Road & Track CLK 55 Test is it right???

[Subman]

I just recieved the new Road & Track Magazine today and they of course featuer the new M3 on the cover and the Mercedes CLK55 dosent even get a spot in the backround (but that is a whole dirrerent story that I would like to talk about). Anyway they quoted the CLK55 of a 0-60 in 5.3 what is that and of course the M3 is 4.7. The E55 in the back table of the mag has a time of 5.1 which is .3 seconds less than Mercedes quotes, so there for the CLK should be araound 4.9. for this magazine, and poeple have gotten numbers araound 4.6 for that car what is going on here.
The also compare it to the XKR to the CLK55 and the M gets compared the Z06 and the 911. All the number of the 5 cars are nearly identical except the 0-60, and 1/4 mile times. I feel that the cars sould all be compared to each other, and that Magazines concetrate to much on BMW when there is another worthy opponet from Germany called MERCEDES.

[akry]

After reading through the magazine, it's very clear that R&T is bias toward BMW. Also, I notice that testers at R&T doesn't seem to like Japanese cars at all. Sure some cars are GOOD from their mouths, but rarely do they tell you how GREAT a specific Japanese model is.....

Andy Kuo

I agree with you Andy. R&T seems to never give much credit to lots of Japanese cars. A lot of lexuses have greatly improved in both performance and luxury, yet never seem to receive the same treatment as BMW or MB. I've also noticed that R&T always state Ferrari as the "prefect" car. They may be great automobiles but not "prefect." But one thing I envy about these guys at R&T though, is that they get to go all out on about almost every car out on the road and get paid for it. What a job...

Chuck

[420SEL]

Just remember the lunkheads who write these car articles are the same people who made the Ford Focus the car of the year. What is that? These magazines are really all just advertisments. I doubt you'll find an unbiased article in any of them. It is also possible that the manufactures modify the test cars before thy give them to the magazines. How many of these articles have you read where they start out by doing an emmissions test or thorough evlauation to be sure what they are testing is what you will be buying?

[DuckMuck]

R&T is not biased towards BMW. It is just that in my opinion, BMW produces better cars now than M-B, and it is best reflected in those side-by-side comparisons featured in R&T, where BMW seems to win almost everytime. Even Automobile magazine, when they compared the E39 BMW M5 vs. Jaguar XJR vs. M-B E55, seemed to lean towards the M5. If you guys have a large R&T collection, and go back to some mid-90's issues, you can see that R&T chose M-B over BMW many times in the same comparisons. Why? Maybe because M-B is missing something now that they had before? Even now, many of you ppl on this board are complaining about the fact that M-B aren't what they use to be. If you wanna check out when M-B last trounced BMW, then look at March 1995 issue of R&T.

Did you guys happen to notice the test weight quoted for the CLK55 in the test? Look at the article again. Then go to the MBUSA website and look up the curb weight of a US-spec CLK55.

No matter what anyone says, MB is way more prestigious PERIOD. I truly believe, having had experience with both that MB is a much better made car and way more refined. If MB really wanted to they could make the CLK55 a screaming monster more than it already is, but MB doesn't have to since they want to find a mid-ground between comfort and performance. the M3 is VERY uncomfortable and LOUD. the M5 is stiff and loud as well. the E55 which performs almost or just as well is comfortable and classy as well. BMW is more geared towards towards total performance while MB tries to have a mid-ground. at the end of the day, its the driver and who has more BALLS on the highway. in my CLK430 stock i beat a new Vette the other day. just wait until i get my cat-back, chip, springs and sway bars. Then, BMW owners better really watch out when i change my 2.87 diff to like 3.07 or 3.27. no Bimmer could touch me then!!!

Besides, i bet my CLK430 will get more heads to turn than an M3 any day of the week! i get TOO many lookers now driving around NYC!!! People know this car is almost $60,000 thats why!

(FYI, the 330ci, with only 225 hp and 215 torque can do 6.9 0-60 in 5 spd auto because the final drive ratio of the diff is 3.43!!!! Mercedes has a different philosophy thats all).

take care all...

I would have to disagree with DuckMuck, BMW is not producing better cars than MB in my opinion. I do agree with Walden. I figure that the CLK55 (broken in of coarse) will do 0-60 in 4.6 or 4.7 seconds. A while back Motor Trend tested a E55 that went 0-60 in 4.8, and the CLK55 is lighter than the E55 so I'm guessing 4.6 or 4.7 is reasonable for a CLK55. Just like Walden said, MB wants to get a mixture of performance and comfort. If MB wanted to actually make an all out sports car, they would do a better job than BMW.

[CaptAlex300e]

WE had some guy post that he was doing 0-60 times of 4.6 seconds with the CLK 55. Bimmers are great cars, however they lack the comfort, luxury and longevity of the Benz. Look at the M-5's produced between 1992-1995 and then look at the 500E's. WHO WINS HAHAHA The 500E's are monsters on the prowl long after the M-5's have seen their best days pass. Also look at resale values.

In general I prefer MB to BMW by a wide margin, but not in the case of the new M3 and the CLK55 AMG. The M3 beats the CLK55 AMG in acceleration, braking, top speed, and price. The biggest problem with the Merc is the fact it has an auto transmission, and that it is a hefty $22,400 more expensive the M3 in base form. A real sports car has a manual transmission and the BMW has a proper 6 speed. An auto in this class of car is a joke, and no semi auto will do either end of story! The price of the MB is $67,400 base and $71,847 as tested, while the BMW is $45,000 base and $47,173 as tested. I have no problem with MB's being more expensive the BMW's, but this kind of difference is just unacceptable. The CLK's fat price tag will mean that mostly only old men will be able to own them, and for 67 grand I'll take a Porsche 911 Carrera thank you.

It's rather sad that AMG took the hot rod route with the CLK with big horsepower and weight, while BMW build a true sports car with the M3.

Woah! Hold on there Mr.W123, FIRST off the acceleration of the CLK55 and M3 are the same, the top speed of the CLK w/o the limiter will be faster than a M3 w/o the limiter, the M3 brakes 3 or 4 feet sooner than the CLK. About the transmission of the CLK55 : if more people wanted a manual CLK55, MB would build it. It's all based on demand, but I sure do wish they did offer a manual on the CLK55. It's sad that AMG took the hod rod route ? What are you saying ? What's so bad about a big engine with torque, torque, and more torque anytime you want it throughout the rev range ? And the CLK55 isn't much heavier than an M3. The thing that really pisses me off is everyone comparing the M3 to the CLK55. Are they not patient enough to wait a couple more months for the C32 ? That's a more logical match, C32 vs. M3. This time AMG took the supercharging route so it will have more horsepower and torque than the M3. The C32 probably accelerate, brake, and handle as good as the M3. And it will cost way less than the CLK55. Hey, since MB is selling more and more manual transmission cars, maybe a couple years down the line there will be enough demand for MB to offer the C32 with a 6-speed manual. BMW's M cars are great especially the new M3, but I would still take any AMG car over any BMW M car.

I disagree with SV that if customers wanted a manual transmission in the CLK55 that M-B would build it. Sorry, but no freakin way! It would not be profitable for M-B to build the car and have it certified to sell only few for a limited production run, and customers wouldn't want to pay for the extra R&D and certification costs, either.

I also disagree SV that the M3 should be compared to the C32. Sorry, but the M3 and the CLK55 are perfect competition. They have similar size, body style, and performance. The only thing that is off is the price, and I think most people agree that the CLK55 is overpriced for what you get. By my calculations, it's overpriced by about $4K even when compared to other AMG models. If BMW makes a 4-door M3, then you can compare it to the C32, but until then, the CLK55 is the correct comparison to the M3 Coupe.

I also disagree with Mr.W123 about the automatic transmission. The automotive journalist community all have a heard mentality about sports cars and manual transmissions. Sorry, but it's crap. Automatics and sequential manuals (another semi auto) are the way to go for top performance, and racing proves it. BMW knows it too and that's why they offer the SMG. And don't tell me the SMG is still a manual because that's crap, too. If a manual transmission is required for maximum fun/control through driver interaction, then SMG doesn't qualify any more than TouchShift/SpeedShift.

I also disagree about AMG taking "the hot rod route with the CLK with big horsepower and weight." I think what you mean to say is the muscle car route with big torque and weight. However, have you checked the M3 specs? It's no lightweight. The M3 and weighs only 158 lbs less than the CLK55, and that's before you add heavy options to the M3, like Xenon headlamps, sunroof, and power seats.

Another point in defense the CLK55: I am willing to bet that it'll be vastly more reliable than the new M3, and I'm also willing to bet that the M3 engine's 8000RPM redline will give it a failure rate 10 times that of the CLK55's high-torque engine.

I agree with SV that with MORE people interested in the manual, MB may do it, it's a matter of supply and demand. If MB is losing signficant sales to others as people are only interested in maual gear boxes, I'm sure they'll do something about it.

I find the comparison between the CLK55 and M3 not very meaningful. To me (I have driven neither) former is more of a quieter, luxurious grand touring coupe while the M3 is more for track events and outright racing.

I mean had anyone ever compared any CLK with any 3 series coupe? I always thought the CLK is a class above, slightly bigger and more refined than any 3 series too.

I would agree with Brian that a 4 door M3 (with semi-auto gear box) would be an interesting comparison to the C32.

Oh well, we all have our own frame of mind and it's all personal I suppose.

Hey Brian_R170, when I was talking about the manual transmission, I meant if enough people wanted it and MB could see a profit they would make it. There would have to be a good deal of CLK buyers, but you never know, maybe there will be more and more people people will want a manual AMG model. Obviously if MB didn't see a profit they wouldn't offer the manual. People compare the C240 to the 325i, the C320 to the 330i so why not compare the best MB has to offer in the C-class to the best BMW has to offer in the 3 series ? It really does make more sense to compare a C32 to the M3, not the CLK55. The CLK has a V-8. M3 has a 6, so does the C32. The C32 is also closer in price to the M3 than the CLK55 is. If you want to compare the CLK55 to any other cars, compare it to jaguars XKR,the porsche 911 and other coupes in it's price range.

Just a short question:
Can MB develop its 6 speed transmission the one on C240 and put it on clk 55 or mabye C32 kompressor?