Here's one for you, monkey boy:
0-60 mph 4.7
0-100 mph 11.3
0-120 mph 16.7
1/4-mile @ mph 13.3 @ 108
rolling 5-60 mph 4.9
top gear
30-50 mph 7.2 10.7 2.5
test average 6.8
50-70 mph 6.9 10.1 3.2

Now then, as nice as the tests you're getting paid to post are, none of them are in the 13's. One is a 13.0, which is close, but unfortunately:

1) it is not in the 12's;

2) the other test you posted, and all of the other ones I've seen, put the car smack dab in the low-mid 13's.

So keep posting irrelavent tests all you like (btw, where is the "feature" you claimed the mustang rag had done on Rutter's miracle machine?), but you still haven't proven your case.

Now, in the meantime, go cash the check BMW gave you to troll the Internet and sell their product.

A brief history of monkey boy:

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 they were "bone stock", and also claimed that you "could see the stock Continental (tires) in the video (false).

Click here to see M&M get BUSTED:

 

Improviz, you didn't bust anything so why do you keep posting the same stiff over & over again. You haven't proven anything. DO you want me to post my timeslip which has the date on it to prove that I was slower in the DUnlops Semi's than with the Toyos. I would rather not et involved in a mindless debate on this forum, but if you keep attacking my credibility I will be forced to prove to you wrong.

BTW, you are absolutely correct.I have not posted a sinlge review of a stock M3 doing 12's yet. All I've done is post an unprepped stocker doing 13.0 by a mag tester on an unprepped surface. SO I guess you win. It is impossible for a stock M3 to do 12's. It is totally beyond the realms on possibility.

 

ironic how you say he keeps attacking your credibility which you have NONE within neither MB community nor BMW community. ROFLMAO

unpreppe surface?? you really are a moron. I guess none of them tracks used for testing are prepped.

you still don't understand you're just our laughing stock don't you?

and NO i don't want more of these useless links. But since you're retarded and a moron, you probably would just ignore this comment. oh yeah, you haven't cease to amaze me with your ignoring other ppl's comment/question to your arguement technic. I'd sure love to learn how you do it.

 

Improviz, please stop posting everything M&M has said in the past and deal with his present comments only (even if his past posts and current posts relate) we have all heard them before (you seem to quote them in every post) and do not won't to re-live them, i think its time we all move on. I'm sure we all have exaggerated in the past so its time to forgive and forget.

 

In other wrds guys,let's keep it rolling! Next!

 

I don't think you'll get an answer for that Frank. See how he is starting to get all gentle and careful with his argument by saying "It is possible for a stock M3 to do 12s"

where as when he started trolling here, he was saying things like:

" 99% of all car mags around the world tested the M3 was the quicker car against the C55/32"

WOW, M&M must be a language freak because he must have read all but 1% of the car mags in the world to come to that conclusion.

Credibility? he is laughing

 

Yes, car magazine writers jizz all over the M3. It's because 99% of the writers drive a Ford Focus all day long and anything with a harsh suspension that makes a lot of noise really gets them all worked up. I guarantee you that if the writers drove an NSX as a daily driver like I do, they'd realize how bad the M3 handles compared to a real sports car. If they drove a C55, they'd realize how bad it is to have a noisy low torque motor in a premium sports sedan. If they could even afford an Evo MR, they'd realize how much the M3 tries to be a boy racer but can't keep up.

Before I bought the NSX, I looked at M3s. I drove four of them. I thought, nice car, but man it handles like crap for having such a stiff suspension.

Before I bought the C55, I drove the M3 again (three times) and realized how annoying it must be to have a sedan that you have to run above 4k rpm and get shaken to hell just to go fast. I can understand keeping the revs up on a sports car like an NSX or an Elise, but for a sedan, its crap.

And, don't give me that crap about the M3 being more pure. If it was so pure, why does it have about the sloppiest manual transmission I've ever driven? Why does it have crap for brakes? Why do they make a convertible? Why does it weigh 600 pounds more than an Evo MR (almost 1000lbs for the cabriolet)? Why the 19" rims that you can't even put competition tires on? Why the CAST 18's that you CAN put competition tires on?

Bottom line...
The M3 is a poorly comprimised boy racer sports car wannabe (kind of like a high class ricer civic). M3 owners try to pull this crap on every message board that exists. Just about the only place they avoid the urge to proclaim their greatness is on ferrarichat.com, but that's just because they're brown-nosing losers. The C55 is a true and fast uber-sports sedan with comfort, luxury, and solidity that the M3 will never match. The C55 has a HIGHER power-to-weight, a MUCH HIGHER torque-to-weight ratio, STRONGER brakes, ONLY 100lbs more weight, and MORE exclusivity.

Is it true that one of these people is in Houston? That's where I'm from. If you want your a$$ handed to you in a race, we've got five cars in the garage that'll do that for you. Have fun trying to keep up with the 575m sucker.

 

Hey, monkey boy, this makes three times I've asked: you threatened to post the rustang magazine article which "featured" and "tested" rutter's miracle machine...where is it?

Moving right along...

I must have missed the portion in this magazine article where they said anything about the preperation, or lack thereof, of the surface upon which the test was conducted.

Further, I don't read anything in any of the magazines I read about any preperation, or lack thereof, of the surfaces upon which the tests are conducted.

In other words, this is yet another unsupported claim in your relentless spin campaign to massage the facts in BMW's favor.



What is most amusing about this laughable statement is that you seem to think you have any credibility left for me to attack. I done tore that to pieces months ago, boy, and had lots of fun doing it! Whatever BMW is paying you, they're not getting their money's worth on our boards, that's for sure.

 

I beg to differ with you on alot of these points and believe me I'm an MB enthusiast.You are,of course entitled to your opinion even though I think it's ever so unreasonable.The M3 is very good at what it does best and I can say that about the C55 as well.Handling and shifting I'll take the M3 anyday,brute pwr and Tq,cruising and beauty I'll take a C55.



I think the M3 is an extremely good looking car as well,a hell of alot of fun to drive and sorta comfy so let's keep it real.The newer C class MB's seem to be much smaller inside than my W202 C43/55 and to me gives me much more room and comfort than a W203.I feel I can realisticly say all that I'm stating because I own both an M3 and AMG and my folks own a W203.

 

Now your just giving MB owners a bad name with exaggeration...there is no need for it.

Maybe if your posts showed evidence of knowledge then you'd be taken seriously. Its actually the c55's power gives it its advantage and this ismostly evident at high speeds, several magazine tests have shown that the m3 can be faster from a standstill, so wheres the advantage of all that torque gone............now again tell me waht torque to weight has to do with anything

 

Some of these M3 people kill. The lies got so bad on one of their websites,
that I posted a topic soliciting a friendly race with a E46 M3 against my 2000 FRC Corvette. The majority of the replies were personal attacks, and only one guy has belled up to the plate, and he is out of the country! He says he will race me when he gets back into the United States. The M3 is a great car,
no doubt, but I personally do not seing that car going into the low 13's, much less high 12's stock. I know some rags got mid 13 second times, but that is a far cry from high 12's! And I never have seen the supposed 13 flat time!

 

Some of these M3 people kill. The lies got so bad on one of their websites,
that I posted a topic soliciting a friendly race with a E46 M3 against my 2000 FRC Corvette. The majority of the replies were personal attacks, and only one guy has belled up to the plate, and he is out of the country! He says he will race me when he gets back into the United States. The M3 is a great car,
no doubt, but I personally do not see that car going into the low 13's, much less high 12's stock. I know some rags got mid 13 second times, but that is a far cry from high 12's! And I never have seen the supposed 13 flat time!

 

don't forget they magazines used the best number they got in multiple tries. I've only read about magazines said the AMGs are generally more consistant in these times than the Ms even tho the best time might not be as good.

 

I see M&M failing to acknowledge what is being said about him again

 

Perhaps you might investigate the relationship between 60' times and 1/4 mile times....the M3's only advantage in a straightline race is at launch: it has tires 10mm wider (255 vs 245) than the C55, along with a true LSD, which helps its launch, which helps its 60' time, which helps its 1/4 mile time. Rule of thumb is ~2/10 gained in the 1/4 mile for every 1/10 gained in 60' time.

The C55 is very difficult to launch agressively with 245mm rear tires, no LSD, and 390 lb-ft of torque, and thus its 1/4 mile time is deceptively slower than if the car had tires capable of handling the torque and a true LSD.

Example 1: Motor Trend had the following to say when it tested the convertible M3 and CLK55:

Example 2: compare the 0-60 times and 5-60 times for the M3 and CLK55 in the following article. The M3 was tested at 4.7 seconds 0-60, the CLK55 5.0...but without the extra momentum gained by the more-agressive launch capability, look what happened: their rolling-start 0-60 times were the same, at 5.2 seconds. Meaning that the M3 lost 0.5 when it went from a roll, but the CLK55 lost less than 1/2 of this, 0.2.

This, along with the aforementioned difficulty in timing shifts without rev-limiter hits in the M (particularly in the heat of a run), explains our success rate, methinks.

 

Jon, is this what you want me to comment about? Well yeah, I still stand by that I have posted a few & I have more tests. You guys can argue until you're blue in the face but that won't change the fact that the majority of magazines all over the world have got the M3 faster than the C32/C55. Am I lying or what? You live in Autralia, I see a recent test got the C55 in the 1'sover the 1/4. Why don't you post the Australia mag tests.

ALL THE GERMAN MAGS got the M3 faster, all the Brit mags as well got the M3 faster than the C55 all the may to 150mph. There is only 1 test where I see the result was reversed (correct if I'm wrong instead of calling me a liar). And that was Autocar C32 vs M3.

I believe MOST of the Yank mags have the M3 faster as well. I point you to C&D's test of the US spec fully loaded M3 where they got 13.1 & 107 & 0-60 in 4.5.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

But I do concede that on the road encounters could go either way, & most probably more in favour of the C32/55. The auto-box & superior low down torque would ensure that unless the M3 driver is in right gear & very alert & a good shifter, the C32/55 could get a jump & it's very difficult to catch a similar powered car from behind.

 

I know my cars. And, I know the cars that I'll forever pass up. The M3 is one of them.

 

I agree that the c55 is faster and is shown in the topend performance and that the m3 gets good times due to its launching capability. i don't think i stated otherwise.

The c55 has 40% more peak crank torque but it'll never be 40% faster in a launch or any other acceleration run (even if you have put fat tyres and a lsd ) that was my point.

the 5-60 times also suffer becasue of the rpm band. in the 5-60 run you start from say 1000rpm@5mph in 1st but when you start from rest you slip the clutch and rpms may never be below 3000rpm. I'd be interested to know whether manuals suffer more than autos in general or whether it was the relative lack of torque of the m3 that caused this

 

You know your cars huh?No bias at all right! Good thing I own both of them and the C55(w202) and M3(E36) are both fabulous.I wish I could have a E46 M3 in my lot.

I'd get a F/I E55 as my first choice overall though.

Don't allow M&M's Zealousness about the M3 turn you off on such a great car.His approach as far as trying to convey the M3 being faster from take off may be silly if not foolish especially in a MB forum where common sense should tell him that he'll be flame bait ,but trust me the M3 is a very enjoyable car but please don't rev it up to 8k rpm's continuously.KABOOM!! This does'nt happen to the older S52 motor of course because it does'nt rev that high.It does'nt happen to the S54 engined roadster and coupe either because of the lower rpm limiter(7400rpm's).


From a roll though 60mph up the C55 will pull away from it(E36 M3,E46 M3).Ask me how I know!

 

You missed the point, I have no trouble believing the M3 can be faster than the C32/55, but it was the way you presented it, you were so sure that 99% of all car mags around the world tested the M3 quicker, OK, can you read Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Dutch..etc etc, Are all American, German, Australian and British magazines posting consistent times that the M3 is quicker?

I was trying to point out you shouldn't be so dramatic. You wanna argue til my face turns blue, you are having a laugh once more.

 

so its the majority not 99% now?

I aint doubting the car

 

Motortrend July 2005

M3 Competition Pkg/'05
0-60 MPH 4.8
1/4 mi 13.3/104.4

C55 AMG/'05
0-60 MPH 4.9
1/4 mi 13.2/107.3

M3 a little faster off the line.
C55 a little faster down the line.

Great German engineering and both great cars.

Rgds,
Norm

 

I can agree 100%

 

Was anyone claiming that it was 40% faster? I must have missed that...

Well, I think launch plays a larger factor (more on that in a moment) and that's what hurts the M3 in rolling-start runs: the max torque of the AMG motors comes in almost 2,000 rpms sooner (3000 to 4800), which hurts it. But hey, it's not designed to be a drag racer, despite the rather odd propensity of mssrs. monkey boy and rutter to employ it as such.

But I still think agressive launch capability is playing a larger factor than rpms in the 5-60 runs' differentials. For example, the M5 ran 4.9 seconds 0-60 in the May 2003 Car & Driver test, but took 5.3 to do 5-60...about the same loss as the M3, despite having a much more torquey motor with peak torque coming in 1000 rpm lower than the M3's. Also note that the C55's max torque is actually obtained at 4,000 rpm, higher than the M5's 3,800 rpm peak, and yet the C55, like the CLK55 before it, was tested at only 0.2 slower from 5-60 than from 0-60.

Another example: in the same test as the aforementioned M5, the AWD RS6, which is an auto with a twin turbo V8 making max torque at 1850 rpm, ran 4.4 seconds 0-60, while 5-60 took it 5.5. AWD gets incredible launches, and thus killer 60' times.

Turbo lag caused this, you say? Same issue, S4 tested...non-turbo V8, whose max torque comes in at 3500 rpm, 500 above the CLK55's (and 500 below the C55). 0-60 time: 5.0. 5-60 time: 5.9

One more: the 545i was tested in C&D in May 2004. Its peak torque comes in at 3300 rpm, only 300 rpm above the CLK55 (and 700 below the C55)...but in 5-60, it ran 6.0 versus its 5.5 0-60 time.

It's all in the 60' time, and the Benz's great torque advantage is also their achilles heel at launch. Takes a lot of practice (phatter tires also help!) to get these babies off the line smoothly.

 

i never said that anyone claimed it would be 40% faster!
i was merely replying to a comment by another member who said it had a much better torque to weight ratio (which is relevant how).

i believe it allows more rpm when you leave the line giving more power and hence torque to the ground.

When you look at the launch from a standstill. You have to look at the rwtq not the crank torque. By increasing the rpms as you leave the line you get more power which in turn gives more rwtq so you want to leave the line making as much power as possible.

When you do a 0-60 test what power (rpm) do you have when you reach 5mph.
When you do a 5-60 test what power (rpm) do you have at 5mph.
clutch/torque converter and tyre slippage make them differ.

The difference is what casues the the closeness or large variation in times. The traction problems you address mean that the AMG's is not able to launch properly and hence make any significant power over a normal 5-60 rolling start.

Conclusion we are argueing the same thing, because what does the agressive launch do? It gives more power from higher rpms provided you have enough traction to do so.