BMW smg vs. CLK 55 auto
01-07-2005, 11:32 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
'07 Carrera S, '31 A 5W hot rod, 4Runner. Sold CLK55
Originally Posted by Improviz
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.
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.
01-07-2005, 11:43 AM
#52
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG! I cannot believe I caught our man Improviz cherry picking! Wow! Must be my lucky day.
Impro man, I bet you've never been on a track. 'COs your tyres warm up pretty quick if you driving flat out, accelerating, braking & cornering. Gets lots of heat in them. Now for an F1 car there is an ideal ttrack emp. They have slicks that have an operating temp & they can handle lots of heat.
But for road cars on road tyres, the cooler the air temp the better up to a point. Your tyres are going to be nowhere near the same temp as the ambient air. And that is why that CLK was quicker than al the other CLK's (including the newer ones) they tested as with the cooler temp it made up time with power.
Now back to the cherry-picking. You chose this CLK55 tested in the coldest possible conditions that did Hockenheim in 1:18.2.
I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking so lets take the 3 fastest (no not the 3 slowest) laps of each car:
M3:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236
1:16.3 Slalom 66.4 km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=175
1:17.2 Slalom 67.7 km/h (M3 Cabrio)
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222
1:17.6 Slalom 67.8 km/h
CLK55:
http://www.track-challenge.com/singl...b_e.asp?Car=30
1:18.2
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223
1:18.6 Slalom 64.3 km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=38
1:19.1 Slalom 63.4 km/h
Isn't it better to compare the averages than to compare the slowest M3 time to the fastest CLK55 time?
Impro man, I bet you've never been on a track. 'COs your tyres warm up pretty quick if you driving flat out, accelerating, braking & cornering. Gets lots of heat in them. Now for an F1 car there is an ideal ttrack emp. They have slicks that have an operating temp & they can handle lots of heat.
But for road cars on road tyres, the cooler the air temp the better up to a point. Your tyres are going to be nowhere near the same temp as the ambient air. And that is why that CLK was quicker than al the other CLK's (including the newer ones) they tested as with the cooler temp it made up time with power.
Now back to the cherry-picking. You chose this CLK55 tested in the coldest possible conditions that did Hockenheim in 1:18.2.
I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking so lets take the 3 fastest (no not the 3 slowest) laps of each car:
M3:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236
1:16.3 Slalom 66.4 km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=175
1:17.2 Slalom 67.7 km/h (M3 Cabrio)
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222
1:17.6 Slalom 67.8 km/h
CLK55:
http://www.track-challenge.com/singl...b_e.asp?Car=30
1:18.2
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=223
1:18.6 Slalom 64.3 km/h
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=38
1:19.1 Slalom 63.4 km/h
Isn't it better to compare the averages than to compare the slowest M3 time to the fastest CLK55 time?
01-07-2005, 01:31 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
M&M, I cherry picked nothing
Track challenge.com does not allow one to select which test is chosen for the "comparison" test. I simply plugged in the two cars and the results were provided. I seriously doubt that you are this ignorant, know this fully well, and are deliberately lying to provoke another flamefest, as you seem to live for doing...
However, one *can* choose which tests one posts from the "tracktest" portion of the site, as you clearly did; more on that in a moment, when we shall also see which M3's time is the most representative, the one you keep trying to cherry pick, or the one the E46-owning webmaster of the site selected...
Further, your claim that track temperature does not affect lap times is laughable on its face. Read "Going Faster" from Skip Barber Racing School for explanations.
As to cherry picking, I believe that one who wants to do the investigating can verify that out of the seven M3 tests posted on the site, you chose the fastest three, then deceitfully claimed that this was in the interest of "fairness", when there are only three total CLK55 tests to pick from, one of which is a completely different model from the other two. What a laugh.
So, let's just dispense with your cherry-picking altogether, and list all E46 M3 tests posted on Track-challenge.com's tracktest portion, in order of appearance (split into coupes and cabs) shall we?
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.6"; slalom: 67.8
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.6"; slalom: 66.4:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=245
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'16.3"; slalom: 66.4:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236
E46 M3 SMG coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.8"; slalom: 63.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=145
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'18.4"; slalom: 64.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=163
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'19.4" slalom: 65.0:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=258
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'17.2" slalom: 67.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=157
So, who is cherry-picking, M&M? Out of seven possible tests, you chose the
three fastest, going so far as to choose a Cabriolet when we are discussing
coupes because its time and slalom were faster than three of the four coupes tested. Three out of the four coupes tested were within 0.2 of each other, and two were tied, but which one do you pick? The one which miraculously turned in accleration numbers and track numbers dramatically ahead of the others. All in the name of fairness, I suppose.
Lol, you funny!!
The point that there is nothing approaching a 10% difference in these two cars' lap times, OR slalom numbers, OR any other comparison stands. Stop wasting our time.
However, one *can* choose which tests one posts from the "tracktest" portion of the site, as you clearly did; more on that in a moment, when we shall also see which M3's time is the most representative, the one you keep trying to cherry pick, or the one the E46-owning webmaster of the site selected...
Further, your claim that track temperature does not affect lap times is laughable on its face. Read "Going Faster" from Skip Barber Racing School for explanations.
As to cherry picking, I believe that one who wants to do the investigating can verify that out of the seven M3 tests posted on the site, you chose the fastest three, then deceitfully claimed that this was in the interest of "fairness", when there are only three total CLK55 tests to pick from, one of which is a completely different model from the other two. What a laugh.
So, let's just dispense with your cherry-picking altogether, and list all E46 M3 tests posted on Track-challenge.com's tracktest portion, in order of appearance (split into coupes and cabs) shall we?
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.6"; slalom: 67.8
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.6"; slalom: 66.4:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=245
E46 M3 coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'16.3"; slalom: 66.4:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236
E46 M3 SMG coupe: Hockehheim time: 1'17.8"; slalom: 63.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=145
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'18.4"; slalom: 64.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=163
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'19.4" slalom: 65.0:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=258
E46 M3 Cabrio: Hockehheim time: 1'17.2" slalom: 67.7:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=157
So, who is cherry-picking, M&M? Out of seven possible tests, you chose the
three fastest, going so far as to choose a Cabriolet when we are discussing
coupes because its time and slalom were faster than three of the four coupes tested. Three out of the four coupes tested were within 0.2 of each other, and two were tied, but which one do you pick? The one which miraculously turned in accleration numbers and track numbers dramatically ahead of the others. All in the name of fairness, I suppose.
Lol, you funny!!
The point that there is nothing approaching a 10% difference in these two cars' lap times, OR slalom numbers, OR any other comparison stands. Stop wasting our time.
Last edited by Improviz; 01-07-2005 at 01:44 PM.
01-07-2005, 01:51 PM
#54
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I chose the 3 fastest tests. What's wrong with that. Why don't you average them all then (incuding the CLK55 that did 1:20). Surely an average is a better indicator then.
And I did't say temp doesn't improve laptimes. I said LOWER temps do, not higher ones. Ask any racing driver. The killer on the track in everything from brakes to engine to tyres (yes when tyres get too hot they lose grip) is HEAT. Everyone knows that but you. Obviously a car tested in cooler temps wil go faster.
(BTW, remember those timeslips you said I found in the trash? I found a whole bunch more. Here's a thread from me to you: https://mbworld.org/forums/off-topic/94106-fao-improviz.html)
And I did't say temp doesn't improve laptimes. I said LOWER temps do, not higher ones. Ask any racing driver. The killer on the track in everything from brakes to engine to tyres (yes when tyres get too hot they lose grip) is HEAT. Everyone knows that but you. Obviously a car tested in cooler temps wil go faster.
(BTW, remember those timeslips you said I found in the trash? I found a whole bunch more. Here's a thread from me to you: https://mbworld.org/forums/off-topic/94106-fao-improviz.html)
Last edited by M&M; 01-07-2005 at 03:58 PM.
01-07-2005, 01:52 PM
#55
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Improviz
Three out of the four coupes tested were within 0.2 of each other, and two were tied, but which one do you pick? The one which miraculously turned in accleration numbers and track numbers dramatically ahead of the others. All in the name of fairness, I suppose.
.
.
01-07-2005, 04:38 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
M&M, for an "engineer" you could sure use some brushing up on math.
There are three CLK55 posted at track-challenge.com, all of which you posted. Two of them were for the W208, which is what I own, and one for the W209, which is heavier. Averaging out the three *or* the two will not give the 1:20 average you are maintaining, nor did any of the three get a lap time of 1:20 as you're claiming...yet another M&M lie for the bookmarks.
You see, the average is the sum over the number of times. There were three times.
Average for W208 CLK55's = (78.2 seconds + 78.6 seconds)/2 = 78.4 seconds = 1'18.4"
Average for all three CLK55's = (78.2 seconds + 78.6 seconds + 79.1 seconds)/3 = 1'18.6"
Per your request, here is the average for all M3's: 1'17.8"
End of math lesson.
And your reading comprehension seems to be suffering again: I told you that I don't intend to debate you endlessly about this matter, because this seems to be what you want, and I'm more and more disinclined to keep feeding your bizarre compulsion to troll other brands' forums, at least not at any length...
So I won't. Case closed.
You see, the average is the sum over the number of times. There were three times.
Average for W208 CLK55's = (78.2 seconds + 78.6 seconds)/2 = 78.4 seconds = 1'18.4"
Average for all three CLK55's = (78.2 seconds + 78.6 seconds + 79.1 seconds)/3 = 1'18.6"
Per your request, here is the average for all M3's: 1'17.8"
End of math lesson.
And your reading comprehension seems to be suffering again: I told you that I don't intend to debate you endlessly about this matter, because this seems to be what you want, and I'm more and more disinclined to keep feeding your bizarre compulsion to troll other brands' forums, at least not at any length...
So I won't. Case closed.
01-07-2005, 04:48 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
I failed math... 
j/k
So, basically....the CLK55 was LESS THAN one second behind the M3? Gotcha
Where is this "M3 is 10%" better comparison I keep reading about?
j/k
So, basically....the CLK55 was LESS THAN one second behind the M3? Gotcha
Where is this "M3 is 10%" better comparison I keep reading about?
01-07-2005, 04:50 PM
#58
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the 1:20.3 lap bud, from a CLK55 Cab:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=259
I get an avg for the M3's of 77.3 vs 78.6 for the CLK's.
If you want to use the M3 cabs, then you have to add the CLK cab as well.
I think 1.3 seconds is a significant gap over a lap of 1:17.
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=259
I get an avg for the M3's of 77.3 vs 78.6 for the CLK's.
If you want to use the M3 cabs, then you have to add the CLK cab as well.
I think 1.3 seconds is a significant gap over a lap of 1:17.
01-07-2005, 07:43 PM
#59
Senior Member
That's not entirely correct...
Originally Posted by M&M
...And I did't say temp doesn't improve laptimes. I said LOWER temps do, not higher ones. Ask any racing driver. The killer on the track in everything from brakes to engine to tyres (yes when tyres get too hot they lose grip) is HEAT. Everyone knows that but you. Obviously a car tested in cooler temps wil go faster...
Regardless, I believe that the point about the two cars at least being comparable is well proven at this point. No one here ever disputed that the M3 would turn faster lap times, in as much that the two would be relatively close. Yes, a second is a long time in regards to lap times, but that same second is very insignifigant in regards to comparing the performance of two cars on the street. A single second can easily be made up or lost by surface conditions, errors by either driver, and most signifigantly, driver ability.
I swear some people literally make it sound like we're comparing a Ferrari Enzo to a tour bus...
Best regards,
Matt
01-07-2005, 07:58 PM
#60
Senior Member
One other quick point...
Using the same web-site, I saw that the E46 M3 has turned in an 8.22 at the Neurburgring, compared to an 8.29 by a W208 CLK55, which is a bigger difference than I had originally reported...
Having said that though, it is my understanding that despite a small increase in weight, the W209 CLK55's are supposedly turning in slightly faster lap times than the older W208 (More power, shorter gearing, revised chassis and suspension), so while I can't cite any specific evidence, I believe that the W209 CLK55 is even closer in times.
Note the link below, which shows that the current C55, a car that is very, very similar to the W209 CLK55, turned an indentical 8.22 time as the E46 M3...
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...b_e.asp?Car=30
Even using the 8.29 time posted by the W208 CLK55, that's only a 1.3% increase. I think that it's very fair to say that these two cars are at least comparable in performance, even if they're not exactly even...
Best regards,
Matt
Having said that though, it is my understanding that despite a small increase in weight, the W209 CLK55's are supposedly turning in slightly faster lap times than the older W208 (More power, shorter gearing, revised chassis and suspension), so while I can't cite any specific evidence, I believe that the W209 CLK55 is even closer in times.
Note the link below, which shows that the current C55, a car that is very, very similar to the W209 CLK55, turned an indentical 8.22 time as the E46 M3...
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...b_e.asp?Car=30
Even using the 8.29 time posted by the W208 CLK55, that's only a 1.3% increase. I think that it's very fair to say that these two cars are at least comparable in performance, even if they're not exactly even...
Best regards,
Matt
01-08-2005, 12:45 AM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
You are such a frigging weasel.
Originally Posted by M&M
If you want to use the M3 cabs, then you have to add the CLK cab as well.
Do you have an honest bone in your body?
01-08-2005, 06:32 AM
#62
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez, what's with the name calling? If you didn't use the M3 cabs then your math doesn't add up. Average of all M3 coupe's is 1.3 sec faster than avg of all CLK55's. The difference isn't as marked as some people on this thread are saying nor is it as insignificant as some others say.
01-08-2005, 12:15 PM
#63
Super Member
Originally Posted by M&M
Geez, what's with the name calling? If you didn't use the M3 cabs then your math doesn't add up. Average of all M3 coupe's is 1.3 sec faster than avg of all CLK55's. The difference isn't as marked as some people on this thread are saying nor is it as insignificant as some others say.
I've been scanning over your posts here and there and wonder why you continually go on an on about how your car is faster than another.. Honestly, myself as well as many other guys on the board could care less... If I wanted to beat M3s, I would have bought a C6 Vette or Porsche 997. I got the C55 because it's fast, stylish, practical, and luxurious... Not because it could beat an M3 to the next traffic light.. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but probably it will be close... It doesn't matter, just enjoy your sweet ride..
Eric...
01-08-2005, 12:46 PM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
It is unfortunate that our moderators do not agressively handle trolls.
Look at how they handled this career troll over at Bimmerforums when his multi-year history of trolling was provided to them:
A warning:
Which was followed by:
One...
...two...
....three....
.....four....
....five posts killed....
And that was in a ****BMW**** forum!!! Wouldn't it be nice if our mods handled trolls in the same manner? Write them and let them know; I have!
A warning:
Originally Posted by Silverstreak
M&M, it would seem your past has followed you here. If you cannot deal with that in a manner that falls within our guideline for conduct, your stay here will be extremely brief.
Meaning, folks who stir up trouble here, or bring trouble with them, or are the source of the trouble (ie- where there's smoke there's fire...) will be dealt with accordingly...
Consider yourself duly and officially warned.
Meaning, folks who stir up trouble here, or bring trouble with them, or are the source of the trouble (ie- where there's smoke there's fire...) will be dealt with accordingly...
Consider yourself duly and officially warned.
One...
...two...
....three....
.....four....
....five posts killed....
And that was in a ****BMW**** forum!!! Wouldn't it be nice if our mods handled trolls in the same manner? Write them and let them know; I have!
Last edited by Improviz; 01-08-2005 at 01:06 PM.
01-08-2005, 12:55 PM
#67
Super Member
Originally Posted by M&M
Well Ekaru, on this particular thread I'm saying that the M3 handles reasonable better than the CLK55. Not 10% better, mind you, but definitely better.
Then replace "faster than" with "handles better than" in my post... Well of course it handles better, it's a BMW.. As you know, BMW focuses on chassis dynamics and suspension geometry of perfectly balanced cars. There may be cars that hold the road better than a BMW, but nothing handles quite like them. This I understand and accept.. If I wanted something to go 10/10ths in around a canyon road I would have gotten an M3, but my C55 handles nearly as well and is more practical so I bought it... Motorsport, AMG, and Audisport cars exist just fine in their niches because they appeal to different buyers. My point is that I simply don't care which is quicker or which handles better, I drove both the M3 and C55 and the C55 was more me...
Eric...
01-10-2005, 07:41 AM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Bestuhnin
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.
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.
You said you were not coming back to this thread...yet you replied twice.
You are a big fat liar. Therefore my statements must be true and yours false.
I rest my case your honor.
07-22-2005, 12:39 AM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: back in Jersey
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
360 Spider
I am bored tonight so I am replying to this old thread:
First off, Improviz you da man, I love how vehemently you defend the CLK55, I hope you keep it for a long time.
Second, I just wanted to let the all the roundel fans out there know the new diet I put my car on last week:
She starts the day right with a hearty meal, for breakfast she eats an E46 M3 (she likes Phoenix yellow ones which I have trouble finding for her); for lunch I feed her Porsche 996s/non turbos (turbos give her gas
); and for dinner she loves E39 M5's, especially those that say "DINAN" on the back . Thanks for keeping her fit & trim.
I worked for BMWNA for 2 years and there is no comparison, an M car is a poor man's ///AMG.
First off, Improviz you da man, I love how vehemently you defend the CLK55, I hope you keep it for a long time.
Second, I just wanted to let the all the roundel fans out there know the new diet I put my car on last week:
She starts the day right with a hearty meal, for breakfast she eats an E46 M3 (she likes Phoenix yellow ones which I have trouble finding for her); for lunch I feed her Porsche 996s/non turbos (turbos give her gas
); and for dinner she loves E39 M5's, especially those that say "DINAN" on the back . Thanks for keeping her fit & trim.I worked for BMWNA for 2 years and there is no comparison, an M car is a poor man's ///AMG.
07-22-2005, 04:04 PM
#71
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No longer car shopping...
Originally Posted by M&M
Well then I'm happy for you. At no point have I ever said that the M3 is a better car.
Actually - I might have spotted M&M's problems. Seems hecome from the other "hemisphere". Maybe there M5'sARE faster on the other side of the world? Yea, and maybe the moon really IS made of cheese...
Last edited by ndabunka; 07-22-2005 at 04:06 PM.
07-22-2005, 05:12 PM
#72
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 C55, BMWX 3.0, Subaru Forester (Shaggin Wagon)
Don't believe that the CLK55 outperforms the M3 SMG? Fine. I'll take my C55 against an M3. Come on. Pull the stock specs. Here's a couple.... >500 lbs. curb weight + >drag coefficient.
Now as far as the C55 vs. the M3....HP-333 vs. 362 .33cd vs..27cd. 0-60-4.8 vs. 4.9
M3 owners need to get over themselves.
When the new M3 comes out, then we'll talk because as far as I am concerned it's all about style. Many, many more M3's than CLK55's and C55's. Even if you added both 55's together along with the SLK55 we'd be outnumbered.
M3 owners get over yourselves.
Now as far as the C55 vs. the M3....HP-333 vs. 362 .33cd vs..27cd. 0-60-4.8 vs. 4.9
M3 owners need to get over themselves.
When the new M3 comes out, then we'll talk because as far as I am concerned it's all about style. Many, many more M3's than CLK55's and C55's. Even if you added both 55's together along with the SLK55 we'd be outnumbered.
M3 owners get over yourselves.
07-22-2005, 05:36 PM
#73
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'03 M5
Originally Posted by ///CLKfiftyfive
I worked for BMWNA for 2 years and there is no comparison, an M car is a poor man's ///AMG.
Regardless of these vehicles being race derived, the core philosophy of the Manufactuers is different. BMW is about performance (the level of achievement is debatable). MB's focus is about luxury.
BMW wants to push exterior designs, while MB takes small evolutionary changes, that don't ruffle the core owner base. You don't notice an CLK55 until it blows your doors off. With the M3 the side grills, hood, and wheels give it away, and the 5 & 7 series are way out there from a design standpoint.
BMW is about feeling the road, and MB is about absorbing the road and feeling the luxury.
Neither is the other's poor man version, they are two options to the pursuit of fun!
And yes... I bought an M5 over a CLK, and with every manual shift I make I'm happy with my decision.
07-22-2005, 05:55 PM
#75
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: No specific place
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by TX4Runner
Now I think that's going a little far... The price between the M3 and C55/Clk55 isn't that great, and the new M5 will probably cost more than the E55.
Regardless of these vehicles being race derived, the core philosophy of the Manufactuers is different. BMW is about performance (the level of achievement is debatable). MB's focus is about luxury.
BMW wants to push exterior designs, while MB takes small evolutionary changes, that don't ruffle the core owner base. You don't notice an CLK55 until it blows your doors off. With the M3 the side grills, hood, and wheels give it away, and the 5 & 7 series are way out there from a design standpoint.
BMW is about feeling the road, and MB is about absorbing the road and feeling the luxury.
Neither is the other's poor man version, they are two options to the pursuit of fun!
And yes... I bought an M5 over a CLK, and with every manual shift I make I'm happy with my decision.
Regardless of these vehicles being race derived, the core philosophy of the Manufactuers is different. BMW is about performance (the level of achievement is debatable). MB's focus is about luxury.
BMW wants to push exterior designs, while MB takes small evolutionary changes, that don't ruffle the core owner base. You don't notice an CLK55 until it blows your doors off. With the M3 the side grills, hood, and wheels give it away, and the 5 & 7 series are way out there from a design standpoint.
BMW is about feeling the road, and MB is about absorbing the road and feeling the luxury.
Neither is the other's poor man version, they are two options to the pursuit of fun!
And yes... I bought an M5 over a CLK, and with every manual shift I make I'm happy with my decision.
old M5 is out dated... i thought you bought the new .... I would take a Maserati Quattroporte .. if i ever needed a sport sedan
