Rear Seats
#46
Race Director
After removing the back seats, have you found the lack of a flat surface such as
provided by the lowered seatbacks (almost level with the transmission tunnel)
to be an impediment to storing a couple of suitcases back there? Or have you
found an alternative way of providing that flat surface? I'm trying to find a
"flat surface" solution for luggage as my GT3 trunk will likely be used for a collapsible spare tire, tools, spares, helmet, etc.
provided by the lowered seatbacks (almost level with the transmission tunnel)
to be an impediment to storing a couple of suitcases back there? Or have you
found an alternative way of providing that flat surface? I'm trying to find a
"flat surface" solution for luggage as my GT3 trunk will likely be used for a collapsible spare tire, tools, spares, helmet, etc.
Since your frunk will be occupied, I'd suggest some nice quality soft duffle-style bags that can fit in the recessed area where the rear seat bottoms would be. You could stand them on end and shape them a bit to fit that area.
#47
Rennlist Member
A GT3 that looks like the 911-50 and has rear seats would be my ideal GT3 for the kinds of speeds we see here in the U.S. and real-world use. While I don't hate wings that actually serve a purpose, I'd personally prefer not to have them. Center-exit exhaust, a radiator top vent in the front bumper, ride height, and wheels/brakes would be enough visual differentiation for me.
Have always loved stealth cars like the Ruf CTR, M-B 500E/E500, BMW E34 M5, Audi ur-S8—cars that required you to know something about them in order to know you were looking at something special. I've always liked fast cars that passed through the world largely unnoticed.
pete
Have always loved stealth cars like the Ruf CTR, M-B 500E/E500, BMW E34 M5, Audi ur-S8—cars that required you to know something about them in order to know you were looking at something special. I've always liked fast cars that passed through the world largely unnoticed.
pete
#52
Race Director
How is power delivery different from a 63?...
#53
Rennlist Member
CL65 was a 5 speed up until the new one comes out next year. Than it will have 7. It needs 3.
880lb pounds of TQ de tuned to 734 to save the tranny. Essentially the same engine in the 2015 as in the 2005. I see no reason to mess with it. Sounds and feels awesome.
Power delivery? You see a gap and you are there. Think twice before flooring for a pass, it will spin tires at 80Mph.
I bet it's not that big a difference now that the 63 is a TT V8.
880lb pounds of TQ de tuned to 734 to save the tranny. Essentially the same engine in the 2015 as in the 2005. I see no reason to mess with it. Sounds and feels awesome.
Power delivery? You see a gap and you are there. Think twice before flooring for a pass, it will spin tires at 80Mph.
I bet it's not that big a difference now that the 63 is a TT V8.
#55
Burning Brakes
I had a 1993 500E built by Porsche. Worst MB I've ever owned. Supposedly used 500SL Brakes - They were terrible - even dangerous in normal street driving. MB Tech thought I was crazy to complain - until he drove it! Scared the hell out of him - replaced them 3X - Still awful - would lock wheels at random.
Rear wheels had 3.8 degrees of Negative camber. MB tried adjusting many times - NG! Tried swapping complete Rear ends - twice. Still 3.8 Degrees. Finally gave up telling me that 3.8 Degrees were within spec and 1,000 - 2,000 Miles of tire life was "normal" on a high performance car. And the fit of the body panels looked like the entire assembly crew was drunk and competing to see how large they could make the gaps. Those were just a few of my many complaints. MB gave up on it. I did too. Traded my $80K car after 3 years of grief for $35K on an MB C class which was great. Learned to let MB's make MB's, and Porsche's make Porsche's. It is just a very fast way of driving to the scene of your accident.
Rear wheels had 3.8 degrees of Negative camber. MB tried adjusting many times - NG! Tried swapping complete Rear ends - twice. Still 3.8 Degrees. Finally gave up telling me that 3.8 Degrees were within spec and 1,000 - 2,000 Miles of tire life was "normal" on a high performance car. And the fit of the body panels looked like the entire assembly crew was drunk and competing to see how large they could make the gaps. Those were just a few of my many complaints. MB gave up on it. I did too. Traded my $80K car after 3 years of grief for $35K on an MB C class which was great. Learned to let MB's make MB's, and Porsche's make Porsche's. It is just a very fast way of driving to the scene of your accident.
#56
http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/...edes-benz-e500
Saludos,
Eduardo
#58
CL65 was a 5 speed up until the new one comes out next year. Than it will have 7. It needs 3.
880lb pounds of TQ de tuned to 734 to save the tranny. Essentially the same engine in the 2015 as in the 2005. I see no reason to mess with it. Sounds and feels awesome.
Power delivery? You see a gap and you are there. Think twice before flooring for a pass, it will spin tires at 80Mph.
I bet it's not that big a difference now that the 63 is a TT V8.
880lb pounds of TQ de tuned to 734 to save the tranny. Essentially the same engine in the 2015 as in the 2005. I see no reason to mess with it. Sounds and feels awesome.
Power delivery? You see a gap and you are there. Think twice before flooring for a pass, it will spin tires at 80Mph.
I bet it's not that big a difference now that the 63 is a TT V8.
#59
Burning Brakes
Read more: http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/...#ixzz2lxf8uXsB
IMHO R&T nailed the essence of the problem. It was an orphan car with neither Porsche nor MB feeling it was "Their Car". With few made, most cars command
high premiums - regardless of reliability. It was certainly "a little confused"!!!
#60
Rennlist Member
The CL65 is quite a fast car from a roll. I race one several times (on a closed road) from 60-140 in my GT-R and I was surprised how well he stayed with me. He would end up about 5-8 car lengths behind me at the end of each run (and my GT-R has 700hp). If that is how fast a stock CL65 is, good lord that's a fast car.
Slow reaction time, 2 people in the car, AC on, EPS on, stock Ps2 tires we did not mess with and it did 12.02 @ 1xx? Mph. I think they are 4800lbs, but due to ABC cornering you don't feel the weight. Bone stock.
I can tell you that from 80MPH+ no car ever left me.