Vasir

I agree he has a story to share with us. but his numbers arent right and then he shows us the website of mknauz mbz, like that makes a diff in theis subject. i have nothing against you man. i just want the numbers to add up, and then out of the blue pople are like ''well clk55s arent that fast to begin with so um yeah''

Improviz

Aw, you're breaking my heart. Does this mean you're not interested in the swamp land anymore?


No, but it's annoying that A) he's claiming a car which is 130 horses and a gear down on mine can "dominate" it, and B) that there are people who are actually dumb enough to believe him.

You would be the latter, btw...I ordinarily wouldn't bother to point out the obvious, but for someone as "gifted" as you are, I thought it would be best.

Stop buying whatever nonsense you read on the Internet, and stop bagging on others' cars. If someone came in here and wrote how their fokking VW Rabbit had dominated an AC Weinerschnitzel M3, would you believe it?

No?

So wtf are you stupid enough to believe he could bag a CLK55 with 130 less horsepower and roughly the same weight?

Do you think he'd bag you? Because CLK55s are faster than your M3, right? So you think a car with 240 horses and a four-speed auto that weighs the same as your car could hand you your azz?

Get a friggin' clue.

Improviz

I dominated an AC ****zer M3 last night in my golf cart! It was fokking hilarious, especially when he got stuck in the sand trap!!

eLemnt | 0ne

Obviously you don't know what the **** you are talking about... you claim to know all this sheit about cars, and yet... you say that an M3 has only 240 HP? Wow...

Where is your emunds now?

And, honestly, if someone did say they beat an E46 with a golf cart, I'm not going to bleed all over my panties about it- grow up, dude.

You get all defensive when he talks about youre beloved W208. Seems to me, someone is having mommy issues with the way you pout.

Seriously though, you can talk sheit all you want, but this is the last time I'm going to entertain your little ego...(ha... little ego)

Notice how you start to attack me because I question your motive? Just proves more that you are just looking for an arguement.

So, go on... I'm waiting for your retort. But don't expect me to come back, because I won't. I've been on here long enough to not engage in childish antics with insecure 40 year old men.

Cheers, mate.

<3

Vasir

i dont think he was saying an M3 had 240 hp.....i think he was saying somehting like 'do you think a 240hp car will hand you your *** if you racing it with an M3.'

i think..i may be wrong...

Improviz

Right where it always is....what's lacking here are reading skills on your part, which at least partially explains why you believe this crap; you can't read.

I did not write, anywhere, that an M3 has 240 horsepower. What I did write was this:

Now, perhaps you slept through English class, but the question as written was asking YOU if you thought A CAR with 240 horsepower and a four-speed auto could hand YOU your azz. Meaning that the OTHER car was the one with 240 horsepower.

Which, if you could read and comprehend simple English and had a brain, might make some sense to you, because the car about which we are speaking here, the 240D, has a 238 horsepower motor in it.

Is the light coming on yet? Comprende? Capice? We ain't talking rocket science here, bud...

You're the trolling moron who needs to grow up, not me. Anyone stupid enough to buy the **** you're swallowing deserves the Labotomy of the Year Award.

As I said: a CLK55 is faster than your Schitzer. So, do you think that a 240 horse car with a four-speed auto can beat your car? Good for you. Maybe your driving skills are as abysmal as your English comprehension skills.

No, I just don't suffer fools gladly, and you are a particularly irritating fool.

So you're a psychic now? You know nothing about me.

Now answer my question: could a car with a four-speed auto, 238 horsepower, and weighing in at 3300 pounds beat your ABC Schitzer M3??

Answer.

H-townbenzoboy

The Edmunds data isn't right. In the W123s, from 1976 to 1979, the OM616 produced 65HP, from 1979 to 1985, it produced 72HP (not like those figures are really more significant than 62HP when you're behind the wheel ). Data source: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...123engine.html

Now I wouldn't be so quick to call it a "lameass motor", maybe it's lame in terms of acceleration and top speed which are reasons why I wouldn't want one, but the overall reliability of the engine, many of which are still are running today without major engine work and hundreds of thousands of miles on them is anything but lame.

Sorry to get OT there.

But as they said before, I won't believe the "240D 5.6" beat the CLK unless I see video or a time slip from a drag strip proving it really did.

nknauz

Nice Website, Shows the 240 Weighing in at 3053 lbs.
For everyone that can read, and comes to the forums with open minds you can all see that i have already posted the fact taht we dont know what the car can actually do. We will be seeing this summer. Actual weight of this 240..???? Actual Horsepower of this 240..??? Actual Torque..??? If you get the point you cant plug ANY numbers into the game because if you ASSume, you know your just making a fool out of yourself.

If you feel this thread is a farse, move along to the next one.

This thread is over as far as im concerned, I stated what happened and thats that. I'm out. A new thread will start sometime this spring for performance numbers. You all have a great time now.

Improviz

Hahaa, true...I was referring to its power output, but you are absolutely correct: long after my motor is dead and gone, those diesels will still be humming (OK, maybe clattering ) along. And sorry about the "lameass" jab in any case...

Yeah, same here...I mean, I'd have had the same reaction if someone told me they'd taken the 220 horse 6.6L motor from a 1978 Trans Am, stuck it into a 1978 Le Mans, and "killed" or "dominated" a 2003 Camaro SS: no way, dude!

RunInColorado

My parents use to have a 240 D. Wow talk about slow! Semis were passing us up a hill even without the airconditioning. I can only wonder how many truckers were impressed they beat us up hills! Now they have a 190D with 93 hp. It was a fast car compared to the 240D but amazingly slow compared to my "slow" C230! I have always wondered what that car could do with a better engine.

I have heard rumors that Mercedes wanted to know why that car wasnt selling and told the engineers to fix it. So a couple of weeks later some manager came down to drive the fixed car only to find its hood had been chained down. The manager took it out loving the car more and more and finally came back saying, you guys fixed it what did you do? They opened the hood for him showing him the BMW engine in its place. So the story goes, thats when MB decided to build a new engine. I dont know if the story is true or not. Anyone else heard it?

Good kill all the same!

mjr24

Improviz...you sound stupid here. I have had some private conversations with nknauz in the past about other subjects, and do not doubt him here. His uncle does own a Benz/BMW/Rover and 200 other dealers it seems, they know what they are doing. Maybe the CLK driver had no clue what he was doing. You can never overestimate driver skill when racing. Half of the AMG owners have no clue how to drive their cars (not saying anyone here, but you get my point).

55 ON IT

If his uncle owns 200+ dealerships like you say, why is he even driving a 1980 240D? Next thing you know he's going to say he demolished a CL500. Honestly, if I saw an old 1980 240D line up against me, I'd laugh my *** off and let him have his fun. It wouldn't be worth my time or gas to light his *** up.

mjr24

The car was on a trailer, doesn't look like it was an everyday driver. So you really don't know what he has.

Well then we know he would be lying

Improviz

Which you prove by not presenting any factual refutations to what I've posted.

Why not start by providing any evidence of any 3300 pound car with 238 horsepower and a four-speed automatic running a low 13 second 1/4 mile, anywhere, ever??

Because until and unless any such evidence is provided, I maintain that the only stupid people here are people who believe such nonsense, because it is not physically possible for a car with that weight and that horsepower to run that fast.

But that's not what he's arguing, now is it? He is saying that not only did his car "dominate" a CLK55, but also that he's a low 13/hi 12 second car--with a four-speed automatic, in a 3300 pound car, with a 238 horsepower motor.

Bull****. Pure, absolute, unadultrated bull****.

The specs for its weight and that motor give it a weight to horsepower ratio of about 14:1, about the same as any of the following cars:
Audi A4 3.2: 3649 pounds / 255 horsepower
Acura TL: 3580 pounds / 258 horsepower
Cadillac CTS: 3509 pounds / 255 horsepower
Honda Accord: 3377 pounds / 240 horsepower
Pontiac G6 GTP : 3425 pounds / 240 horsepower
Volkswagon Passat: 3586 pounds / 280 horsepower

All of these cars have at least one more gear--most have two more--than the four-speed auto in this Mercedes, and all of them are in the same ballpark in terms of weight/horsepower. And all of them are far, far slower than a CLK55, all running 1/4 mile times well into the mid and upper 14's to the low 15's, with traps 10-15 mph lower than a CLK55. And ya know what? If someone driving one of these came in here claiming to have "dominated" and/or "killed" a CLK55, everyone would have a good laugh and move on. Why? Because the CLK55's weight/horsepower is 10:1.

Example: Motor Trend tested an Accord in the 12/05 issue. This car has a weight/horsepower ratio of 14:1. The 240D would be 3300/238 = 13.8:1, so the two are pretty even, *and* the Accord has a five speed. It ran 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, 0-100 in 17.5, and the 1/4 in 15.1 @ 93.1.

Now look at this Motor Trend test of a CLK55: 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, 0-100 in 11.5, and the 1/4 mile in 13.1 @ 108.

Which is not even in the same county, let alone the same ballpark.

It is simply not possible for a car which has to move 14 pounds with every horsepower to "dominate" a car which only has to move 10 pounds with every horsepower; the spread is too large. And that is even if both cars have the same number of gears, which in this case they do not. The CLK55 also has an extra gear, which also helps acceleration.

So just because this guy's driving a Benz, we're all supposed to give him a pass, no matter how outlandish his claims?

Even the Infiniti G35 sedan, which comes in at 12 pounds/hp at 3449 pounds/280 horsepower, well ahead of the cars above, runs the 1/4 mile a full second slower than a CLK55--with a six-speed manual.

What do you think it would run with a four-speed auto?

Or, how about this: I hold in my hand the April, 1985 edition of Car & Driver, which has a road test of one of the pinnacles of that era's automotive engineering, the Porsche 944 Turbo.

This car had a five speed manual, 217 horsepower, and weighed in at 2850 pounds. This gives it 13 pounds per horsepower, which is *better* than the Benz in question would be at 3300 pounds/238 horsepower, and yet even with a five-speed and the advantage of a dropped-clutch launch, both of which would be absent in this Benz, it ran a 6.1 second 0-60 time, and a 14.4 second 1/4 mile.

This is nearly 1.5 seconds off of the pace of a CLK55 AMG. This is a HUGE margin. Even with the benefit of a five-speed manual, it ain't going to happen with that kind of horsepower gap, let alone a four speed auto.

Sorry, but I'm calling unless that 240 is several hundred pounds lighter than stock, or unless its motor is about 100 horsepower stronger than stock. It's possible that they had a very short race and the CLK owner wasn't going full throttle, or spun, or had a bad reaction time, or many other intangibles, but in no way, shape, or form would that constitute "domination" or a "kill".