remember that? If I did have one, why would I ask if you did?

Tell you what: let's make it interesting. We'll meet up at Ennis, and go for $100/run. Up for it? Let me know. They have open Fridays every other Friday. You may think I'm lying, but I'm not, and I'll put my money where my mouth is. I guess there's only one way to find out, right?

And if you do have a video cam, bring it...we can also do some rolling-start runs.

Hell, in fact, how about this: Pocholin is in Houston, and he's always up for a race. He's got a W210 E55, with same motor and drivetrain as the CLK55, but it's 200 pounds heavier, which gives you a bit of an advantage...I'd bet he'd be willing to run. Want me to ping him?? Let me know.

Yes, horsepower, weight, and gearing make a difference....as does traction. And the E46 M3's weight/hp ratio is worse than the CLK55...its weight/torque ratio is *waaay* worse.

The CLK55 doesn't have as agressive gearing as does the M3, but it does have 145% max torque (380 vs 262). More torque to multiply means that it can have less-agressive gearing.

So, do you want me to see if Pocholin wants to give you some runs? Let me know, I'll ping him. After all, the M3 tested faster than the E55 too!!

Yes, the M3 out of the box posts better lap times...this is because BMW gave it 1) an extra gear; 2) wider rear tires, and 3) a stiffer suspension setup. This comes at the expense of higher noise and a significantly stiffer ride, which is one of the reasons I passed on it.

I love how you guys assume we're "jealous", as though it's simply impossible for someone to look at both of these great cars and pick the Benz over the Bimmer....jealousy isn't a factor. As I pointed out: I don't track my cars, and I don't drive on a racetrack when going to work, so the fact that the M3 turns a one-second faster lap on a short course really doesn't sway me one way or the other. Hell, if lap times were what concerned me, I'd have gotten a 996TT, a GT3, or a Z06 for that matter.

AMG///Merc

As quoted from Improviz:

"As to the W209: simple, I'm suspicious. Road and Track provided the following number some time ago for determining the crank horsepower of a car given its as-tested weight (i.e., including driver, equipment) and 1/4 mile trap speed. I ran the calculations, and the Car & Driver car had to be producing nearly 400 horsepower at the crank:"


You have to admit that the formula you are quoting can only produce rough numbers at the very best. There are far more variables to consider aside from weight and trap speed, mainly gearing, torque, traction, and aerodynamics. The Road & Track formula doesn't take any of that into consideration. Take a look at the current Car & Driver issue where the Maserati is quoted as having 385 hp, but only 333 lb/ft of torque. There's a minimal weight difference of only 40 lbs, which can easily be offset by varying fuel loads and passenger weights in as much that they might as well be equal. The Maser even has shorter (Numerically higher) gearing and wider rear tires to boot. If you reverse the R&T formula, it implies that 1/4 mile times are simply a function of horsepower versus weight, and yet despite having more horsepower, shorter gearing, wider tires, and nearly equal weight, it lost to the CLK55. I guess to make a short story long, that formula is FAR from accurarte and pretty much worthless for comparison purposes...

Once again, at the risk of offending people which is my last intent, I feel that some people place way too much emphasis on magazine quoted 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times. Some act as if these quotes were laser etched in granite and the absolute definitive last word on the subject. It's like they hold the issue that reads the absolute best times like a would-be victim holds a crucifix to ward off vampires...

"Behold the power of Car & Driver! For they sayeth that the XYZ does 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds, proof from the allmighty editors that my car is indeed, faster than thous..."

Each side fires volleys of magazine quoted statistics, as if it's all but impossible that there could be any kind of variation between times. Anyone notice how one camp will quote the absolute best numbers for their car, while quoting the absolute worst numbers for the other car being compared. Naturally, the opposing side does the same thing...

Here's my take on magazine performance numbers. I think that they're all correct. I believe that Car & Driver ran a 13.1 at 109 mph because they had great conditions to do so. More than likely, the air temperature was low, track temperature was high, the track where they performed the test was most likely at or near sea level, and they had a good launch.

I also believe that other magazines ran times around 5 seconds because of conditions that weren't as ideal. The same goes with the M3. I have NO doubt that there have been stock M3's that have run 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds, just as I believe that there have been m3's that ran 5 seconds or more. It's all about variables. Contrary to what some have posted previously, the way that the magazines test cars aren't always scientifically precise. Vehicle availability, track availability, print deadlines, and other factors often mean that certain cars are tested in less than positive conditions where others are. How many times have we seen an asterik where there's some sort of side note about the test car being a "worn out development car with an abused clutch", or cars that had some type of misfire and so on. The magazines, as much as I love them, are not the absolute last word on the subject, and the "Word of God" the way that SOME people, try to pass them off as...

As far as the 208 versus the 209 debate, I think that a few of the 208 owners tend to overlook some of the changes and improvements of the 209 model. I often hear, as was just mentioned in this thread, that the additional power is offset by the extra weight, and the gearing change is "minimal". So far, it seems like the 209 is the quicker car, albeit very slightly. While I believe that once again, quoted numbers from magazines are not the absolute final authority on the subject, they all so far have produced better numbers than the 208, as have Mercedes-Benz themselves. It seems like some people see the 209 as an uglier, more feminine car with only 20 more horsepower, as if that's the only change to the car. I rarely hear anyone mention that the 209 has finally replaced the horrid recirculating-ball steering with a proper rack-and-pinion type. The 209's body structure is more rigid, the car is more aerodynamic, there is indeed more power, but it is also, indeed a heavier car. I guess my point is that it seems as if some people are reluctant to admit that the 209 might be a better car, and I certainly believe that it doesn't get enough credit...

Lastly, and I apologize for such a lengthy quote, I feel that Thai was only complimenting the CLK55, and that he indeed was admiting that it could be faster than the M3 despite the fact that he owns an M3. I give him credit for admitting his thoughts on the subject...



Best regards,
Matt



p.s.) Gabri343, I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on posting the picture of the McLaren on fire. For one thing, the McLaren MP4-19's motor is built by Ilmor , and not by Mercedes-Benz themselves. DC basically just pays for the engine. Also, I'm sure that you know that F1 engines have absolutely, positively NO relation to the production car engines. None what-so-ever. Using that picture as some sort of indication about Mercedes-Benz engine longevity/reliability is completely pointless...

AMG///Merc

As I was writing my previous post, both Improviz and Thai both wrote additional posts that also touch on some of the things that I mentioned. I did not see those posts until after I had submitted mine, and read out of sequence, it appears that I am informing Improviz on certain facts that he is already aware of. I'm sorry if that gave anyone a mistaken impression, and I just wanted to clarify the issue...


Best regards,
Matt

Improviz

I agree: car mags' results are snapshots. This is why I keep harping on people that 1) mags are not the be-all, end-all, and that 2) even for those who think they are, the results in the M3 vs. CLK55 are not conclusive: some mags tested the M3 faster, others tested the M3 faster.

As to the equation I used: I've actually found it to be very accurate; I've run it on dozens of road test results, and it is almost always within +-3% of rated horsepower (notable exceptions being some recent offerings from BMW and Mercedes). From what I understand, this is actually a linear approximation of actual road test data over the years, and so gearing, aerodynamics, etc. would be factored in by virtue of the derivation of the equation from actual testing.

I also ran it on the other cars in the comparo you're referring to, including the Maser:
Maserati = 3780 pounds, trap speed = 109
=> 3960(109/234)^3 = 400 horsepower. A bit high, but within the +-5% of the equation's accuracy.

BMW = 3860 pounds, trap speed = 102.
=> 4040(102/234)^3 = 335 horsepower. Ditto. Ten up from stock...

So, of the three cars, the Benz was the only one whose calculated horsepower deviated substantially from its rated numbers. And actually, if you look, the weight/calculated horsepower of the Benz is the same as weight/rated of the Maser, which makes sense: both obtained the same trap speed.

So yes, given that, the equally suspicious time/speed Road & Track got for the CLK500 (especially when their previously-tested CLK500 was 0.5 slower) and the MotorWeek test, I'm a bit skeptical...but until I actually run a 209 CLK55, I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. It does have a bit lower gearing, which will work in its favor at lower speeds, so it may well be a bit faster, I just don't buy that 109+ trap speed. 107 is what I'd expect from it with that horsepower/weight...

Anyway, it's all good...as you point out, road tests are not the be-all, end-all, and one other point is that very few drivers are capable of launching and shifting as pro test drivers, so even if the M3 is capable of these times right out of the box, very, very few drivers are capable of hitting them. This is where the advantage of the auto comes in, and is why bracket racers always use automatics!

AMG///Merc

As quoted by Thai:

Don't get *****y with M3 owners because we have an equally fast car despite having a much lower displacement (and significantly better handling/braking)...talk with DC/MB, they are the ones resposible for your relatively slow 0-60 times. Geez.

Actually, I beg to differ. I had a 2002 M3 SMG before I bought my CLK55. In all honesty, I have to say that the CLK55 has better brakes, and the M3's handling advantage isn't nearly as signifigant as some might think. Without a doubt, a well driven CLK55 handles well enough that for an M3 to "outhandle" a CLK55 on the street would be pushing the car to its absolute limit, and definitely way beyond what is realistic on the street. By saying "on the street", I'm not implying slow, I mean that a CLK55 im my opinion, handles 85 to 90% as well as an M3, and to dip into that final 10-15% advantage is suicidal on the street. If anyone thinks that they can utilize 100% of the M3's overall performance on the street is kidding themselves (Aside from straight line driving, open freeway type driving).

Having made some comparisons between the two, and again, having owned both cars, I will say this about the M3... Between the two "tuners", BMW's Motorsport, or "M" division versus Mercedes-Benz's "AMG" group, I can very honestly and very definitively say that the "M" division certainly goes alot farther with the base 330 Coupe then AMG does with the "base" CLK500. The differences between a 330 coupe and an M3 are numerous, and the differences between the CLK55 and CLK500 are very few in comparison.

From a technological and "innovation" view-point, BMW's M is definitely the better of the two. With the M3, you get individual throttle bodies, variable valve timing, stainless steel tubular headers, a very sophisticatec electronic variable differential, different suspension, (And not just different springs, shocks and sway-bars, but a wider track, different control arms, stiffer bushings and more), different sheet metal, and the SMG option to name just some of the more advanced options.

The M3 is so different in fact, that it's technically not a BMW. Look inside the door sills on an M3 and read the manufacturers label. you'll see that the manufacturer is "BMW M Gmbh". A minor point maybe, but signifigant in my book. Don't get me wrong. I love the CLK55. I like it better than the M3 in fact. But I really have to give kudos to BMW for what they have done with the car. As a whole, I personally feel that the M cars are better cars as a performance variation of the base manufacturers car. Whether or not it's a better car as a whole is a matter of opinion...


Best regards,
Matt