new M3 vs CLK BS
02-17-2009, 10:39 PM
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
As long as you don't bring up someones Nordschleife lap times, it sure does 
.
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?
. 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.
02-17-2009, 10:49 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
Since you've focused this comparison based on track times/performance only - my REAL WORLD discussion referred that which you admit you have not yet done - track them all. Until that time comes, your argument/opinion are just as meaningless and "dumb" as you seem to think mine are.
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 ??
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?
02-17-2009, 11:13 PM
#128
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
CLS63, GLK350
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 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.
02-17-2009, 11:17 PM
#129
Senior Member
I think we all agree that the M3 and the BS are fabulous cars in their own rights. The M3 offers a great value vs. performance while the BS offers a more dedicated approach to performance. Afterall, it's the options available to us consumers that make this very interesting.
02-17-2009, 11:44 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
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; 02-17-2009 at 11:46 PM.
02-18-2009, 12:03 AM
#131
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
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 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.
02-18-2009, 01:31 AM
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
So you had an E46, but have never owned or driven an E92 yet think because of what you read in a magazine and numbers on paper it will hang with a Black Series ? C'mon dude....
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.
02-18-2009, 03:01 AM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2008 CLK 63 Black Series, 2013 G63, 2014 RS5 Coupe, 2013 JKUR 10A
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.
02-18-2009, 09:51 AM
#135
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.
02-18-2009, 10:00 AM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
I think one of the problems here is your repeated use of the term "direct competitor" which in my mind means something more than just performance. the term must also take into account to who the vehicle is marketed and what it is being marketed as. There are lots of cars with comparable performance which are not direct competitors. I have no problem when you say you think the M3 is a worthy adversary on the track, even though I may not necessarily agree. But the bottom line is the M3's direct competition is the C63 and RS4. The M3 may be the best performer of that group and the C63 may be the most comfortable, but thats the "direct" competition for a new car buyer. The BS's direct competitor is the GT3. There may be other cars that can compete with a BS in one category or another (be it performance, comfort or expense) but the "direct" competitor is the GT3. The M3 is simply not a direct competitor of the BS regardless of performance numbers.
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?
02-18-2009, 12:14 PM
#137
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2008 CLK 63 Black Series, 2013 G63, 2014 RS5 Coupe, 2013 JKUR 10A
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.
02-18-2009, 12:29 PM
#138
MBWorld Fanatic!
02-18-2009, 01:20 PM
#139
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK63 AMG Black Series, CL55 AMG, ML350, Audi S4
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.[/quote][/COLOR]
After 138 total posts - ET550, you have absolutely put it into perspective. Concise, articulate, informative and correct. Something we don't see much of.
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; 02-18-2009 at 01:22 PM.
02-18-2009, 01:54 PM
#140
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
I dont think its absurd that you considered an M3 when looking at the BS just as the OP wasnt absurd for asking his question. I just dont think most other people do and therefore I do not view it as a direct competitor. There is no terminology that will cover everyones preferences. However I think I have come up with a simple logical equation to sway you.
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.
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.
02-18-2009, 02:02 PM
#141
I believe it competes well with the GT3, although there are more options (appointments) with the GT3.
The 599 is in a world by itself.
The DBS and 430 are beautiful but not necessarily competitive with the BS.
The 599 is in a world by itself.
The DBS and 430 are beautiful but not necessarily competitive with the BS.
02-18-2009, 02:54 PM
#142
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
02-18-2009, 03:08 PM
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
02-18-2009, 04:14 PM
#146
MBWorld Fanatic!
Can't speak for anyone else, but the only car that I considered buying was a GT3. To me, both cars are aimed at the same market segment. Every day practicality with a focus on track capabilities based on an off the shelf platform.
02-18-2009, 05:24 PM
#147
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.
They make an RS4 cab? What does it look like...I want one!
02-18-2009, 05:30 PM
#148
MBWorld Fanatic!
I had a deposit on a GT3rs when I bought the BS. So, yes I think its clearly a GT3 and the low end Aston.
Jimmy
Jimmy
02-18-2009, 07:06 PM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
It obviously depends on what you want from the car but I think it's main rivals are (in order of performance):
-M3
-M6
-R8
-997 Turbo
-GTR
-M3
-M6
-R8
-997 Turbo
-GTR
