To Ferrari Enthusiasts

[///M-Spec]

An M3 does 0-60 in 5.4; a CLK in 4.8. That's a huge difference - an M3 can't even outrun an STi.

That's incorrect. An E46 M3 does 0-60 in the same 4.8 as the CLK AMG. You're quoting 240 hp E36 M3 times.

And Doug. You spent 80k to run mid 12s. I don't think you're in any position to brag about cost effective speed.


M

 

[E55Power]

Prove it.

I don't feel like looking up numbers right now, but off the top of my head,
Up to MY05,
Ferrari was making around 4,000 360s.
That'd make 24,000 cars.
Maserati was making just under 1000 cars.
That'd be 4,000 Cars. 24,000 Vs. 4,000. Which one is six times greater?
It's not my fault 95% of Ferraris are garage queens.

We've discussed this before. I already owned an E46 M3. They're completely average and they're not luxurious at all compared to my car, plus they're nowhere near as quick (and they're not faster either - WTF? You're acting like Driftster). An M3 does 0-60 in 5.4; a CLK in 4.8. That's a huge difference - an M3 can't even outrun an STi. So why didn't I get one of those?

http://www.fast-autos.net/bmw/bmwe46m3.html 4.7
http://www.supercars.net/cars/181.html 4.7
http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/M/M3Coupe/techdata.htm 4.8
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_m3.asp 4.8
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html 4.7

Now let's look at the CLK55.
http://www.fast-autos.net/mercedes/mercedesclk55.html 4.9
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/model-inc.jsp?model=05_CLK55C&modelsection=CLK 4.9

Well that's funny! The M3 averages 4.73, whilst the CLK55 averages 4.9!
So, does that mean the STi is faster than a CLK55? Wow, thats pathetic. Or, you're making a bogus claim again.

Who gives a **** about looks? Seriously. I am SO ****ING TIRED of people buying cars based on looks. Jesus christ. Women.

I'm sorry that you're like a robot, only numbers matter to you. I think it's safe to say 99.99% of the members here care about looks. Should I take a poll on it?
It's not my fault the 850 is one ugly box.

Who cares about top speed? Seriously. I am SO ****ING TIRED of people even considering top speed in ANY sort of decision.

I'm not talking about topspeed, genius. [Even though the MR2 is faster there, also]. I'm talking about 0-60. Look it up, I guaran-goddamn-tee the MR2 Turbo is faster than the 850 Turbo
Here's one source: http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html
6.1 Vs. 7.1 (MR2 and 850, respectively)

Yep - and I don't tune. Hence me saying I would choose an 850.

My bad, I was under the impression that you just got a Supercharger tuning package for your CLK55.

Not one of these is a reason, and the last one is an outright fallacy.

How so? The fact that there are more Toyota dealerships than Volvo dealerships? Or the fact that Toyota parts are cheaper than Volvo parts?

Room,

Why drive a big car if you don't need the space? Ever heard of overkill?

acceleration

The MR2 Turbo is about 1 FULL SECOND faster to 60 than the 850 Turbo. Look it up. http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

reliability

That's bull**** and you know it. No Volvo is EVER more reliable than ANY Toyota. That's a fact, you can't argue.

insurance rates,

I looked them up, for me, it's an $281 difference. (35xx vs 32xx)

cost.

Like ownership cost? That would be in favour of the Toyota. Or depreciation? Toyota's favour again.

You know - the categories that actually matter.

Yeah, too bad you were wrong in just about each and every one of them, making the Toyota better in "the categories that actually matter"

I bought my car because it was a GREAT buy.

Congratulations, would you like a trophy? And for the record, $69,000 is NEVER a "GREAT buy"

Ferrari owners buy their cars so they won't fit in and so people will stare at them.

Oh yeah? You know this...how? I like how we can put big blanket statements about every person to ever purchase a Ferrari. Good job, Doug. Thumbs Up!

Not one person has come up with a logical one, even a SEMI-LOGICAL one despite the fact that FIVE people have tried.

Buying a Ferrari is never logical. Not even close. I'm not going to try to say it is, because that'd be a lie. I'm also not going to make blanket generalizations about why people buy Ferraris.

I'm literally laughing at those of you trying to justify the idiotic purchase that is a Ferrari.

I'd suggest you get out more often.

And that's why you're status-conscious,

Uh...no I'm not. I'd just want my car not to look like the bread-and-butter model.

whereas I'd rather get the performance than show people my car is fast.

Wouldn't we all? I didn't say I wanted a Benz to look fast. (Hell, Is it possible for a Benz to look fast? I don't think so). I'd just like to have my Benz look nice, and that it isn't the bread-and-butter model.

I don't need a self-esteem boost everytime I look at my car - I know it's fast, and I don't care if anyone else does

Since when are we talking about looking fast? I'm sorry, but I'd rather drive something that looks good, than a rust-bucket.

since I know cars better than nearly anyone else.

Let's try not to get too cocky.

People who need Ferraris to show people their car is special are total assholes.

Thanks for letting me know? This is such new news!

 

[G.T]

This is turning out to be a good argument. 👍

And my Dad buys a car because of its looks too.

Plus, Ferrari isn't just about image, it's about the driveability. Of course you're not getting luxury but people buy what they want to have, a brilliant looking car thats really good to drive.

People think in different ways about things so you guys just have to accept that.

 

[Don Luigi]

Fine - I consider people who pay $80k (on TOP of $80k) for image total losers, not to mention complete idiots and, more than anything, posers. They can have fun with their prancing horse, and I'll know I got the better car.

Image. What a load of ****.

Ferrari is not all image - it's about the driving experience 👍 $80k might be very insignificant to some people so they're not losers - they're winners - they might have worked hard to earn that money and want to buy something special (they are posing accidentally). Also I consider the Porsche 996 (pre/after facelift) and Mercedes S (02) & CLK (98-02 model) to be more beautiful than some Ferraris. It is nice to have image but I do not buy cars just for image, but also for the fun of owning/driving.

Also people who pay $80k + for image do so because they can afford to so they are not losers, but winners (unless they stole the money or something).

 

[Don Luigi]

It's a stupid reason to buy a car. We've heard all of the following reasons: passion, image, heritage, sporting credentials. It's a shame: these are performance cars and yet no one has said performance. Perhaps it's because everyone realizes you can surpass Ferrari performance for a small fraction of its price.

What have we learned?

a) Ferraris are a waste of money
b) M5Power rules

I think you gotta relax a bit. It's only a discussion, everyone has their own opinions. But I do think it is important to find a car with your heart as well. I would rather have a car that is slower/expensive,etc. that I love rather than a fantastic car that I dislike. Think about it like your girl or boyfriend or watever.

 

[Dave A]

E55, 👍.

 

[Don Luigi]

E55, 👍.

Yep those AMGs are fast (and carry 4 adults) 👍

 

[Dave A]

I was referring to the member E55Power's post.

 

[1X83Z]

Well that's funny! The M3 averages 4.73, whilst the CLK55 averages 4.9!
So, does that mean the STi is faster than a CLK55? Wow, thats pathetic. Or, you're making a bogus claim again.

This is bull****. I won't have my integrity questioned on a forum I referred you to. You're for some reason being unbelievably mean about all this so I will too.

1. One of the first things you learn in first-grade science is that sources must be the same in order to have a valid comparison of facts. I'm using ConsumerGuide for both my M3 and CLK55 times, an accurate source who has continually proven the accuracy to me for the past four years. ConsumerGuide is my heart and soul on these forums and without their accuracy and exceptional journalism, I simply would not be the participant that I am. On both vehicle, using the standard transmission, ConsumerGuide records a time of 5.4 for the M3 and 4.8 for the CLK55. Fast-autos.net and the rest of those sources aren't reliable in the slightest, including both Mercedes and BMW.
2. Why the hell did you bring my car into this? I know my car's leagues better than an M3, especially post-supercharger. We were having a discussion, you didn't like the way it was going, so you made it personal. That's even worse than something Driftster would do.

I responded to some of your personal attacks and poorly-thought-out arguments, but I deleted my responses. I'm better than that, and I thought you were too. I considered you one of my eight favorite people to talk to online until this post - now I'd rather talk to Driftster. I've blocked you on AIM as well, the very first time I've ever blocked another forum user. Resorting to personal attacks because you've got a differing viewpoint is bush league. I'm sorry I referred you to this forum.

 

[///M-Spec]

On both vehicle, using the standard transmission, ConsumerGuide records a time of 5.4 for the M3 and 4.8 for the CLK55.

Test results are greatly affected by driver skill, condition of the car and tires, track temperature and humidity and track surface. With a dummy behind the wheel on a car with a slipping clutch on a 98 degree day, I'm sure 5.4 was the best they could do.

However, almost every other source disagrees with 5.4. Automobile, Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, etc. all test E46 M3s in the 4.7-4.9 range. Even BMW lists 4.8.

This number is far more consistant with the M3's quarter mile ETs and trap speeds, which is 13.2-13.5 @ 105-106. A 5.4 0-60 would have the car running mid 14s, which is what rank amatuers run.

Resorting to personal attacks because you've got a differing viewpoint is bush league.

I consider people who pay $80k (on TOP of $80k) for image total losers

People who need Ferraris to show people their car is special are total assholes.

(emphasis mine)

I think someone needs a hug.

M

 

[1X83Z]

However, almost every other source disagrees with 5.4. Automobile, Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, etc. all test E46 M3s in the 4.7-4.9 range. Even BMW lists 4.8.

Come on - I know I've been through this before with you. C&D, MT, R&T, etc. are horrible sources for the simple reason that they rev the vehicle up to the highest possible RPM without spinning the wheels, then drop it from neutral. How often do you do that on the street? Then their professional drivers floor it and shift faster than any automatic transmission known to man or God, and notably faster than myself or E55Power could ever want to shift. That's why CG is perfect - they simply floor the car from zero and shift like the normal drivers they are, just like a normal human being might actually do.

Just as ConsumerReports is a bad place to look for American car information, the mags are a bad place to look for performance, period.

All of this forgetting, of course, that in my car - which should be irrelevant to this thread - I wanted an automatic transmission, and we're comparing a manual M3 (which given a normal street start isn't quicker) to an automatic CLK55.

(emphasis mine)

You're a moderator yet you can't tell the difference between her personal attacks on a member of this site and my personal attack toward a Ferrari owner, who is not currently present? Ugh.

 

[E55Power]

Damn, Doug, lighten up, it's just a discussion. Where were the personal attacks?
Me calling you a narrow minded sonofa*****? I would think that you of all people would know I was just kidding around.
Wow. I think you took this too personally.
Well, whenever you get over yourself, I'll be on aim.

 

[///M-Spec]

Come on - I know I've been through this before with you. C&D, MT, R&T, etc. are horrible sources for the simple reason that they rev the vehicle up to the highest possible RPM without spinning the wheels, then drop it from neutral. How often do you do that on the street?

Easy. I do that every time I want maximum acceleration. Who wouldn't? Except I wouldn't do exactly that because dumping the clutch is usually slower than feathering it some.

If you test a car for maximum acceleration, you .... wait for it --- MAXIMIZE the amount of acceleration the car can produce. You don't piddle around like some clueless newbie. You drive the car hard.

And who the hell wants to know how fast a car goes with an average no-talent ass clown driving it? Are these the same people who watch sports on TV played by a 13 year old fat kid?

Consumer Guide is very useful if I want to know what rebates were available that month. Or what kind of toaster can brown bread 4 slices at a time. Or what baby strollers have a 5 point harness and a front bar.

But they have extremely limited credibility with me assessing performance cars. They're not car people. They test appliances. I might go to them if I wanted to know what hedge trimmer can cut 1" inch branches with a one sided blade. Maybe.

But they're obviously out of their league when it comes to testing performance cars.

Just as ConsumerReports is a bad place to look for American car information, the mags are a bad place to look for performance, period.

Gosh, you must be right. Heaven forbid I pay attention to people who actually know how to drive if I want information about performance. I should definately pay attention to people who count interior trunk space and the number of cupholders a car has.

All of this forgetting, of course, that in my car - which should be irrelevant to this thread - I wanted an automatic transmission, and we're comparing a manual M3 (which given a normal street start isn't quicker) to an automatic CLK55.

If your car is irrelevant why did you bring it up up on Page 2?

Frankly, I don't care if you like your CLK more than an M3. In fact, I really hope you do, because you paided 20k more for it.

All I wanted to clear up was that 5.4 is the slowest 0-60 run for an E46 M3 I've ever seen published. It must have been broke or they had a trained chimp behind the wheel.

You're a moderator yet you can't tell the difference between her personal attacks on a member of this site and my personal attack toward a Ferrari owner, who is not currently present? Ugh.

I don't care who is here and who is not. If this were official, I'd say so and you'd know it.

If you're going to get huffy about someone treating you badly, you should check out your own attitude, which has been pretty piss poor through out this thread. If you want to rant and rave about how such and such people are losers and assholes, then don't whine about it when your chickens come home to roost.


M

 

[E55Power]

on a forum I referred you to.

Come on, Doug, get off your high horse. Maybe when reality hits you, we can talk.

Also, what makes ConsumerGuide so much more accurate than fastautos, or the manufacturors themselves?

 

[1X83Z]

Easy. I do that every time I want maximum acceleration. Who wouldn't? Except I wouldn't do exactly that because dumping the clutch is usually slower than feathering it some.

I have owned several manual transmission vehicles and have never revved them to 4000rpm at stoplights then dropped them in order to get the best takeoff. Furthermore, I have never had the option of doing it several times with complex, expensive computer equipment timing me. And finally, I have never done it several times and been able to use purely my best time whenever I desire (of course, magazines only publish the best time).

I imagine you're the sort who believes the WRX does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds.

And who the hell wants to know how fast a car goes with an average no-talent ass clown driving it? Are these the same people who watch sports on TV played by a 13 year old fat kid?

Come on - I never said "average no-talent ass clown." I merely said it's absurd to take the figure at the very best circumstances after several runs with professional drivers. You and I both know that when I say Motor Trend employs professional drivers, I'm not exaggerating (hell, C&D has Brock Yates on retainer) yet when you say "no-talent ass clown" you are exaggerating. There's a happy medium, and it's called 80% of the driving public, myself and the majority of people I know included.

Consumer Guide is very useful if I want to know what rebates were available that month. Or what kind of toaster can brown bread 4 slices at a time. Or what baby strollers have a 5 point harness and a front bar.

ConsumerGuide is perfectly accurate in four crucial areas:

- dimensions
- pricing
- acceleration times
- fuel economy

I never said I listen to or even read the opinons they give on vehicles - just the facts, and unlike the vast majority of publication-readers, I make my own decisions. If everyone did that, the GTO wouldn't be called bland.

But they have extremely limited credibility with me assessing performance cars. They're not car people. They test appliances. I might go to them if I wanted to know what hedge trimmer can cut 1" inch branches with a one sided blade. Maybe.

You've got ConsumerGuide and ConsumerReports confused. The people at ConsumerReports who test cars are the same people who test appliances. The car people at ConsumerGuide are employed for the sole purpose of testing cars and include (straight from the CG site):

- Mark Bilek, 10-year CG used car editor; ABC and Fox News automotive consultant; maintains a database of reliability issues and repair costs for all vehicles sold in the US
- Rick Cotta, Industrial Technology degree and certified ASE technican; editor of motorcycle and automotive history books; test-driver and author at CG for 14yrs
- Jennifer Glowicki, writer and editor at automotive department at CG
- Dave Van Sickle, 22-year management career at General Motors including positions in engineering, manufacturing, assembly, labor relations, and worldwide manufacturing site selection; regluar contributor to The Washington Times and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, appeared to discuss automotive industry trends on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline, and CNN
- Gary Witzenburg, former race car driver and engineer, former Detroit editor for Popular Mechanics, contributing editor for Motor Trend, author of five automotive history books (on the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Mercury Cougar, Pontiac Firebird, and Pontiac Fiero), degree in mechanical engineering from Duke University, 19yr experience at GM including eight years as manager for Vehicle Test and Development at GM's Advanced Technology Vehicles group.

I don't care who is here and who is not. If this were official, I'd say so and you'd know it.

Are you suggesting making an official warning? For all the sins I've committed? Like asserting that something other than styling and image might be a factor in buying a car?

If you're going to get huffy about someone treating you badly, you should check out your own attitude, which has been pretty piss poor through out this thread.

But not to another member. I stopped doing that a long time ago. And the truth is, you can't and refuse to tell the difference.

 

[pegaso650]

To Ferrari Enthusiasts here there is something to cry about..

 

[pegaso650]

too big for the bonnet

 

[E55Power]

Doug, we need to talk. I'll be on AIM.

 

[sn00pie]

Please use the private messaging system.

 

[E55Power]

It doesn't work for me.
I also can't make a new thread. Or use the edit or quote features.
[I'm using Firefox]
When I switch to IE it works fine. I didn't feel like switching broswers and coming back, just to use the PM feature.

 

[DQuaN]

Strange. Alot of us use firefox and have no problems.


A ferrari is one of the best engineered cars in the world and is awesome to drive. That, plus the beautiful distinctive sound, is reason enough to buy it. If you can afford it, it is a logical buy.

Oh, and they're puurty

 

[Dave A]

I'm on Firefox all the time I can edit, quote, PM just as fine as I could when I used to use IE.

 

[///M-Spec]

I have owned several manual transmission vehicles and have never revved them to 4000rpm at stoplights then dropped them in order to get the best takeoff. Furthermore, I have never had the option of doing it several times with complex, expensive computer equipment timing me. And finally, I have never done it several times and been able to use purely my best time whenever I desire (of course, magazines only publish the best time).

So what? I've never lapped the Ring in 8'25" in an E46 M3. Doesn't mean the M3 can't do it.

Are you telling me that just because you can't do it means it can't be done? What should magazines test, cars or people? Personally, I think it should definately NOT be the latter.

Come on - I never said "average no-talent ass clown." I merely said it's absurd to take the figure at the very best circumstances after several runs with professional drivers. You and I both know that when I say Motor Trend employs professional drivers, I'm not exaggerating (hell, C&D has Brock Yates on retainer) yet when you say "no-talent ass clown" you are exaggerating. There's a happy medium, and it's called 80% of the driving public, myself and the majority of people I know included.

The average driver is a no-talent ass clown.

Just like Ferrari owners are losers and assholes, right?

ConsumerGuide is perfectly accurate in four crucial areas:

- dimensions
- pricing
- acceleration times
- fuel economy

I never said I listen to or even read the opinons they give on vehicles - just the facts, and unlike the vast majority of publication-readers, I make my own decisions. If everyone did that, the GTO wouldn't be called bland.

They're perfectly accurate except when they make 0-60 runs in the E46 M3 and get 5.4. That's slow.

You've got ConsumerGuide and ConsumerReports confused. The people at ConsumerReports who test cars are the same people who test appliances. The car people at ConsumerGuide are employed for the sole purpose of testing cars and include (straight from the CG site):

- Mark Bilek, 10-year CG used car editor; ABC and Fox News automotive consultant; maintains a database of reliability issues and repair costs for all vehicles sold in the US
- Rick Cotta, Industrial Technology degree and certified ASE technican; editor of motorcycle and automotive history books; test-driver and author at CG for 14yrs
- Jennifer Glowicki, writer and editor at automotive department at CG
- Dave Van Sickle, 22-year management career at General Motors including positions in engineering, manufacturing, assembly, labor relations, and worldwide manufacturing site selection; regluar contributor to The Washington Times and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, appeared to discuss automotive industry trends on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline, and CNN
- Gary Witzenburg, former race car driver and engineer, former Detroit editor for Popular Mechanics, contributing editor for Motor Trend, author of five automotive history books (on the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Mercury Cougar, Pontiac Firebird, and Pontiac Fiero), degree in mechanical engineering from Duke University, 19yr experience at GM including eight years as manager for Vehicle Test and Development at GM's Advanced Technology Vehicles group.

Oh I see. You just spent three paragraphs saying professionals have no business testing cars. You said average people should test them.

Now you want to list all the professional credentials for the CG staff? NICE.

Make up your mind. Either professional people should test cars or average joe schmucks should be testing them. Don't pick what ever suits your argument at the moment. If they're such pros why are they running .7 seconds off the other "pros"?? That's "huge" (your own words).

Are you suggesting making an official warning?

Are you suggesting you don't understand what the word "IF" means?

But not to another member. I stopped doing that a long time ago. And the truth is, you can't and refuse to tell the difference.

AUP violations aren't what I'm concerned about. IF I wanted to hassle you on an official level, I could have written you up for the language alone.

I'm just someone who expects you to hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to.

Let me tell you what I see. I see someone who's spent a whole thread talking a lot of smack about Ferrari owners. But when smack comes back his way, he can't deal with it, so he gets all huffy and tells everyone that resorting to insults are "bush league".

..convinently forgetting about the people he called assholes and losers.

So I call you on it, but then you try to get technical by saying "well, it's okay because there's no Ferari owners here."

Which is just like someone who tells people "racism is bad" but then uses the n-word when there are no black people around.


M

 

[1X83Z]

I've reconsidered my position - I'm going to save arguments with moderators for discussions worth arguing and moderators worth arguing with.

 

[Emohawk]

Come on - I know I've been through this before with you. C&D, MT, R&T, etc. are horrible sources for the simple reason that they rev the vehicle up to the highest possible RPM without spinning the wheels, then drop it from neutral. How often do you do that on the street? Then their professional drivers floor it and shift faster than any automatic transmission known to man or God, and notably faster than myself or E55Power could ever want to shift. That's why CG is perfect - they simply floor the car from zero and shift like the normal drivers they are, just like a normal human being might actually do.

There's a lot less variation in the top 10%, they get a more consistant figure.
I don't care if 90% of drivers will never be able to achieve that number, it's a basis for comparison. If every car is tested to the maximum of it's potential by professional drivers, the numbers will be a much better indication of the cars realitive abilities then numbers obtained variably by A) a guy who drives his pre-sychromesh restored british sports car every day and drags every other weekend, B) an editor who only learned stick to test the cars, C) A completely average driver with a 5-speed daily driver.
Guy A sees the redline as a loose reccomendation, guy C isn't very comfortable going over it for more then a few seconds. Guy B thinks the car will explode the second the tach leaves the white. When all of these people get acceleration figures that they believe are about 80% of the best possible, you get flakey numbers. When people who make their living by getting the lowest possible numbers drive cars to 100% of both their and the cars capability, the results will be much more comperable. Does it really matter if nobody else can get that result?

That is, unless some of them are running the cars fully fluidated, and some are running on half the reccomended oil, 1 liter of fuel, and with the air filter taken out. That's just cheating.

edit: The original post I was responding to mysteriously dissapeared. I've found a new one by the same person which happens to say exactly the same thing.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've reconsidered my position - I'm going to save arguments with moderators for discussions worth arguing and moderators worth arguing with.

Oh darn! I don't have anything of substance to say, so let me think of a petty insult to hurl so I can delude myself into a graceful exit because my tiny ego demands it!



Bush League.


M

 

[1X83Z]

edit: The original post I was responding to mysteriously dissapeared. I've found a new one by the same person which happens to say exactly the same thing.

Oh darn! I don't have anything of substance to say, so let me think of a petty insult to hurl so I can delude myself into a graceful exit because my tiny ego demands it!

I didn't actually mean my post the way it sounded, but I understand how you took it and I apologize for that post.

 

[svtsnake]

so i take it driftster is an annoying jackass here too?

 

[sn00pie]

No we love him.

 

[E55Power]

SVTSnake- where do you know him from?