Motor Trend May Issue

[Bones]

Quicky glanced at the May issue of MT, and saw a test between the CLK55 and the Pontiac GTO. Some of the numbers for the CLK 55 were 0-60 4.8, 1/4 mile at 13.1 at over 110 mph. They picked the GTO over the CLK 55 solely on price consideration.(Two cars are really not comparable in my opinion). Just wanted to give a heads up to you guys.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[leggs]

THEY DIDN'T PICK THE GTO OVER THE 55, THEY JUST SAID THAT GIVEN THE PRICE AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GTO YOU HAD TO GIVE IT PRAISE BECAUSE IT HUNG WITH THE 55, BUT WAS IN NO WAY BETTER THAN IT

[DarrenCT]

so many times mags do that. what they SHOULD do is have a test with "the best bang for the buck" winner. performanc tests should stay at just that- performance my $.02

[sajecw]

Is the new CLK55 really pulling 13.1's? That is about a .5 second improvement over the 208 CLK55.

[RJC]

Originally posted by Bones
Quicky glanced at the May issue of MT, and saw a test between the CLK55 and the Pontiac GTO. Some of the numbers for the CLK 55 were 0-60 4.8, 1/4 mile at 13.1 at over 110 mph. They picked the GTO over the CLK 55 solely on price consideration.(Two cars are really not comparable in my opinion).

Just wanted to give a heads up to you guys.

Actual QT times 13.14 @ 108.07 for the 55 and 13.85 @ 101.41 for the GTO.

The GTO is a heavy car too 3725lb for the GTO and 3635 for the 55.

Braking 60-0 113 for the 55 and 126 for the GTO

Slalom 66.4 for the 55 and 62.5 for the GTO

They never once showed a picture of the clk showing off its pillarless design.

[sajecw]

Is it still 363 hp? It just does not seem right. They must have changed gearing or something.

[RJC]

Originally posted by sajecw
Is it still 363 hp? It just does not seem right. They must have changed gearing or something.

CLK 362 hp@ 5750 and 376lb ft tq @ 4000

GTO 350 hp @5200 and 365 lb ft tq @ 4000

Why do you think something has changed?

[Improviz]

Motorweek's 2001 test of W208 CLK55:

Motorweek's 2004 test of W209 CLK55:

Originally posted by sajecw
Is the new CLK55 really pulling 13.1's? That is about a .5 second improvement over the 208 CLK55.

[sajecw]

That is what I am saying. I have never seen a new 209 55 or an old 208 55 at the track pull better than my 13.09 and I had 3lbs of boost at the time.

The best I ever heard of was 13.42 with a Renntech intake and ECU mod.

I just do not know where that 13.1 came from.

[RJC]

Another test in Motor Trend 10/2003 13.2 @107.4

Car and Driver 11/2003 0-60 4.7 QT 13.2 no trap speed listed.

[GDawgC220]

I will post the magazine article on the comparo this afternoon...sorry, didn't get around to it last night!

[Chappy]

Originally posted by sajecw
That is what I am saying. I have never seen a new 209 55 or an old 208 55 at the track pull better than my 13.09 and I had 3lbs of boost at the time.

The best I ever heard of was 13.42 with a Renntech intake and ECU mod.

I just do not know where that 13.1 came from.

Back on November 8th, my 2002 CLK55 ran a 13.437 with a full trunk, 1/2 tank of fuel and 35 psi in the rear tires. My first time at the drag strip and the first time I had switched off traction control for any acceleration run. My car is bone stock.

Details here.....

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...9&pagenumber=3

Last weekend, I ran a about .2 seconds slower, mainly due to the 85+ degree temps.

[Chappy]

Last weekend, there was a brand new GTO at the same track with me....it couldn't break into the 13s. From the runs I saw, he ran mostly between 14.1 and 14.4. Frankly, I was disappointed.

[RJC]

Was it the six speed or the auto ? Was traction a problem?

[Chappy]

The GTO was a six speed. Didn't seem to have too many traction issues.

[sajecw]

Originally posted by Chappy
Back on November 8th, my 2002 CLK55 ran a 13.437 with a full trunk, 1/2 tank of fuel and 35 psi in the rear tires. My first time at the drag strip and the first time I had switched off traction control for any acceleration run. My car is bone stock.

Details here.....

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...9&pagenumber=3

Last weekend, I ran a about .2 seconds slower, mainly due to the 85+ degree temps.

13.43 is a very fast time. Congrats. I have mostly seen 13.6's to 13.8's.

I also have a 100 pound system, spare tire and 19's on my car, which probably equates to a tenth or so.

I think 13.4's is probably more realistic for the 209 CLK55.

I think the Caddy is also going to disappoint alot of people. It is just like the Z06. How many stock Z06's actually run what the magazines post.

[Improviz]

this was with the stock 245-series rear rubber, meaning that the only way I could get off the line without spinning the rears wildly was basically to just stomp it.

Since then, I have switched to 18" rear W210 E55 wheels (kept 17's on the front for ride quality), but I haven't been been back to the strip yet.

However, I do have another data point: a GTECH. With the stock tires, I was able to get a best 0-60 run of about 5.1; since switching to the new tires, I'm able to get a much better hole shot, and my 0-60 times are now consistently 4.9, with a best-to-date of 4.77.

So, I'm pretty confidant that I'll be able to hit a very low 13 at my next strip outing. I'll be going in the next week or so to verify this.

[AMIL]

whattttttt wait a minute, our cars are running a low 13's?? i dont get it sometimes i get numbers like 13.9 then sometimes i get 13.1, wow i really want to take this to the drag

[Improviz]

The most important factor in a good 1/4 mile time with cars having this much torque is traction. Why? Well, consider the following: a widely recognized rule of thumb in drag racing is that every 0.1 reduction in a car's 0 to 60 ft. time shaves 0.2 off of its 1/4 mile time. So, for every 0.1 you sit there spinning tires instead of hurling forward, you lose 0.2.

Unfortunately, with the stock 245 series tires, if you turn off the traction control and romp it, you'll normally get a bunch of wheelspin. If you power-brake it, you'll get even more spin, and can get axle-and-rearend-ruining wheel hop (hint: avoid this!). The stock tires are simply too thin for sufficient traction. Other cars with horsepower/torque in this neighborhood (Corvette, TransAm/Z28, etc.) came with phatter rubber, more like 265-275 series, and it really helped their 60' times, and thus their 1/4 mile times.

Magazines normally don't publish their test cars' 0-60 ft. times, but their 0-30 times are a decent approximation. If you look at the 2001 R&T test of the CLK55, you'll see they got about 2.1 seconds 0-30, and ran a 13.7@106. They also mentioned that the car's best time was performed by simply stepping on the gas.

If you read their methodology for road testing, they state that they try to brake-torque (apply brake while stepping on gas to raise rpms, then release brake and apply full throttle) to get better times. Obviously, per their above statement, this didn't work with the CLK55. But given that the car's maximum torque comes not at idle but at 3,000 rpm, intuitively the car *should* generate better times through brake-torquing; but the fact of the matter is that the stock tires simply don't give it enough traction for this technique to work reliably.

Now, look at their test of the (Euro) M3, they did 0-30 in 1.7 and ran a 13.3. They stated in this article that their best results came from dropping the clutch at 2,500 rpm. This is still well below the M3's peak torque point (4,900 rpm), but it is still up higher into the torque band; the M3 is clearly helped by its wider 255 series tires.

Clearly, if one could get a comparable slingshot-style launch with the CLK55 and drop the 60' time, one could get better results. The only way to shorten the 60' time is with better traction. And my results show that it works. For example, if you shaved 0.3 off of Road & Track's 60' time, the car would have run a 13.1.

I'm figuring that I've shaved at least 0.15-0.2 off of my 60' time, and so am hoping (fingers crossed) for that magic 13.0 time soon!

The new CLK seems to be getting better times, which I would suspect is a function of its higher weight and higher horsepower; although the weight/horsepower ratio is the same as the W208, its extra weight will allow it more traction, allowing it a better launch.

Anyway, with the stock 245's, I would't count on anything below a 13.4 unless your local dragstrip is paved with sandpaper.

Originally posted by black330ci
whattttttt wait a minute, our cars are running a low 13's?? i dont get it sometimes i get numbers like 13.9 then sometimes i get 13.1, wow i really want to take this to the drag

[Stiggs]

How come mercedes says my car goes 0-60 in 5.0 sec?
Does it go faster...stock?

[Improviz]

To get a 5.0 or better, you will need to balance the throttle input to keep from getting too much spin on launch. Best technique I found with stock tires was to start with left foot on brake, right foot on gas, holding rpms around 850 rpm...then, release brake *suddenly*, but squeeze gas very gently until you feel weight transfer towards the rear...at this point, you can nail it.

For best times, traction control needs to be off, but *be careful*: it can really, really break those 245's loose and get them spinning violently, to the point where there is axle hop, and you absolutely, positively want to avoid this like the plague, because it *will* toast your rearend, and doesn't do the rest of your driveline a helluvalot of good either. If you ever get this, *immediately* lift off and try a gentler launch next time.

Even doing this, it's tricky to get it out of the hole without too much spin, but it can be done...get a GTECH and practice a bit...

Good luck!

Originally posted by Stiggs
How come mercedes says my car goes 0-60 in 5.0 sec?
Does it go faster...stock?

[RJC]

Originally posted by Stiggs
How come mercedes says my car goes 0-60 in 5.0 sec?
Does it go faster...stock?

MB times tend to be on the conservative side.

[Improviz]

'04 E55: MB 0-60: 4.5. Fastest test I've seen: 4.3

'01 C32: MB 0-60: 5.0. Fastest US test I've seen: 4.77.

'01 E500: MB 0-60: 6.1. Fastest US test I've seen: 6.0

...and so on...often times they'll initially (BMW does this too) provide the car's 0-100Km/h time, which is used in Europe; but since this is actually about 0-62 mph, it takes a few more tenths to get there.

Every once in awhile, you see some flyers like the SL600 in Car & Driver recently and the recent Road & Track test of the CLK500, both of which were imo tweaked cars, but most of the time the rated times are pretty close to tested.

Originally posted by RJC
MB times tend to be on the conservative side.

[RJC]

Originally posted by Improviz

I'm very glad each time I see the extra tenth or two.

The 2004 MB brochure quotes times of 0-60.

The jury is still out on the CLK and 600.

[Improviz]

If you'd followed the thread on the SL55 and New SL forums, you'd know that the SL600 was an obvious ringer; the article listed a feature on the SL600 which is not supplied or by Mercedes on that car, but *is* supplied by Renntech. Obviously, the car had been upgraded.

Furthermore, the test results for that car, which weighs about the same as previously-tested S600s, were *much* faster than the S600s tested by the mags. I can see a tenth or two, but seven tenths?? Here are the test results for the S600, which again has the same motor, same drivetrain, and virtually identical weight (4429 for SL600 vs. 4610 for S600):

Car & Driver, July '03: 0-60: 4.3 1/4: 12.50
Automobile Magazine, Feb. '03: 0-60: 4.6
Motor Trend, Dec '02: 0-60: 4.8

Average those out, and you get 4.6...identical to factory rated time of 4.6.

MB rates the SL600 at 4.5. No way is it going to beat its rated time by 0.9 seconds. Obviously, the car was very heavily modded.

As to the CLK500: here is a summary of the US road tests for it so far:

Car & Driver:
0-60: 5.7 1/4: 14.2

Road & Track:
April '04: 0-60: 5.20 1/4: 13.70
Dec. '02: 0-60: 5.80 1/4: 14.3

EVO magazine in the UK also tested the CLK500, and they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time.

The four tests average out to 5.7 seconds. This is the same as the manufacturer's claim of 5.7, and that's with a flyer that was a half-second faster than the other two, and ran a trap speed which it would have to have almost 350 crank horsepower to reach.

The punch line is this: one can beat the times by a few tenths if traction is a problem, but beating it by a half second or better isn't going to happen without upgrades.

Originally posted by RJC
I'm very glad each time I see the extra tenth or two.

The 2004 MB brochure quotes times of 0-60.

The jury is still out on the CLK and 600.