BMW M3 vs. Mercedes Benz CLK 55(The Showdown)
- Thread starter F1Lover
- 55 comments
- 5,141 views
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
ultrabeat
That's a good question and I think it has a lot to do with personal perference and the car's mission. Since we're talking about cars designed to be road legal, I would make allowances for a certain amount of compromises to make them so. I would practically draw the line at something like the Elise. Some people might draw the line at an S2000.
"Impure" seems like such a, damning word.
I prefer "less pure" or "more compromised".M
- 324
///M-SpecHow about SCCA SM? Or BSP. How about T1? Any variety of BMWCCA club racing classes. World Challenge GT ring a bell? Are you seriously suggesting people don't mod M3s to go racing?
M
Nope. I'm suggesting that robertsmb's statement of "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" is an absolute load of crap.
Do all of the M3 owners you know race SM? Yeah, I bet they all have World Challenge cars in their garages, right beside their new 7's. People do mod their M3's to go racing, but let's face it, a very small percentage of them are modified for anything other than forum bragging rights. btw, I agree with what you said about RX-7's, Z06's, and most 911 models. They are sports/gt's if not full gt's. I also agree about the Elise. AFAIK, it is one of the best recent cars that would fit in the "pure" sports car category. Pity I can't say that I've driven one...
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
MCX
Okay. Fair enough and I would tend to agree. Almost no car, not even a 360 Challenge Stradale has a 100% likelyhood of being used as they were intended. I know of at least one Stradale that has sat in an airconditioned barn most of it's brief life.
But in my experience, M3s are no more likely to be Sunday driven garage queens than, say a C5 or 996.
Pity me as well.
I haven't driven one either. Nearest dealer is 160+ miles away.M
- 137
i always thought M3 is a completely separate car from the rest of the 3-series... doesn't the M3 has its own separate chassis, engine, and everything? could be wrong though....
althought both the CLK and M3 are sport cars... BMW does emphasize the "sport" element alot more than M-B does... M-B is more about comfort and luxury while BMW, not that it's not lacks luxury, focus more on performance... i think this is true in almost all classes of both companies...
i personally like the new CLK alot more (not the old one that GT4 has...) even if it's slower....it's just so much sexier...
althought both the CLK and M3 are sport cars... BMW does emphasize the "sport" element alot more than M-B does... M-B is more about comfort and luxury while BMW, not that it's not lacks luxury, focus more on performance... i think this is true in almost all classes of both companies...
i personally like the new CLK alot more (not the old one that GT4 has...) even if it's slower....it's just so much sexier...
The traditional definition of sports car is lightweight, RWD, two seats, with emphasis on driving over luxury, utility, economy, etc. Think Lotus Elise, MG, Austin Healey, Miata, S2000, etc. Vehicles with more luxury features (and typically higher power output) are usually GT cars, like Aston Martins, Ferrari 575, several BMW's. Other cars fall somewhere in between (911, Z06)
There is also a looser definition of sports car which is pretty much anything with stiff suspension and enough horsepower to make it get out of its own way. But when you can call anything a sports car (Mustang, Neon, GTO, etc.) it pretty much loses all meaning.
What is pure vs. impure? Sound deadening? Air conditioning? Power windows? I suppose the point it becomes "impure" is in the eye of the beholder. It used to be anything with roll-up windows was a luxury or GT car, and sports cars could only have curtains. I think the definition of pure these days allows for things like power windows and airbags, provided they don't compromise the sporty character of the car.
There is also a looser definition of sports car which is pretty much anything with stiff suspension and enough horsepower to make it get out of its own way. But when you can call anything a sports car (Mustang, Neon, GTO, etc.) it pretty much loses all meaning.
What is pure vs. impure? Sound deadening? Air conditioning? Power windows? I suppose the point it becomes "impure" is in the eye of the beholder. It used to be anything with roll-up windows was a luxury or GT car, and sports cars could only have curtains. I think the definition of pure these days allows for things like power windows and airbags, provided they don't compromise the sporty character of the car.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
woodstock827
Depends largely on WHICH M3 you're think of. The current 2001+ M3 shares maybe only 50-60% parts commonality with the rest of the 3-Series range. The M3 uses the 3-Series Coupe unit body, but has a completely unique engine (that has absolutely nothing in common with the M54 in the normal cars), transmission and rear end.
The suspension design is based on the normal 3, but has completely revised geometry, wider track and most of the parts, from the control arms, shocks springs, roll-bar to the rear subframe is M3 only. Steering rack is M3 only. Brake system is M3 only.
The wheels and tires are of course different. All the exterior body panels are different except for the trunk, doors and roof.
To say the M3 is pretty much a 3-Series is like saying a Skyline GT-R is pretty much a G35.
M
- 376
- GTP_Reikro
I personally don't think "pure" and "impure" is the right words to use. Take a Mercedes SLK (old model) for example. Yes it's luxurious, yes it may be a bit on the soft side, but it's still a sportscar (or roadster). It's just that it's less driver focused than say an S2000 or Elise.
Man, talk about drawing a line in the sand! I think most of us adults can recognize how vacuous the term "Sports Car" can be, especially if you're in the business of coming up with a hard definition of the term. I'd say Road and Track did an OK job recently of defining some basic parameters of what is a sports car, whether or not you agree with the results, or even the cars included (I tend to vaguely agree with the ovreall results, though I'm still baffled even though they explain why they chose the Z4 over the M3 for inclusion).
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1949
And I apologize, but I just can't let this go:
Are you sure? I don't think there's enough difference in a 911's performance v/s a Z06's performance to lose to one and rip the frame out of the other. In fact, the last few comparos I've read have given the nod to the Vette--not even the Z06 (the new Z06 comes out next year with 500+ HP). The numbers I've seen put the new base Vette about equal with the performance of the old Z06. And while those comparisons are not solely based on track times, the Corvette has posted the best times out of everything its been put up against. So, unless you're talking about the Carrera GT, I doubt there will be enough difference to lose to one and tear the frame out of the other. And I gather from the "I would rip..." quote that you HAVE NOT ACTUALLY ripped either of the cars you mention.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1949
And I apologize, but I just can't let this go:
robertsmb
Are you sure? I don't think there's enough difference in a 911's performance v/s a Z06's performance to lose to one and rip the frame out of the other. In fact, the last few comparos I've read have given the nod to the Vette--not even the Z06 (the new Z06 comes out next year with 500+ HP). The numbers I've seen put the new base Vette about equal with the performance of the old Z06. And while those comparisons are not solely based on track times, the Corvette has posted the best times out of everything its been put up against. So, unless you're talking about the Carrera GT, I doubt there will be enough difference to lose to one and tear the frame out of the other. And I gather from the "I would rip..." quote that you HAVE NOT ACTUALLY ripped either of the cars you mention.
- 1,766
skicrush
Ok... here goes...
I went to La Sarthe 2 with an M3 tuned to about 420 bhp, drove against an AMG SL65 and a McLaren SLR.... 2 laps, I was ahead all the time.... almost won, but in the 2nd lap I hit the sand with one wheel a drew a line (and a couple of circles after that) in the sand. Great...
- 324
///M-Spec
True. However, I'm trying to look at the design of the car. The fact of the matter is that BMW cares about car performance. All of their models perform at or near the top of their respective classes. When designing the 3, the designers sat down and came up with the best 3-series they could give to the general upper-class public. They didn't design a "sports car" then slap some amenities on it. Very shortly thereafter, they or whoever went to work on the M model, which is a highly upgraded sports version of the car.
That said, I would gladly take a new 3, an M3, or a G35 coupe and be happy as a clam.
I think BMW builds some of the finest cars on the planet, and my current favorite car is the M3 six speed. I've often thought about buying an E30 M3 to race in the local club, although I'm also very tempted to go with a highly-modded E30 325. Major fun I'm sure... but still not a "pure sports car".
- 1,766
robertsmb
College girls drive a '88 Honda Civic..... they can't afford a BMW.... any normal college girls anyway. And even if they'd get a BMW 3 series they'd probably have a 316.
- 104
compare the m5 to a lotus carlton. The new m5 is obviously better but back in 1991 the lotus was much faster than any BMW
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
MCX
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at, but it sounds to me like it's partly a question of semantics and partly a question of usefulness of comparision.
It is true an M3 is just a version of your run of the mill 3er. You could also say a man is just a highly developed ape and a lion is just a big cat and you'd be right too. However, you wouldn't treat a lion the way you treat a 12 lb. tabby and you wouldn't take on an M3 in a Accord because you figure you could take on a 325i.
For most discussions... performance, price, etc. an M3 has pretty much nothing to do with a 325 unless you were talking about how cold the AC blows or how much room this is in the back seat... or how the stereo sucks hard in both cars
Either would be a lot of fun. I would go for an E36 325 or M3 myself for a project car.
Anecdotal 'evidence' not withstanding, I don't think the parking lot of a sorority house accurately represents the entire female student body nor is a 325 is representative of what all college girls are driving. But I think you are largely joking here... are you not?
M
- 324
Well true. Nor would I call a neon a "sports car" even if they produce an SRT-4. The point, which I believe we've agreed on already, is that the M3 is an excellent car with outstanding performance, but not a "pure sports car". I interviewed this week at a BMW store and told them with absolute truth that the BMW M3 is currently my favorite performance car.///M-Spec
///M-SpecFor most discussions... performance, price, etc. an M3 has pretty much nothing to do with a 325 unless you were talking about how cold the AC blows or how much room this is in the back seat... or how the stereo sucks hard in both cars
I wouldn't say it had nothing to do with it. It would have less to do with it than it would a 330. I think you could take a 330, send it do a tuner, and get pretty dang close to an M3, if not bettering it in some areas. DINAN comes to mind, although I don't know the quality of work they've done recently. Theoretically, you could remove all the "M" characteristics from the interior of the M3 and 95% of the driving population probably couldn't tell the difference between the cars on a track. More importantly, if you had the sheer money, you could convert a 330 coupe into an M3. Yes, you'd spend twice the money to do so, but the cars share more than just the blue and white hood emblems.
///M-Spec
Well, that's a matter of money. I need more of it. Can't quite afford an E36 M3 project, heh. We're talking a track only car here, so expense is basically all that matters to me. In cheap - out cheap (relatively).
Didn't say "all", said "any", meant "some".///M-Spec
I am.///M-Spec
While it is true that when the e36 M3 came out a lot of M3 enthusiasts were dissappointed that the car was more just a hopped up 3 series, the original M3, the E30, as well as the newer E46 have a lot less in common with a standard 3 series than you would think.
The S52 (E36 M3 motor) is a very capable motor, but the original M3s S14 motor is much more of a race motor. 2.3l I4 that redlined at 7400rpm. This type of motor in a car is what makes a track monster. It didnt have much lowend grunt, but it made torque at high rpms and that is what matters for in gear acceleration. 0-60 times dont mean **** as far as lap times go.
When the E46 M3 was engineered a lot more work was put into developing a great motor for racing. The S54 is a big I6 just like the S52, but it makes torque at high enough rpms to have pulling power up to 8k rpm. On paper the M3 may look like an underdog to a benz or an audi but it is BMWs philosophy in building a balanced lightweight car with a potent race motor that equates to track dominance. Nobody spends more R&D money than BMW on developing racing cars, and even though their newer M cars are getting heavier and more luxurious as demand requires it, this R&D reflects directly on their M cars.
I think its funny how AMG or audi try and compete with BMW by pushing more torque into their heavier cars by slapping on superchargers or turbochargers and their cars still cant compare. It works though, as the average person looks at the numbers on paper and then claims on a forum that an S4 will smoke an M3.
MCX, If you are looking for a track only M3 I suggest you test drive a few E30s. While if I had to chose a car for dual street/track duty, the E36 M3 is a lot more comfortable. The original M3 is a much more pure car. Its very rewarding to drive fast, and easy to do so. It doesnt need much for you to be able to smoke cars with twice the power and pricetag. With simply Victoracer V700 tires, Hawk race pads, a chip and a harness you will be ready to be passing E36s, E46s, Evos, 911 turbos, and ferraris on track.
The R&D that went on in the early 90s developing the M3 into a touring legend allows you to build as potent a racing M3 that you can afford. At the peak of their evolution, DTM M3s made upwards of 380hp out of their 2.5liter 4 bangers, spinning around 10k revs. M3s that were raced in BTCC were required to conform to the 2.0l limit, they were destroked and revved to 12k.
A 380hp 2.5 would cost you a big chunk of change, something like 30 grand, but its a frigging DTM motor. You can spend much less and still have an incredible motor. I plan on doing a mediocre 2.5 build. Evo 3 cams in a mild head fed by a carbon fibre airbox w/ alpha N maxx piggyback EMS should get me past 270hp. More importantly when you drop the AFM for the alpha N setup you gain a ton of low-mid range torque.
This car is on display at the ///M testcenter in Nurburg.
Checkout www.s14.net if you want to learn more. There is a wealth of information contributed by some really smart guys.
BTW, I just picked up GT4 a week ago. I dont have an M3 or CSL yet, but started building and testing an M coupe at the ring. It has:
stage 3 suspension
stage 2 NA tune
stage 2 lightening
street soft tires
clutch, flywheel, race exhaust, chip, and all the other goodies cept race transmission, stage 3 NA tune, downforce and super softs.
Im still tweaking with setup but I have come up with something that looks different than what a lot of other people are using. Try these settings on for size. MAybe not what you would expect as a fast settup, but you may like them.
F/R
ride height 97/95
springrate 8.2/9.0
shock bound 9/8
shock rebound 7/8
camber 2.5/2.4
stabilizer 7/3
with race tires I will likely use more front camber, but I like dont like using too much camber as the car is easier to control, and if I can pitch it at every corner perfectly i dont need such outright grip for high cornering speeds.
above setup yields 8:00.xxx at nurburgring, although I can clock 1:25 for that one sector time so I know i can shave a bit more. Not too bad for street tires and 416hp.
Cheers.
The S52 (E36 M3 motor) is a very capable motor, but the original M3s S14 motor is much more of a race motor. 2.3l I4 that redlined at 7400rpm. This type of motor in a car is what makes a track monster. It didnt have much lowend grunt, but it made torque at high rpms and that is what matters for in gear acceleration. 0-60 times dont mean **** as far as lap times go.
When the E46 M3 was engineered a lot more work was put into developing a great motor for racing. The S54 is a big I6 just like the S52, but it makes torque at high enough rpms to have pulling power up to 8k rpm. On paper the M3 may look like an underdog to a benz or an audi but it is BMWs philosophy in building a balanced lightweight car with a potent race motor that equates to track dominance. Nobody spends more R&D money than BMW on developing racing cars, and even though their newer M cars are getting heavier and more luxurious as demand requires it, this R&D reflects directly on their M cars.
I think its funny how AMG or audi try and compete with BMW by pushing more torque into their heavier cars by slapping on superchargers or turbochargers and their cars still cant compare. It works though, as the average person looks at the numbers on paper and then claims on a forum that an S4 will smoke an M3.
MCX, If you are looking for a track only M3 I suggest you test drive a few E30s. While if I had to chose a car for dual street/track duty, the E36 M3 is a lot more comfortable. The original M3 is a much more pure car. Its very rewarding to drive fast, and easy to do so. It doesnt need much for you to be able to smoke cars with twice the power and pricetag. With simply Victoracer V700 tires, Hawk race pads, a chip and a harness you will be ready to be passing E36s, E46s, Evos, 911 turbos, and ferraris on track.
The R&D that went on in the early 90s developing the M3 into a touring legend allows you to build as potent a racing M3 that you can afford. At the peak of their evolution, DTM M3s made upwards of 380hp out of their 2.5liter 4 bangers, spinning around 10k revs. M3s that were raced in BTCC were required to conform to the 2.0l limit, they were destroked and revved to 12k.
A 380hp 2.5 would cost you a big chunk of change, something like 30 grand, but its a frigging DTM motor. You can spend much less and still have an incredible motor. I plan on doing a mediocre 2.5 build. Evo 3 cams in a mild head fed by a carbon fibre airbox w/ alpha N maxx piggyback EMS should get me past 270hp. More importantly when you drop the AFM for the alpha N setup you gain a ton of low-mid range torque.
This car is on display at the ///M testcenter in Nurburg.
Checkout www.s14.net if you want to learn more. There is a wealth of information contributed by some really smart guys.
BTW, I just picked up GT4 a week ago. I dont have an M3 or CSL yet, but started building and testing an M coupe at the ring. It has:
stage 3 suspension
stage 2 NA tune
stage 2 lightening
street soft tires
clutch, flywheel, race exhaust, chip, and all the other goodies cept race transmission, stage 3 NA tune, downforce and super softs.
Im still tweaking with setup but I have come up with something that looks different than what a lot of other people are using. Try these settings on for size. MAybe not what you would expect as a fast settup, but you may like them.
F/R
ride height 97/95
springrate 8.2/9.0
shock bound 9/8
shock rebound 7/8
camber 2.5/2.4
stabilizer 7/3
with race tires I will likely use more front camber, but I like dont like using too much camber as the car is easier to control, and if I can pitch it at every corner perfectly i dont need such outright grip for high cornering speeds.
above setup yields 8:00.xxx at nurburgring, although I can clock 1:25 for that one sector time so I know i can shave a bit more. Not too bad for street tires and 416hp.
Cheers.
- 24,125
- Scarfolk
- Grim10
- Are you kidding?
LedaM3
Both the CLK55 AMG and the S4 are mightily impressive cars, and more goes on than just a power boost.
You like the M3, and that's Okay.
But don't discount or be prejudiced against what isn't an M3.
And for the record, either the Merc or the Audi could definately smoke the M3 in my opinion.
- 117
- GTP_mbavaria30s
so is fuel injection allowed in the all so holy world of pure sports cars, or is that just a bit too flushy for you guys? Seriously, it sounds like if it has more than a carb and milk carton seats, it has to be clearly labled as nonpure sprots car, lest the wrath of the mighty come down upon thee. And while it may be terrifying to us enthusiasts, nothing was proof more to me that enthusiasts aren't the largest buyers of m3's than a reader email in the local BMWCCA chapter's publication asking how to soften the ride on their new m3. (((((((((( shame that car companies are in it to make money and not please us enthusiasts.
so true.
also: senior six racing for life. Al Tayler and Mad Gau are my heros.
(((((((((( shame that car companies are in it to make money and not please us enthusiasts.LedaM3
so true.
also: senior six racing for life. Al Tayler and Mad Gau are my heros.
