Sport Auto: E92 M3 vs CLK63 Black Series

PC Valkyrie · 10-23-2009, 02:20 AM

This test is not new (was conducted in 2007), but I don't think it was ever posted here.

Head to head test of the E92 M3 and CLK63 Black Series at Hockenheim track. The BS was faster, but only by 0.5 seconds. There is a huge HP deficit that the M3 has.

The BS is faster at most corners, and it does have a higher top speed down the straight (although I was expecting a bigger difference).

The M3 had Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires, while the CLK63 BS had Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires (both semi-R compounds).

The M3 is not a direct competitor to the BS, as they are leagues apart in price, but its on track performance is pretty close.

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

forhamilton · 10-23-2009, 02:43 AM

You damn troll! Who the hell are you to challenge our all mighty BS?

Actually, makes sense if the "official" ring times are right. The M3 trails by only 3 seconds. I like the Bimmer. Wish they made a 2 door coupe that tripped my trigger.

AMG Dictator · 10-23-2009, 05:17 AM

Just keep in mind that this was the short track. The full HH track would have seen a much bigger seperation.

No doubt the M3 performs well but the better car to compare it with is the C63.

JamE55 · 10-23-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMG Dictator

No doubt the M3 performs well but the better car to compare it with is the C63.

Agree.

Frankster · 10-23-2009, 05:57 PM

impressive for the M3!

alexander stemer · 10-23-2009, 08:40 PM

Given that both are stock, I always feel the BS is under-tired in the rear. If tires were optimized, I suspect a greater differential would be seen. It's not relevant to me, however, as the torque of the BS makes it more enjoyable (at least to me). AS

WTDoom · 10-24-2009, 12:10 PM

im not really surprised . ive had a lot of experience of the e92 and thought it better than some here gave it credit for . i would say though remember the bs is set up to be very playful at the rear and that doesnt help ultimate track speed . with a little geo tweaking you can probably get more .

transferred · 10-24-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMG Dictator

Just keep in mind that this was the short track. The full HH track would have seen a much bigger seperation.

No doubt the M3 performs well but the better car to compare it with is the C63.

The track numbers say otherwise. C63, even with the "performance pkg," is far slower than the E92 M3. As Chiphomme and others stated, the M3 is certainly a rival to the CLK63 BS. Cheaper yes.... but that doesn't mean it's not a rival.

Automatic aside I do prefer the BS even though I love the high revving M-engines, despite being relatively low on torque. What must be noted is the BS was still faster around the track. Sure it has another 1.2 liters and 90hp but still no mean feat given the domination of M over AMG in that regard previously.

The BS is a really good car but they should have made it lighter by 300-500lbs. It could then have been a great car. Anyways, owners seem to love theirs and the most important thing..

-Rob

Doctodd33 · 10-24-2009, 01:40 PM

you guys should be thinking about the M3's weight a bit more. That closes the gap.

10-24-2009, 12:10 PM	#7
WTDoom Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: surrey Posts: 84 Drives: CLK AMG BLACK SERIES (among other things)	im not really surprised . ive had a lot of experience of the e92 and thought it better than some here gave it credit for . i would say though remember the bs is set up to be very playful at the rear and that doesnt help ultimate track speed . with a little geo tweaking you can probably get more . __________________ at Manthey they called it the Black Serious .

10-24-2009, 01:40 PM	#9
Doctodd33 MBWorld Fanatic! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 1,103 Drives: S550	you guys should be thinking about the M3's weight a bit more. That closes the gap. __________________ *don't argue with idiots....they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!!!* 2008 CLK63 BS Mars Red 1965 Backdraft Cobra w/ Roush427/550HP on 2500lbs 2007 S550 obsidian black/AMG 2004 BMW X5 4.4-traded 2006 CLS55-sold 2003 SL55-traded 2001 BMW X5 3.0-lease over 1999 Mustang Cobra-sold 1998 Dodge Avenger-traded 1988 Honda Accord-sold 1986 Mustang GT-sold 1984 BMW 318i-gave to dad 1976 Monte Carlo(first car)-sold

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-23-2009, 02:43 AM	#2
forhamilton Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 79 Drives: Public Transportation	You damn troll! Who the hell are you to challenge our all mighty BS? Actually, makes sense if the "official" ring times are right. The M3 trails by only 3 seconds. I like the Bimmer. Wish they made a 2 door coupe that tripped my trigger.

10-23-2009, 05:17 AM	#3
AMG Dictator Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 260 Drives: C63 AMG	Just keep in mind that this was the short track. The full HH track would have seen a much bigger seperation. No doubt the M3 performs well but the better car to compare it with is the C63.

10-23-2009, 05:57 PM	#5
Frankster Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny California Posts: 171	impressive for the M3!

10-23-2009, 08:40 PM	#6
alexander stemer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 324 Drives: CLK 63 AMG Black	Given that both are stock, I always feel the BS is under-tired in the rear. If tires were optimized, I suspect a greater differential would be seen. It's not relevant to me, however, as the torque of the BS makes it more enjoyable (at least to me). AS

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)