BMW M3 vs. Mercedes Benz CLK 55(The Showdown)

[F1Lover]

Ever wondered what these 2 cars would look like lined up against eachother? well i take a deeper look at that and tell youwhich is the better car for the money you spend.



Price:
M3 – 74,560 Cr.
CLK 55 – 147,770 Cr.

HP:
M3 - 361 HP/ 7900 rpm
CLK 55 – 369 HP/ 5500 rpm

Torque:
M3 - 282.44 ft.lb/ 4900 rpm
CLK 55 – 394.84 ft.lb/ 3000 – 4300 rpm

Drivetrain:
M3 – FR
CLK 55 – FR

Engine:
M3 – L6: DOHC
CLK 55 – V8: SOHC

Weight:
M3 – 1570 Kg.
CLK 55 – 1620 Kg.




Testing

0-60:
M3 – 5:333 seconds
CLK 55 – 6.083 seconds

Quarter Mile:
M3 – 14.016 seconds
CLK 55 – 14.289 seconds

Top Speed:
M3 – 182.86 MPH
CLK 55 – 181.11 MPH

The Ring B-Spec Steady:
M3 – 8’11.858 Minutes
CLK 55 – 8’18.488 Minutes



The Verdict:

While at first glance the Mercedes with its superior horsepower and torque would be the better buy, the M3 in my opinion definitely gives you the most bang for your buck. It seemed to me the 50 extra Kg of the Mercedes should not have effected the cars overall performance due to its bigger V8 engine. But the I6 of the BMW clearly dominated the Mercedes engine. Also, the price of the Mercedes is almost double that of the BMW! Take that into consideration, if you buy the Mercedes you are actually paying more for less. Keep in mind that these cars were completely stock minus an oil change. Thank you for reading and be sure to check up for more reviews from myself. Next up, I will continue my BMW vs. Mercedes rivalry as I will be comparing the ’05 BMW M5 to the mighty ’03 Mercedes SLR Mclaren. Hope you enjoyed my review and for any suggestions please contact me at jake.musgrove@gmail.com and remember always keep it clean.

 

[Tatanko]

But the V6 of the BMW

For the record, it's an I6. Good review! 👍

 

[robertsmb]

you gotta look at just more than the 50kg weight difference,.. 4 simple letters should show you more than you need to know... D. O. H. C. just the fact that its DOHC and that its got 4 valves per cylinder instead of 2.. meaning its got the same number of valves as the SOHC V8. then you need to look at gearing and redline. and i forget what BMW calls their multi-teired version of VTEC, but their engines change cam/timings 3 times thru the RPM spectrum changing output from daily drivable, to stupid high end racing, all in about 2.8 seconds

the M3 is superior to a ton of cars, and is a very heavy favorite among racers in my community with a little more cash than it takes to buy an SRT-4. i would be disapointed in this game if they didnt show that it was as badass in VR as it is in RL.

 

[F1Lover]

Ah yes good point robertsmb i wasn't even thinking along that line at the time, ill make sure to look more deeply into each car i guess i was just jumping to conclusions without taking everything in first

 

[BlackNSX]

A bit anal there robertsmb?

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison F1 Lover.

The M3 isn't that great in real life, the brakes are crap and the handling is not what i expected (understeer). Mine had the 19's which could of made a difference but i was never tempted to track it.

-Rob

 

[robertsmb]

F1, it was a great comparison, you did a good job,.. i guess i left that part out,

and blackNSX, no I wasnt being anal,.. aside from playing GT4, I am an avid drag racer,.. I myself own a 2004 Stage 2 SRT-4 that runs about 12.3-12.4 in the 1/4 depending on the weather.. and brakes/understeer dont really matter in drag racing, so I guess I was only looking at it from the power and acceleration stand point. I was simply stating to F1 that there are a ton of factors that determine how fast a car will be, besides weight,....

Im just glad they tried to get the cars as close to possible in the game to what they are in real life. =)

 

[Scaff]

A bit anal there robertsmb?

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison F1 Lover.

The M3 isn't that great in real life, the brakes are crap and the handling is not what i expected (understeer). Mine had the 19's which could of made a difference but i was never tempted to track it.

-Rob

In what way are the M3s brakes c**p?

Every genertaion of M3 I've had the pleasure of driving has had excellent brake feel, modulation and has been fade free even after excesive use.

If you are talking about stopping distances, then you should remember that overall stopping distances have little to do with the braking system (so long as its set-up correctly) and everything to do with the tyres and the maximum grip level they can handle.

As for understeer, well that could be down to the fact that the vast majority of road cars made are engineered to initialy understeer; the reason is quite simple, safety. Initial understeer means that when your average driver exceeds the cars grip levels and understeer sets in, when they react as most people do and let off the throttle the car will trim itsself back into line.

A road car that initially oversteered would be very, very dangerous. An M3 can be persuaded to step the back end out quite happily with a little power on oversteer.

As for having an M3 and never taking it to the track, madness, you don't know what you missed out on. The M3 is a supurb road car, but its even more capable on the track.

 

[NIck_chap]

In what way are the M3s brakes c**p?

Every genertaion of M3 I've had the pleasure of driving has had excellent brake feel, modulation and has been fade free even after excesive use.

If you are talking about stopping distances, then you should remember that overall stopping distances have little to do with the braking system (so long as its set-up correctly) and everything to do with the tyres and the maximum grip level they can handle.

As for understeer, well that could be down to the fact that the vast majority of road cars made are engineered to initialy understeer; the reason is quite simple, safety. Initial understeer means that when your average driver exceeds the cars grip levels and understeer sets in, when they react as most people do and let off the throttle the car will trim itsself back into line.

A road car that initially oversteered would be very, very dangerous. An M3 can be persuaded to step the back end out quite happily with a little power on oversteer.

As for having an M3 and never taking it to the track, madness, you don't know what you missed out on. The M3 is a supurb road car, but its even more capable on the track.

I agree the M3 is one of the best driving cars around in it's class better than the Audi S4 by a mile. The straight 6 is a smooth and responsive engine easily out performing similar V8 engines!

 

[robertsmb]

Well Nick, Ive never driven an S4, but on paper the S4 is faster,.. im guessing the I6 would be smoother than the V8 the S4 has, but then again, they replaced a Twin Turbo V6 in the older S4 for the new 4.2L V8 so it would be mean and have more torque,...

Where do you think the M3 is better than the S4? In what catagory I mean,... because as far as racing in concerned, the S4 "should" own the M3.

** EDIT - I would buy the M3 just because of its reputation,.. Im not backing the S4, but I dont like to knock other cars either.

 

[Kutscher80]

Where do you think the M3 is better than the S4? In what catagory I mean,... because as far as racing in concerned, the S4 "should" own the M3.

No, because of the balance of weight. The S4 is heavier (because of the weigth of the V8 AND Quattro) and has more weight on the front wheels -> more understeering!!

I will search the "Supertest" of the S4 and tell you the differences to the M3.

Have FUN

 

[Scaff]

No, because of the balance of weight. The S4 is heavier (because of the weigth of the V8 AND Quattro) and has more weight on the front wheels -> more understeering!!

I will search the "Supertest" of the S4 and tell you the differences to the M3.

Have FUN

Spot on, drove an RS6 Avant last year which suffers from the same problem, 440bhp makes for a very fast car in a straight line (0-60 in under 5 seconds), but once the road got a bit twisty the weight over the front started to become a factor. Particulalrly during transitions from one direction to te other.

Now don't get me wrong, the RS6 Avant is a stupidly good car, but it does not handle as well as an M3.

Good news for the future is that AUdi are more than aware of this and are currenlty work on resolving these issues for future models.

 

[NIck_chap]

Spot on, drove an RS6 Avant last year which suffers from the same problem, 440bhp makes for a very fast car in a straight line (0-60 in under 5 seconds), but once the road got a bit twisty the weight over the front started to become a factor. Particulalrly during transitions from one direction to te other.

Now don't get me wrong, the RS6 Avant is a stupidly good car, but it does not handle as well as an M3.

Good news for the future is that AUdi are more than aware of this and are currenlty work on resolving these issues for future models.

Indeed BMW's are typically excellent drivers cars and more so than audi's. The Rs6 is a good example, masses of power and torque but not as strong in the corners than say an M5.

 

[Kutscher80]

Now I am at home.

Found the Supertest of the Audi S4 Avant.

1 Lap Nordschleife:
S4: 8:29 min
M3 : 8:22min
C55: 8:22min

1 Lap Hockenheim (short):
S4: 1:19,1 min
M3: 1:16,3 min
C55: 1:18,6 min

From 0 - 200 kph - 0: (Accelerating + Braking)
S4: 26,4 sec
M3: 23,2 sec
C55: 23,7 sec

Slalom 36m
S4: 121 Kph
M3: 123 Kph
C55: 122 Kph
etc.
In the End the M3 got 44 / 70 Points
the C55 got 42 / 70 Points.
the S4 got 37 / 70 Points.

Clear Victory for the M3 vs. S4. The newest Competitor the C55 is near the M3.


Have FUN

 

[robertsmb]

yes it does have more weight and more understeer, but when you look at the numbers, it also has more acceleration and top end,.. when the S4 has to slow down slightly more than the M3 to take a tight corner, it can still power out of that corner with its massive torque. the M3 does 0-60 in 5.3 the S4 does it in 5 flat,.. the M3 runs the 1/4 in 14 flat and the S4 runs it in 13.3 (real life specs, not the game) so the M3 might handle better, but it doesnt mean it will kill the S4 on the track.

 

[robertsmb]

Now I am at home.

Found the Supertest of the Audi S4 Avant.

1 Lap Nordschleife:
S4: 8:29 min
M3 : 8:22min
C55: 8:22min

1 Lap Hockenheim (short):
S4: 1:19,1 min
M3: 1:16,3 min
C55: 1:18,6 min

From 0 - 200 kph - 0: (Accelerating + Braking)
S4: 26,4 sec
M3: 23,2 sec
C55: 23,7 sec

Slalom 36m
S4: 121 Kph
M3: 123 Kph
C55: 122 Kph
etc.
In the End the M3 got 44 / 70 Points
the C55 got 42 / 70 Points.
the S4 got 37 / 70 Points.

Clear Victory for the M3 vs. S4. The newest Competitor the C55 is near the M3.


Have FUN

Ahh,.. now I see... =) Good info. So this proves that even though the Audi does have more power, it isnt enough to make up for the M3's suberb handling.

=)~ Nice on Kuts

**EDIT** I just noticed, that was the S4 Avant,.. Wagon was heavier and bulkier, and harder to race,.. also, what year S4 was that? If it was over last year, then the test would NOT have been with the newer 4.2L V8 and thats why the S4 didnt accelerate faster than the M3... just a few questions.

 

[///M-Spec]

yes it does have more weight and more understeer, but when you look at the numbers, it also has more acceleration and top end,.. when the S4 has to slow down slightly more than the M3 to take a tight corner, it can still power out of that corner with its massive torque. the M3 does 0-60 in 5.3 the S4 does it in 5 flat,.. the M3 runs the 1/4 in 14 flat and the S4 runs it in 13.3 (real life specs, not the game) so the M3 might handle better, but it doesnt mean it will kill the S4 on the track.

This information is incorrect. You are comparing the wrong cars. If you've seen M3s tested running 5.3 seconds 0-60 and 14.0 @ 99 mph, you are seeing tests for the 240 hp US Spec E36 M3 (95-99).

Assuming you are comparing the 01+ E46 M3 (333 SAE hp, 3450 lbs) to the B6 S4 (350 SAE hp, 3825 lbs)....

The M3 has a better power to weight ratio than the S4. Period. Full stop.

0-60: The S4 cuts good 0-60 times because AWD allows for harder launches. S4s are regularly tested at 5 flat seconds to 60. But M3s are regularly tested < 5 seconds to 60 as well.

1320: The E46 M3 has been repeated tested by owners and magazines to run low-mid 13s (13.2 to 13.5), depending on conditions. Everyone once in a while a car gets into the 12s... but that's not often. It regularly traps at 106 or 107, not 100.

The B6 S4, from everything I've read runs low-mid 13s as well (13.4-13.6) and traps no higher than 105 mph. This number is consistant with it's power to weight ratio.

This is stock for stock. I'm not knocking the S4... I'd love to have one. But on paper the M3 is faster so long as it's not raining. In real life, it's close enough to be a driver's race.


M

 

[robertsmb]

Nice post M-spec,.. Thanks for the update.

 

[f1king]

Ever wondered what these 2 cars would look like lined up against eachother? well i take a deeper look at that and tell youwhich is the better car for the money you spend.



Price:
M3 – 74,560 Cr.
CLK 55 – 147,770 Cr.

HP:
M3 - 361 HP/ 7900 rpm
CLK 55 – 369 HP/ 5500 rpm

Torque:
M3 - 282.44 ft.lb/ 4900 rpm
CLK 55 – 394.84 ft.lb/ 3000 – 4300 rpm

Drivetrain:
M3 – FR
CLK 55 – FR

Engine:
M3 – L6: DOHC
CLK 55 – V8: SOHC

Weight:
M3 – 1570 Kg.
CLK 55 – 1620 Kg.




Testing

0-60:
M3 – 5:333 seconds
CLK 55 – 6.083 seconds

Quarter Mile:
M3 – 14.016 seconds
CLK 55 – 14.289 seconds

Top Speed:
M3 – 182.86 MPH
CLK 55 – 181.11 MPH

The Ring B-Spec Steady:
M3 – 8’11.858 Minutes
CLK 55 – 8’18.488 Minutes



The Verdict:

While at first glance the Mercedes with its superior horsepower and torque would be the better buy, the M3 in my opinion definitely gives you the most bang for your buck. It seemed to me the 50 extra Kg of the Mercedes should not have effected the cars overall performance due to its bigger V8 engine. But the I6 of the BMW clearly dominated the Mercedes engine. Also, the price of the Mercedes is almost double that of the BMW! Take that into consideration, if you buy the Mercedes you are actually paying more for less. Keep in mind that these cars were completely stock minus an oil change. Thank you for reading and be sure to check up for more reviews from myself. Next up, I will continue my BMW vs. Mercedes rivalry as I will be comparing the ’05 BMW M5 to the mighty ’03 Mercedes SLR Mclaren. Hope you enjoyed my review and for any suggestions please contact me at jake.musgrove@gmail.com and remember always keep it clean.

Well I dont think thit is fair you got a sports luxurey car against a pure sports car?!?!?!?

 

[MCX]

Well I dont think thit is fair you got a sports luxurey car against a pure sports car?!?!?!?

I don't think either of those cars are pure sports cars. The M3 is just a motorsports model of the 3-series that any college girl gets her daddy to buy her. It has a functional back seat, the platform is available with 4 doors, etc. etc.

I would consider a car like the Z06 a pure sports car, along with the rear-seat-equipped 911 and RX-7, to name a few.

That said, I shopped for M3's and S4's. I love them both, unfortunately I couldn't bring myself to part with the insurance costs. Eventually I bought a Lincoln LS V8 sport, since I worked for Ford at the time and it's just a heck of a lot more affordable.

But really... who said life was fair?

 

[neanderthal]

the CLK55 is also not a 2 valve car. its three valves. two intake, one exhaust. makes for better torque, and emissions. or something like that. the numberof cams per bank has little effect on a well designed engine.

 

[smellysocks12]

The reason why the M3 is faster and lighter, yet cheaper than the Benz is because the M3 is really intended to be a pure sports car and doesn't come with as many extras and luxury items as the AMG Merc, which is more a luxury sports car. Comparing the Mercedes to a DB7 might have been more fair in my opinion.

 

[Stune]

That review was wicked. Its the first time ive seen somthing quite like that

 

[BMWz]

The reason why the M3 is faster and lighter, yet cheaper than the Benz is because the M3 is really intended to be a pure sports car and doesn't come with as many extras and luxury items as the AMG Merc, which is more a luxury sports car. Comparing the Mercedes to a DB7 might have been more fair in my opinion.

Thats crap 👎

an M3 CSL is a pure sports car
and M3 comes with eletric seats, climate control, leather, sat nav + tv and all other luxury trimmings

 

[skicrush]

OK, so I want/need to buy an M for the 'M' club race. I know these questions can bug some people, but the M3 CSL and M5 are both exceptional cars, and cost about the same. Since you can't buy to test drive (CURSE AUTOSAVE!), I ran the normal M3 against the M5 in arcade, and compared my times. The M5 laps were faster by about 3-5 secs , and held about 0-3 mph faster through some constant radius turns(yes, of course same tires). Plus you can use it in the supercar race, too. But it is tons heavier, and I wonder if the extra weight will end up biting me in my (big) butt. The M3 felt a lot more planted and got me in a lot less trouble, but just couldn't match the times the 500 horses delivered. Will lightening the M3 get me a better power/weight ratio than the M5 would get with similar weight reductions? Will some suspension work and mass reduction (plus the CSL's additional power over a stock M3) give me better times than the M5?

 

[F1Lover]

honestly i would take the csl i recently bought on and i was blown away by it. it is an awesome piece of machinery. The M5 on the other hand really doesnt appeal to be since it is alot heavier. I would take the M3 csl get a custon tranny and suspension, stage 2 weight reduction and some medium racing tires. While it may cost more i think you will be much happier with it then you will with the M5, just my 2 cents, btw use jaberwocky's settings found here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57095

 

[robertsmb]

I don't think either of those cars are pure sports cars. The M3 is just a motorsports model of the 3-series that any college girl gets her daddy to buy her. It has a functional back seat, the platform is available with 4 doors, etc. etc.

So you think a car with 4 doors and a backseat isnt a sports car?? My Neon is a sports car.... and its a friggin Neon! 4 doors, backseat, real fullsize trunk.

College girls dont drive M3's, they drive 325i's... The only people around here that even own M3's race them and get them because they are a good base car to start modding and turn into a monster.

I would consider a car like the Z06 a pure sports car, along with the rear-seat-equipped 911 and RX-7, to name a few.

Once again, With the exception of the 911, I would rip the Z06 and the RX-7 out of the frame,... in a 4 door Neon... but you wont consider it a sports car?

 

[F1Lover]

My 91 Acura Integra is a sports car and it is by no means the eqivalent of a corvette or rx-7
or even a dodge neon for that matter =X but it is classified as a sports car.

 

[Danny]

Odd how people seem to be forgetting how much better looking the CLK is.

 

[MCX]

So you think a car with 4 doors and a backseat isnt a sports car??

Um, I said "rear seat equipped" RX-7 and 911. Both known to be sports cars by design. And no. 4 door neons aren't PURE sports cars.

My Neon is a sports car.... and its a friggin Neon! 4 doors, backseat, real fullsize trunk.

Not true. Dodge lists it as "Dodge - Neon - HomeOfficial site of the economy car, with details"... The manufacturer calls it an "economy car". Hardly a "sports car". I'd say sport compact at best for the absolute high end models. Not pure sports car, which is what I clearly referred to in my post.

College girls dont drive M3's, they drive 325i's...

I know a college girl that drives an M3. You're losing some credibility in this post. Not to mention that the point was that they are built on the same platform.

The only people around here that even own M3's race them and get them because they are a good base car to start modding and turn into a monster.

I'd like to know what class they are modding M3's for, because the M3's that are in the game neither need, or lend themselves well to, modifications. You're blowing smoke. There are no E30's in the game, and even then they take a lot of money to modify.

Once again, With the exception of the 911, I would rip the Z06 and the RX-7 out of the frame,... in a 4 door Neon... but you wont consider it a sports car?

Rip a Z06 out of the frame? In what way? In a straight line? Fine, a Yugo with a motorcycle engine can do that. Around a corner? um, maybe if you had more money in suspension and wheels than your neon is worth, and you're riding on race compound tires. I tell you what, you post the times where a stock neon whatever has beaten a stock Z06 around any major racetrack in the world.
Notice I didn't say "benchracetrack". Then I'll take into consideration what you are saying.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've owned two M3s and at no time did I ever consider either a pure sports car.

Pure sports cars don't have suspension subframes with soft rubber mounting points to protect your tushy from potholes and expansion joints. They don't have DVD navigation, soft Nappa leather, heated AND power seats, 6+ airbags, automatic climate control with charcoal filtration systems and powered subwoofers in the trunk or some of the suspension compromises an M3 has. Some would even say a "pure" sports car doesn't come with radio, heat or A/C.

The M3 is a good GT car and has been since the E36 version. A solid, comfortable and quick car you can use everyday and track on the weekends.

Sports cars are all about weight and complexity: the less the better. I wouldn't consider newer Corvettes or 911s in the "pure" catagory either, as both those cars have the same creature comforts the M3 has. A 911 hasn't been really pure since the 80s 964. Maybe a GT3 RS, but definately not a Z06. Sports cars, yes. "Pure" no.

A base Elise is about as pure as you can buy these days... (at least in North America). A Caterham 7 kit car perhaps. That's what I'd consider "pure".


M