tandan

l.o.l. i thank you for your sentiments jack. now, could i get you to tell my wife that?

JackStraw

Believe me, you don't want my help with the wife today.

55fanatic

Um im no expert but what about the special edition CLS available with the 19" wheels and the Nuremberg suspension?

Isnt that suspension superior to the Vanquish S?

And if you look at the prestige of AM, and look at the general public one AM is the same as another AM, although many car enthusiasts could tell the difference, I bet the general public would say oh look an AM, cool its fast, its expensive and look away.

Most would also look at a C230SS and a C55 and say nice looking C classes(this is just an example)...

You could of gotten the same reaction your looking for in a cheaper AM and still could of had the CLS55 with money left over to put it out of reach to your existing S

55 ON IT

Honestly you can't even compare the two cars. Not putting down Mercedes or anything. I love Mercedes, but I would take a AM over just about any benz, NOT ALL, but most. If you have the money to get one, I'm sure you don't care about getting "bang for the buck."

Mercedes in general is over priced as well. An E46 M3 cost less then a CLK500.

Mr.PS

Try going from a 55mph roll with the Vanquish and a stock CLS55. It seems there is many ignorant people out there, that wet there pants when they win against a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin etc.. at a stop light. These cars are not drag racing cars, they do not launch good, and they are not geared for it. A Corvette will destroy a Lamborghini from a roll 9 out of 10 times, but from a roll it wouldn't even be called a race. Go from a roll to get a more accurate idea of which car is faster. Speed isn't everything, while the CLS55 is great, and I plan on owning one soon I would never compare it to a Vanquish, in anything. The Vanquish interior, look, performance, engine, exclusivity everything are just out of this world. While the CLS is just another "luxury car" I see 3-4 of them daily.

Thanks for sharing the story!

Lexani

AHMED IS A STOOOOOOOPID LOSER!!!!!

Hey Akbar, you wanna know my favourite quote, ever? ITs by me:

Ahm-- oh, **** wait, I cant say you're name, something about you doing something to something else, I don't know.... AHMED IS GHEY!

Go drive "you're" SL55 you poser.

Lexani

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Militant-Grunt

RoFL.. lexani is getting fiesty.

Improviz

Como?? I don't understand what you're saying here...

And are you seriously claiming that CLS55's are easier to launch? Have you driven one? Getting those things out of the hole without excessive spin is *extremely* difficult, unless one leaves the traction control on...and if one does that, the car's ET is slowed down. As can be seen by reading the E55 forum and the results people have gotten with drag radials, with added traction this car is capable of low 12's or hi 11's. So I doubt that the CLS55 has any advantage in this department; the Vanquish has launch control and LSD, in fact.

Further, if the traction of the CLS55 were in fact the only thing making it match the Vanquish's time, and the Vanquish were indeed fast enough to outrun a CLS55 from a roll, this would be reflected in its 0-100 number, because by then it would have hooked up and begun gathering steam much more rapidly...and yet Aston Martin's website quotes its 0-100 time at 9.8 seconds. As tested by Car & Driver, the CLS55 did it in 9.7.

Oh, and where is the Lambo that'll destroy *this* Corvette?

They did, I believe; read the first post in the thread. They actually had two runs, one from a dead stop, the other of which was on a highway onramp, which one would presume was done rolling-start...

That's a subjective opinion, but it is simply not supported by the numbers. I've already established that in outright performance, in every performance metric measured, the CLS55 beat it 4/5 times. Whether the Vanquish is a more expensive, exclusive car is irrelavent insofar as its performance is concerned. It also costs double what an SL55 costs, and yet both SL55s Sport Auto tested turned faster lap times at Nurburgring; in this case, 5 seconds faster, while in the one below, 11 seconds faster! I'll post a summary of 'ring times turned by various cars at the bottom.

And I simply find it unbelievable how many people are, in a Mercedes forum, complaining about a factual comparison of two cars' relative performance characteristics, in a thread dealing with a race between the two cars! Sheesh, is this a Mercedes forum, or the Church of Aston Martin?

And if you look back through the thread, you'll find that we had the comparison discussion because some guy came in and basically called the original poster a liar, and said that this was an impossible outcome. So, I posted the test results which show that for the Vanquish in question, the results showed that for the version of the Vanquish in question, it was indeed not only possible, but exactly the result one would expect.

The Vanquish is clearly (imo) the more beautiful, sexier car of the two by far, and I personally would also rather have one than a CLS55. But in performance the two are clearly comparable, and this cannot be argued, because there is plenty of test data available which proves it.

I mean, look at the data for the 1997 Porsche 993...it ran the 'ring in 8'28", and Hockenheim in 1'18.3". The Subaru STi did it in 8'24" and 1'17.9" respectively. Clearly, the performance of the two cars is comparable. Clearly, most people would take the Porsche. Clearly, this is irrelevant, as the performance of the two cars is comparable.

Erik

1 thing is kind of funny.

When I read about stories MB vs AM, you MB very soon refer to the AM as a overpriced thing you easily kill or stay with in you much cheaper AMG.
like " so expensice and it cant even kill my AMG"

When I compare those remarks with the one you give when other stories inform about small cheap(er) cars stay with or kill the much more expensive MB, it have to smile a bit.

See my point ?

Lexani

Right here.

Improviz

Well, if you want to compare an limited-production knockoff to a production car, that's hardly fair, now is it? But then, you'll have to deal with this little baby:

Lexani

Ooooo... A Twin Turbo peice of trash Vette...

*yawn*

I take it you didn't read the article accompaning the link I gave you? Here, let me take a sentence or two from the article:

"After close calculation this engine would pump out 640 Bhp with stock compression, but by installing two turbo's and boosting the compression, an easy 1170 Bhp was possible on dyno-testing..."

I think it stresses the word EASY.

The Diablo runs 3.2 with ONLY 750HP, imagine using the extra near 450HP

That Vette-- or any Vette you would throw at the Lamborghini-- would get ripped to shreads.

Improviz

Which runs 3.2 to 60, the same as your bloated, overweight Lambo.

Wow, you've started even boring yourself with your constant post-whoring? Outstanding.

So, have an 1100 horsepower Gale Banks twin turbo Chevy motor:

I did read it. But see, the thing is this: rather than produce a production car, you had to go to a modded knockoff.

Why? Because there is no production lambo available which will touch the new Z06--yet.

So you were forced to cheat, and grab a knockoff.

Dude, unless you can establish that a Lamborghini motor can ultimately be modified to produce more horsepower than a Chevy LS1 or LS2, you're pissing in the wind as usual.

But that's about what I expect; you seem to do little else.

Erik

The extra 450 would not do much difference in a 3 sec run, I guess at this level of power traction is a limiting factor, even for a 4Wd.
100 - 150 Hp more than your SL600 and only 0,2 tenths faster in the 0-60 mph sprint aint that impressive either is it.....Does not add up, does it....

Edit: I just found the test of the new Bugatti Veyron, that thing did a 0-62 mph in 2,6 sec so a 1000 Hp Lambo could maybe equal that ....


Take a look at this one..... quite fast to ?
http://www.dmm.no/corvette/
hit the link where it says....
0-200 på 6.2 sekunder, video of the car.

This a Lingenfelter monster that are totaly steetleagal and look like a stock Vette, still it runs a 9,52@150mph.

Lexani

Apparantly.



I assume so... *yawns*

Muchos gracas senor.


Production car? Ooo la la, what about this:

Does it count? (Note that 400 Meter time run).

No? Ok, what about this one?

Which through the 1/4, TIES with the Vette.

How about this one?

Click ME!

Dang, I'm done for now.

Well... maybe except the ones I posted off above.

It was meant as a joke, which you took as a personal attack, cheer up man.


Don't believe in the VTTT? Ok...


You don't seem to do much yourself.

You might want to relax a little, everything was, and as far as I'm concered, IS meant in good fun. No personal shots, "dude".

Improviz

That's a claimed time, not an actual tested time...the tested times aren't hitting this, as we shall see...

That's not a test, Lexani...it is a site on the Internet which claims a certain time. Unfortunately, none of the US mags seem to have been able to have gotten this time...read on:

How about this actual instrumented road test of one, from Road and Track? Here are their test results....a 12.0 at 121. Meaning that even with all of the traction advantage its AWD platform gives it at launch, it is still 0.3 seconds and 7 mph slower than the Z06.

Or, would you care for Car & Driver? They ran a 12.6 at 116, nearly a full second and 11 mph slower than the new ZO6, in which they ran an 11.7 @ 127 mph. Which is in the current issue; you can read it here:

How about it? It's not a road test, nor is anything else you've provided. Any bozo can set up an internet site and CLAIM times for a car, but unfortunately for you, all of the actual TEST times are slower. Got an actual test we can look at?

Here's another one for you: it's Sport Auto's 2002 test of the Lambo...look at its 0-100 mph (160 km/h) time: 8.9 seconds. Car & Driver did it in 7.9, a full second faster, in the new Z06.

Or consider this: Car & Driver tested the Lambo from 0-150 in 21.4 seconds; the new Z06 did it in 17.5.

You haven't even started. How about producing an actual test instead of a website with inaccurate numbers?

The Lambo is an amazing car, and I'd rather have one than a new Z06, but that new Z06 is a monster. While it's got more power (571 to 505) than the 'vette, it weighs in at 4050 pounds--a pig for any sports car, imo, and 900 more pounds than the 'vette, which gives the 'vette a superior power-to-weight ratio despite the Lambo's greater power. And the 'vette's max torque of 470 lb-ft is right there with the Lambo's 476.

Oh, it was a joke? I guess I missed the winkie face...oh, there wasn't one. Dang it, must've forgotten to take my mind-readin' pills again!

I'll repeat: you provided a *modified* car in comparison to a *stock* car. You claimed that the Lambo motor could be *modded* to hit 1100+ horsepower. I gave you a link to Gale Banks' site, where you can buy an 1100+ horsepower twin turbo Chevy block.

So, as I said: unless you can produce proof of some sort that a Lamborghini motor can be modified to a horsepower level that a modified Chevrolet motor cannot match, then all you've proven is that modded motors make more horsepower than stock motors...which isn't going to win you the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Coming as it does from you, I shall consider that a compliment.

OK, fine...I'll stop 'em if you will.

Speed Thrills

I might be setting a record with this post.

Lexani

Reading on...


Dang, what ever am I thinking? An 11-second LAmborghini?






You're hurting my feelings!






Ok, I'll do it you're way:

Right here.

It's a Gallardo article, but Motortrend does mention the times they got with the Murcielago in there. If that doesn't satisfy, this should:

Look at me!

Hey! What's this? As I've stated, the Murcielago and NEW Z06 Vette tie in performance.

According to the article(s) above this comment, even with the Vette's superior power-to-weight ratio, it will tie with the over-weight Lamborghini.

God! What's the matter with you? Take you're pills next time! :p I would have thought the little: " " would have done the trick.

It was interesting, I would love to see both in action! You get the Vette, I'll get the Lamborghini... whose paying?

But I want the Noble Prize!


Fine...

Not even a thank you? Where are you're manners?

Ok.

Improviz

Well, I almost hate to break it to you, but...did you happen to see the latest issue of Motor Trend, which is on your newsstands now? Well, in it you will find Motor Trend's test of the new Z06. And guess what, Lexani? They ran 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, and the 1/4 in 11.5@127.1. Though it is not on their website yet , you can read about it here and see the scanned article & test data.

You see, Lexani, Motor Trend tests tend to be a bit faster than Car & Driver and Road & Track. But the bad thing for you is that they're also faster in the Z06. So, the bottom line is this: even with the Lambo's AWD launch advantage, Motor Trend still beat the times they got in the Lambo by 0.2 seconds and 5 mph in the Z06.

So, that's 2/2 American mags to have tested the Lambo slower than the Z06.

Meaning that in all actual test results posted so far, the Lambo has been tested slower than the Z06.

Which one would expect: the 'vette has 3150 pounds/505 horsepower, which is 6.24 pounds/horsepower, while the Lambo has 4050/575 = 7.04. That's a 13% advantage to the 'vette, and it shows in Car & Driver's 0-150 data, which as I pointed out previously was four seconds faster for the Z06 than for the Lambo.

ash-c32

zo6 - live rear axle

Improviz

Say what?? All Corvettes have had independent rear suspensions since 1963.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=4

Lexani

Thanks for the article.

So, I'll give it to you, you won. The Vette bests the Lamborghini, as far as performance is concerned. Nicely done.

Enjoyed chatting with you.

Best Regards,
John

PS: I'd still pay the extra 200K for the Lamborghini.

Improviz

Thanks, and same here, sorry about the misunderstanding earlier.

I'd still rather have one than any Z06, that's for sure...although I'd still prefer an F430 (or a Gallardo); bit easier to toss around, but still sexy as hell!!

The vette is more of the ultimate bang for the buck machine, although at $65K, that's a lot more buck than the last one...still, for the performance levels achieved, it's a good buy...but I'm more into German stuff, as you know!!

Lexani

No worries, it's all good.

F430. What a beautiful machine indeed. I'll take any of the above mentioned over a Z06.

Yes, the Vette is for sure. I have nothing against Chevy, that comment I made earlier wasn't meant to be taken seriously (I do own a '05 GTO ), it's just the performance numbers are a bit suprising. I wasn't willing to admit to it. Ha, you proven you're point though, and who knows-- I might just go and get a Z06 for my GTO sometime soon.

Best Regards,
John