well, i have learned NOTHING about the simularities and or differences between the speed shift and the SMG. damn im glad i asked that question.

 

k eagle. its pretty simple. you said you have driven the smg. Car has a clutch so it feels like a manual. The car doesnt drive like an automatic. 55 trans is automatic, and very smooth. For a relaxing comfortable drive. It is really simple. I dont see what your looking for between the two. If you like the smg, you wont like the automatic, unless you dont have an automatic car you can cruise comfortable in. If you do searches on the smg in the m3 go to www.m3forum.com people say you have to learn how to drive it smooth and that is true, i think drivin it in automatic is annoying, but drivin as smooth as it can be, it will not be close to a clk 55, level of comfort. Performance wise, the m3 has a better transmission. Paddle shifts help to, when your in canyons or on track. If you have never been to the track and dont plan on going there, and use your car to get to work and back, clk 55 transmission all the way. characteristics of the 55 are just like its tranny. The first time i drove the smg, i liked it a lot, but then you do get tired of the drive sometimes. So think about it. I dont get tired enough to prefer a 55 trans, but im into racing and track driving.

 

dont even consider m, if the only thing u like about it is the smg.

 

Oh, since we are "educating" each other I better give you this little tidbit of info. The M3 sucks. How's that? Are you educated now?

 

ur a homo. stig. everything i say i will back up. M3 sucks ***, So meet me at Buttonwillow and well see whos car sux ***, and who drives like suburban grandma. That would be great if u werent a pus. (i forgot ur from hicktown) i just hate seeing people like ur dumbself on these forums. N e 1 that thinks m3 sucks can basically suck mine, and obviously doesnt know what they are saying. In the GrandAm nothing can touch the m3, Porsche RSR cant keep up. Le Mans same thing, BMW was slaughtering competition with m3 w/ m5 engine. When it comes to racing the BMW is first place, when comparing it to porsche, ferrari, maserati........and the m3 is BMW car of pride, but according to you it sux. I race porsches, so i can honestly say i wish i could agree with you.

 

someone as dumb as yourself cannot educate me on anything that has to do with performance. u are a calabasas grandma, and my mom knows more about racing then you. im not gonna comeback to this thread so you might as well not reply to me.

 

ok, thanks, i appriciate the feedback. i was wondering if the speedshift on the 55 had a clutch, but sounds like its pretty much like a tiptronic transmission.

 

If you knew how to read (doubtful from your posts, but...), you might read the comparo of the CLK55 to the M3 some day....when Car & Driver ran the two cars on a short track (about 1.5 min. per lap as I recall), the M3 came in at less than *one* second faster, not the twelve you're claiming. When you consider that the M3 had six gears to the CLK's five *and* 10mm larger rear tires--both of which give it an enourmous advantage on a track--it is clear that the handling difference in terms of outright grip and cornering ability is negligible.

And further, what idiocy is 10%?? Would you care to quantify this rather odd claim? Ten percent in what? Slalom speed? No. Skidpad grip? CLK55's was higher in the Car & Driver comparo.

Get a grip, and go back to the ricer forums where people with your posting styles belong.

 

Dunno' hey. Sport Auto must have got a dud car again.

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

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

 

Cherry-picked "super M3" test you posted:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236

Slower M3 tests from the same site you deliberately did not post:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222

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

http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=145

And of course, you picked the slowest CLK55 test, now didn't you:
Slower CLK55 test you picked:

Another one you intentionally avoided:

Lol, busted being intentionally deceptive again.

Compare these with the CLK55 test results you posted and show me the 10%, jerk:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223

 

Say did you see the one test where even the M3 Cab was quicker than the CLK by a full second (on such a short lap)?

 

You mean, using your cherry-picked slower test for the CLK55? If we look at the non "super-M3's" tested and the better of the two CLK55s we see that they win by a margin of 0.6 seconds on a lap time of 1'17.6" for the M3, a margin of victory of 0.7%...nowhere near the idiot's claimed 10%.

This with 10mm wider rear tires and an extra gear.

Wow. Now *that* is enough to sway one's purchase decision--for a street car.

 

Say, I chose the fastest laps for each car.

But you're an engineer. What does 10mm wider tyres do? Why does an M3 with 19's lap slower than an M3 with 18"s.

Wider tyres doesn't necessarily mean more grip. The important factor is the front tyres 'cos traction isn't an issue on most tracks. I don't know many tracks where on goes to 1st gear.

And with regards the extra gear, only 3 gears are used on a track like Hockenheim.

 

Impro, what I must say is that the CLK55 is a stunning looking vehicle. My CEO has one (& an SL55 & Porsche 996 C4S) & it is a beauty. Pity its so slow Just kidding.

 

The m3 is clearly quicker by ~1 second per minute and a bit of track time assuming test conditions were similar!

but for the 10% claimed by Bestuhnin that also made me laugh, i never seen so much garbage. "55 handles atleast 10% worst then the m3" 10% worse in terms of speed or lateral g's. Pure speed has mainly to do with tyre grip and to lesser extent on C.O.G and suspension setup. There is a general consensus that the M3 handles better (better balance, feeling and control etc) but that is different to absolute cornering speed which is what gives good track times.

 

FINALLY some enthusiats on the MB FORUMS. Man I have been hanging out at the CLK500 section....dead.

On the M3 vs CLK55 debate, let me add my .02 cents since I currently drive a 2004 M3 Cab.

M3 is a great car, excellent handler, and a eye catcher. I LOVE SMG, best of both worlds. Negatives are that I don't especially love the interior. And that is one thing where the MB definately has the advantage.

If money's not an issue I Personally would of loved the CLK55. But $62k for a Cab with the performance the M3 offers is a Steal. Hell my sister-in-laws 05' CLK500 coupe was more expensive than our M.

Either way they are GREAT vehicles for what they do. AMG tons of raw power and torque, with a luxury touch. M3 - Edgey, Linear, Sporty, a cult classic. Can't go wrong either way.

 

You need some time to get accustomed to SMG. A ride around the block or a test drive does not do it justice. It's not as smooth as a regular auto (in auto mode) and it does shift a heck of a lot quicker (both reaction time to initiate the shift, and the shift-action itself) than an auto (or a regular manual).

 

Actually, one of the major American car mags--I'm certain it was either Car & Driver or Road & Track, but was unable to find it--had a tech article on this a few years back. They tested several tire/wheel combinations (16" thru 19" as I recall, though they may have gotten to 20), and found the following:

- the 17" handled better than the 16"
- the 18" handled fractionally worse than the 18"
- the 19" handled significantly worse than the 18" and 17"

Iow, they found that the advantage of stiffer sidewalls gained by going to the 17" was negated by going much larger--i.e., what most manufacturers are doing these days is dictated more by marketing than by handling.

When wheel diameters are the same and the tires are the same manufacturer/brand, they do.

??????? Lol, who was it that was lecturing me about physics? In a car being driven at 10/10, traction is an issue, period. If a car's rear tires lose traction coming out of a turn, it will oversteer, slowing its lap times. And 390 lb-ft through 245's will definitely tend to do this. So if the M3 can accelerate out of turns more quickly without oversteer, it would turn faster laps--and its wider tires *and* higher max torque peak of 4,900 rpm (to the CLK55's 3,000 rpm) would also help avoid oversteer, as would its M-lock LSD.

Unless the car is started out in second gear, this is incorrect. Max track speed E46 M3 attained on the Zeilgarade straight at Hockenheim was 184 km/h. This would have it in fourth gear.

 

Well there's too many factors to say 10mm WILL make a 10 second difference on laptime.

Well Hockenheim has no hairpins & you never go slow enough to warrant 1st gear. So let me ask you this. If you stomp the pedal in 2nd gear on a good surface like a racetrack will your CLK wheelspin? I'm not talking about the 1st-to 2nd gear shift. Assume you are already in 2nd gear.

Well on an M3 you can never lose traction in 2nd gear by stomping it, unless its wet. So on a racetrack you will never have traction problems in an M3 on most tracks.

Coming out of a tight turn, you can overtsteer you say. That is true. But most OEM's design their cars to understeer on the limit. The front wheels give up grip before the rears. That's why most RWD's have a staggered setup. Much easier to control understeer.

Now lets say the fronts start to slide & you understeer. Does it matter what's going on in the back? Once the fronts start to slide you have to lift & the excess grip at the rear doesn't matter. You coull have 165's or 305's it wouldn't matter. 10mm wider tyres defintely won't matter.

In fact wider rear tyres lead to more understeer.


Well, that's what I said. On Hockenheim you use 3 gears: 2nd, 3rd & 4th.

 

What about the fact that the two cars turned in very close lap times at the original nurburgring? I've seen various times for the E46 M3, the best time being a time of 8.29, but so far I have only found one for the 209 CLK55, which was an 8:33. I did read that the C55, a very similar car to the CLK55, ran an 8.30. Point being, that over a 13 mile long track, with really only one signifigant straight to speak of, one to three seconds isn't any gigantic gap. One to three seconds can easily be caught after even a relatively small driver error. Note that I only found (so far), just one lap time for the CLK55,whereas I found several times for E46 M3's, 8.29 being the quickest time. Of note, Dan Gurneys 1967 Eagle-Wessalake F1 car turned laps in the 8.15 range, and with both the M3's and CLK55's to be able to lap within 15 seconds of an even a 1967 F1 car is truly amazing...

Best regards,
Matt

 

Nor can you say it WON'T. I didn't provide any times, but it will certainly make *A* difference, though, because the friction coefficient of a tire is kinda, sorta related to its width, right?

I can speak from personal experience here: I did have the rear end step out around a corner in *third* one time--and that's with 265's, on a high-speed constant-radius corner. Perhaps you do your driving at the limit with traction control on?

Dude...I don't know what kind of driving you do, but at 10/10, you most certainly can get the rear end to step out. I've been in an M3 driven hard, and this is a ridiculous statement. When EVO tested the car in comparison to the 911, Tuscan, RS4 et al, they commented at length about its oversteering on track. I guess their test drivers just don't know how to drive.

Actually, most cars do not have staggered setup. Ultra high performance cars do, but not "most RWDs". Most RWDs have the same size F/R, just like AWD. BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, the exotics, and the Corvette, i.e. high performance cars which are the exceptions rather than the rule.

And what you seem to be forgetting is that I am talking not about the corner ENTRY, but the corner EXIT, under the application of power.

Here is a page giving tips to reduce oversteer and understeer. One of the tips for reducing oversteer is "install wider rear tires". Gee, looks like Roger Kraus Racing disagrees with you. Write them a nasty letter.

You might also want to read the section entitled "Exit Speed" from pp 26-29 in the book "Going Faster!" from Skip Barber Racing School and send them a nasty letter as well.

How the chassis is setup from the factory is *irrelavent* when there is insufficient rear grip to maintain surface adhesion upon the application of power. When you are driving a car in a 10/10 situation and the inside tire is making only light contact with the road, it is easier to overpower it, and the smaller the contact patch, the higher likelihood of this happening.

Again, you are referring to steady-state cornering, not the corner exit where full power application occurs. The M3's higher level of rear grip allows one to get on the throttle a bit sooner.

No, you said that one only uses three gears on Hockenheim, which is false: if you'd bothered to read my last post, I said "unless one starts out in second gear". Meaning that unless one starts out in second gear, one will be using the following gears: first, second, third, and fourth. Do you often start races in first gear? Does anyone?

And finally, M&M, I'm really not inclined to get into another meaningless debate with you about handling dynamics, nor do I care to engage in yet another pissing contest with you about M3's vs CLK55's, which given the amount of time you waste trolling here and in other forums seems to be an activity you prefer to actually *driving* your car.

The bottom line is this: if myself or any other CLK55 owner on this forum had wanted an M3, we could have gotten one, along with a second car, in lieu of the CLK55. Or, if track numbers were paramount, we could have spent a bit more and gotten a 996, a far better track car than the M3, or spent far less and gotten a Corvette Z06, which would slaughter any car being discussed here on any given track. But clearly track numbers aren't the highest priority for any of us, including you. And so we did not purchase an M3, and your infantile attempts to "convert" and/or annoy us are simply so much mental masturbation, akin to trying to convince one that blondes are "better" than brunettes or that the religion of your choice is the "one true religion".

The lap times shown in this thread show that when both cars are stock, an M3 can pull a lap time less than 1% faster than a CLK55, which is meaningless in everyday driving or even spirited weekend driving, unless one is a maniac in need of having his license revoked.

Ergo, the ridiculous "10%" claim has been slain and buried. So my work here is finished.

 

Oh thank the maker. That might be the smartest thing this guy has done his whole life.
Praise Jesus!!!

 

u r one of the dumbest kids on this forum. all that on the net is bs. if u put the numbers to gether they dont add up.

Acceleration/Braking
0 - 200 - 0 Km/h m3 23,2 s clk 25,5 s (from ur last link)

thats the difference withought the m3s handling.

I knowyou have never driven anything on the track before, based on what you have been saying you just read things on the net. Ive taken the M3 to the track many times. Im from La, if anyone knows were buttonwillow is. Laps are around 2mins up depending on configuration. The clk 55 would not be within a couple seconds a lap like you guys are claiming. It is going to get killed on the braking. Just the esses would be over a sec faster in the M. Larger rear tires on an M3 wont do nothing but give you understeer, Im surprised MM had to school you on that part. u cant say u have more grip wen ur fronts not turning and your flying off the track. Ok. The times on that website are for the w208 clk 55. A second slower. ahhahaha. yea right. I have a kleeman 430 that will dust a stock 55. But it cant keep up with the M3 ever. I would enjoy haveing some friendly runs with anyone from the LA area. I aint anti benz. Benz people need to learn how to respect M3s, as they are the pinnacle of BMW engineering.

 

your a crazy kid. ill dust the 55 by a couple seconds a lap in my w208 sc'd 430. The M3 is atleast 10 sec faster then my 430, on a the 2 min track. Stop tryin to make your self feel good about your car, and The porshe 996 is not a better track car then an m3. M3's potential is also much faster then a 996.
Whoever drove the M3 on the track with oversteer, must have had flared fenders and 305;s in the front wit his 275's in the rear.

I hate breaking down this stuff to dumb kids like u.

 

Because the track numbers you're laughing at were generated at both of those tracks in both of those cars by Horst von Saurma, a Professional who performs these tests for Auto Motor und Sport magazine. You might be interested to know that von Saurma held for some time the lap record at the 'ring in a production car.

Do you hold any records at any track, anywhere? I doubt it.

Have you ever raced professionally? I doubt it.

And the fact remains that even with the track temperature about 12 degrees celsius colder, in the CLK55 Mr. von Saurma was not one second, but 0.6 seconds slower in the CLK55 around Hockenheim, which is about the same length as your Buttonwillow. And running the CLK at seven degrees celsius put it at a HUGE disadvantage to the M3's twenty degree celsius track temperature, as a supremely competent track star like yourself must surely know. It is a fact of physics that tires stiffen in colder temperatures, which is detrimental to their grip. This will affect braking times and distances.

Further, if you weren't so ignorant, you would know that when Car & Driver tested the two cars *AT* Buttonwillow, the lap times they got in the CLK55 were again less than one second apart from the M3.

You can write anecdotes about how with other drivers one car is slower or faster than the other, but I was under this silly impression that the *driver* of a car has, oh, just a teensy little effect upon the time a car can achieve around a track. For example, I would wager that Michael Schumacher could turn a faster time in a Ford pickup truck than you could in your CLK430. Does that make the Ford a better track car?

To get a true measure of both cars' capabilities, they should be tested by the same driver, at the same track, on the same day. In this case, we have two out of three: tracks and driver. The date was different, and dramatically lower track temps give the M3 an advantage, and yet still, the times were within fractions of a percent of another, nothing close to the idiotic ten percent you're claiming. AND when Car & Driver did a direct head to head comparison of the two cars at the same track, the time was, again, less than one second.

Chew on that, troll-boy.

This seems like nothing more than sour grapes because you couldn't swing a CLK55 to me, or an M3, which you seem to like more than your own car.