C'mon folks, why give him the pleasure by replying to his incessant rants on this forum? He swears by and sleeps with his Ferrari beating M3.

 

kill this thread it suck! go back to your BMW forum. we dont care if you have a jet that can go form here to china, we just dont give a F.....

 

Geez, are you guys talking to me? I haven't even said anything. I just posted a link. I have a few more if you want. But actually I prefer doing on the road as opposed to reading magazines.

 

under normal circumstances, we appreciate others posting links and times but knowing u and your trolling habits, you will attract some unwanted attention

what was the point of posting that link then?

 

Geez.. I have a E46 SMG II M3. There's no way a stock M3 could produce those kind of timings. 13.9s@105mph is the best I could get from this car. Btw I'm using BS S-03 pole position on the M3.

I couldn't wait to find out the answer the moment I had my hands on both cars. I ran both my C32 and M3 along side each other with the help of a friend. 5 rounds of quarter miles C32 vs M3 5:0. The 5 rounds were done using M3's SMG different shift patterns with acceleration assist on/off.

2 rounds of rolling start from about 50mph to 110mph. C32 2:0.

Btw both my cars were bone stock during the time of run.

 

I currently have a 2003 CLK55, and previous to that I had a 2002 M3 SMG. I don't recall how many miles I had on my M3 when I traded out of it, but I spent at least 13,000 miles in the car...

First off, I'll start by saying that performance wise, the two cars are remarkably similar, albeit they go about it in different ways, particularly in regards to engine performance. As far as outright acceleration performance is concerned, I have to agree with M&M in that either car can beat the other on any given day depending on circumstances. It would be a risky to bet on either car. More often than not however, the M3 will beat either the C55 or the CLK55 off the line due to it's excellent M-lock differential, lighter weight, launch capability (Read: 6 speed or launch mode w/ SMG) and shorter gearing.

More often than not again, the C55/CLK55 is going to beat the M3 from a roll where the M3's traction advantage is negated, and the AMG's superior engine torque comes into play. Once you're above 100 mph the difference is more pronounced, but it's still relatively close...

Now as far as the whole M vs. AMG engine debate is concerned, I believe that the two companies had different design goals. With BMW's M division, their intent was to produce as racy of an engine as possible, both to create an exciting power delivery and as an homage to the M divisions motorsports heritage. With AMG, I believe their design goal was to create an engine that's more suitable for the street, and one that offers a more subtle, but no less powerful delivery.

As far as technological sophistication is concerned, there really is no contest as the M3's inline six is one of the most technologically advanced engines on the road, using hardware such as electronically controlled individual throttle bodies, VANOS variable valve timing, and an almost race engine like design and construction.

Having said that though, I personally prefer the AMG engines because as a street car, it's a much more suitable engine. With my CLK, I can call up a ton of acceleration with very little noise and drama. It's nice to be able to "Surf it's wave of torque" and just pull away from other traffic without having to rev the heck out of the motor. I prefer not to draw a whole lot of attention to myself when I'm driving, and the CLK55's much better suited for "Q-ship" driving. A high revving, relatively gutless (In regards to torque) engine is just out of character with AMG's driving intent.

Now I can gurantee you that if AMG wanted to buld a high rev concept engine like the M3's they could. All of this talk about AMG not having the expertise is just plain and simply ignorant...

So I don't believe that either engine/philosophy is necessarily better than the other. They're just different ideas on performance...

As far as handling and chassis performance is concerned, that's a whole other subject that I'll approach at a later time, but suffice to say that everyone who refers to the C55/CLK55 as "Straight line only" cars are beyond clueless, and CLEARLY have not driven one. I doubt it will surprise anyone that the M3 is the better handling car, but not by anywhere near the margin that most people seem to think. This much is certain... the C55/CLK55 certainly handles well enough to where it's just not possible to utilize the M3's handling advantage on the street. In order for the M3 driver to capitalize on his cars handling advantage, he'll need to extract every last bit of performance from it, which would dictate a pace that is FAR too fast for the street, and if anyone believes that a car like the M3/C55/CLK55 can be driven to it's full potential on the street obviously doesn't know how to drive and is unaware how devastatingly fast all of these cars are when driven properly...

Well, that's at least a penny of my thoughts anyway. Believe me, I could go on n more detail, but I think this post is already long enough!


Best regards,
Matt


p.s.) Despite my CLK55 not having a LSD, I'll lay down two perfectly even, long, black burnout marks when I hit WOT with ESP disabled... What gives?

 

And I know who they are refring to (Mathews), the fact of the matter is that those numbers are an obvious exception. You just don't see other stock M3's running high 12's. I imagine that if you searched carefully enough, you would find a C55/CLK55 owner who ran mid 12's "stock", but there again it would hardly be representative of your typical stock C55/CLK55. I can't help but to giggle a little at how all of the M3 guys (And bear in mind I had an M3) are sooo quick to quote Mathew's 12.7 second run, like some sort of crucifix against a bunch of vampiric AMG cars...


Best regards,
Matt

 

Goosh , I just been away for a week ; and this golden thread is back to life

 

I like what you wrote here! people PLS. read it and Move on!

 

Dude! Those M3 drag videos are OBVIOUSLY on DRAG SLICKS(or)RADIALS. You DO NOT do a burnout before your launch on street tires. Someone get me a set of wide-a$$ drag radials for my C55 and then we'll se who's king. The M3 only weighs 120lb less than the C55 and they have only 60% of the torque available to the C55.

Another interesting note. If you take those M3's the way they are set up for drag racing (low pressure drag radials) onto a road course vs. a stock C55, the C55 will eat up the M3. So, you have to comprimise the only advantage the M3 has just to keep up in a straight line.

In the C55, I comprimise nothing.

 

Exactly. And an "experienced drag racer" like Rutter would know this: heating up street radials, which are designed to rapidly dissipate heat, is an exercise in futility at a strip. All you need is a short burnout to remove debris from the tires.

 

Absolutely, they weren't cleaning the tires. I've been to the track in my NSX. On street tires you stay out of the water (to the side) and do a short peel on the way to the line. In these videos, the cars were sitting in the water heating up their slicks.

 

Can you still be 100% sure that those 12s M3s are BONE STOCK?

 

I'm not arguing that they are stock, I'm just pointing out yet another reason a 12s M3 is nuts. If you've driven M3s and C55s, you'd know that the M3 is slower. M3's have been around for a long time. I'd be willing to bet 99.5% of M3 drivers have never even driven a C55, while 99.5% of C55 owners have drvein M3s. Who's the better judge?

 

Me? I've driven them all

My uncle has the C55, my family had the M3 SMG and the M3 manual. The M3 SMG (Euro spec) and C55 are pretty much even, whoever launches first will win. The M3 manual will beat them both by about half a second to 100. And yes, I have actually lined these cars up side by side. On the highway either M3 is also faster than the C55. All 3 cars were bone stock.

But the SLK 55 is faster than all

 

Well said, Matt.

I like both BMW and MB. Although I have both of them, but I hardly surf or participate in BMW's forums. I find majority of the ppl there relatively immature imo. I hope this forum do not degenerate itself by engaging with immature flame starters from the other camp.

Regards

 

Jon, boy have I tried to stay out of this argument again. It really is a futile exercise.

To answer your question, I do not know that those M3's were stock. I am on the other side of the world. All I know is that I did 13.0 @ 108 bone stock. Recently another E46 M3 did 12.8 here at our strips, but I cannot vouch if it was stock or not. All I can sa is that his trap speed is lower than mine which tells me if he's modd'd he isn't making more power than a stocker.

Lee Rutter, I believe did run 12.7X bone stock on Conti's. He has posted a pic of the time-slip next to his rear tyres. The videos posted are runsd after that where he has the passenger seat out. But MFF magazine did cover it when he ran 12.7 stock.

He now runs 12.1 @ 112mph with minor mods (minor being relative). He has 4.11 diff, intake software, DR's, no passenger & rear seats (I am open to correction if I missed something). I think his trap speed proves that he isn't terribly modified.

 

Especially when you keep getting busted in lie after lie in your little bought and paid for BMW propaganda campaign.

Your history of trolling other Internet forums under multiple user IDs;

(click here for other multiple instances of the same behavior):

your getting busted lying about "stock" M3s running 12 second 1/4 miles:

your getting busted lying *again* about the "stock" M3s *and* three more lies:

your refusing to engage in honest debate, lying about what I said, and changing the subject when proven wrong:

stating you would be at a dragstrip on Sunday, then not showing up and issuing a lameass excuse when you found out a C32 was going to be there to take you up on your challenge (whoops; gee, I know I told you I was going to be there, but I decided to get my car modded--on Sunday!!)

Before, you were saying Rutter's tires were "bone stock", and also claimed that you "could see the stock Continental (tires) in the video (false, as you now admit).

More bull**** and lies. Keep posting this lie, and I'll keep posting the facts: you were wearing drag radials, and bragged about mounting them up the week before this happened, you lying POS. Here is Monkey & Moron getting nailed lying about his "stock M3" was actually wearing drag radials:

Click here to see M&M get BUSTED:

Probably running drag radials, or semi slicks as you called them when you bragged about mounting them up right before your "bone stock" run in the South Africa Audi Club forum, then turned around and lied about it here for months afterward until I nailed you.

Bull****, bull****, bull****. I can take my car to a track with drag radials mounted up, run 0.5 faster than stock, then replace them with the stock rims, and snap a picture of a timeslip next to them. A photo of a time slip next to a tire proves *nothing*, and the video plainly shows that his front seat was gone, meaning that pretty much every other item in the car would also have been stripped, including back seat. "Bone stock" my ***...

The fact is that someone offered him money to show up and replicate those runs, and he called the guy a bunch of names and attacked his integrity, then didn't show, but claimed after the fact that he had--without announcing it first, mind you. Hardly a sterling example of honestly.

You've inspected his car personally? From the other side of the world?

The fact is this: dozens of instrumented scientific tests have been run on bone stock M3s by multiple magazines on multiple continents over a period of four years since its release, and not one, ever, has been tested in the 12's.

Period.

If it were so easy to run a 12.x in a bone stock M3, the mags would have done it, the net would be bombarded with examples of it, and there would be tons of witnesses to it, all over the country. There aren't. And liars like you who are obviously being compensated to cast aspersions on BMWs competitors on any and all Internet forums you can find don't add any credibility to the debate.

BMW must really be hard up to sell its cars to employ the likes of you to troll Internet forums and propagandize their brand...apparantly they don't think their performance cars can sell on their merits without some good old fashioned negative advertising and smear campaigns.

 

Wow,this thread is still going!! LOL!

 

You were fairly sure that the 12s slips were done on an M3 that was BONE STOCK. Forget it man, we all know what you are trying to do the very first time you posted in here

I am sure there were numerous M3 kills from the guys in here but do you see all of them making a fuss about it in Bimmer forums? Don't think so

Time and time again you have had your backside handed to you by Imrpoviz and this is the most interesting thing I found from you

 

yes we can write a book named "M3 vs C55" with materials in this thread

 

m&m, you're a pathetic loser!!!

 

No, Jon I am not trying to do anything. I actually have been staying out of these arguments & I only replied as I was asked a direct question.

Improviz is an idiot. You weren't there (I wasn't either) but you carry as if I insulted you personally, when in fact all I said is that an M3 can run 12's stock. As can many other cars.

I believe in the integriry of other people & I have e-mailed Lee & asked him many questions. I believe him when he says he ran those times. And he doesn't ie. In fact if you go to M3forum you will see times where he went to the track was disappointed, but he ALWAYS posts his times. There's times when he's gone slower but he still posted itso that we all can learn from his experience.

Anyway, Improvoz if you are as intelligent as you thin you are you will know that you can lie about a lot of things, but trap speed tells it all. I want to know why these modd'd M3's trap so low (& you have to show me evidence of DR"s not your hunc).

As for me, I have posted ON THIS BOARD, that I tried semi-slicks (Not DR's) & they didn't work for me. Look up the tyres Impro posted the pics of. It if a Dunlop Direzza 02G tarmac rally semi-slick. All the technology in the tyre in in the sidewalls as its for cornering. My 60ft's weren't any better than with the Toyo's 'cos you need to get some serous heat into them & I refuse to do a burnout.

So believe me or don't, I actually don't care. I ran 13.0 @ 108 stock & now I run 12.7 @ 110.4 with you basic bolt-on mods.

 

hmmm, your basic bolt ons and going 12.7 @ 110mph...so what was ur 60ft time? what temperature? humidity?

Ive seen a C32 with my same mods pull 12.5 @ 110mph as well!!!

 

Says a guy who has been shown beyond any shadow of a doubt to have

ZERO INTEGRITY:



I don't have to prove anything to you, Monkey; you are making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. Unfortunately, you have no proof of your claim. Proof would be not the claims of one guy on the web, or an email, or a photo of a timeslip next to a tire; proof would be a scientifically conducted test by a major mag anywhere on the planet which would make your claim seem plausible. Sadly for your pathetic, lame, trolling ***, none exists. So you can suck it, like you always do, mr. BMW propaganda boy.