who would win?
 

If a 99 tiptronic boxster were to race a 2001 CLK 430 Cab who would win?
Would it be a close race?
i think im leaning toward the clk

The CLK430 would win.My dad was driving the 2000 CLK320 while I was driving the 99 boxster tiptronic and it was neck and neck coming off a light till 75 MPH when we both let off the gas since the speed limit was 50.Now,the clk430 has a bigger engine, so I would say it would be slowly pulling in front.

I would put my money on the Merc.

Depends on the race course and driver.

I'm thinking he was talking strictly drap racing and since both cars are auto's not much driver skill would be involved.

In a straight up drag, I would imagine the Merc would do the trick.

:cheers:

No contest at ALL! The CLK 430 will take it from the get go. The 99 2.5L even in a manual would be a no contest to the Benz. The benz runs 4.3L 275HP 295LBS Torque...

A manual 2.5L with a good driver could beat the merc. A tip on the other hand would may have some troubles keeping up. The CLK 430 must be quite a heifer considering how slow it is with that V8 power!

2.5L with stick(could not find #'s for Tip)
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

2002 CLK 430
http://www.car-videos.net/performance/view.asp?id1=178&id2=0

You might want to question the credibility of the stats listed as according to that site the 2.5L 201HP Boxster time 0-60 is 6.2 seconds but the 2001 220HP Boxster is 6.6????? Ya can you explain that one please?

Ya the 2.5L is more of a 7second car 0-60....sorry to disappoint you guys but the 2.5L wasn’t very fast. I’m not hating on the boxster either I have a 2001 and we also owned a 1997 until it was stolen.

On top of all things ive never been a Mercedes fan even though we own multiple models. But im not gonna sit here and give credit where its not due.

Those stats are based on runs in different temp./weather/track/drivers. Car & Driver stats and all those are all gonna be different and just give you a general idea. I have seen manufactures claims be beaten time and time again by independent testing. According to Car & Driver stats the 2.5L 5 speed can beat a CLK 430,its not about HP and Torque but about how efficient it is. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE DRIVER. I myself have beaten those "5.0" mustangs with a 5 speed,300Hp and i'm guessing plenty more torque then my Boxster(Untampered 2.5L). A friend of mine says my Boxster fells faster then his '95 M3. I guess its all up to the driver.

HAHAH your right Robert. But i gotta tell you man you can't really know til you drive both cars. Ive driven MBZ ranging from C230 to SL65 AMG. Honestly i would NEVER want any of them, cant stand Benz, But they have power. I honestly don't think that the 2.5L can do it, and maybe not even the 2.7L. Id put my money on the Mereceds to take the box every time.

And as far as the mustang is concered, lol they blow until you get up to the Mach 1 and Cobra range. Oh and i hope there arent guys here that really think they can take a Mach 1 or Cobra Mustang straight drag....

In a drag race, I do think the Merc will hammer an older Box. However, I had one in inventory once and did not like it at all, but it had decent acceleration.

Seems you have to make turns ever once in a while ............

:cheers: :cheers:

I raced a stock 305hp 98 Slobra from a roll and a dig and he got walked by a few car lengths both times. Late 90's Cobras suspossedly didn't deliver the kind of power ford was advertising. The newer S/C'ed Corbra is a seriously quick machine especially with a few relatively inexpensive mods.

Blinkwatt is right about the car results comparisons. They can only give you general idea of the cars speed because they were all done with different drivers on different days and venues.

Adamn you try running either a 2000+ Cobra or Mach 1?

I have not had the chance to race either of those yet but I will if I ever get a chance. Judging from the performance numbers a Mach 1 would be a very close race for a Box S. They seem to run high 13's like the boxster. The 320hp cobra's would be more of a challenge but certainly not impossible to beat if the boxster was driving well and the other guy doesn't really know what he is doing. If I ever get a chance at either I will post up what happens.

Adam the Cobra pushed 400Hp with 400lbs of torque....Have fun smelling his exhaust fumes :)

Oh and the Mach 1 pushes 310hp with 335lbs of torque....Have fun with that one as well.

Umm...ok. Who was talking about beating the 390hp/390ft/lb 03+ Supercharged cobra? Not me. How about you reread the above posts. I said that car was fast paticularly with mods and I know a boxster has no chance.

The Mach 1 is not that fast, I don't no why you think it is....here are it's stats.
http://www.car-videos.net/performance/view.asp?id1=226&id2=0

As I said before the Boxster S and a Mach 1 are nearly dead even.

Here are the stats for the SVT 2000-2002 cobra.. while it is faster than a box s, I wouldn't say blows it away especially if the Boxster driver is better as I mentioned above.
http://www.car-videos.net/performance/view.asp?id1=238&id2=0

Here are some 2003 Boxster S stats...
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0305_boxz4/index4.html

I think you fail to realize(as most newbs do) that it's not all about total hp, but HP TO WEIGHT. Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth newbie.

I think you fail to realize(as most newbs do) that it's not all about total hp, but HP TO WEIGHT. Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth newbie.[/QUOTE]


Adam you’re a funny guy.... I think your calling the wrong guy a newbie... We OWN and I have driven more cars in my 19years of age then you can even think about. A couple of guys on this forum know me a little better.

I would hope everyone on this forum knows it’s not all about the HP...I for one have taken almost a half dozen driving lessons in the past 2years. I've had personal lessons from actual formula 1 drivers which happen to be clients of my family for over 15years. I just know better than to think the Boxster is a fast car, because it’s not at all. And for the record I have beaten many cars from just sheer drivers skill.

The Boxster just so happens to be one of two inexpensive cars that we own and is my daily driver. Our garage goes through more exotics than you can dream of. The most recent came in about a month or so ago...Ferrari 612 Scaglietti (I attached a picture)....And that’s my Van behind it. They are all "toys".

I do not need to do any research on a topic in which I am quite familiar with...I am just not naive in thinking that the Boxster is FAST.

You might want to broaden your view of other cars, and realize that there are better cars out there.

*Hope my post does not offend anyone*

**Own a 2001 Boxster 44k miles**

Photo of the Ferrari was taken day of deliverly 11/9/2005.

I like that Italian car. Frankly, I like most things Italian.

I had this Italian girlfriend once ..........

:cheers:

Benz E320 Vs Boxster 02 2.7
 

For comparsion sake, my dad owns a 2002 Benz E320, he rocked me....i know i'm never racing him again, the benzo has power trust me. i think i need a ferrari if were talkin about fast $260,000. but if speed is so much of a concern in a $60,000 kar, then you really should be looking at a porsche turbo 911 2006....seee u

[QUOTE=TriGem2k]


Adam you’re a funny guy.... I think your calling the wrong guy a newbie... We OWN and I have driven more cars in my 19years of age then you can even think about. A couple of guys on this forum know me a little better.


I do not need to do any research on a topic in which I am quite familiar with...I am just not naive in thinking that the Boxster is FAST.

QUOTE]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the boxster was a fast car...... I did say it is as fast or faster than particular mustangs such as the Mach 1. I don't pretend that my car is an 11 sec monster nor have I ever said it was fast. I don't really care how rich your folks are or how many drivers ed courses you have taken......your 19 and you've been here for a few mo. That classifies you as newbie in my book. I guess you are agreeing with me on the whole mustang thing now because I didn't see any rebuttal on that issue.

Play nice boys. We are (hopefully) all on the same team here.

Merry Christmas! :cheers:

One of my neighbors in Birmingham had a 2004 Cobra with a "few" modifications. It showed 607hp on the dyno and was a daily driver. The biggest problem with it was it wouldn't / couldn't hook up the power in a consistent manner. It could smoke the tires until the cows came home but it wasn't a whole lot of fun to drive until you got it off the line and got the speed up a little. You can put as much power as you want under the hood but if the suspension isn't ready for it...good luck!

A Metro could have beat that thing in 0 to 100 feet!!!

I personally think one of the reasons so many people like the Boxster is it's consistent and predictable when you apply the gas. It doesn't get twitchy like so many other cars.

when changing my 97 boxster i actually tried a clk 320 as i like the look of it, i think it is one of the pretiest coupe on the road for a while now, unfortunately the interior was not up to scratch more like living room seat and vast space, as for the drive i pushed it in "manual" mode hard and the car decided that it would'nt do any gear change for me anymore and i had to go back in automatic to get going again, i obliviously stayed well away and bought myself my little S instead.
happy motoring

It is funny to hear Boxster owners talk about beating stock Mustang GTs. As a former owner of several Mustangs, I remember the guys on Mustangworld.com and Stangnet talking about beating Boxsters with ease. It is nice to see that we all love the cars we own.

I think that what several people mentioned above is critical – the driver - especially with the MT cars. I don’t know whether my last GT was faster than my 987 or not, but I can tell you that the 987 is MUCH easier to drive fast. The back end of the Stang is so light and the suspension so poor that a good launch is incredibly difficult. I imagine with me driving, I would get better ¼ mile times in the 987, but maybe somebody with serious talent might pull a better time in the ‘Stang, I don’t know. The other factor here is mods. Yes this is an academic question, but in reality, it is quite common for a street GT to be modded with inexpensive parts that will provide some very serious performance increases. In fact, I didn’t know any enthusiast drivers who did not have at least a couple of things done. I personally went nuts modding my GT until it was complete monster (much faster than my 987 and still only around $25k new including all of the parts).

I totally agree, the driver is a central variable. The guys on the stang board talking about beating boxsters with ease were probably racing 2.5L's and maybe some 2.7's.. I'm sure most of those guys don't know the difference between a base and an S. The stock and bolt-on Gt's should be able to see the dual outlet muffler as the boxster S is passing them. That's the dead give-away.

Heres one for you guys.....I was beaten by a Mustang Mach 1 today twice, once from a dead stop and the other on the freeway...It was a buddy of mine and i just wanted to see how it goes....Yep I had no chance....The Boxster just doesnt have the go in a straight line.

Oh ya then on the way home I was SMOKED by a RX-7 like theres no tomorrow. Took me and the Mach 1

Its all good though, i still take pride in being able to drive left and right.....

Boxsters excell in handling and that what makes it a fun car. Of course racing in streets or highway isn't recommended because the consequences are too high, but if you bring it to track where curvy roads are a factor, then Boxsters have a higher ground than 300-350 hp cars.

It's just about bringing the right equipment for the job. If we want to go fast straight lines than we all should get 400hp+ Corvette or supercharged Viper etc etc for the same amount of $ or maybe a lot less.

Being a "Porsche" also gives the car an exotic value... I mean would you rather drive an RX-7 or Mustang to a date than drive a Porsche?

I just want to point out that the c5 and c6 Corvettes generate over 1 G on the track. They do turn quite nicely.

Putting the Corvettes in the class of say, a Mustang would not be an accurate classification, IMHO.

:cheers:

Well, what do you expect Trigem? You have a 2.5L right? It's amazing what injecting an extra 50-80hp can do for a relatively small/light car such as the boxster. I appreciate the fact that you drive a boxster too but you can't trasfer your driving experiences to all boxsters in general. That's like me driving a V6 mustang and then saying "yup them mustangs are pretty slow." Or driving that standard C5 and saying" yup, those Z06's don't handle all that well." I don't know how a Z06 handles because I've never driven one. I doubt you have driven a boxster S or you would've said so by now. Maybe you should try it out first before making blanket statements. I think the S can hold it's own against some pretty formidable cars. For instance, I have a friend who has a stock twin turbo Rx7 and him and I are dead even in a drag race. Actually I happen to have a pic of it on file. This is him and I at an auto-x.
http://media.racingflix.com/awais/pd/2.jpg



Richard, I agree with you, the vette does have a high degree of lateral grip but through my driving experiences with C5's they tend to feel a bit big and clumsy compared to the boxster. It isolates the driver more and the feeback left alot to be desired imo. The driving position didn't give my any confidence either, I didn't like sitting so far back in the car looking past that looong hood. I think it is a good handling car but the boxster is just on a completely different level in my opinion.

"Richard, I agree with you, the vette does have a high degree of lateral grip but through my driving experiences with C5's they tend to feel a bit big and clumsy compared to the boxster. It isolates the driver more and the feeback left alot to be desired imo. The driving position didn't give my any confidence either, I didn't like sitting so far back in the car looking past that looong hood. I think it is a good handling car but the boxster is just on a completely different level in my opinion."

They are very different cars in look and feel. I am not saying that the C6 for example is the equiv. of the Boxster in handling quality per se.

What I do believe is true is that:

The C6 handles very well, not in the class that many folks here think it does.

And, with 400 HP on tap, the average driver can make it around most tracks as quickly as a Boxster. In short, the thing handles albiet with more effort than a Box would. The HP makes up for alot.

Moreover, the C6 is surprisingly light, certainly when compared to a 911 Cab for example.

I like both cars immensely, for what they are, and for what they are not.

When I feel the urge for some maxium grunt, I take the C6 out. When I am a bit more mellow, the Box or 911 is the ticket.

Either way, you can't go wrong (IMHO).

I respect the corvette for what it is....a good all around car at a great price. I haven't had the pleasure of driving a C6 yet so I can't comment and/or give my driving impressions but I bet it is an incredible car. I agree with you on the whole bad rap thing. People have alot of misconceptions about the vette as they do about the boxster on other sites usually because they have never driven them or taken the time to know them. It does not have "leaf springs" anymore. The C5 and C6 have fiberglass mono-springs...they haven't had stacked metal leafs for years. Since these springs lay down instead of nearly straight up like a traditional coil-over setup they lower the cars center of gravity and are a lighter system altogether.

Nicely put!

:cheers:

Ya definitly dont have the 2.5L buddy.... Its best to ask and not assume. Thanks. Beside the Boxster is just my toy....

And as far as the mustang is concered, lol they blow until you get up to the Mach 1 and Cobra range. Oh and i hope there arent guys here that really think they can take a Mach 1 or Cobra Mustang straight drag....[/QUOTE]

A straight drag isn't much of a measuring stick in overall performance. Passed by a stang on the highway I shadowed for a while, as soon as it got twisty on came his brakelights, I was on throttle. Blew by him at a good clip, he tried to catch me for a few miles but my car's ass was his only view. His car didn't have stability in the top end, handling or brakes. He was soundly spanked, that was with a 20+ year old 944....Alfa Romeo had a good line about it:

It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast.

Those 944s handle very nicely indeed.

:cheers:

Oh, my bad it's a 2001 with 44k miles. Guess I should've checked first. That doesn't change my point.

Well the posts here are interesting, but I just want to say to at least think twice before we 'race' or 'blow' other cars on the street, highway, etc. Instead of doing racing in the street, we all should do it in the track where it is a lot safer.

Maybe it is good if we go over the consequences from street racing. If we hit others or have accident, we may be:
1. Suspended or loose our license forever.
2. Loose major $$$ (whether we have insurance or not).
3. Charged for reckless driving and/or manslaugher. Jail time and probation.
4. Injured ourselves badly and live crippled for the rest of our lives.
5. Kill others and maybe or our own too.

I admit that I too need a rush adrenaline sometimes but just keep the first priority of racing in the track. Racing in the street will make us look like a true idiot and an inconsiderate prick. Of course, we can do what we want (1st amendment - including being an idiot) only as long as we do not endanger others.

Nuff said :cheers:

Well said, REPWOOD

:cheers:

I've been biting my tongue (well, my fingers actually) since this thread began but the initial premiss begs the question

WHO CARES!

Sorry for the outburst but this bar/bench racing stuff is really rather juvenile. If you want to see which one's fastest take your desires to the track, all other stats are meaningless.