Re: C 32 AMG???? NAAAAA

Discussion in '2001 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG' started by Al, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Qubeley</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300CE24_RULE</i>
    <b>I'd take the C32 over the M3. I saw one a few days ago. It was awesome.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Me too, the engine sounds nice, also the exhausts. I also saw the SLK32 =D</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You're damn lucky guy !<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Acceleration is AMAZING. the C 32 AMG sedan loaded with two adults and luggage takes only 5.2 seconds to reach 62 mph according to Mercedes. The car is capable of runs to 60 in 4.5 seconds! (AutoCar review Jun 27th 2001) That's faster than the new BMW M3 and the Porsche 911.
    4,5 secs??? well if we gona argue about the quickest anyones got to 60 4,5 would take the cake?
    ps ppl buy horse power but they like torque!!



     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from benz13</i>
    <b>Acceleration is AMAZING. the C 32 AMG sedan loaded with two adults and luggage takes only 5.2 seconds to reach 62 mph according to Mercedes. The car is capable of runs to 60 in 4.5 seconds! (AutoCar review Jun 27th 2001) That's faster than the new BMW M3 and the Porsche 911.
    4,5 secs??? well if we gona argue about the quickest anyones got to 60 4,5 would take the cake?
    ps ppl buy horse power but they like torque!!



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'd like to see the figures! 4.5 sounds strange to me.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300CE24_RULE</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from benz13</i>
    <b>Acceleration is AMAZING. the C 32 AMG sedan loaded with two adults and luggage takes only 5.2 seconds to reach 62 mph according to Mercedes. The car is capable of runs to 60 in 4.5 seconds! (AutoCar review Jun 27th 2001) That's faster than the new BMW M3 and the Porsche 911.
    4,5 secs??? well if we gona argue about the quickest anyones got to 60 4,5 would take the cake?
    ps ppl buy horse power but they like torque!!



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'd like to see the figures! 4.5 sounds strange to me.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Very strang indeed. I've never seen ANY numbers close to 4.5, and since the car is automatic the driver shouldn't matter much, as long as he's competent. Those must be some very very nice conditions, very very inflated figures, or poor test equipment.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. no it can! its about 4.4 to 4.6sec
     
  6. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Emdec55</i>
    <b>no it can! its about 4.4 to 4.6sec</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Do you have any real proof? 100% of the figures I've read for the car in magazine reviews show it doing 0-60mph in 5.0 to 5.2 seconds. 4.6 is very hard to believe, let alone 4.4. Honestly, numbers like these sounds like less than perfectly accurate test equipment to me.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. 4.4 ??? hahaha

    And why not 4.0 or 3.8 ???

    it's more like 4.8 to 5.0 .<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. MBUSA has 4.9 sec but it can do it in 4.6 sec i only had the 4.4 if its just right for the car..but the 0 to 60 is really about 4.6 to 4.9
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300CE24_RULE</i>
    <b>4.4 ??? hahaha

    And why not 4.0 or 3.8 ???

    it's more like 4.8 to 5.0 .</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->what r u talkin about 4.0 or 3.8?
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Emdec55</i>
    <b>MBUSA has 4.9 sec but it can do it in 4.6 sec i only had the 4.4 if its just right for the car..but the 0 to 60 is really about 4.6 to 4.9</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    110% BS.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. what 4.9 to 4.6? go 2 the mbusa has the car with 349hp with a 0 to 60 time of 4.9 sec thats 110% BS?
     
  12. I'll take this anyday. My only problem is that all AMGs have autos, so I might reconsider.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. this is not true AT ALL
    give me some proof.
    the C32 AMG has more power then the M3, its as fast or faster....and for the rest, just better.
    as i said before, not everybody could make that car go 0-60 in 4.9 sec
    the auto, gear box sets the acceleration time at 5.1, this being available for ANYBODY. Especially you could never get it to go 0-60 in even 5.4, since your so dumb.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from G1zm0</i>
    <b>this is not true AT ALL
    give me some proof.
    the C32 AMG has more power then the M3, its as fast or faster....and for the rest, just better.
    as i said before, not everybody could make that car go 0-60 in 4.9 sec
    the auto, gear box sets the acceleration time at 5.1, this being available for ANYBODY. Especially you could never get it to go 0-60 in even 5.4, since your so dumb.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Yeah, its much much faster, the shitbox automatic doesn't let you shift the gear at the best time, so it slows you down, you want some proof? Well here it is.

    Angus<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Sorry, having some trouble uploading the image.
    I'll try again.

    Angus<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Sorry guys, can't upload the pic because it isn't a JPeg, anyone know how to change that?

    Angus<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. #42 Angisio, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

Share This Page