Can you explain to me why the GT2 and Turbo would have the same 0-100 speed yet once it reaches 0-200 the GT2 is up ahead one second?
The same reason that why, according to C&D stats, a relatively weak car like a Subaru WRX STi (5.0kg/hp) can beat a Z06 (2.8kg/hp) to 30 mph by .2 second: grip. The Turbo (and WRX) have a lot of it, the GT2 and Z06 not so much. Once the cars are rolling, it's a different matter. CLK 63 BS vs C63, the grip factor should be in favor of the Black Series.
Umm I told you before why the CLK63 won't always win drags... You just believe that those tires are the key factor. While there are many other variables that can work against it.

Torque and weight also play a role. By the mag specs, the BS is 27-37kg lighter than the C63.
Do you know that wheel torque is dependent on engine torque and gear ratio. The BS has only 27 lb-ft more however, the peak torque occurs sooner in the C63 so pretty this pretty makes things even. There is a lot of factors in this test that make the C63 have the advantage, and I already listed those.

Read this:
"...lightweight 19-inch forged alloy wheels that weigh just 24.3 pounds each, some 6.6 pounds lighter than the CLK63 AMG's standard wheels."
- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
Manufactured by MB? How are you sure of this? Designed and specified by MB perhaps, but like for many things, these are probably manufactured by a contractor. Besides, it's not unusual for larger wheels to weigh less than smaller ones. For example:
BBS CH, 18x8.5: 23.9 lbs
BBS RGR, 19x10: 22.0 lbs
I already knew that they were 6.6lbs lighter than clk wheels... It doesn't tell me anything about the c63 18inch amg wheels though. lol... So you are telling me that the 18inch wheels are cast wheels?

That doesn't answer the question at all, and explains nothing. Look at those two sentences again and tell me I'm not first talking about the E92 coupe, and then later adding 25kg for the sedan. The Sport Auto supertest for the E92 M3 showed 1608kg, while not a single test for the E90 has shown that. In any case, I arbitrarily threw in 10kg just to make the case stronger for your claim, remember? I was being more than generous.

If that's the case then you were still trying to make a weight difference of 130kg by adding weight to the C63. You were trying to make it similarly equipped while both cars were different since it's a E92 right?

We are. 30-50 and 50-70 tests brakes? No. It tests acceleration. And it tests the in-gear performance that you were crying foul about.
What are you looking at all the 0-X times the C63 managed to beat or tie the CLK from the Car and Driver tests. We were looking at 100-200 from the beginning now you are changing the parameters? Why don't you just make up your own numbers instead.

Conditions? Not likely. C&D corrects their performance figures for conditions (weather, altitude, etc).
Do they account for wheel diameter, track suspensions etc...

More power, more torque, less weight. Not to mention fattier, stickier rubber. Sport Auto has shown that an Aston Martin V8 Vantage on these very P Zero Corsas is good for 1.9 seconds at this track. C&D found that swapping tires on the old C5 Corvette for the Z06's tires (not runflats at that time) was good for 3 seconds over a very short 50-second course.
I already told you how the power isn't a big deal. It's minimal to the wheels yet you make a big deal out of it. Pzeros on the C63 are good also, and this tells me that you think it's a combination of all these factors that make the CLK63 a more capable track car. And I'm saying that a combination of factors, which I have already stated makes the C63 a good drag race also.

Doesn't matter if he was a professional driver. That shows that at sane speeds (not trying to set a lap record), the tires are manageable. Plenty of non-professionals have found this to be the case.
Maybe he had experience with semi-slick tires. Plenty of professionals wouldn't want to drive when it's rainning either.

Like I said, these tires are manageable in rain. You just need to be extra careful in standing water.
If I had a CLK63, you can be guaranteed I wouldn't pussy-foot it in the dry (which is like 90% of the time here, if not more); those tires probably wouldn't last much beyond a handful of trackdays anyway.
Extra careful of standing water? Wow sounds like it must be very exciting to live on the brink of death. Have fun hydroplaning... it doesn't matter what speed you drive either. Hydroplaning can occur at any instant.


Nope, but then I'm not the one making assumptions about which is the better DD, and to what magnitude they are the better DD.
Considering they were using a 25-point scale, and none of the cars reached that figure, I'd say they were comparing against a known standard.
It's pretty obvious to me that I wouldn't drive it daily. 25 point scale in a head to head competition. The could be judging relative to each other.

Again, I'm not the one making the conclusion of conditions. You are. It is interesting, though, that the M3's in test behaved in a manner completely opposite of what we expect.
So the C63 beats the CLK63 in drag times in C&D. Tests have shown the C63 hitting 0-60 in 4.1.


Now, in hopes of winding this down, I've already conceded that the mfr claim can be right. I have yet to see you concede that BMW and MB weight figures might not be 100% accurate. Is this because you think that somehow BMW and MB are infallible?
No they can be inaccurate but this hasn't been proven yet.

Your calculations were off a E92 so I wasn't sure how this could relate to C63 that's why I said... "I guess"

While there are many other variables that can work against it.
Those variables should have worked against the M3 tested under identical conditions. But didn't.
Those tires, that power, that torque, that lower weight should work for it.

The BS has only 27 lb-ft more however, the peak torque occurs sooner in the C63 so pretty this pretty makes things even.
If you've seen their dyno graphs, then you'd see there isn't much it in as far as where the peak torque occurs. The only reason why the CLK63's peak appears later is because of a dip at where we'd expect the peak to be (slightly before 5000 rpm). This could just be down to the particular engine that AMG wanted to certify. Take a look:

(reversed in order from the graph above)
BS / C63
rpm: Nm
2000: 500 / 490
3000: 560 / 550
4000: 620 / 590
5000: 620 / 600
6000: 580 / 525
7000: 520 / 445
Even though the C63 peaks sooner, at that rpm the BS is still making more torque, but look how much better it maintains torque at the higher rpms: +55 Nm at 6000 rpm, +75 at 7000 rpm. Quit simply it should hit just as hard at the lower rpm (and based on C&D's in-gear tests, this is true taking the BS's lighter weight into account), and at higher rpm, it continues to hit even harder.

I already knew that they were 6.6lbs lighter than clk wheels... It doesn't tell me anything about the c63 18inch amg wheels though. lol... So you are telling me that the 18inch wheels are cast wheels?
Well, obviously some extra engineering went into making the BS's wheels vs the standard CLK63. It is, after all, a much more special vehicle (with a price tag to match). I'm saying that just because a wheel is larger, that doesn't necessarily make it heavier; it can be lighter. Therefore, you just don't know if it will affect the BS's acceleration. What we do know from specs in these tests (and from mfr HP claims) is that the BS should be comfortably quicker.

If that's the case then you were still trying to make a weight difference of 130kg by adding weight to the C63.
Err, no. Do you remember the 115kg figure you (initially) agreed to? I was fine with that. Like I said, I added 10kg out of thin air to the M3 just to help your case.

You were trying to make it similarly equipped while both cars were different since it's a E92 right?
You and I agreed that the cars I laid out (knowing the options of both; neither being strippers but both well equipped) were comparable. But nevermind that, it's in the PM's.
Let's settle this once and for all. Earlier, I said:
"And how much different is this E90 from our calculated E92 weights? At 1648kg, I think the estimates were fairly reasonable. Around 1620kg, plus about 30kg for a steel-roofed sedan puts it right in the ballpark."
To which you replied:
"Now it's 30kg for the steel roof? Weren't u adding 15kg before?"
No, the "30kg for the steel-roofed sedan" (don't forget that last part!) means 25kg is added for the wt difference of the sedan. Not just the roof only. Are you understanding this yet?
If you are confused about the 1620kg, then that's from the average of E92 M3's weighed up to that point. We had all discussed that openly in a prior thread. In effect, I am spotting you an extra 12 kg (the wt difference of the well-optioned Sport Auto supertest M3 per our PM's). Instead of complaining, you should realize you are getting a lot of breaks here.

What are you looking at all the 0-X times the C63 managed to beat or tie the CLK from the Car and Driver tests. We were looking at 100-200 from the beginning now you are changing the parameters? Why don't you just make up your own numbers instead.
Wait, you complain that I couldn't just take rolling 100-200 times based on the oh-so-massive difference in gearing/torque/rpm/etc between these two, and now you're complaining when I compare exactly what you asked for (in-gear acceleration times), simply because the C63 comes up short? Please.

Do they account for wheel diameter, track suspensions etc...
Nope, nor should they. The BS was quicker in-gear, period.

And I'm saying that a combination of factors, which I have already stated makes the C63 a good drag race also.
More power, more torque, less weight, and stickier tires don't make for an even better drag race. Riiiight. The next time you go drag racing, I'd suggest you load up with some passengers, and slap on some snow tires.

Extra careful of standing water? Wow sounds like it must be very exciting to live on the brink of death. Have fun hydroplanning... it doesn't matter what speed you drive either. Hydroplanning can occur at any instant.
And it can occur (and does indeed occur) even on vehicles with all-season tires. How about driving sensibly? It's not that hard to do.
Doesn't matter what speed you drive? That's just flat out wrong. Of course it matters what speed you drive. Don't believe me? Crawl through a gigantic puddle on semi-slicks at, say, 20 mph. Now do the same with regular tires at 90 mph. Still think speed doesn't matter?

It's pretty obvious to me that I wouldn't drive it daily.
Yeah, you already said that. And I said that's just you. There are people who do.

25 point scale in a head to head competition. The could be judging relative to each other.
Or they could be judging it against a known standard. If one of the cars was the best in the category, why would it not get the full points? It is, after all, the best.

Tests have shown the C63 hitting 0-60 in 4.1.
And tests have shown the CLK63 BS hitting 0-60 in 4.0. C&D did just that on a low-grip surface out in the desert.

No they can be inaccurate but this hasn't been proven yet.
Thank you for finally admitting this. So far, after well over 5 tests, we have not seen a single case where the figures are even remotely accurate.

This discussion..can only be described by one word..
Wow..( Interpret as you please)

That doesn't even make any sense. Of course we could relate. These two cars have been tested by how many mags already? And since the E90 should only weigh 25kg more, then it's simple grade school arithmetic. I gave you plenty of time to work out the math yourself, told you even not to hurry, send a reply whenever.
Besides, the point (which you missed) is that the EU standard should not be a surprise to you now. It shouldn't be a revelation. We (the board and you) have discussed this before in prior threads, and I specifically mentioned it in PM. The fact that you've only just now realized this tells me you haven't been paying attention at all.

Anyway, I can't be arsed to look back in here. Bye.

Well, obviously some extra engineering went into making the BS's wheels vs the standard CLK63. It is, after all, a much more special vehicle (with a price tag to match). I'm saying that just because a wheel is larger, that doesn't necessarily make it heavier; it can be lighter. Therefore, you just don't know if it will affect the BS's acceleration. What we do know from specs in these tests (and from mfr HP claims) is that the BS should be comfortably quicker.
24.3 lbs on a forge wheel is already heavy. 18inch wheels are generally lighter than 19inches. Price doesn't neccessarily make it much more special. They really didn't come up with anything special. They have some new pieces but it's not like a total redesign or anything.
If you are confused about the 1620kg, then that's from the average of E92 M3's weighed up to that point. We had all discussed that openly in a prior thread. In effect, I am spotting you an extra 12 kg (the wt difference of the well-optioned Sport Auto supertest M3 per our PM's). Instead of complaining, you should realize you are getting a lot of breaks here.
First off, you were the one who wanted to initiate the discussion via pm. I agreed only to see what you had to say. I didn't believe in your calculations to be true. Period.
Secondly, that 115kg was in reference to the 200kg claims.
Okay, this doesn't change the fact that you said the difference would be 130kg. Here is what you said "Suppose we do the latter. Do you think 10kg is reasonable? If so then we are looking at a 1658kg M3 compared to an 1813kg C63. A difference of 155kg. Add 25kg for the E90 and the difference is still 130kg. Over 4 times your original estimate for this difference."

Wait, you complain that I couldn't just take rolling 100-200 times based on the oh-so-massive difference in gearing/torque/rpm/etc between these two, and now you're complaining when I compare exactly what you asked for (in-gear acceleration times), simply because the C63 comes up short? Please.
You were complaining how the BS gets beat in 100-200 times. I explained throughly why it could possible be. Fact remains C&D showed that the C63 beats the BS in acceleration. R&T also showed similar times for the BS. Keep on dreaming that there is a massive difference... the straightline performance can go either way.

More power, more torque, less weight, and stickier tires don't make for an even better drag race.
Right... Your calculations already show that torque is minimal and power can be countered by the fact it takes more power to spin the larger wheels and having a slighty higher camber then the C63.
Do you know how much the Corsas compared to the Pzeros? The fact that the Corsas are larger accounts for more rolling weight too. You keep saying they are stickier but does that make a difference in straight line once you keep rolling? The BS is not necessarily quicker. Period.
And it can occur (and does indeed occur) even on vehicles with all-season tires. How about driving sensibly? It's not that hard to do.
Doesn't matter what speed you drive? That's just flat out wrong. Of course it matters what speed you drive. Don't believe me? Crawl through a gigantic puddle on semi-slicks at, say, 20 mph. Now do the same with regular tires at 90 mph. Still think speed doesn't matter?
First off would you travel at 20mphs on a highway? Sensibly meaning that you would hold up traffic and basically do whatever you want on the road so that you will aviod these puddles right? Also, if there is continuous water on the ground, rolling at low speeds can still cause hydroplanning because friction is already being reduced and when tire groves fail to dissipate the water fast enough you can lose control.
It's pretty obvious to me that I wouldn't drive it daily.
Yeah, you already said that. And I said that's just you. There are people who do.
Did you realize this was my opinion in the first place? Not everybody is you either. Not everybody would feel comfortable driving semi-slicks in the wet.

Or they could be judging it against a known standard. If one of the cars was the best in the category, why would it not get the full points? It is, after all, the best.
And would this be subjective at best?

And tests have shown the CLK63 BS hitting 0-60 in 4.0. C&D did just that on a low-grip surface out in the desert.
What test exactly shows the BS hitting 4? BTW, Autocar just did a test on video showing the M3 beating the C63 amg straight line. I wonder why... when all of the other test show the C63 beating the M3.

Thank you for finally admitting this. So far, after well over 5 tests, we have not seen a single case where the figures are even remotely accurate
Over five test for between E90M3 and C63 I don't think so.

Besides, the point (which you missed) is that the EU standard should not be a surprise to you now. It shouldn't be a revelation. We (the board and you) have discussed this before in prior threads, and I specifically mentioned it in PM. The fact that you've only just now realized this tells me you haven't been paying attention at all.

Anyway, I can't be arsed to look back in here. Bye.
Nobody included the 90% fuel factor. I just wanted to know what you were trying to prove so I didn't bother to check your calculations. BTW, your calculations were wrong the C63 has a gas tank of 66l. Right now it's 50kg difference stock for the E90M3 and C63. Have fun in your little world.

...

This thread has degenerated from the original topic. I would remind members that personal arguments should be carried out via PM not the board and further instances will be punished accordingly.

Thread Locked.