2003 Mercedes Benz CLK

[Angisio]

Originally posted by rage2


I've never driven either, but the CLK55 was a hell of a lot more quieter than the M3. It didn't follow every bump in the road. The auto tranny shifted buttery smooth when driven easy, shifted with authority when driven hard (I've never driven an auto BMW, should've drove bol's 330 when I had the chance). There was more headroom, the seats were more comfortable. It really can't be described with words, drive both, and you'll understand.

For what you get, its not worth paying an extra $20 000 dollars worth considering its not even as fast as an M3. You could almost get an M5 for that price. AND the M5 is still faster.

[jonny]

Originally posted by rage2


I've never driven either, but the CLK55 was a hell of a lot more quieter than the M3. It didn't follow every bump in the road. The auto tranny shifted buttery smooth when driven easy, shifted with authority when driven hard (I've never driven an auto BMW, should've drove bol's 330 when I had the chance). There was more headroom, the seats were more comfortable. It really can't be described with words, drive both, and you'll understand.

one down one to go.
ya, well MB is mainly marketed to shall we say, older buyers, so i guess they dont care that they payed a lot more for a slower car, theyd rather have the auto and the soft suspension. But if you ask me i will always choose the car that happens to be both faster and cheaper.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Angisio
For what you get, its not worth paying an extra $20 000 dollars worth considering its not even as fast as an M3. You could almost get an M5 for that price. AND the M5 is still faster.

And that's why I don't own a CLK 55. It caters to a completely different market.

[rage2]

Originally posted by jonny
ya, well MB is mainly marketed to shall we say, older buyers, so i guess they dont care that they payed a lot more for a slower car, theyd rather have the auto and the soft suspension.

The avg age of MB buyers is like 52 years old. Kenny and I are working hard at lowering that average =).

Originally posted by jonny
But if you ask me i will always choose the car that happens to be both faster and cheaper.

And that is why I suggested the Mustang Cobra SVT way back on page 1.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by rage2


The avg age of MB buyers is like 52 years old. Kenny and I are working hard at lowering that average =).

Too bad you guys are only converting the dirt poor people

[jonny]

Originally posted by rage2


The avg age of MB buyers is like 52 years old. Kenny and I are working hard at lowering that average =).



And that is why I suggested the Mustang Cobra SVT way back on page 1.

Ya, but build quality is not the same on a Ford as a BMW or MB. And didnt ford lie about the bhp ratings on that car?

[Angisio]

They lied about the Horse Power on the 1999 SVT Mustang, we really don't know if they lied about this one.

[rage2]

Originally posted by jonny
Ya, but build quality is not the same on a Ford as a BMW or MB.

I dunno about BMW quality, but I've heard MB quality sucks. I personally haven't had any major problems with my SLK's, but I've read horror stories on folks with E and S classes.

Originally posted by jonny
And didnt ford lie about the bhp ratings on that car?

They lied on the new one too. It's been dyno'd by several owners at 370rwhp! (390hp rated, should be around 340rwhp)

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Angisio
They lied about the Horse Power on the 1999 SVT Mustang, we really don't know if they lied about this one.

Some of the owners were a little, ahem, underwhelmed by the cars performance. I guess ford traced the problem to a manufacturing or design problem with the heads on the car. Thats why there are so few '99 cobras out there, they pretty much stopped production until the figured it out.

[jonny]

man thats gotta be a reputation killer

[Angisio]

Originally posted by jonny
man thats gotta be a reputation killer

Not really for Ford, that is their reputation.

[4wheeldrift]

For such a small production run car, you would think it would be, but it didn't seem to do too much damage. I guess slapping a positive displacement blower on the car for the people who were waiting to see if it got fixed made it all better

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Angisio


Not really for Ford, that is their reputation.

Depends entirely on who you talk to. From friends and acquaintances, I've heard far more horror stories from the BMW owners than the ford owners.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift


Depends entirely on who you talk to. From friends and acquaintances, I've heard far more horror stories from the BMW owners than the ford owners.

But thats on a car to car basis. This was a complete lie about a whole factory lineup of cars. You can find horror stories about any car manufacturer. The fact is that they lied about how much Horse Power it produced.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Angisio


But thats on a car to car basis. This was a complete lie about a whole factory lineup of cars. You can find horror stories about any car manufacturer. The fact is that they lied about how much Horse Power it produced.

I consider a lack of horsepower a fairly small defect compared to the first TTs off the line. Its not like ford is the only manufacturer in the world that has had a motor not put out as much as they expected. Its a minor flaw compared to what you could end up with.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift


I consider a lack of horsepower a fairly small defect compared to the first TTs off the line. Its not like ford is the only manufacturer in the world that has had a motor not put out as much as they expected. Its a minor flaw compared to what you could end up with.

Well, I'm not sure that you can blame the Audi TT for their drivers being too cocky. But I guess those drivers learned their lesson.

[jonny]

ha ha ya those TT's. Audi sure hushed that up.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Angisio


Well, I'm not sure that you can blame the Audi TT for their drivers being too cocky. But I guess those drivers learned their lesson.

No, I call a car that is aerodynamically unstable at 160kph because the engineers "couldn't design a spoiler they liked" sickening. The engineers that designed the car knew it was going to be a problem, but the spoiler was omitted anyway and some people died because of it. Compared to that, ending up with a slightly slower car than you anticipated is nothing at all. At least ford owned up and admitted there was a problem, and fixed the cars in question at no cost to the owners. There are a lot of manufacturers who have done a lot less, for a lot more serious problems.

[jonny]

ya at least ford handled it right

[Fat Dave]

Lying about the power ratings is worse than having engines blow at a pandemic pace? Compound that with the fact that they're not covering the damage under warranty?

I think Ford deserved all they got for fudging the HP numbers on the 99 SVT, but I think BMW deserves a huge boot to the ass for what they're doing to current M3 owners. If their "race bred" engine on the "ultimate driving machine" can't take some hard driving and some over-rev, there's a definite engineering problem.

Other "performance" cars are being flogged as much as the new M3 engine, and we're not hearing these catastrophic stories from any other group of owners. I certainly won't take the position that BMW drivers are less skilled than drivers of other models - most M-series drivers I know are in fact highly skilled.

A year ago, given the choice between the C32 and the M3, I would have probably taken the M3 as well. I wouldn't take one now, though. (I'd take a little chunk of the 10k I'd be saving by buying the C32 and throw it into a pulley and a chip, actually...)

As for the CLK, it's not targeted at the same buyer, so I don't know why it's even a comparison. Personally, I think there's more to a car than "faster and cheaper". I guess that would make the 7 series a VERY shitty car compared to the M3...