From the 6speed board (I didn't write it):
I own quite a few cars, the Black Series and the GT3 RS included. Those are the "cheaper" cars in my stable, I love them both, but that is not the point.

However, I also owned the the 997 GT3 and there is a significant difference between it and the RS, when they are pushed the differences become apparent. The RS has faster response, quicker turn in and more solid (lack of sunroof) feel. Rumor has it they also have a different ecu, but all the GT3 owners want to convince themselves that there is no difference (dream on).

 

Wasn't the original contention that the C63 and BS weren't different enough to justify the cost differential? And didn't it continue with the arguement that both shared engine architecture? Then it moved to a debate over how different is the GT3RS compared to the GT3
Seems that no matter how you feel about the C63/BS comparison, the GT3 RS has even fewer differences form a GT3, so those who use the above arguement shoud apply it evenly to the GT3. The engine is the same, the tuning differences are minimal, and the key componentry is absent from US cars.
I haven't driven a GT3 RS or a C63. But if those minimal tuning differences and decal differences merit a big price bump on the RS, can't see why it valid to use that to criticize the BS. If MB had gone in 2 steps to produce a CLK 63 AMG with the coilovers, engine tuning, and coolers, and bumped the price once. That could have been a BS. If the next phase was flares, carbon lip, different seats and the locker, and lowered it anothe 1/4', that could have been a BS-RS. Seems like splitting hairs. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? AS

 

There's a reason why Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world.

 

The whole quote adds a little more perspective!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by YS1978
"ET550,

BUT ONCE AGAIN, CLK BS IS NOT A TRACK CAR COMPARED TO THE GT3RS

THKS
You are dead wrong, and let me tell you why!

I own quite a few cars, the Black Series and the GT3 RS included. Those are the "cheaper" cars in my stable, I love them both, but that is not the point.

However, I also owned the the 997 GT3 and there is a significant difference between it and the RS, when they are pushed the differences become apparent. The RS has faster response, quicker turn in and more solid (lack of sunroof) feel. Rumor has it they also have a different ecu, but all the GT3 owners want to convince themselves that there is no difference (dream on).

But the discussion here is about the Black Series, so let me give you some perspective: I have tracked each car and the Black Series is fantastic on the track. But with me driving that may not count for much, but at least it establishes that I have a little experience about striving for limits.

Fast forward and do "hot laps' with professional drivers and then you begin to see and understand your own limitations and all the things you can't do in a car compared to a true professional.

I have had the pleasure of doing hot laps in the Black Series with Tommy Kendall, and the ability to compare this to hot laps with Hurley Haywood in the GT3 and CGT; and also hot laps in Fiorano in the F430 Challenge. I can safely say that that 99.9999% of drivers out there will never be able to extract the capabilities of the Black Series.

Is it a better car than the RS or F430? Who knows? It is a different car and very track capable, and way beyond the the abilities of the most accomplished amateur (based upon Kendall experience).

By the way I have a strong Porsche bias, and a Ferrari love, but the Black Series (automatic and all) made me sit up and take notice. If you consider current prices the Black Series is the bargain of the moment.

To tout the RS and buy a TT. explain that one!

 

Actually, I do limit my posts to things that I actually know something about from personal experience.

I never said I could feel the .2, only giving you the specs that you asked for. I guess I am a much better driver than I give myself credit for because I can feel the difference between the two at the limits of the cars on the track. Funny but I can also tell you all the differences between the feel of the GT3 RS and the GT2 and the RSR. The beauty of the web is that you really don't know who you are talking with or what I actually own and drive.

By your own admission, you are not qualified to comment on the differences between these cars. You just can't tell the difference. That doesn't mean they don't exist, it is just that you are not capable of articulating what each car is capable of doing.

I can see why then it would not be of value to you. As I stated before, to some of us it is.

While I have no doubt that some people buy RS's only for their exclusivity but your lame argument is that the car is just not worth the money.

What you simply should have said was the car is not worth the money to a normal driver that never pushes the envelope of performance of their cars.

To a normal driver, why by a GT3 or a GT3 RS at all. I don't personally know a single GT3 owner that wouldn't have bought a GT3 RS if they could have (for whatever reason.)

And I do post at rennlist because I may just have a Porsche or three in my garage.

I think I will go out and drive. You should try it sometime, sounds like some additional track time may do your driving some good.

Sorry to everyone else for getting this thread off topic. I'm done.....

 

Nicely put. It really is funny to me how people in this thread marginalized what pit crews do day in day out to give their drivers an advantage on the track particular in the racing series where all drivers are in the same spec cars. The concept of "setup" is lost on many posting on this topic. There is a difference between these cars, whether some people can feel it, know how to drive them to take advantage of it, or will even put them on a track to experience the differences is another story.

 

I thought Cayenne was the model that brought $$$ to porsche.. and before that they're not making any profit at all

 

Cayenne was a boon to Porsche but that was 2002.
Look at the cost of their cars, no way they can lose money tweaking a chassis and body panels in use for what .... almost 20 years.

 

By recollection, Porsche was in trouble up to the end of the 993 series. The 996 and Boxster were designed to be much simpler and cheaper to produce, with far fewer construction steps, and compounded the benefits by sharing so much architecture and componentry (essentially identical from the steering wheel forward).
The Cayenne added volume to the line, and much profit, as the basic car was said to cost about $25,000 at the time of introduction. There is literally no manufacturing cost difference between it and the Toureg. Both come off a very high tech line in ? Bratislava, and are shipped accompanied by the wheels and tires, which are then installed in Germany. Forgive me if I've gotten a detail wrong, but that is my best recollection.
Obviously, the extra bump between the Toureg and Cayenne sales price is another boost to margin, thought the Toureg price already accomodates lots of profit.
Selling the coupe model of the Boxster (Cayman) for more than the convertible is another bit of marketing genius. Selling ancient technology with the fewest possible annual technical innovations is another. Sooner or later, the world will catch on. And yes, I currently own 2 Porsches ( 02 996ttX50, and 2007 Boxster tip), and these are my 5th and 6th new Porsche purchases. So, I catch on slowly. AS

 

Cool, thanks for the information.

 

Same difference. Question is why you'd keep going on about it since no one here agrees with your original point? It is the ultimate "who cares" subject.

M

 

No it isn't the "same difference". And it makes little or no "difference" to me if "no one here agrees" with my opinion. The c Class looks like the low end Merc it is and in my opinion looks entirely too much like a Sebring.
And shut up about me going on and on when you seem to be having a hard time dropping it.

 

Just like you are. Classic, you tell me I can't drop it yet you're still going on about it. I'll shut up when you get your eyes checked. You think it looks like a Sebring, yet somehow I doubt it matters to anyone but you. Again, the point is what? On the road the cars look nothing alike, not that it mattered if they did anyway. Matterless. Pointless drivel.

M

 

Frankly I couldn't care less if you babble on until the end of time. You're the one saying it's pointless and to drop it, not me. Take your own advice.
The C class is hideous. It looks like a cheap Chrysler.

 

Count me in as #2 on "cheap Chrysler" clone. But, as car guys, we see all the differences, and know a MB grill and "face" without much conscious effort. Now, if you asked my wife to tell which was the MB or Chrysler , she probably couldn't tell. She doesn't have that problem with an SLK vs a Crossfire, which happen to share a common genetic bond.
One thing is pretty clear. Go to a nice restaurant in the BS and it gets parked right up front. Can't say the same for the C.
Finally, I have been part of a few heated internet skirmishes, and later regret that it seems to diminish the board as we lose participants. So, can we drop this one, and still be friends? There are only a few hundred of us, so there isn't a thundering horde of substitute participants. AS

 

I agree with chip, they look too much alike. Will a "car guy" mistake one for the other? Of course not.
How many people can qualify as "car guys"? Rhetorical question.

 

Count me in as #2 on "cheap Chrysler" clone. But, as car guys, we see all the differences, and know a MB grill and "face" without much conscious effort. Now, if you asked my wife to tell which was the MB or Chrysler , she probably couldn't tell. She doesn't have that problem with an SLK vs a Crossfire, which happen to share a common genetic bond.
One thing is pretty clear. Go to a nice restaurant in the BS and it gets parked right up front. Can't say the same for the C.
Finally, I have been part of a few heated internet skirmishes, and later regret that it seems to diminish the board as we lose participants. So, can we drop this one, and still be friends? There are only a few hundred of us, so there isn't a thundering horde of substitute participants. AS

 

Good. In addition to being clueless, you're also blind. You take your own "shut up" advice.

M

 

Ouch.

 

I like to roll.

 

My CLK 55 looks way too much like the sebring especially from the side. I noticed it immediately when i started looking at Mercedes. But then i turned the key.....

 

The C63 and CLK63 BS are 2 totally different machine, because I have both, although I only did about 15 miles on the CLK (coming from dealer to home), I can immediately tell the CLK is a track car with daily commute features. I will have to wait until tomorrow for the weather to clear up to do a back to back comparison test, but for now, IMHO, they are very different.

 

Somebody gets it!

 

I'm not going to get into details because I'm about to go see a movie, but in short, you would want a C63 for daily commute, and CLK BS for weekend shopping, track events, and occasional night out dinner. The suspension is definitely track oriented, so is the engine, the exhaust, and the tranny. This car is absolutely brutal for the norm, but for a car nut who loves to work on them all the time, it's absolutely epic.

 

LOL What a douchebag snob, You don't drive a ferrari getover yourself, its just a CLK63 amg with better suspension and some CF trim and no back seat...Might as well got a 997 TT and not look like a poser... because no matter how much you think it handles good for a 3900 lbs car its a freakin porker and it seems noback seats didnt help... So, before you look down on others just remind yourself you still drive a Mercedes...Not a Ferrari, so you cant put down another Mercedes...thanks poser.