# Talk:Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR

Removal of a "problems" section:
I removed this section because it literally copied CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/06/14/pricey_lemon/index.html
The person who added that section not only left out proper citation, but they plagiarized it verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.93.138 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 18 June 2006 

The main lesson from that "problem" is that this dealer does not understand that the CLK GTR is a race car with license plates, not an idiot proof toy for cruising. No wonder MB refuses to fix it for free. --Matthead 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Matthead - why did you revert my edits?  I guess I am curious about your English qualifications.  I would also like to know which of my comments was "annoying".  Further, it would be nice to know about the "blanks" I inserted.  It's your prerogative as to whether you answer, as I'm not terribly concerned about the quality of this article.--Mlprater 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey I'm no Mercedes fanboy but that section really is inappropriate, looking like a hit piece on Daimler Benz- do all car pages on wiki make such a petty reference? On the story itself I'd concurr with Matthead, if the guy drove it ten blocks in city traffic I'm shocked it didn't seize the engine in five or lose the ground effects just getting out the driveway. They bought it gray market! Ooops! It didn't include that part now did it? Why hate on Mercedes? I'm not going to touch it for a while, as M1prater alludes it's a "who cares" level page, but still- anyone care to input I'll give it 30 days, fair enough? Batvette (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
A fairly well documented failure on a car with a limited production of ~25 which is factually written without any bias is inappropriate? The359 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"Without bias"? It's told by one side of the problem, the issue is thus not analytically discussed. It's a race car that was modified for legalization on the street, if you go puttering around on city streets on  a warm day it's going to overheat. It was also purchased outside of the Mercedes sales network, had this not been the case they would have fixed it under warranty and we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the end, a 4% rate of failure is not significant enough to warrant a section titled "problems" which was a complaint caused by the owner's import process circumvention. Batvette (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this dubious section. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a documented and cited section regarding a dispute over the car, and neutral in tone.  I fail to see the reason to remove it. The359 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is undue weight.  When one out of ~25 cars suffers major failures when being used for the exact purpose it is intended, and it is documented by a well established news source due to the dispute between the owner and Mercedes-Benz, then I find nothing undue in mentioning the existance of this dispute and problem.  What exactly is not neutral about the paragraph?  All you've said is that it is "dubious" and that it is "a race car with license plates".  That's hardly an explanation of undue weight. The359 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You fail to provide the reason to mirror a CNN article about an exotic car dealership suing M-B, complaining about the roadworthiness of an exotic car that "cannot legally be driven on public roads here" (so much about the "exact purpose it is intended"), and that one more than they believed "were actually made, reducing the value of his car." This news snippet does say a lot about the dealer and the owner, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article about the car which is victim of such incompetence. Besides, you should have a look at WP:OWN, and refrain from telling me what to do on my talk page.-- Matthead  Discuß   00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mechanical and build problems with an exotic supercar are important to an encyclopedic article covering said supercar.  If a car which is not road legal cannot go more than 10 blocks, then it wont go far on a track either, so it is still not fulfilling its intended purpose (and yes, show cars can be driven for short distances for show).
You ASSUME it is a failure due incompetence.  If it was simply due to being driven, that would not explain the failed window seals or hydraulic jacks.  Please provide a citation that the car's failures are due to the incompetence of the owner, or else you're failing Original Research.  Explain why exactly a news article about the very car this article is about does not belong in this article?  This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE as the article presents facts about failures and does not attempt to provide opinions for or against the dealer, Mercedes-Benz, or the car's usability.
If I were owning the article, I wouldn't be here discussing it, or coming to your talk page telling you to discuss it.  If you don't want someone coming to your talk page asking you to discuss a matter before you revert, then maybe you should discuss the matter before reverting in the first place. The359 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The CLKs have won two World Championships, with races lasting typically 4 hours, and also 1000km. That was the exact purpose it was intended to. And no, my talk page comments do not fail Original Research. Your section was in for about two years, that was more than enough.-- Matthead  Discuß   00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You're discussing the race cars.  The CLK GTR road cars are not identical to the race cars in every way.  You assume that because the race car lasts, that the road car should act in the same way.  That's not the way it works.
And yes, claiming that the section should be removed because it was owner incompetence is original research, and is not a valid claim for removal of the section.
The length of time in which the section was appropriately in there (I actually did not add the section, it was already there when I rewrote the article) has no weight on whether or not it should remain. The359 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Should the following line be in the article:"The Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR is a grand tourer"? My personal opinion aside, I have followed the blue link to the "grand tourer" article. The article includes a list of grand tourers, among which is the Mercedes CL-class. However, as detailed in thisItalic text'article, the CLK-GTR is very different from the CLK. Therefore, either we should remove the statement, or, in the section where the construction of the CLK-GTR is outlined, add what characteristics still make it a grand tourer. Our personal experiences should not enter into this - many of us are familiar with the standard CLK, and we may believe changes in suspension, transmission, removal of noise-damping elements in the main cabin, etc may make the CLK-GTR unsuitable for long distance driving by the average driver. However, if someone can find good sources as to what features Mercedes put into the CLK-GTR for road-use purposes, we can add this into the article under a Grand Tourer section. For example, a road going version of the Porsche 962 race car was built (check the "Dauer 962" article in Wikipedia). If a similar thing happened here, and there exist reviews or press-releases online (for the road car)that we can get at, we should cite and use them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.177.159 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 
The CLK GTR in question was a road-legal version of the CLK GTR called the Straßenversion, Matthead. You can read about it in the current article. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 02:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just adding that the CLK GTR was in the game Need for Speed III: Hot Pursuit, which came out before the high stakes game. so reaserch about that or sumthing. its been in other games too like PGR3 and others.

It seems there is some debate as to how many RHD models exist. Lewis Hamilton claims he owns the only RHD model (https://twitter.com/LewisHamilton/status/615957253162729472), and the auction house that sold it states it is the only one (https://web.archive.org/web/20091102162124/http://www.rmauctions.com/auction-results-overview.cfm?SaleCode=LF09). However one of the sources cited (http://www.carsuk.net/mercedes-benz-clk-gtr-the-unique-rhd-versions/) claims two were made. It should also be pointed out that in that last article it states the Sultan of Brunei had the coupe version built, but doesn't insinuate he had the roadster built as well. It seems this page (https://web.archive.org/web/20090421162032/http://www.ss-united-trading.org/41367.html) had photos of the supposed two RHD models, but the archive doesn't have the photos sadly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.42.215 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 

82.23.42.215 this is a bit late, but two RHD models exist. Both were ordered by the Sultan of Brunei, and one was a coupe, and one was a roadster. Hope this helps. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 00:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806031509/http://www.thecarexperience.com/clk.htm to http://www.thecarexperience.com/clk.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421162032/http://www.ss-united-trading.org/41367.html to http://ss-united-trading.org/41367.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)