new M3 vs CLK BS
. You seem to be the perfect guy to answer my question, since both of us had the same cars. I assume your M3 was SMG? The way I remember, my M3 shifted much quicker and harsher than the M6. I know it's now the SMG2, but when I selected the next gear up on my M3, it was like bang and that gear was in. In order to make it smoother, you had to lift slightly. Maybe it's too long ago, but the M6 takes it's sweet time in comparison to change gears and there is no more need to lift. Could be just me, but was curious if you had the same experience?
Yeah I had an E46 M3 with SMG and my vague recollection is similiar to yours.
I would slightly ease off to upshift. My M6 seemed less dramatic and I didn't have to back off the accelerator. Though I had a CLS55 between the M3 and M6 so it's kind of hard to accurately compare them.
I didn't see the M3 or the M6 in your sig line. Are you telling me that you currently own the E92 M3 ? Which M3 do you/have you own/owned ??
If that's the impression you got from me that's not my intent. I only referenced track times after people repeatedly stated the M3 incapable of matching a CLK63. And the Nurburgring is the ultimate test. So that seemed to be a reference point everyone could agree on but apparently I was mistaken.
I obviously prefer the CLK to the M or I would have waited a couple of months and bought the bimmer (or almost two for the price of the Merc).
The point I am trying to make is that the M3 is a worthy adversary to the CLK63 BS. It is a great car with a great lineage and no one should be scoffing at the idea it could run with a Mercedes.
How much do you think an M3 would cost if they only made 500?
I would slightly ease off to upshift. My M6 seemed less dramatic and I didn't have to back off the accelerator. Though I had a CLS55 between the M3 and M6 so it's kind of hard to accurately compare them.
I have only driven the GT-R in winter conditions so take this for what it's worth.
The GT-R is significantly quicker to 100, it shifts up and down seamlessly much faster, and it’s more practical. Since it is winter I don't have that much to say about handling. I like all the wiz bang gadgets but the interior material isn't in the same league as the CLK63. The exhaust sounds like a vacuum cleaner and the dry sump and light flywheel cause a rattling noise when idling (which is annoying).
It's also a really strange car to drive. I thought it would make me more anonymous than when I am in my Black but I was mistaken. I am followed constantly. I had a kid follow me into my parking garage at 2 am to just look at it. I bet I have someone follow me home or to work 3 or 4 times a week.
It's freakin creepy.
The car is growing on me though. At first there was no contest between it and the Mercedes. Now, though, I would have a hard timee parting with it.
I was suppose to sell the Mercedes in order to rationalize buying the Nissan but I haven't quite been able to.
Last edited by chiphomme; Feb 17, 2009 at 11:46 PM.
I would slightly ease off to upshift. My M6 seemed less dramatic and I didn't have to back off the accelerator. Though I had a CLS55 between the M3 and M6 so it's kind of hard to accurately compare them.

I'll say this again because you clearly missed it the first time around. I have driven them both....on the street and on the track. The M3 is a very well balanced car and I like it. But, it's no match for the Black Series; on the street, or on the track. The low torque high revving motor makes it difficult to drive around town without wringing it's neck. The Black Series on the other hand has enough torque to make it easily drivable around town....it's only drawback is it's rather firm suspension setup. But, that is what makes it such a great track car....not to mention the heavy duty mechanicals that allow it to run lap after lap without failure. Combine those things with the exclusivity of the Black Series and comparing the 2 makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll say this again because you clearly missed it the first time around. I have driven them both....on the street and on the track. The M3 is a very well balanced car and I like it. But, it's no match for the Black Series; on the street, or on the track. The low torque high revving motor makes it difficult to drive around town without wringing it's neck. The Black Series on the other hand has enough torque to make it easily drivable around town....it's only drawback is it's rather firm suspension setup. But, that is what makes it such a great track car....not to mention the heavy duty mechanicals that allow it to run lap after lap without failure. Combine those things with the exclusivity of the Black Series and comparing the 2 makes no sense whatsoever.
Did I say I haven't driven an E92? Sorry Duuude but I have.
And I will repeat, the M3 is a direct competitor to the CLK63.
They both have have strong points and weak points (the whole reason I joined this thread). The Mercedes has more power and the bimmer has a better tranny and is lighter.
The fact you say there is no competition for the Black series probably makes this a wasted effort.
And I will repeat, the M3 is a direct competitor to the CLK63.
They both have have strong points and weak points (the whole reason I joined this thread). The Mercedes has more power and the bimmer has a better tranny and is lighter.
The fact you say there is no competition for the Black series probably makes this a wasted effort.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
If the black series market hadn't softened I would have probably bought it too. The E92 M3 is a great car but I didn't think there was any comparison. They say it will run similar lap times, and that may be true, but it sure as hell doesn't feel like it.
My issue isn't necessarily that someone would feel that way its that they would scoff at the idea of an M3 as being a consideration or that the M3 isn't in the same realm. We can go round and round (as we have) but my opinion isn't swayed by the "exclusivity" arguement and many aren't swayed by my performance arguement.
I have tried to make it clear that I prefer the CLK but the M3 was on my radar when I bought the Merc.. I just don't get what is so absurd about that?
I have tried to make it clear that I prefer the CLK but the M3 was on my radar when I bought the Merc.. I just don't get what is so absurd about that?
It cannot be argued that the direct competitors for an M3 cab are the CLK63 cab and RS4 cab. Therefore if the direct competitor of the M3 cab = CLK63 cab then the direct competitor of the M3 cab + fixed roof = CLK63 cab + fixed roof i.e M3 coupe = CLK 63 coupe (ie non BS, european availability only), and therefore the direct competitor of the M3 coupe does not equal the CLK 63 BS. In other words, adding a fixed roof to the M3 cab does not make it leapfrog the CLK 63 coupe into a direct competitor of the BS. I rest my case.
After 138 total posts - ET550, you have absolutely put it into perspective. Concise, articulate, informative and correct. Something we don't see much of.
Last edited by selynn; Feb 18, 2009 at 01:22 PM.
It cannot be argued that the direct competitors for an M3 cab are the CLK63 cab and RS4 cab. Therefore if the direct competitor of the M3 cab = CLK63 cab then the direct competitor of the M3 cab + fixed roof = CLK63 cab + fixed roof i.e M3 coupe = CLK 63 coupe (ie non BS, european availability only), and therefore the direct competitor of the M3 coupe does not equal the CLK 63 BS. In other words, adding a fixed roof to the M3 cab does not make it leapfrog the CLK 63 coupe into a direct competitor of the BS. I rest my case.
The 599 is in a world by itself.
The DBS and 430 are beautiful but not necessarily competitive with the BS.
They make an RS4 cab? What does it look like...I want one!




