Road & Track Gives New 08 M3 Same Specs as OUR BLACK SERIES
01-03-2008, 03:17 AM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
Well lets see here......First becasue it wasn't really so much a question as it was another statement of yours based purely on speculation and as such deserves no response. And second, becausw again you have no clue what you're talking about and are making a .5 sec conclusion that you pulled out of your a$$. And, the speculation in question happens to be the rear wing which you yourself just said Mercedes would not put on the CLK 63 BS - but it happens to be factory equipment.
Lastly, I'd rather stick to numbers and technical data we know to be true and verifiable to stimulate good discussion rather than wasting time pointing out your incompetence. However much fun it may be
Lastly, I'd rather stick to numbers and technical data we know to be true and verifiable to stimulate good discussion rather than wasting time pointing out your incompetence. However much fun it may be
1) 2) Those events are a JOKE if you called it racing. It nothing more then a tracks set-up just to test drive the cars !!
Check out the laps times listed........
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h -- Loaded BMW M3 CSL (tuned to GTR specs) ~600 PS
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg
Check out the laps times listed........
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h -- Loaded BMW M3 CSL (tuned to GTR specs) ~600 PS
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg
This is the description of the M3 CSL which ran those times. Basically a one- off race car. I really don't see the relevance of a comparison with the CLK. http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=17133
Last edited by LZH; 01-03-2008 at 03:39 AM.
01-03-2008, 04:51 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
The Black series Looks Incredible ,is a seemingly practicle combination of a daily and a track car that it has NO COMPARISON..Comparing it to the New M3 which is slower than a chipped 335 is outlandish ..I dont care what times they tested it at , the result likely will not be reproduced
This car sounds SICKER THAN HELL and driven by a pro could really bang out some great lap times.
This car sounds SICKER THAN HELL and driven by a pro could really bang out some great lap times.
01-03-2008, 10:29 PM
#54
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
Although it's in German - there's some pretty sweet shots of these guys getting sideways...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8YbYaseoqg&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8YbYaseoqg&feature=related
01-04-2008, 11:49 AM
#55
Although it's in German - there's some pretty sweet shots of these guys getting sideways...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8YbYaseoqg&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8YbYaseoqg&feature=related
The M3 did look very good. Did they put a trans cooler on the 6 speed manual box? Without one, I don't see it holding up. Also, don't see the diff holding up under that either, but that is just speculation. AS
01-04-2008, 01:32 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55, Mustang 480hp, CBR600rr
I think you mistunderstood me... all I'm saying is that the performance difference between CLK63 convertible and coupe and a CLK63 Black Series is not very large. The buttom line is that it has the same engine (same 500hp too if you look at acceleration #'s) and only 100lbs lighter than CLK63 coupe, which lets be realistic, is barely noticeable in a 4,000lb car. You're not going to have radically different handling with a slightly firmer suspension and 100lbs weight reduction. Put the same tires on a CLK63 coupe and it will be just as fast as CLK63 BS on track (maybe <0.5 seconds slower on a 2-mile track).
Its a great car, but AMG is charging too much for such minor modifications... they should've dropped the weight down by at least 300-400lbs and increased the hp to 550hp, then you'd have a truly awesome machine
P.S. As far as price/performance of the supercharged SLK55 is concerned, its very good actually. I've spent about $70,000 including mods total and its a 3,350lbs convertible with 550hp+ (about the same power/weight ratio as a Z06)
Its a great car, but AMG is charging too much for such minor modifications... they should've dropped the weight down by at least 300-400lbs and increased the hp to 550hp, then you'd have a truly awesome machine
P.S. As far as price/performance of the supercharged SLK55 is concerned, its very good actually. I've spent about $70,000 including mods total and its a 3,350lbs convertible with 550hp+ (about the same power/weight ratio as a Z06)
Just curious how are you getting 550hp+, when your dyno pull was only for 408rwhp? Even with a 15% driveline loss that's only 469.2hp at the crank...
I am curious too how you got your slk55 to weigh 3,350lbs or about 100 less than (stock is 3455lbs) stock after adding a supercharger and hardware along with other mods.
The big difference between the Z06 abd the slk55 even with 19" rims and 265 tires is about 4" total of more rubber on the road in the back. Like pirelli says, "power is nothing without control".
Last edited by Ppower; 01-04-2008 at 01:43 PM.
01-05-2008, 07:41 PM
#57
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02ml500sport/maxima06-6speed
lol you cant compare clk63 vs clk63 BS , and 0-60 1/4 mile clk63 BS will eat the new m3 like nothing it is faster than c63 is a straight lane so on the streets and on the track clk63 bs is ofcourse a much better car much more exclusive etc but what i'm concerned about is the c63 vs the new m3 , the M is really doing it's thing props to the m3
01-07-2008, 10:59 AM
#58
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55, Mustang 480hp, CBR600rr
lol you cant compare clk63 vs clk63 BS , and 0-60 1/4 mile clk63 BS will eat the new m3 like nothing it is faster than c63 is a straight lane so on the streets and on the track clk63 bs is ofcourse a much better car much more exclusive etc but what i'm concerned about is the c63 vs the new m3 , the M is really doing it's thing props to the m3
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=5916
Pp
01-11-2008, 04:35 PM
#59
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes CLK63 Black / C36 / SLK55 / GLC63
Hmmm.....look to me you were never at Sachsenring and Ascari race tracks in europe because then you would see the CSL M3 in the show room. How do you dispute the FACTS.....that the 3 years old model CSL M3 is more then 22 sec. faster then new BS on the same track? Let me repeat.......that's 22 SECOND difference !!!
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h -- Loaded BMW M3 CSL (tuned to GTR specs) ~600 PS
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h -- Loaded BMW M3 CSL (tuned to GTR specs) ~600 PS
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg
The BMW M3 CSL Street Production Car is only 360PS. Since you have all the specs, please provide the track time & speed for the M3 CSL Production Car.
While you are at it, please provide the track time & speed for the Mercedes C Class DTM. I would like to see the differential between the a 4 Door C Class DTM and the 2 Door M3 CSL Tuned to GTR Specs with 600PS.
Too bad that BMW does not participate in DTM Series.
01-13-2008, 11:57 PM
#60
Member
Well good news or bad news depending on what side of the fence you're on, but the M3 price was released today at the Detroit show and its pretty darn good. $57,275 for the coupe and $54, 575 for the sedan. Quite a steal I'd say.
01-14-2008, 01:10 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Socal
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
06' Clk 500 Cabriolet, 01' CL 55, 00' Clk 430
Wow.....that is a steal !! But I'm not a fan of BMW anymore when Chris Bangle took over as head of designer. I personally think it ugly !! The best looking M3 in my opinion is the E30 M3, then E36 M3 and then the E46 M3. The look may get ugliest but there's no denying that the performance side is definately get and better from one model to the next.
01-14-2008, 08:59 AM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
That's 7 or 8 grand over the base of the E46. So nicely optioned is going to be close to $70k.
01-14-2008, 11:57 AM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
You're right at under 60k it would be a bargin. The dealers will fully option these cars and then add a premium at least initially. I'm wondering if the GT-R will then be the alternative?
Jimmy
01-14-2008, 06:20 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Socal
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
06' Clk 500 Cabriolet, 01' CL 55, 00' Clk 430
I thought the base E46 M3 was around $54K (not sure). One thing to also consider when owning the M3 VS C63, BMW offer free maintenance for up to 4/50k miles where Mercedes stop that program back in 2005.
01-14-2008, 10:58 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
no. It was under $50K. I owned one and nicely optioned nudging $60K.
01-15-2008, 01:04 AM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Socal
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
06' Clk 500 Cabriolet, 01' CL 55, 00' Clk 430
Look what I found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcAscSHT-iA
Thought you all might find this interesting.
Im not really excited... for 156,000 US there is still no option for a 5 or 6 speed manual trans. For that price, I may give up MB and buy a 911TT for about that much.
Any thoughts?
Thought you all might find this interesting.
Im not really excited... for 156,000 US there is still no option for a 5 or 6 speed manual trans. For that price, I may give up MB and buy a 911TT for about that much.
Any thoughts?
Wow....if this is true then the Clk 63 BS is a great bargain !!
01-15-2008, 02:38 AM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
The CLK63 Black may not be a bargain but it's not a rip off either.
I prefer it to the cars I considered(and owned) in it's price segment (997 Turbo, R8, and M6). It all depends on what you're looking for and the CLK63 Black is almost the perfect car for me. It may not be for you but it apparently is for some of us. So keep talking up the M3 (its a nice car) but I've been there and done that so you're not being very persuasive.
I prefer it to the cars I considered(and owned) in it's price segment (997 Turbo, R8, and M6). It all depends on what you're looking for and the CLK63 Black is almost the perfect car for me. It may not be for you but it apparently is for some of us. So keep talking up the M3 (its a nice car) but I've been there and done that so you're not being very persuasive.
Last edited by chiphomme; 01-15-2008 at 02:41 AM.
01-15-2008, 11:54 AM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
The M3 CSL cost was around $65K. It not available to the US market was due to the limited number of cars build and the European market pretty much pre-order all the cars. I remember one of the qaulification for buyer to be able to order the CSL was that you a loyal to BMW and currently own an M3. As for comparision, I totally agreed with you. When it come to prices, I don't understand how a $140K not expect to outperformances a $65K car in every performances catagories? If I was Mercedes chief designer, I would hold my head lower for barely beat a standard M3 that cost about $65K LESS !!!
There was no prior purchase of an M3 needed as they couldn't sell the CSL as it offered so little over the standard 42k pounds car to justify being 55k. They could be bought brand new for 8k under list and the used ones too. The fact SMG was still in its earlier stages didn't help either. I'm not knocking the CSL, it's a great car, just correcting this post.
Also, for the poster about the M5- the 6-speed manual was a rush job just for the US which does not match the V10 characteristics and doesn't compare to SMGIII on the track or street.
