Zeppelin

Unless the times are posted on the same day and track they are useless.

M&M

Zeppelin, I agree 100%. Same day, same track, same driver, same testing technique or else its useless.

BenzoAMGpower

woohoooo, magazine racer trolls are the best..... to pick on when your out racing!! Man i wish I can catch you tools out driving so I can OWN YOU!!!

M&M

Benzo, please don't make me post my video from the strip again? It'll just make Improviz upset.

BenzoAMGpower

oh please do, if you only knew what you would have to run to keep up with me, if you seen what a C55 in the hands of a good drive can do (i promised a firend I wouldnt post his times) youll be crying to AA for a supercharger!!! If you werent all the way in Africa chucking spears at Giraffs i'd call you out to run right now... you'll get the hit too foo!!!

SilverFox

I beg to differ M & M ( are u plain or nut?) but my figures came right from the back of the April 2005 Car & Driver. I prefer to quote MY figures due to the fact that they support MY car. I think you know what I mean, right? You would NEVER quote figures that support your position, now would you?

Do you now realize how pointless all of this is?

Improviz

In keeping with tradition, M&M posts the fastest US time recorded, and ignores the others.

But then, he has a history of omitting important details, like the fact that the very fast run he keeps bragging about having done while "stock" was done while the car was wearing drag radials....

That car was a Euro stripper with no power seats, etc (not even sure if it had a sunroof!), and as Car & Driver noted in their original test, was "flown from the Fatherland (Germany) for this test". Not exactly an off-the-floor model.

When Car & Driver tested another M3 in May 2003, they ran a significantly slower time:
0-60: 4.8
1/4: 13.6 @ 106

The 1/4 time for the M3 in this comparo tied the C32 and the Audi S4: all three cars ran a 13.6.

They also tested an M3 in 2001, and ran a 4.8/13.4 @ 106.

But M&M knows this. He is an engineer, and knows that a sample size of 1 is worthless. But his purpose here is to sell BMWs, not honest discussion. Unfortunately, our moderators tolerate him and other trolls, presumably because they enjoy flamefests.

Indeed, Mr. Vanos, who also drives an M3, wrote in this very forum last week that "If you troll, you will be banned."

And yet, we see that M&M and Gabri are still here. Maybe he meant to add "and if you don't drive a BMW" to that statement.... Perhaps it is not a good idea for BMW drivers to moderate Mercedes forums.

Pathetic. No other forum would tolerate this.

M&M

Impro, you wrong. Goes to show you didn't even bother to read the article. C&D tested a US M3 with options. ROad & Track tested the Euro one. Don't worry, you don't have to apologise to me. I forgive you anyway. We all make mistakes.

Improviz

Incorrect. Read the original article. They first tested this vehicle against the CLK55 in 2001:

I'd appreciate that apology now...would you like some catsup with your crow?

ultraseven

It's amazing these guys have nothing to do but to post magazine articles from months ago. Could you do us a favor and post pictures from other magazines instead? At the very least most of the presumed male members on this forum will be entertained and your efforts will be rewarded.

But now, I am so direly convinced of the mighty M3 that I should hit my head on a wall repeatedly for buying the "loser", C32. May I weep and bleed to death right now? Oh travesty and injustice!!!

I recall I've last spoken to a BMW owner and he questioned the superiority of the Porsche Boxster compared to the mighty Z3. I couldn't stop laughing.

M&M

Improviz, I apologise if my eyesight is failing me or what. I must be getting old. PLease read to me again paragraph 3:



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


We ordered a 2001 Laguna Seca Blue M3 two-door equipped with the Cold Weather ($700) and Luxury ($3100) packages, as well as adjustable-width seats ($500), xenon headlights ($500), a CD player ($200), and a Harman/Kardon sound system ($675). The total came to $53,309, which included the now-discontinued luxury tax and was more than $14,000 above the cost of our 1994 M3, but perhaps not unreasonable for the additional 93 horsepower and eight years of inflation.


Our M3 arrived in July 2001 and quickly captivated the hotshoes in the office with its amazing acceleration and sure-footed handling. With 1940 miles on it, we took the M3 to the test track and measured a 0-to-60 time of 4.5 seconds and a standing quarter-mile of 13.1 seconds at 107 mph. The electric-blue M3 also showed great grip, managing 0.87 g on the skidpad and stopping from 70 mph in 161 feet. Not bad for a car that can hold four adults and a decent load of luggage


Looks like they ordered the car, it arrived & they tested it. I could be wrong though.

Improviz

Yawn..."fatherland special" was also tested around this time, in June or July 2001....this is another M&M subject-change to divert the central issue, and is a side issue in any case. In fact, if this is a different M3, it would prove my main point even better: if there were three M3''s tested and 2/3 of them ran 13.4 or above, only one running a low 13, then my point is proven.

Average the times out: 13.1 + 13.4 + 13.6 / 3 = 13.37 seconds.

'nuff said. And enough time wasted arguing with you. If our lame mods want to allow trolls to frequent these forums in relentless attempts to sell BMWs, fine; I've got better things to do....been there, done that.

M&M

Improviz, relax. I agree with you. 13.3 sounds fair as an average. R&T also got 13.3 @ 107. The point is that the one that did 13.1 was fully loaded with options, but it must have been tested in cool conditions. HAving said that i guess its possible for any M3 to run those times, & maybe one without options to run 12's. I'm not saying its gonna' happen, but given ideal conditions its possible given the evidence.

To prove I'm not being one-sided I would say the same is possible for a C55 - given ideal conditions.

Improviz

Any? Well, this depends upon two factors: power, and traction....I'm sure that as an engineer you're familiar with such concepts as production tolerances, standard deviations, etc., i.e. that in any given line of cars coming off the production line, some will be faster than others. So, as evidenced by those tests (C&D supposedly corrects their test results to standard temp and altitude), different cars will have different performance.

As to traction: I don't see it happening, at least not on street tires. I think that it's been demonstrated that these cars can get maybe a 12.9-13.0 with drag radials on a good night, but on street tires I still don't think they'll get the needed 60' time, at least not stock-width or anything close to it...and non-stock width will hurt acceleration times due to added rotational mass, so that wouldn't be a sure thing either....

In any case, never say never, but I'm remaining in the skeptical column about hitting 12's on street rubber, and that''s for both M3's' *and* Mercedes, thank you very much.

Wow, there's hope for you yet. But I'd give the same qualification as with the M: unlikely on street tires...and extremely unlikely on stock-width 245s. Traction and the slow weight transfer of performance suspensions are the main hinderances.

Gabri343

Improviz change your car because is very old :p
Tomorrow i will post the scan of the italian tests for: M3 SMG II, C32 AMG, CLK 55 2001, E55 K and M5 V10.

Improviz

Hmmm....if I''m not mistaken, the E46 platform debuted in 1999, right Gabri? Therefore, is not your E46 also "very old"?

While you're at it, why don't you post the numbers for the 996 compared to the M3, and explain why it is that you don't drive a 996, since you seem to believe that track numbers are the only factor one should consider when purchasing an automobile, and as we all know the 996 posted better track numbers than the old E46 M3 you drive.

And better still, if track numbers alone determine which car is superior, then why is an M3 a better car than a Corvette Z06, which will thrash it on a track?

Also, is an M3 a better car than a Rolls Royce? If so, please explain how you define "better".

I'd really appreciate an answer. If, after all, your goal here is to sell more M3's as it seems to be, then why not sell us? We all read car mags and are fully aware of the numbers, and yet we bought these cars anyway. You seem to think we were wrong.

So prove it. Prove that the M3 is a "better" *car* than my Mercedes. Sell me on it, and I'll be happy to buy one. My ''old'' CLK, you see, is still worrth enough for me to go trade it on a brand new M3, with only a few extra thousand out of pocket. So you might be able to do me a huge favor; all you need to do is prove it is a better car.

I will eagerly await your response.

ZorroAMG

This thread is more childish than the set of Kindergarten Cop.

You BMW trolls should let it go, because no one here gives a flying fizzuck! Why is it that only BMW thugs come here to stir ***** and we never go over to their retarded forums to be idiots? Oh yeah, I forgot, Mercedes is classy, not boy racer trashy.

Go away. This thread and you BMW H0M0's irritate me. Thanks