Hey guys, got a quick one for you. I have been lurking around trying to decide between the M3 and a CLK. I have driven the 03 500 and the M with smg. I have not driven the CLK 55.

Everything about the 55 tells me that i would love it but i was wondering if the transmission was as impressive as the smg on the M. anyone here with experience driving both. as you are probably aware it is a little difficult finding a 55 to test drive.

one more thing. besides the beefier brakes and suspension along with the differences in the interior what is different on the 03 55 over the 500. am i correct in saying that the engine is a 5.5 liter and it is NOT supercharged?

Thanks a million.

 

I looked at all of those ( M3, 500 and 55 ) and I took the 55 hands down with the 500 a close second. I didn't drive the M3 - they wouldn't let me unless I was serious - but I didn't need too after noting the following differences between the M3 and the 500/55
1. Rearside airbags in the MB. Not an option in the BMW.
2. The interior of the MB was superior. The M3 seemed like a lot of plastic.
3. For a cab - the top and operation of the top is superior on the MB.
4. From my research, most say the M3 is a blast to ride - but maybe not adequate for everyday use. I read a ton of horror stories on the dependability of the M3, and that the car is due for major redesign for 2006. Who cares if you get free 4 yr / 50k service if you car is consistantly in the shop.
5. The MB dealerships i use are first class. The BMW dealerships did not feel that way - they felt like a more typical car dealership.

Between the 500 and the 55 ( besides the price ) - I found the 500 to be torquey handle/perform well. The 55 is just exhilarating to take it even futher than the 500. I feel that I could throw anything at my AMG - it was built to be driven hard.

 

hey thanks, how is the gear box on your AMG? is it kind of "tiptronic like?" if you had drive an SMG M then i think you would know what im kindof asking. im sorry to be so vague. the M has selectable transmissions modes that determine the speed of up and downshifts. it can also be drive in strickly auto alone if you dont want to screw with shifting. its kindof like an auto and a clutchless six speed all in one. i loved the gear box on the M but im liking everything else about the 55. too bad i cant find one close by to drive.

im with you on everything else though. hopefully im not being too vague here on what im asking. thanks!

 

I was able to drive a friends car with SMG - all I have to say is that the M3 is a great car if you want more of a sports car than a luxury coupe.

The AMG Speedshift is good - but its not the SMG. The SMG is a much quicker - closer to manual setup and is very nice. The biggest downside is that its only nice when you're driving hard - and when just driving around, SMG can get really annoying. Its abrupt and difficult to drive smoothly, even on the most comfortable setting or in auto.

I would get the AMG if possible - but thats me.

 

if ur 20 get an m3, if ur 40 get the 55

 

Man,, I am only 23 not 40!!!!

 

Mercedes appeals to both the young & old crowds. I'm 23, I drive a 4-door sedan for pete's sake! Well, not just any 4-door sedan though...

I've never driven the 55, but I've owned both a W208 320 and W209 320 (along with a test drive of a 500). I must say, these are great cars. No matter your age, if you want a comfortable, classy, fast car, the 55 is for you. If you prefer a sporty ride and aren't worried about comfort so much, get the M3.

 

LOL well said, i agree - from what i've seen on the road and the demographics behind the M3 buyer. For me the AMG all the way. I've also heard about the SMG can be quirky and there is a learning curve to it. I read somewhere that the M3 is like a rollercoaster ride - thrilling - but not the most comfortable for everyday use. The CLK55 is first class and watch-out its wicked quick.

 

If you want an M3 wait another year and gtet the 400 HP V8 beast coming out. Its gonna be a really nice market soon, with America getting an RS4 in 2007, who knows what ungodly engine AMG will put into the C Class and hopefully BMW will give us a CSL for america in the new M3.

 

well...I would not mention SMG, Speedshift as many artiicles being discussed them. If you get used cars for sake of being an owner, it does not matter which car you get. You can get the M3 for 2005 and replace the M3 with the CLK55 in 2006. M3 will be replaced by by 4.4 litre 380hp M4 by end 2006, so you can get the M4 for 2007. This way, you will have a chance to try all best models. Besides, the best manual shift gearbox should be the SMG III on the new M5. That might be on the M4 by then.

 

get the BENZ (55) all the way you cant compare it to the m3...

 

you guys are very helpful. i have had a C5 and a G35 coupe. i am currently an SUV driver.

the 55 would be purely for the weekend and nice days only. about the only thing i like about the M is the SMG. i have no idea how much those monkeys at BMW are going to charge for the new M3. if the M5 is any judge, it will be higher then the current. im kindof greedy in that im not going to pay for new. im perfectly fine with an 03 55 that has already taken a slight hit on depreciation. bottom line, i dont want to pay 70k for a weekend car.

i need to find one to drive but the 55 is winning out so far.
thanks a ton!

 

u cant compare the cars, its almost like comparing a modena, to continental gt.

 

I have promised Eagle.Lex a more detailed comparison, and that's still coming, but I have to make a brief comment in the interim. Before I bought my 03 CLK55, I had an 02 M3 SMG (Cloth, HK, Monnroof, 18"s), and I have driven both cars pretty aggressively. In short, I wil say that the M3 is the better handling car, and is more track oriented, but it doesn't have as big of an advantage as most people seem to think. Driven on the street, at least around where I live anyway, both cars handle well enough. For an M3 driver to "beat" a CLK55 on the street, he's going to have to extract every bit of that handling advantage in order to get ahead, and that would be driving at a level that's way too fast for the street. For those that are assuming that I drive like a Grandma, I recently managed to provoke a healthy amount of power oversteer, ESP light flashing like mad, at 135 mph, so I'm not driving "slow" by any stretch of the imagination. While this is far from scientific, I would judge, based on my experience, that the 55 handles about 85-90% as well as the M3. Yes the M3 does handle better, but to say that these two cars can't even be compared is simply ludicrous. More scientifically, both cars posted nearly identical lap times at the Nurburgring, both being in the 1 minute, 33 second range...

My guess is that most people who are so sure of the M3's advantages are reading too much into what he automotive press writes, forgetting that these journalists are almost always "relatively speaking", and are nit-picking. There was an article in Road & Track called "Bahn Burners", or maybe "Autobahn Burners", where they compared the older W208 CLK55 against the 01 M3, and they wrote about how amazingly similar these cars performed. I specifically recall reading about how they would drive the 55, proclaim it to be the winner, then change their mind after driving the M3, only to change it back again after driving the 55 a second time and so forth. The end results were a split decision, with the M3 being the ultimate winner, but the point is that the differences were incredibly small...

I think other critics of the 55 in the "CLK55 vs. M3" debate have either never driven a CLK55, or only drove one for a short time. I have to admit that I was initially disappointed in the handling of my CLK55, until I realized that it required a different driving style. The CLK55 requires a very throttle heavy driving style, and having grown up with front drivers, I just wasn't used to it...

So these two cars are really very comparable in performance. From an engine performance view point, both cars once again are very similar. From a dead stop up to 80mph, both cars are so similar that either car can beat the other on any given day, depending on conditions. The 55 obviously has more horsepower and torque, but the M3 has its very excellent "M-lock" electronically controlled variable differential, and between that, slightly lower weight, sharper throttle response, and shorter (Read numerically higher) gearing, the M3 makes up that defecit.

Once you're rolling, and from a much more common highway "roll-on" encounter, the 55 has the advantage, which becomes more apparent when speeds rise higher and higher...

If anyone thinks that his M3 enjoys a signifigant handling advantage is going to be dissapointed. Any CLK55 driver who thinks that he has any signifigant power advantage is going to be dissapointed...

Both cars are awesome, and you can't go wrong with either car, but as I've mentioned, a more detailed comparo is coming up soon...



Best regards,
Matt

 

Nice write up, Matt

Just for inquiring minds, why did you sell the M3 and get the CLK?

 

what you said about driving the cars on the street is true. My point is the 55 handles atleast 10% worst then the m3. giving 10% slower lap times based on handling. so if i get a 2 minut lap in my m3 ull get around 212. That is a huge difference. Not comparable. 12 seconds a lap faster isnt comparable. n e way i like benzs a little, i have a supercharged clk 430 that all hooked up. U just cant compare an freakin m3 to a couch with an engine. once u drive an m3 fast u get in the clk and u feel like your driving a fast minivan. You 55s catch me in the canyon u could have 800hp u wont keep up. M3 is really a drivers car. Clk 55 in no way is a driverscar, its a suburban mom car. Sorry if i offended anyone, just dont get me wrong i like the 55 id drive ir around, but for different reasons then the m3, thats why i dont understand how u guys compare them.

 

only way 55 can post laptimes like m3, is on an oval with schumacher drivin it.

 

i was NOT trying to stir an arguement here. i was only looking for people's feedback on the speedshift vs. the smg. besides, who cares which one is faster?? if i wanted fast i would save a bunch of money and buy a subaru.

 

A suburban mom car? And then you don't want to offend anyone.
You sir may kiss my suburban @ss.
Thats all.

 

it is suburban mom car. i never said a suburban mom car cant be nice. You shouldnt get mad especially if u have 1, unless u bought it by accident.

 

The only thing I did by accident was read your posts. I guess we just have a difference of opinion on the CLK55. I think the CLK55 is a nice sports car, you don't. My opinion is right, yours is wrong.
Case closed.
Thanks for bringing nothing to the table.

 

I think the m3 is teenie-weenie anime car. no offense.

 

maybe your keyboard is broken, and I misunderstood you - sorry if so

 

im not tellin u my opinion, im educating you. i can understand that it is a nice sports car to you, but then an m3 would be a racecar to you.

 

u guys r funny tho, u get mad so easily.