[Guest]

The M3 Kills all the AMG'z, the quickest on is CLK55 and is 0-60 in 5.2. M3=4.8

 

[Guest]

Sorry but regardless of performance I find the M3 an ugly car....as is the Z8.

 

[Guest]

That's funny

I am an avid BMW fanatic, however, I test drove the M3 yesterday and was VERY DISSAPOINTED. No power before 4000RPMs...you basically have to hammer the throttle to get any juice out of the car, not very practical for the street. I've owned 4 BMWs (94 325ic w/ SC, 97 540i 6sp, 99 323 w/ 3.2L conversion and SC, and a 00 323Ci). I was planning on making the M3 my fifth, but not after the test drive and DEFINITELY not for $5K over sticker!<br> <br> Instead, I test drove a CLK55 and LOVED IT! I loved the torque and power so much that I now own one. Still love Bimmers, but the CLK55 simply blew my mind =)

 

[Guest]

FYI, CLK55 0-60mph

has been updated to 4.9s in the M-B sales brochures even though it still says 5.2s on the MBUSA website. On the other hand, the best number from a U.S. magazine was 5.0s, so 4.9s may be optimistic.<br> <br> Also, the CLK55 AMG is not the quickest AMG model. The SLK32 AMG is quicker. The SLK32's 0-100kph time is 5.2s, same as the Euro-spec E46 M3.

 

[Guest]

Agree, CLK's just have better contour lines IMHO.

 

[Guest]

Z8 is ugly...

The Z8 is basically an oversized Z3 which is a an ugly car too. They did not do the old 507 justice.

 

[Guest]

You are entitiled to your own opinion, but (m)

I happen to find the C32 and CLK ugly and boring. So while looks are subjective, performance numbers are not.

 

[Guest]

Re: That's funny

My experience with the M3/CLK 55 was similar. I already have an NSX and didn't want another car I had to row the gearbox constantly to keep the motor on the cam. The M3 was faster but you had to buzz the motor to get it there. I wound up getting the CLK55 where I can just stick it in 'D' and let the V8 torque do the work. <br> -- Rick

 

[Guest]

Ugly and boring

The only thing ugly and boring is the continued dribble about BMWs on this board.