Wow, thanks for that SUPER comment! Your superior car knowledge is only I can one day hope to grasp.

 

alright get your tuned e55 amg/rennetech and why not add brabus ( i love brabus which i think its the best of all 3 tunning companys for a benz) and do whatever you want to that e55 of yours now get the M power and do whatever you can to it with dinan and other tuner companys...bmw will come on top like it or not...just like my w126 cant beat anything on the road...i can face reality unlike some people.


eh i know im hurting you guys feelings --but just because you have an E55 amg dosent mean its the best................................ah i give up

 

Reality is, you don't know what the heck you're talking about....

 

reality is your stuck that your car is the best on the road when it isnt!

 

You me is please do and but could won't be...

Learn some English. I need to get to bed, I've raced too many E60 M5's today. Oh wait, they aren't in the states yet....

 

W210 E55 and the E39 M5 were both NA and very much equal. M5 being slightly quicker in the quarter mile, but miss a shift or be an average shifter and you would lose. Hardy a slaughter in any case. Not bashing BMW at all, I've owned a few M cars before switching over to the AMG side. Just know your facts before you post anything you have no idea about.

 

Two points:

1) any of the cars being discussed here are infinitely "better" than a 25 year old 500SE, which doesn't exist; Mercedes produced the *450SEL* in 1980, but there is no such thing as a "1980 500SE". The 500SE was produced beginning in 1986, in fact...and in any case, for you to lecture owners of present-day cars as to how "good" they are is sort of like an alter boy lecturing the Pope on religion.

2) prove that the M5 is a "better" car than any Mercedes. How is it better? Because it's possibly marginally faster? So speed is the sole determinor of what makes a car "better"? In that case, you would say that a $50,000 Corvette is "better" than a Bentley or a Rolls? Ridiculous.

"Better" is subjective. Get your adjectives straight.

 

Quality wise i'm sorry to say my 25 year old car is a lot better and more reliable then any current MB's. And i know my car better then you if i say it's a 1980 it's a 1980 if you know my car so well please show me the tag on my car.

 

English as a second language, eh sparky? Not to quick on the uptake, now are you?

Lol, yeah, I'm sure that a 25 year old car is more trouble-free and reliable than a brand new one.

Maybe motorbase got it wrong, but in any case, there's no way that your 25 year old heap could keep up with a new C350, let alone any AMG model. Therefore, by your own standards, our cars are "better" than yours; after all, they're faster, right?

Get a grip, and go to the BMW forums if you like them better. Btw, why are you (supposedly) driving a 25 year old Benz if you like Bimmers so much? I mean, you could sell it and get a 20 year old 3 series!!

Or might you be yet another BMW salesman out trolling forums masquerading as a Merc owner, trying to sell more BMWs? We get a lot of those here...

 

....and oh, boy, what a valuable car! According to NADA Blue Book for Classic Cars, it is worth a whopping $8,200 average retail!!

Which means that for one AMG E55, we could buy ten of yours.



And you're lecturing us about cars....when a one-year old Toyota Corolla is sells for nearly double the price of yours!!! (And it's probably faster, and doesn't leave a trail of blue smoke wherever it goes!!)

 

They dont ? I belive I have read somewhere that they do, but you cant trust all you read on the internet ....right

I Actually though that since this is obviously so important in the US, they made sure to run the test on an suitable track.

If am wrong, sorry.

 

lol did i ever say my car is fast ? lol just because your car is faster dosen't mean it's better lol!!!! unless thats how you classify good to bad. Yes my car is alot more reliable then your car lol and its a 25 year old car lol sad to break it to you. And who said i dont have a bmw ? lol oh well i like how you guys 'know everything' i get a kick out of it.

 

Precisely my point...so please answer my question: in your earlier post, you implied that the M5 is "better", presumably because it's faster. Now you say that faster does not equal "better".

So how is the M5 "better" then, sparky?

No, it isn't, but it sure seemed to be how YOU "classified good to bad", whatever the hell that means...or are you seriously now trying to claim that you weren't arguing that the M5 was a "better" car by virtue of its being (presumably) faster?


Oh, really? You know how reliable my car is, how many times I've had it repaired, how many times it's been in the shop, compared to your 25 year old $8,000 relic?

What are you, about twelve? Isn't it past your bedtime? Mommy and daddy are gonna spank you when they find out what you're doing this late...naughty!

I did. Prove me wrong: post a picture of you driving it with a printout of this post in your hand, sparky.

....like your "knowing" that your car is more reliable than mine, eh sparky?

 

Well, the argument seems to be here that American testers take great care to test their cars on carefully prepped surfaces, while the Europeans are so scientifically haphazard that they'd test the cars on a glacier.

I don't think either one is true: I think that both test them on good surfaces, but neither test them at prepped dragstrips.

 

whatever the test method is, the results seem to vary significantly continent to continent (in ET anyway) but any test by a specified mag should be relative enough and a head to head test about as scientific as were likely to get.

 

Improviz, you know 'nothing' about the W126, just as egutie knows 'nothing' about your W208. The 500SE started in 1980, not '86. It also cost just as much as your CLK55 did. By the way, that's 55-60K in 1980 dollars vs. 55-60K in 2001. A W126 is just starting to get broken in at 100K miles. At 100K miles, a W208 is just getting to get broken, period. Show us your W208 when you roll over 175K miles and we'll talk reliability/quality. If you can seriously argue that you think the W210/W208 is built better than *any* W126, you have obviously never driven or even been in one. If your CLK is worth $8000 21 years from now with 175K+ miles, I will buy it from you for that price and you will be VERY happy with it and I will be a laughing stock.

 

Yawn....anecdotal data is worthless, friend...show me any reliability data to indicate that the car in question is more reliable than mine. Mine has 47000 miles on it, and in four years of ownership has been in the shop for non-maintenence related issues exactly three times, all of which were for minor issues. The car still drives great, runs like a top, doesn't use a drop of oil, and looks as good as the day I bought it.

I have a friend with a 1999 W208 CLK430 with 115,000 miles on it, who uses it as a daily driver. Again, no problems, no burned oil, and by no means "broken" as you are incorrectly alleging.

So, in my case, the anecdotal data points to a very well-built, reliable automobile...there are other instances where people have had problems with them, just as I'm sure there are 500 SEs (if you'd bothered to have paid attention to the thread, you'd see that I did in fact post a link to the value of a 1980 500SE, btw) which are heaps. In fact, at 25 years old, statistically the car has infinitely higher odds of problems, as can be verified by looking at any statistical study of cars' reliability anywhere: cars break more as the age, period, and this holds true for every brand out there, from Acura to Toyota.

And I'm certain that in 25 years, my 2001 CLK55, of which 500 were sold in the US and one of only 3,000 or so W208 CLK55s sold worldwide, will be a collectors' item, worth far more than the 500SE, assuming it is well kept and maintained.

But you're deliberately trying to hijack the thread and are ignoring my point, which is that it's remarkably lame, not to mention pompous, for someone driving a 25 year old non-AMG sedan worth $8,000 to lecture the driver of a brand new AMG sedan costing $85,000 on what a bad car he has, just as it would be for a 1980 3-Series driver to take potshots at a new M3.

In both cases, the new car outperforms the old in every measure.

Therefore, by the criterion he is using to proclaim the M5 a "better" car, namely that it might be a tenth or two faster than the E55, the E55 is infinitely better than the 500SE, as it would beat it by several seconds, a full order of magnitude beyond the margin by which the "better" M5 is alleged to have bested the E55 in a 1/4 mile run (I say alleged in that I have not yet seen any instrumented time-distance runs of the two cars head to head).

Oh, and btw, my CLK55 AMG came in at $72K, not $55K. You must be thinking of the CLK430.

Enjoy your antique, along with the view of any new AMG's tail lights you'd get if you ever ran one.

 

Yeah, my 375hp and 407 lb/ft torque, conservatively rated as most AMG's are, always gets stomped by those 342hp M113 monsters. The 1986 300E Hammer with my same motor, and weighing closer to your car than my 3800 lb car would demolish you, and it would get real ugly from a 60-70mph roll to 185mph, in which I would beat you and the 300E would beat you by 10-12 lengths. Actually, I don't think you could go that fast. Keep in mind, this is 1985 technology when AMG did not mass-produce cars for customers they would never know or meet. You'll just have to trust me on the reliability issue. If you keep the car forever, you'll find out. Also, the 500SE was *never* sold in the U.S., only in Europe.

(Improviz logs out, goes to google "AMG Hammer 6.0" to find out hp/tq figures. Finds out Cd of .25 is even better on the 20 year old sedan than his. Sees 13.2@109 1/4 mile time (done with 2.24 gears) and 185mph top speed. Sees 50-70mph in 3.0 seconds, better than Ferrari Testarossa at the time.)

 

 

Yes, because I deal in facts, not anecdotes, I do use google...and you'll be interested in the results: http://www.fantasycars.com/sedans/html/hammer.html

First thing to note is that four sI've got an extra gear, and would run you from any speed, any time. Next time you're in Dallas, look me up.

As to long term reliability: still waiting for that data, not your anecdotes, because as I said, anecdotally there are plenty of 208s with excellent reliabliity with high mileage.

FYI: Car & Driver tested the W208 CLK55 AMG at 2.9 seconds 50-70, which is faster than yours, chum.

FYI again: 300E Hammer's 0-60 time was 5.4 seconds; W208 CLK55's was 4.9.

FYI the third: the 300E Hammer weighed about 3700 pounds, 250 more than the W208 CLK55 AMG.

FYI finally: the W208 CLK55 has the same motor as the W208 E55, whic was rated at 349 horsepower (conservatively), and 390 lb-ft of torque.

So, you won't find me shaking in my boots at having equivalent torque, 200-250 pounds lighter weight, and one more gear, cowboy.

Have a nice day.

 

You left off one of your source's disclosures at the bottom, even with the asterisks telling you to look down. Here is the disclaimer for anyone reading: *test numbers achieved using detuned US spec car (approx. 350-360hp) running taller, optional 2.24:1 final drive.* I'm running 3.27 gears, I believe yours are 2.82, no? I also have a 'tuned' version. Again, this is 20 year-old technology. For your, and other Daimler/AMG produced cars, AMG was told to mass-produce a cost-effective performance vehicle, and they did a damn good job obviously. I wouldn't expect you to be shaking in your boots but at least stop talking like your 24-valve 'beast' is no match for my motor. Sorry to jip you out of 7hp, just taking the MB spec sheet info. Look here for factory Hammer specs (click on AMG Hammer Brochure & Specs.) Wow, still can't believe you said you'd walk me at high speeds when you hit the wall at 155, de-limited probably 170.

BTW, you meant to say W210 E55, and equivalent torque of 390 vs 407 is interesting. I know people that pay big money for 17 more lb/ft torque.

 

hahaha tell him how good our cars are !

 

Here is the link I tried to attach:

http://www.homestead.com/need2speed/...earticles.html

 

Well, I could pay about a grand and get 17 ft lb with a decent custom exhaust, so again: no shaking going on in these boots. And I could switch gears too, yadda yadda ya...no mods you could do that I couldn't, and as I pointed out to another poster a week or so ago, there are sub-10 second Civics out there....mods begat speed, no big secret there, but I'm talking stock vs. stock.

Actually, delimited my car is good for around 186, as I recall, although I'd have to re-verify this as it's been some time since I looked into it, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate...and I can very easily delimit it, so I'm not shaking in my boots at top speed either.

And again: modded vs. stock discussions are lame. I can mod mine too, very easily...but stock, that test time was what it got. When I get time later, I'll see if I can find more info, but got work to do....will revisit this tonight.

 

I agree, this is getting old, but on the subject of modded vs. factory, there is no such thing as a 'factory' AMG car from before 1993. Every car tuned at the AMG facility prior to the Daimler collaberation is per the customer's request. Your magazine article simply had a detuned, emission compliant vehicle at the time. I have other magazine articles that show a 11.0 second 0-100 time and 13.0 1/4 miles times with cars with different gearing. Keep in mind there is a Hammer coupe out there as well, saving a few extra lbs and a Cd of around .24, tested at 187mph. These cars were faster than the Countach's of the same era. I'm only challenging you because of your ignorant, casual, "Enjoy your antique, along with the view of any new AMG's tail lights you'd get if you ever ran one" comment. A 500hp kompressor AMG, yes, a 349hp AMG, hardly.