kbahl21

just a reminder for those who think im completely full of ****. There are more but i have an essay to write and i dont feel like looking for them. Ill do it later.

The is the race that i lost because i was in 3rd gear instead of 2nd.

Improviz

So, let me get this straight: on one hand, we have tons of road tests from multiple publications in Europe and the US, time slips, videos, tons of evidence which shows that the slowest M3 ever tested still traps 2 mph faster than the fastest CLK550, and that most of them have trapped far faster.

Here's more data for you to rationalize away and ignore, from Europe:
Euro test of 2007 CLK550 (called CLK500 in Europe, 5.5L motor, 382 hp):
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
0 - 200 km/h - s

6-spd manual M3 sedan test in sport auto 04/2008
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,3 s

6-spd manual M3 sedan est in Auto Zeitung 04/2008:
0 - 80 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,9 s

0.5 and 0.6 sec slower to 100 km/h, 3 seconds slower to 180. Forget the DCT, this is a 6M.

We have timeslips and videos from dragtimes showing 114+ mph trap speeds, for stock vehicles. We have tests of production examples from respectable publications showing the same.

And yet, you continue to insist, based upon your have supposedly beaten a few guys in these things, that your car is faster.

I mean, seriously, dude: are you delusional or something? Or are you just too dense to comprehend that a faster trap speed means a faster vehicle? What, do you think there's some sort of huge global conspiracy to discredit the CLK550, with your buddy badblack complicit in this conspiracy by limiting his car to a 108 mph trap?

He took it to a strip and ran it, and got a trap that is slower than the slowest *stock* M3 on drag times, and several mph off the fastest.

And he is modded, not stock.

This isn't opinion, it is fact. Even your own cherry-picked examples, of the slow Motor Trend test (stock, barely broken in vehicle) vs. the fastest CLK550 (modded, fully broken in vehicle) clearly show this.

What you can't seem to comprehend is that while it may be true that you beat a few of the things, it is also irrelevant. You have an automatic, they have manuals. Automatics are extremely consistent, people make mistakes. Pretty much anyone in here, including me, can provide you with an example of having pulled a car with a faster trap in a slower car, particularly in a manual-vs-auto situation.

That hardly proves that the vehicle is *faster*. Numbers show which vehicle is capable of accelerating to a faster speed in a given distance, and the numbers clearly show that the M3 has, on innumerable occasions, done exactly that.

So yes, when I see the owner of a car whose average ET and trap are 0.49 seconds and 3.8 mph off of that of a second car telling me to basically ignore the evidence and accept a conclusion which flies in the face of all acceleration data I've seen, well, sorry, but I have this nasty habit of believing data over assertions.

Which hardly makes me a "douchebag", it makes me someone who's got intellectual honesty, unlike you. It makes me someone who has enough intelligence to realize that beating a faster car doesn't change the fact that it's a faster car.

And as stated previously, which you keep ignoring, if someone in a car that trapped 101 or 102 came in here saying that their car was faster than a CLK550, what would you do?

I'll tell you what you would do. You would instantly be up in their face, posting all sorts of facts to buttress your argument. It's only when the facts are not on your side that you have to resort to name-calling, dodging and evasion, because really that's pretty much all you have in your arsenal; you certainly don't have anything else to back it up.

Which is why you're so angry with me: it's called "cognitive dissonance".

Improviz

Thank you for providing the screenshot instead of the link, but I can type.

What I find interesting is that, in the thread you provided (the one in which you were talking about "skinny big nosed Jewish kids", nice.... ), there's this little nugget, video of an M3 DCT barely getting edged out by a C63:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=117

So based upon this, it would appear that you're saying that you'd be within a few cars of a stock C63. Correct?

kbahl21

Once again i will show you video when it happens. That i can promise you.

The reason i am angry with you is because every single time you respond its an essay. And on top of that there are more and more numbers.

Trust me man, the first time i ever beat on i myself was in shock.

Idk how to explain it to you any better. It has happened, im not lying.

Does that euro test say i do 0-60 in 5.5seconds? If it does then that a straight lie i can prove that to you. There are videos all over the internet of the car doing under 5(even the vert's)

kbahl21

mbworld would most likely give me another notice if i didnt block out 2 of the links.
And idk i have never ran a c63 before but id be happy to lose to one as long as its stock

and beating a faster car once doesnt mean anything. Beating it multiple times does

Improviz

That's not an answer, it's a dodge. I can find you tons of vids where a C63 and M3 DCT run virtually neck and neck, so it stands to reason that if you can beat an M3, you can beat a C63, no?

Or does your car somehow magically only pull BMWs?

Simple questions, why not take a crack at answering them instead of dodging?

Also, why not answer how exactly it is that all of these major publications have gotten such markedly higher trap times and faster acceleration times in the M3? Conspiracy? Were the Euro publications I just cited in on this conspiracy? Dragtimes? Youtube? badblack with his 108.x trap?

Enquiring minds want to know.

kbahl21

Look man, I will answer you question later tonite. I really have to finish this essay and email it to my professor. I am not dodging you. Ill be back tonite

Ny01

Well hopefully someone in LA with a stick M3 checks this out and I'd do a few runs if they knew an empty street and in a safe area.

Jons95c36amg

Sorry I was refering to his post.

Jons95c36amg

I ran a red coupe M3 6spd in Mexico. I forgot his name. He will destroy your car. He only lost by few cars to my C63-stock for stock. Up top that is.

ProjectC55

Well I am not gonna totally doubt the posters story based on actual runs I have had against certain vehicles faster than mine in the 1/4 mile etc. For example Will's modded srt8 and my car have had several race's in mexico where we have beaten each other back and forth from 30 to 40 mph roll. His car has ran mid to low 12's at 112+ mph all posted on you tube,but upstairs on these rolling runs the power to weight advantage of my car certainly has been to my advantage. My car would never beat him in the 1/4 mile,never. However I have pulled on him at speeds over 135mph as I have done to my friends e39 m5 which is stock. This same srt8 that I have ran against has literally destroyed my friends Lexus ISF which he had posted on here I believe 2 or maybe 3 years ago but I will find out.

To me the clk 550 running the M3 or the Isf in the 1/4 mile would put it at a disadvantage due to HP and gearing. On a roll I completely believe it would be a totally different story as I have seen personally in Mexico and in Gustav's annoying videos.

As much as I hate to mention it as a fact that Jon's w208 clk55 according to Will who brutally beat the isf with his srt8 in a roll run,did admit to me that Jon' car kept up a nice pace with his srt8 in the mile. They had ran again after much debate and Will tipped his hat to Jon.


I feel that the c class lesser MBs have a distinct HP to weight advantage over these cars and it would not surprise me to see a clk550 beat a m3 in a rollin.g ra e. 1/4 mile is a different story.

Another race I had that totally surprised me was against a nodded v8 rs4 from a stop. He murdered me out the hole only to get caught after about 110 mph in Mexico. Yes he is sex however he is heavier and faster than me in the 1/4 mile. It all just goes go show me the importance of power to weight ratio vs posted HP and what cars run in the 1/4.

However I would live to run three cars in a rolling run and they are as follows: an ISF a M3 and a CLK550 if they would step up. All of them stock against my C43.

themyst

Is this 550 in NY? I am DYING to run this thing if he can beat or hang with a DCT m3.

My car is nothing special, a 335i with just bolt-ons, flash tune, automatic. No methanol or nitrous.

sinister55

If you have a JB4 you could murder him lmao

themyst

What's a JB4?

Ny01

Los Angeles

kbahl21

yes im in ny

kbahl21

yes he will lol

kbahl21

He're some common sense id like to give to your "enquiring mind".

Here is the euro specs you gave me for the CLK(i changed it into mph so its easier to understand)
Euro test of 2007 CLK550 (called CLK500 in Europe, 5.5L motor, 382 hp):
0 - 50 mph 4,0 s
0 - 62 mph 5,5 s
0 - 75 mph 7,3 s
0 - 80 mph 8,4 s
0 - 87 mph 9,5 s
0 - 100 mph 12,2 s
0 - 112 mph 15,2 s
0 - 125 mph - s

and here is the specs I give to you on the new E550coupe(road and track) which is the same car except weighs 3980. Thats 200lbs more than the CLK

0 - 50 mph 3.6 s
0 - 60 mph 4.7 s
0 - 70 mph 6.0 s
0 - 80 mph 7.4 s
0 - 90 mph 9.2 s
0 - 100 mph 11.1 s
0 - 110 mph 13.4 s
0 - 120 mph 16.4 s

1/4mile 13.1 @ 108.9

heres the link to the data card
http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...910993c16c.pdf

So if you use these numbers along with the fact that my car weighs less. It would prove to you that the EURO spec sheet is wrong.

kbahl21

maybe he lied to you about being stock.
And how much did he lose to you by until 120ish

kbahl21

I do not believe an m3 can beat a c63. I have seen that run a few times and every times the c63 pulled cars. That is partially the reason what jon says doesnt mean anything to me.

[/quote]Or does your car somehow magically only pull BMWs?[/quote]
Most of my friends drive BMW's
335is
335is dinan stage 2
audi s4(B8)
audi s4(B7)
Merc E550
Merc CLK500
pontiac g8 gt
GT500(08)- have a feeling guy didnt know how to drive but who knows
Mustang GT(2010)
e39 m5
jeep srt8
charger, challenger srt8
Ferrari 355
1JZ cressida(stock twins)
audi RS4
Hyundai Genesis
Pontiac GTO
subaru sti
Evo

kbahl21

O and Improviz i got more numbers for you

why did Autocar.uk test the M3 at this:::
0-60 mph (secs) 4.8
http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...-4.0-V8/51930/

Enquiring minds want to know

Improviz

Unfortunately, not all E550s tested quite as quickly as the one you cited. For example:
Motor Trend test of 2008 E550:
4.8 0-60, 13.4 @ 105.3 1/4 mile.
Acceleration to mph 0-30 1.8 sec
0-40 2.6
0-50 3.7
0-60 4.8
0-70 6.3
0-80 7.9
0-90 9.8
0-100 12
Quarter mile 13.4 sec @ 105.3 mph

So, if you use these numbers it would prove that the road test you cited was false--well, it would using what passes for logic to you at any rate, but back to reality: I can assure you that the fellow who runs that Euro road test site is quite meticulous, and if you'd like you can email him up and I'm sure he can provide you a scanned image of the "phony" CLK550 test I referenced above, complete with the same numbers posted above.

Also, you can't really cite a different model of car and say that it "proves" yours will run a certain time. Also also, MBUSA.com lists curb weight of the CLK550 as 3720 pounds, 3783 for the 2010 E550 coupe, so your claim that the E550 coupe is 200 pounds heavier than your car is, well, wrong per the manufacturer's specifications.

So let's suppose that your car can exactly match the times R&T posted in the E550 coupe you cited. That would still leave you a bit (actually, more than a bit) short of the M3 that they tested in 2008:
0-60: 4.1 sec
0-100: 9.4 sec
1/4 mi: 12.5 @ 114.8



And again, you totally dodged and refused to answer the questions I posed before. I'll put them here for you, again, so that you can refuse to answer them again:

I can find you tons of vids where a C63 and M3 DCT run virtually neck and neck, so it stands to reason that if you can beat an M3, you can beat a C63, no?

Or does your car somehow magically only pull BMWs?

Simple questions, why not take a crack at answering them instead of dodging?

Also, why not answer how exactly it is that all of these major publications have gotten such markedly higher trap times and faster acceleration times in the M3? Conspiracy? Were the Euro publications I just cited in on this conspiracy? Dragtimes? Youtube? badblack with his 108.x trap?

Answer the questions.

Improviz

Enquiring minds need to learn how to read. The page you cited clearly states "manufacturer data" as does the column header just above the 4.8 figure you cited.



Btw, MBUSA's manufacturer data claims 5.1 seconds 0-60 for the CLK550.

So hey, when will we be seeing that video of you spanking a DCT M3?

Improviz

Yes, of course, that's the only possible explanation.

Improviz

Like this, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h30D_PngRqk

or how bout this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=mPb1kV7bnX0

or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkBtbo9JBoc

another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THCvP...eature=related

That's four videos. In all of them the two are within a car or so of one another. Therefore, if you can pull an M3, you should be able to beat or to stay right there with a C63.

Amazing. It's a wonder Mercedes ever bothered to build the 6.3L V8 when all they had to do was stick the same motor as yours in there!