Performance figures
- Thread starter sporty
- Start date
classicsl
Senior Member
yes here you go:
Looky nice
Speedy go
Stoppy quick
Turny good
Sitty snug
Parky easy
if you need anymore info you know where i am!
Looky nice
Speedy go
Stoppy quick
Turny good
Sitty snug
Parky easy
if you need anymore info you know where i am!
pascal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- near Dublin
- Your Mercedes
- sl320/1999/3.2
Sporty:
0 - 60: 6.1secs
ClkAMG55 is: 5secs flat.....wow
0 - 60: 6.1secs
ClkAMG55 is: 5secs flat.....wow
Sorry but those performance figures are not correct for a year 2000 CLK 430.
CLK 430 :
4.3-L V8
279 hp
295 lb?ft between 3000 and 4400 rpm
0-100 km/h (62 mph) time of 7.4 seconds
CLK 55 AMG Coupe :
347 hp V8
0-100 km/h (62 mph) time of 5.4 seconds
talbir
CLK 430 :
4.3-L V8
279 hp
295 lb?ft between 3000 and 4400 rpm
0-100 km/h (62 mph) time of 7.4 seconds
CLK 55 AMG Coupe :
347 hp V8
0-100 km/h (62 mph) time of 5.4 seconds
talbir
The above figs are official MB figs which are always for 0-100km/h.
0-60 times are always really 0-100km/h. That's the recognised benchmark for car manufacturers.
100km/h isn't exactly 62mph, but it's usually written as just 0-60 - every road test result is actually 0-100km/h being expressed as 0-60. In reality, the true 0-60mph doesn't actually exist. It's always 0-100kmh, expressed as 0-60.
So officially, clk 430 0-60mph is 7.4 secs.
talbir
0-60 times are always really 0-100km/h. That's the recognised benchmark for car manufacturers.
100km/h isn't exactly 62mph, but it's usually written as just 0-60 - every road test result is actually 0-100km/h being expressed as 0-60. In reality, the true 0-60mph doesn't actually exist. It's always 0-100kmh, expressed as 0-60.
So officially, clk 430 0-60mph is 7.4 secs.
talbir
pascal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- near Dublin
- Your Mercedes
- sl320/1999/3.2
I beg you pardon
Tabir
You Write:
I gave the numbers in 0-60, not 0-62, which even so does not account for your error in the numbers for the CLK430 you wrote.
Funny thing though, 7.4sec is the official MB figuire for the CLK320 (0-62)
MB official no. 0-62: is 6.3sec for the CLK430
Pascal
Tabir
You Write:
about my figuires.
I gave the numbers in 0-60, not 0-62, which even so does not account for your error in the numbers for the CLK430 you wrote.
And again:
Funny thing though, 7.4sec is the official MB figuire for the CLK320 (0-62)
MB official no. 0-62: is 6.3sec for the CLK430
Pascal
Where the hell are you getting your figures from ????
They are way of the mark.
Here is link to MB UK website showing figures for the CLK 320 (given CLK 430 is no longer produced)
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/con..._coupe/technical_data/petrol_models.0004.html
The above official MB UK Ltd link clearly specifies 0-100km/h time of 7.9 secs for the CLK 320. Hence your statement above of CLK 320 having 0-100km/h time of 7.4 is incorrect ! Unless you wish to argue that MB UK's website is incorrect too.
Now, here is a link to official MB figures on the year 2000 CLK 430 figures (which is what was originally asked for) :
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_10-99/06.htm
And another link giving the CLK 430 performance figs :
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?evo/http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/evo_data/knowledge/coupes.php
And ANOTHER link giving the same stats for the CLK 430 of 7.4 secs :
http://www.autointell-news.com/News-2003/February-2003/Feb-2003-2/Feb-12-03-p4.htm
Here is a snippet from the above 3rd link to save you all the reading :
"...the new CLK 500 develops an output of 225 kW/306 hp and accelerates the CLK-Class Cabriolet from standstill to 100 km/h in 6.2 seconds. It is therefore 20 kW/27 hp higher in output and 1.2 seconds faster in acceleration than the previous CLK 430. Despite a higher output the CLK 500 Cabriolet consumes approx. five per cent less fuel then the preceding V8 model. Mercedes-AMG is the producer of the 270 kW/367 hp V8 engine of the CLK 55 AMG, whose output is 15 kW/20 hp higher than that of the preceding model. It enables this Cabriolet to sprint from standstill to 100 km/h in only 5.4 seconds (predecessor: 6.2 seconds)."
Now the above snippet ffrom that link says the current CLK 500 goes from 0-100km/h in 6.2 secs. and then says it is 1.2 secs faster than it's predeccesor the CLK 430...that makes the CLK 430 have a 0-100km/h time of 7.4 ! Easy maths.
Now I have posted up 3 links giving the same 0-100km/h time for the CLK 430 - all state 7.4 secs.
Please post up link to MB official figures showing time of 6.3 secs for the yr 2000 CLK 430 as you claim in your earlier post.
Furthermore there is no such thing as a true 0-60mph time - all road test/performance stats are for 0-100km/h. They are simply stated as 0-60 times for convenience as they are not materially different from 0-62.
Talbir
They are way of the mark.
Here is link to MB UK website showing figures for the CLK 320 (given CLK 430 is no longer produced)
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/con..._coupe/technical_data/petrol_models.0004.html
The above official MB UK Ltd link clearly specifies 0-100km/h time of 7.9 secs for the CLK 320. Hence your statement above of CLK 320 having 0-100km/h time of 7.4 is incorrect ! Unless you wish to argue that MB UK's website is incorrect too.
Now, here is a link to official MB figures on the year 2000 CLK 430 figures (which is what was originally asked for) :
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_10-99/06.htm
And another link giving the CLK 430 performance figs :
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?evo/http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/evo_data/knowledge/coupes.php
And ANOTHER link giving the same stats for the CLK 430 of 7.4 secs :
http://www.autointell-news.com/News-2003/February-2003/Feb-2003-2/Feb-12-03-p4.htm
Here is a snippet from the above 3rd link to save you all the reading :
"...the new CLK 500 develops an output of 225 kW/306 hp and accelerates the CLK-Class Cabriolet from standstill to 100 km/h in 6.2 seconds. It is therefore 20 kW/27 hp higher in output and 1.2 seconds faster in acceleration than the previous CLK 430. Despite a higher output the CLK 500 Cabriolet consumes approx. five per cent less fuel then the preceding V8 model. Mercedes-AMG is the producer of the 270 kW/367 hp V8 engine of the CLK 55 AMG, whose output is 15 kW/20 hp higher than that of the preceding model. It enables this Cabriolet to sprint from standstill to 100 km/h in only 5.4 seconds (predecessor: 6.2 seconds)."
Now the above snippet ffrom that link says the current CLK 500 goes from 0-100km/h in 6.2 secs. and then says it is 1.2 secs faster than it's predeccesor the CLK 430...that makes the CLK 430 have a 0-100km/h time of 7.4 ! Easy maths.
Now I have posted up 3 links giving the same 0-100km/h time for the CLK 430 - all state 7.4 secs.
Please post up link to MB official figures showing time of 6.3 secs for the yr 2000 CLK 430 as you claim in your earlier post.
Furthermore there is no such thing as a true 0-60mph time - all road test/performance stats are for 0-100km/h. They are simply stated as 0-60 times for convenience as they are not materially different from 0-62.
Talbir
joe bloggs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 0
...................sorry nodded off
joe bloggs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 0
Or mine...190 1.8 ...0-60 around tomorrow sometime
joe bloggs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 0
Well at least we hold them the right way up.
pascal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- near Dublin
- Your Mercedes
- sl320/1999/3.2
Tabir,
Firstly....... Link 1 & 4 are for a completely different car to the (the new model pillarless convertable)
Recheck your linkhttp://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?evo/h...edge/coupes.php
and see if you can spot their error.
Hint...... Compare CLK320 with Clk430.....0-62
Then use a search engine for 'CLK430 2000 roadtest' and you will find several referances to the paticular car we were discussing. US figures are 0-60. Euro figures are 0-62.5. Note; Cabriolet figures are slower.
You ask where did I get my figures from?
Not just off the top of my head I assure you.
Using the net for one.
An since you posted an old 'WHATCAR' mag
WHATCAR August2000:
CLK320 Elg/Ava..............0-62.......7.4secs (MB)
CLK430 Elg/Ava..............0-62.......6.3secs (MB)
CLK 55AMG....................0-62.......5.4secs (tested..4/2000)
Firstly....... Link 1 & 4 are for a completely different car to the (the new model pillarless convertable)
Recheck your linkhttp://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?evo/h...edge/coupes.php
and see if you can spot their error.
Hint...... Compare CLK320 with Clk430.....0-62
Then use a search engine for 'CLK430 2000 roadtest' and you will find several referances to the paticular car we were discussing. US figures are 0-60. Euro figures are 0-62.5. Note; Cabriolet figures are slower.
You ask where did I get my figures from?
Not just off the top of my head I assure you.
Using the net for one.
An since you posted an old 'WHATCAR' mag
WHATCAR August2000:
CLK320 Elg/Ava..............0-62.......7.4secs (MB)
CLK430 Elg/Ava..............0-62.......6.3secs (MB)
CLK 55AMG....................0-62.......5.4secs (tested..4/2000)
joe bloggs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 0
Cripes im off
Link 1 is to show the official MB time for the CURRENT CLK 320 which has a 0-60 time of 7.9secs. So there is no way that the previous CLK 320 could have had a 0-60 time of 7.4 secs. You claim the CLK 320 has a time of 7.4secs, which per the MB website is INCORRECT as the new improved CLK has a time of 7.9 !
Links 2,3 and 4 ALL state the time as 7.4secs for 0-60 on the CLK 430.
Even if you discard link 3, links 1 and 4 give the SAME time on the SAME car.
If you have done the search on the net then post up the link.
Talbir
Links 2,3 and 4 ALL state the time as 7.4secs for 0-60 on the CLK 430.
Even if you discard link 3, links 1 and 4 give the SAME time on the SAME car.
If you have done the search on the net then post up the link.
Talbir
pascal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- near Dublin
- Your Mercedes
- sl320/1999/3.2
Tabir,
for the figures on the CLK3202000 model: 7.4sec
The 430 is 5.1 sec all 0-62.
See their error in between....... Can you see it
No one asked for figures on the new CLK, so why are all your other links to them.
Pascal
Sad but true, they are slower (emissions?)(see your own link) http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?evo/h...edge/coupes.php
for the figures on the CLK3202000 model: 7.4sec
The 430 is 5.1 sec all 0-62.
See their error in between....... Can you see it
No one asked for figures on the new CLK, so why are all your other links to them.
Pascal
pascal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- near Dublin
- Your Mercedes
- sl320/1999/3.2
Tabir,
You asked for proof:
WHATCAR AUG 2000:
for CLKcoupe figures.
Say Sorry, and all will be forgotten
Pascal
You asked for proof:
WHATCAR AUG 2000:
for CLKcoupe figures.
Say Sorry, and all will be forgotten
Pascal
Do you have trouble understanding English ?
Link 2 (published in oct 99) refers to the YR 2000 CLK 430.
Link 3 refers to the CLK 430.
Link 4 refers to the current CLK but makes a direct comparison of the new CLK 500 with the CLK 430.
The error in link 2 is on the CLK 320 figure which should be in the 8 secs band.
Autocar figs have to be wrong as MB UK site clearly states that the NEW and CURRENT CLK 320 has a 0-60 time of 7.9 secs. If autocars figs were correct then that would imply that the new current CLK 320 is a full 0.5 second slower !!! Absolute rubbish ! Because MB clearlystate that their V6 engine remains UNCHANGED from the previous CLK 320.
But believe what you wish. This is getting really boring....
talbir
Link 2 (published in oct 99) refers to the YR 2000 CLK 430.
Link 3 refers to the CLK 430.
Link 4 refers to the current CLK but makes a direct comparison of the new CLK 500 with the CLK 430.
The error in link 2 is on the CLK 320 figure which should be in the 8 secs band.
Autocar figs have to be wrong as MB UK site clearly states that the NEW and CURRENT CLK 320 has a 0-60 time of 7.9 secs. If autocars figs were correct then that would imply that the new current CLK 320 is a full 0.5 second slower !!! Absolute rubbish ! Because MB clearlystate that their V6 engine remains UNCHANGED from the previous CLK 320.
But believe what you wish. This is getting really boring....
talbir
