I would love to have a white one. It is a toss up between GT3, this or an Aston Vantage for me.

 

Well this is a Porsche forum, so 997TT comes to mind. Also, SL65 AMG. And used Gallardo and Ford GT are very close as well.

 

You really seem to love that SL65. Lets see, $180k for a car that looks like the SL500 with AMG package for half the price, with a whole bunch of unuseable horsepower it cant put to the ground or handle a curve with. As for your other choices, I dont know where you get a Ford GT for $120k and it certainly isnt a daily driver. The BS is most comparable to the GT3 and GT3RS, ie a track car then can be used as a daily driver. And until you have driven one you will never understand the car or appreciate its capabilities on and off the track.

 

not gonna hijack the thread. i'm out.

 

At $90K I would hesitate. It's a CLK for God's sake. It's fast but the paddle shifters are sub par compared to a Ferrari 430 or 599, for example. They should have just made an auto mode or manual. CLK 63 Convt. is not that far behind in performence and it's only $70K.

Furthmore, there is now issue with creases in the front fonter area. Not good.

If you bring this up in MBWorld there a few "usual suspects" who get quite defensiive about their car.

 

Do you mind pming me the dealer that gave you this offer? Thanks!

 

At $90K you would hesitate yet you are comparing the paddle shifters to cars costing 3 times as much which use a totally different system. The BS is an automatic which has paddles much like the porsche tiptronic and completely opposite to the F1. And as for the CLK 63 convertible, last time I looked they were in the mid $90s and are no where close in performance unless your measure of performance is simply printed HP numbers. Under that senario the CLK convertible should out perform the top porsches. However I dont think anyone is running scared from one on a track.
Lastly in todays age of building cars on a platform, to say you wont spend money on a car because it comes in a cheaper version or built on a platform used in cheaper vehicles would rule out most vehicles today.

 

Yeah, not only would I hesitate, I would not buy the car. Period. See, I'm lucky I can afford a car that has a "totally different system", i.e. better system, even if it is three times the cost. BTW, I would not buy a P Car with a Tiptronic either.

Now, for the rest of your rant, it's like trying to follow a golf ball on concrete. Not sure how to even respond.

 

It wasnt a rant and you have no response simply because you made comments which exhibited no automotive knowledge whatsoever except your supposed ability to write a check for an expensive car which you can find an equal amount of people who would say isnt worth the money either. The BS is not to everyones taste. Obviously it is not to yours which is fine. But to say it should come as full automatic (which is what it is) or to say the CLK 63 is comparable in performance for $70k is silly. If I am to assume you drive a 599 because that is whats in your avatar, I would say thats great and i think its a terrific car. I love ferraris and owned a 550 for many years. But you would be on the losing end of any performance/$ argument as well.

 

First, SL65 is not a $180K car, its a $120K car (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Absol...em130205400951)

Second, going by your logic, CLK63BS is just a $30,000 CLK320 with an "AMG Package". At least the SL is at the high end of Mercedes lineup, CLK is one of the cheapest Mercedes cars. I would much rather pay $120,000 for a high end SL/CL/S than the low-end SLK/CLK/C's.

Third, its obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you mention "useless horsepower". SL65 has no problem putting the power down, these cars run 10's in the 1/4 mile on street tires with only ecu tune.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-7670.html

 

My response may not have been one you agreed with but it was a response telling you I would not buy a CLK B.S. It was also a response based on personal experience with lot's of cars including the BS.

In January, while out at the Barrett Jackson auction, I drove a CLK 63 while my former biz partner drove his CLK BS, out in some nice roads. The CLK 63 aquitted itself quite nicely. Not that far off the pace of the BS. Sorry guy, that's a fact. The CLK paddles are a gimmick in my opinion. It should just be an automatic and make no pretense about being anything else.

Further, a 430 is not three times the price of a CLK Black. It's about $70K more than a CLK Black, MSRP to MSRP.

I own a lot of cars. I'm blessed. Maybe some day I'll be the oracle of automotive knowledge that you are, but for the time being I'll just drive my cars and enjoy them. You drive yours. To each his own.

 

My response may not have been one you agreed with but it was a response based on personal experience with a lot of cars, including the BS.

In January, while out at the Barrett Jackson auction, I drove a CLK 63 convertible, a B.S., and a very cool mod. Viper, in the Arizona back roads. My former biz partner owns all three. We had fun out in some nice roads. The CLK 63 aquitted itself quite nicely compared to the B.S. Not that far off the pace of the BS. The Viper made the other cars look like slugs, btw.

Sorry guy, that's a fact. The CLK paddles are a gimmick, in my opinion. Also, the CLK BS has had issues with its body work. No big deal but not my cup of tea. The B.S. should just be an automatic and make no pretense about being anything else.

Further, a 430 is not three times the price of a CLK Black. It's about $70K more than a CLK Black, MSRP to MSRP.

I've owned several MB. I own a lot of cars now -- Ford GT, 993 TT, 430 Spider, Chevy Suburban, AH Sprite, Speedster, etc. I'm blessed!

Maybe some day, if I'm real lucky, I'll be the oracle of automotive knowledge that you are, but for the time being I'll just drive my cars and enjoy them. To each his own.

Have a nice day.

 

The SL65 was $180k MSRP new and there is a reason it is only $120 used. And what I said was the SL65 looks the same as an SL500 with an AMG "appearance" package. I never said the car was nothing more than an SL500 with an AMG package whatever that means. So your attempts at logical conclusions with respect to a CLK don't work. And if the only performance parameter that is important to you is straight line 1/4 mile times then by all means buy the car. There is no arguing that the Sl65 has a lot of power for a car at that used car price and its a convertible to boot. All i am saying is people looking at GT3's and BS are looking for something that handles great too so an SL65 is not a good alternative recommendation. Your 997tt was a better alternative.

 

you compared a 430 and 599 so I was taking an average at 3 times the price and taking into consideration the difficulty of getting either car at MSRP. Sorry if I was slightly off. I just dont get where you think the BS is being touted as anything but an automatic. A lot of cars with automatics have
paddles these days and i agree they are a gimmick unless they are providing faster shifts than in auto mode. So what. Just ignore them. Sure the F1 is far superior for use on the track but sitting in traffic and for daily driving is probably not the best choice. And maybe you should read Jeremy Clarkson's review of the CLK BS in which he says the BS provides as much if not more excitement than the F430 or anything else on the road. Obviously he wasnt too troubled by the paddles. To each his own.

 

You know what is interesting, and then we can move on... the B.S. owners are passionate about the car, my friend included. He loves the car. And he should!

Clarkson comparing the 430 to the CLK B.S. is high praise indeed, for Clarkson has historically been a kool aid drinker for anything Ferrari. I watched that on you tube. Cool!

As you said, and I said, to each his own!