2003 Mercedes Benz CLK

[jonny]

Originally posted by 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.

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...

No one said lying about the power ratings was worse than this mystery BMW is currently having.
The CLK 55 or CLK430 is a comparison because of price. do you understand now? P-R-I-C-E!
And we've yet to see BMWs reaction to this problem. It appears to me as if they still dont know what the problem is. And of course theres more to faster and cheaper, but in your mind, picture two cars identical in every way except that one is faster and cheaper. Which one would you buy? And dont tell me the slower and more exspensive one because the cheaper one's engine might explode. Why dont you wait 6 months and see what the problem is then make a decision

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by Angisio

And when that person said it was faster and cheaper, they were refering to a SPORTS CAR. And a sports car that is faster and cheaper than its competitor is probably better. So try and figure out what the post meant. Oh wait, you would need an education to deduce that, so of course you wouldn't be able to figure that out.

So, if "faster and cheaper" is how you regard the best sports cars, is there a reason why you aren't looking at a Z06 corvette? Its faster than the M3, for 0-60, 0-100 and quarter mile, it stops quicker, and pulls more lateral G's for $10k less.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift


So, if "faster and cheaper" is how you regard the best sports cars, is there a reason why you aren't looking at a Z06 corvette? Its faster than the M3, for 0-60, 0-100 and quarter mile, it stops quicker, and pulls more lateral G's for $10k less.

Its in a different class of sports cars.

[jonny]

Yes the Z06 is sweet. But its almost identical price and performance (cheaper and better) but you cant drive it in the winter and seat four. Its not really nearly as close as the CLK55 and M3. Still a sweet ass car though

[Fat Dave]

One of you say that we're comparing sports cars, and the other one says that we're comparing cars that are similar in price

Let me take these comments one at a time:

Angisio,

My comments regarding blown engines were directed at BMW, as could be easily deduced by anyone with an education from the comment "but I think BMW deserves a huge boot to the ass for what they're doing to current M3 owners". Clearly you are not in a position to be questioning the education of others...

And how would you know that the "other person" was referring to "sports cars"? He just commented that he was talking about two cars that were similar in price, so clearly you had no idea what he was referring to. The CLK is definitely not a sports car in any case.

Jonny:

"picture two cars identical in every way except that one is faster and cheaper. Which one would you buy?"

We're not talking about two cars identical in every way, we're talking about two drastically different cars, so your question is moot.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by jonny
Yes the Z06 is sweet. But its almost identical price and performance (cheaper and better) but you cant drive it in the winter and seat four. Its not really nearly as close as the CLK55 and M3. Still a sweet ass car though

What makes an M3 a superior car to a Z06 in the winter? Both cars come with traction control and ABS. And honestly, I would not make my worst enemy sit in the back seat of any of these sport coupes. Ok for short distances but not a nice place to be stuck for several hours. Might as well not have a back seat at all.

[jonny]

Originally posted by Fat Dave

Jonny:

"picture two cars identical in every way except that one is faster and cheaper. Which one would you buy?"

We're not talking about two cars identical in every way, we're talking about two drastically different cars, so your question is moot.

Um, 2 doors, (I-6 vs. V8) 4 seater vs. 5 seater 0-60 4.9 vs. 5.1
ya youre right, they're nothing alike. unless youre still talking about the CLK 320, which simply got a smaller engine and such.

Actually 4WD the rear seat is quite comfortable as long as youre only 5-10 or so.

[Fat Dave]

Originally posted by Angisio


Well why wouldn't you say that you were refering to BMW

Let's take a look at my post, mister genius:

"...I think BMW deserves..."
"...the new M3 engine..."
"...BMW drivers ..."
"...most M-series ..."
"...given the choice between the C32 and the M3..."
"...compared to the M3..."

You're right. How silly of me to not mention that I was talking about the BMW. I bow down to your superior intellect.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by Fat Dave


Let's take a look at my post, mister genius:

"...I think BMW deserves..."
"...the new M3 engine..."
"...BMW drivers ..."
"...most M-series ..."
"...given the choice between the C32 and the M3..."
"...compared to the M3..."

You're right. How silly of me to not mention that I was talking about the BMW. I bow down to your superior intellect.

Those were all in a different paragraph.

[jonny]

Originally posted by Fat Dave
Jonny, pull your head out. The CLK is a GT car designed first and foremost as a comfortable cruiser. The M3 is designed as a performance coupe. They do not follow the same design goals and are not targeted at the same market.

You might want to tell car and driver that they compared the two in a test. Why dont you phone them up, hey guys, this was pointless. Obviously they agree that these two should be compared when considering either. Do you want me to tell you more?

[Fat Dave]

Originally posted by jonny


You might want to tell car and driver that they compared the two in a test. Why dont you phone them up, hey guys, this was pointless. Obviously they agree that these two should be compared when considering either. Do you want me to tell you more?

Most magazines compared the M3 to the C32. You may want to call all of them and mention that the C32 has too many doors.

[jonny]

Originally posted by Fat Dave


Most magazines compared the M3 to the C32. You may want to call all of them and mention that the C32 has too many doors.

You might want to call them up too. Which car did they say they would take?
assuming you've actually read the articles.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by Fat Dave


I apologize for using continuity of thought. Your Dr. Seuss books probably aren't like that...

You didn't put the paragraph in context to anything. You could have been refering to any car in your next paragraphs.

[Fat Dave]

Originally posted by jonny

You might want to call them up too. Which car did they say they would take?
assuming you've actually read the articles.

You were the one who wanted to call the magazines, not me. Personally, I think they were closer comparing the C than trying to compare the CLK.

The M3 was chosen in every article I've read when compared to the C32. It was "faster" but not "cheaper", yet somehow still was chosen.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by jonny


You might want to tell car and driver that they compared the two in a test. Why dont you phone them up, hey guys, this was pointless. Obviously they agree that these two should be compared when considering either. Do you want me to tell you more?

Oh yeah, car & driver always test the same types of cars together If you want to look at it from a price and performance perspective, yes the cars are in the same class. However, if you look at it from the perspective of who the cars are aimed at for a target buyer they are diametrically opposed. The M3 will run circles around the CL. Why? Because its a sports car, and people expect different things from a sports car than they do from a GT. And car and driver, like any magazine and any person you talk to, has the writer and editors personal bias to contend with. To say that "Car and driver says this car is better so it must be so" and use that as your sole form of judgement when talking about a $70k + car is to put blinders on, and when you get the car home you are liable to find its quite different from what you were expecting when you signed the papers. Go and drive the cars yourself and decide. We can bench race here all evening but all its really doing is killing brain cells.

[Angisio]

Originally posted by Fat Dave


You were the one who wanted to call the magazines, not me. Personally, I think they were closer comparing the C than trying to compare the CLK.

The M3 was chosen in every article I've read when compared to the C32. It was "faster" but not "cheaper", yet somehow still was chosen.

Oh, you read "one" did you, thanks for all that proof. Until you prove it, its just a lie.

[Fat Dave]

Originally posted by Angisio


You didn't put the paragraph in context to anything. You could have been refering to any car in your next paragraphs.

In the first paragraph, I talked about one manufacturer lying about power figures and another manufacturer having problems with blown engines.

The second and third paragraph go on to talk about Ford lying about power figures, and blown engines in BMW M3 vehicles. Even people that fell asleep two-thirds of the way through this thread and forgot that we were talking about blown engines in BMW M3 vehicles previously should have been able to follow my advanced train of thought about blown engines from an unnamed manufacturer in paragraph one to the talk of BMW's blown engines in paragraph two and three.

[Fat Dave]

Originally posted by Angisio


Oh, you read "one" did you, thanks for all that proof. Until you prove it, its just a lie.

uhhh, proof of what? That I read magazine articles comparing the two?

A) Who gives a rat's ass

B) How do you suggest I prove that I read something in the past, a Vulcan Mind Meld?

[Angisio]

Originally posted by Fat Dave


uhhh, proof of what? That I read magazine articles comparing the two?

A) Who gives a rat's ass

B) How do you suggest I prove that I read something in the past, a Vulcan Mind Meld?

Saying the name of the magazine and the month. Then we could find it on the internet, and see if you're lying or not.

[jonny]

I wonder why they would test these cars together. Maybe it was just random, or maybe....just maybe, this is a shot in the dark now, they assumed correctly that anyone who wanted a CLK55 might, MIGHT also look at the M3. Now why would they, you say they're so different...

M3: 0-60 :4.7 1/4mile : 13.4
CLK55 5.0 13.6
Weight:
M3 3440lbs CLK55 3520lbs

bhp/lbs ratio
M3 10.3
CLK55 10.29

are you seeing a trend yet. Bark like a dog if you do.

Dimensions
Wheel Base Length Width Height
M3 107.5 176.8 70.1 54
CLK55 105.9 180.2 67.8 54

Interior Volume
Front Rear Trunk
m3 48 37 10
CLK55 47 33 11

Do you still not see any comparison that could be drawn?

"Early in the test we thouht the BMW would place second because of its slightly less aproachable nature. Despite a longer wheelbase and shorter overall length then the CLK the M3 struck us as having a pretty choppy ride. But not everywhere.

On some surfacesm we discoverd, the M3 actually feels more supple than the CLK."

Funny, c&d actually found some of the M3's characteristics to be more....luxurious? And the M3 has more interior space. That would seem to make it more luxurious to me. Weird. But obviously youre right, these two cars are nothing alike i can see that now. Good thinking.