James seriously....
You have'nt even addressed any of the arguments I have introduced in my last two posts and I'm thinking that there are two possible reasons for this. First, you think I'm a young idiot that you dont want to waste your valuable time with, or, second, you are so obssessed with your CLK55 and MB in general that you dont care to hear otherwise. <p>Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former and also add that I am 26 and will be picking up my M3 in 1 month.<p>Comparing these two cars requires a detailed analysis because both have their good and bad points and a simple answer wont be sufficient, so we must break down our comparision by category. Let me know what you think of this...<p>Standard features, options, and MSRP:<p>You really have no idea how good MB is to you in this category. The CLK is offered in a variety of very appealing colors and packages. The M3, on the other hand, is offered in absolutely the worst colors you can think of. There is'nt even a sport package that you can upgrade the rims with. And to top it off, there are no trim options at all!...can you believe that? The M3 doesnt even come standard with leather a $45K car and leather not standard! In terms of price and cost-effectiveness, I think both of these cars are worth their price even though the CLK does carry a hefty price tag, you get what you pay for. There is no comparision in this category, the CLK is the clear winner.<p>Handling and performance:<p>In terms of which car is faster, you cant answer that question until you define "faster." We both know that the M3 will win off the line and 0-60 as well. But, if you're talkig top-end speed, like 0-140, the CLK is definitely faster than the M3. If you need a four-person get-away car, then neither car is faster since they are both coupes. Personally, in that case, I would go with an M5 )<p>In terms of handling, the M3 is the clear winner. I wont even get into this, but if you guys think the CLK handles better than the M3, you are joking yourselves. You know it, I know it. <p>Practicality:<p>The CLK has enourmous power at ALL RPM's, so it probably would not be a pratical car to use if you needed to take a long drive. The M3, below 4000 RPM, behaves just like a 3-series. Above 4000 RPM, and you have another beast entirely. The car just begs to be pushed. The M3 is a benign car when it needs to be, and aggressive when it needs to be as well. In terms of praticality, the M3 is the winner. It also seats 5, unlike the CLK which seats 4.<p>Between the two cars, there is no winner, it really depends on what you want in a car. If you prefer handing and performance for a good price, go with the M3. If you prefer a luxury coupe that's very appealing to the eye, go with the CLK.<p>I'll say it again, I'm not bashing the CLK, I think it's an amazing car, but I prefer the M3. To be honest, after I get my M3, I plan on beating the shit out of it and enjoying my $57K liability. Why not? It's just a car right?, and after I'm done, I'll sell it to some idiot that thinks he's getting a deal and buy something else. My next car will definitely not be a BMW, it will most likely be an MB, because I like to diversify and check out other cars. The current MB line-up is awesome, just expensive )<p>So as you can see, I dont cherish the M3 like it is the best car on the road, unlike some of you who cherish the CLK like it's a Ferrari Modena or something. C'mon guys, lighten up!, it's just an MB!, just like the M3 is just a BMW!..nothing to envy, they're just cars!<p>BABYLON<p><br>