Ford 0 Posted August 25, 2004 Friend has just purchased a CLK 320 and I have just purchased a VR6, both in silver, he recons that I will see nothing but the rear end of his car. His car has more power (218bhp), but is a weighty beast and is an auto!!!! Would appreciate any comments/statistics that I can overload his inbox with... Many thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi-knight83 0 Posted August 25, 2004 ahh you got a vr6 then.. do tell more about it and some pics?? erm i think th merc will win in a straight line to be honest but round the corners yours will catch up hopefully...depends on how good a driver you are :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott 0 Posted August 25, 2004 LOL - the VR6 will absolutely whip it! :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MoonlightVR 0 Posted August 25, 2004 Ask Kieron - he's just bought a CLK and had a VR before (with 230 odd bhp!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi-knight83 0 Posted August 25, 2004 LOL - the VR6 will absolutely whip it! straight line? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted August 25, 2004 My mates auto CLK320 was quite quick but they are damn heavy, and you just try and take any corners in it!! Last time he tried with me in the car, a load of traction control lights light up the dash and it just understeered with shed loads of body roll!! :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
G-Lader 0 Posted August 25, 2004 bet the kickdown is a tad impressive though........... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MoonlightVR 0 Posted August 25, 2004 I had a 230 Kompressor X plate CLK for 6 months as a company car. Had 197bhp and despite being an auto was no slotch. But IMO the VR was in a different league - the VR was quicker, smoother (CLK was a nasty coarse 4 pot) and a better handler. I guess in a staright line the VR and 320 may be quite evenly matched, but I suspect the VR will out handle it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corradovr6sc 0 Posted August 25, 2004 think the vr6 would edge it. When mine was standard, it would keep up with a c36 (286 hp) no problem so a clk 320 shouldn't be too much trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott 0 Posted August 25, 2004 LOL - the VR6 will absolutely whip it! straight line? Yup... a 'decent ' VR6 will have it in straight line and corners - compare the 1/4 mile times.... :-P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ford 0 Posted August 25, 2004 ahh you got a vr6 then.. do tell more about it and some pics?? Hi Jedi, will do, as soon as I pick it up tonight - will post pictures over the weekend. Yep VR6, silver, original apart from lowered suspension, exhaust and eyebrow spoiler. £104k on the clock and they did the timing chain and clutch, so hope it lasts a while... has a few dents, but we have budgeted for the repairs. All electrics in excellent order and has full closure alarm. I will talk about the sale that fell through on the other VR6 another time....just want my deposit back! Thanks for all the replies guys, I will forward a link to this topic to Mr CLK man later in the day when we have a few more damning facts and figures!! BTW his CLK is a 99 reg, if that helps... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 25, 2004 lol, I love these threads 8) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corrado_barnett 0 Posted August 25, 2004 My money is on the VR6 Currently taking bets :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott 0 Posted August 25, 2004 CLK 320 Elegance 2d Auto 3199/6 218bhp Top Speed 148 0-60 in 7.8secs :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Bacon 5 Posted August 25, 2004 Looking pretty decisive on paper isn't it ! But bear in mind the CLK was never designed to do what the Corrado does..... so it's not a fair comparison in terms of handling. It's a convertible handicapped by a heavy, but cool, folding roof system. If you want to compare a VR6 to cabriolet, pick on the Boxster instead as that *does* handle and the 2.7 is roughly the same speed. The new CLK would be a much tougher challenge for the Corrado though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ford 0 Posted August 25, 2004 It's a convertible handicapped by a heavy, but cool, folding roof system. Its the coupe version (hard top). Keep them coming... BTW could somebody put the corrado stats next to the above merc stats that Scott kindly supplied. Could be the final nail in the coffin. Then I will forward the link to him.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi-knight83 0 Posted August 25, 2004 from autocar sept 94 regarding the corrado vr6 max power: 190bhp @ 5800rpm max torque: 181 lb ft @ 4200rpm Power to weight: 153bhp per tonne Weight: 1240kg Performance Max speed / rpm top gear: 145 / 6200rpm 4th: 132 / 6900rpm 3rd: 93 / 6900rpm 2nd: 64 / 6900rpm 1st: 36 / 6900rpm Acceleration from rest (sec) 0-30: 2.6 0-40: 3.7 0-50: 4.9 0-60: 6.4 0-70: 8.3 0-80: 10.4 0-90: 13.7 0-100: 17.7 Quarter Mile: 15.1@ 93mph 30-70 through gears: 5.7 this is from auto car twin test april 92 before the vr6 was available to buy here: consider its shattering 30-70 sprint of 5.7 seconds. Put into perspective thats faster than the BMW M5 and as fast as an Aston Martin Virage 8) hope that helps Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr_mat 0 Posted August 25, 2004 That 30-70 time never really impressed me, I didn't realise how fast it really was. I just remember the stats on the Lotus Carlton with it's 3.8 seconds 30-70 time, which kinda ruined my appreciation of 5.7s! Perspective is hard to come by in performance figures!! :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi-knight83 0 Posted August 25, 2004 also like this quote from the 'our verdict' section of that twin test in 1992 Its a classic, the VR6, and its tallent runs so deep that it takes a while for them to sink in completely. Certainly, if in 20 years time, it appeared on the cover of some classic car magazine with a headline saying 'one of the all time greats' , we wouldnt be suprised. can the same be said about a CLK?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corrado_barnett 0 Posted August 25, 2004 I think not :!: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ford 0 Posted August 25, 2004 hope that helps Nailed it!!! Cheers! Always hear varying results re: 0-60 times for VR6 though, who is correct I wonder? Corrado club says this in their VR6 profile: Acceleration 0-60mph in 7.2 seconds That's the slowest I have seen, I guess that is the official speed. Most recon 6.7 secs to 60 - top gear etc? I am sure there is probably a thread about this somewhere in here? Might have to delete these questions from this thread later as this won't help our cause... can't agree on stats etc. However, even the slowest stat from Corrado Club is still quicker that the CLK stats above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jedi-knight83 0 Posted August 25, 2004 nah dont delete the questions....the thread wont really make sense then i think its actually 6.5 or there abouts...never 7.2 :roll: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr_mat 0 Posted August 25, 2004 I've seen 6.2, but the most often quoted one is 6.4s. VW quoted 6.9 s, IIRC, but that would have been with 75% fuel load and two passengers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corrado_barnett 0 Posted August 25, 2004 Will we never know :?: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dazzyvr6 0 Posted August 25, 2004 is that a max speed for 3rd gear then???ive had a quite a bit more than that in 3rd in mine :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
