http://www.track-challenge.com/comp...?Car1=75&Car2=2

C55 AMG M3 E46

Manufacturer Mercedes-Benz BMW M GmbH
Testing Date 7/2004 12/2000
Engine 5439 cccm, 8 Zyl , 24 V 3246 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V
Power 367 PS (270 KW) @ 5750/min 343 PS (252 KW) @ 7900/min
Torque 510 Nm @ 4000/min 365 Nm @ 4900/min
Transmission 1 (5) 0 (6)
Weight 1680 Kg 1584 Kg
Weight / BhP 4,6 Kg / PS 4,6 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 5,3 s 5,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 18,3 s 18,1 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 23,7 s 23,2 s
Top Speed
250 Km/h * el. begrenzt 250 Km/h * el. begrenzt
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 6,3 s 5,2 s
100 - 0 Km/h hot 36,7 m , 10,5 m/s 36,4 m , 10,6 m/s
Transverse Acceleration 1,1 g 1,1 g
Slalom Course 36 / 110m 122 / 134 Km/h 123 / 136 Km/h
Round Time Nuerburgring 8.22 min 8.22 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.18,6 min 1.17,6 min

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m32003-2.htm

Test in ams 1/2003
Gewicht 1570 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,5 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/c55amgst2004-1.htm

Test in sport auto 07/2004
Gewicht 1680 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,2 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,3 s

 

No surprise that the C55 competes well with the M3.

Rgds,
Norm

 

.....just like his trolling buddy M&M, Gabri comes in and posts the fastest European test for the M3, wherein one is supposed to believe that a stock M3 is as fast as an M3 CSL, and hopes nobody will notice. Only problem with that is, some of us read the site...

For example, here's one test that Gabri chose not to post:

M3 tested in Sport Auto, 12/2000:
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,1 s

Hmm, that's 0.4 slower to 100 km/h than the one Gabri posted...wonder why he didn't use this one??

Well, let's look at some more:

M3 tested in Sport Auto, 12/2002:
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,6 s

Hmm, just like the one above: that one is 0.4 slower than the one Gabri posted...wonder why he didn't use this one either?

Well, I have no choice but to keep looking:

M3 tested in Sport Auto, 3/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,9 s

Gee, this too is significantly slower than the one test Gabri picked...wonder why he didn't use this one?

What is especially telling is that this M3 was tested by the same magazine that tested Gabri's magic 4.8 M3, within two months of Gabri's magic M3 test.

In fact, why don't we look at the M3 CSL: it has been stripped of around 200 pounds of weight for performance measures, and has 360 horsepower to the regular M3's 343.

M3 CSL tested in Sport Auto, 8/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,8 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,7 s

Why gee: if we compare this to Gabri's "stock" magic M3, we see that the numbers are very, very close here, in fact virtually identical...so, considering that: 1) the CSL is the ultra-high performance version of the M3; 2) the magic M3 that Gabri cherry-picked ran the same numbers as the CSL; 3) none of the other M3's posted (including the scanned Autocar test that Gabri thoughtfully provided) ran this fast, what shall we conclude? That the M3 Gabri cherry-picked was a fluke and/or quite possibly a tuned ringer, or that it was representative of all M3's performance?

Also, if one reads the Autocar article that Gabri posted, one sees the following quote:
Typical troll...here to start flamefests and nothing else.

 

Look this dear Improviz


You are a troll

 

Iow, the numbers used in that comparo are ***the same*** numbers as your magic M3, from the **same** test. What does that prove?? I never said the test never happened, only that it was a fluke, and the numbers of the other M3s tested prove it.

So, Gabri, is a stock M3 as fast as a CSL? The numbers you posted say so...so why is it that people would shell out all of that money for a CSL if its lighter weight and higher horsepower don't make it any faster??

Well, the obvious answer is: the CLS **is** faster (as this comparison shows), and that M3 test you cherry-picked while ignoring all others was not representative, as any fool can see by reading the other tests, including the Autocar piece you provided.

 

The m3 and c55 are very close when it comes to performance figures, but in my opinion the m3 is more akin to an evo and the c55 to an m5 or e55. I dumped my m3 after 7 months because I thought it was so lame compared to the m5 which I had the pleasure of owning at the same time. I then moved to an 04 e55 which I've owned for 18 months which is a personal record. I've driven a couple of c55's and I felt it was a mini-me to the e55. It's a great all round car whose performance is about the same as the m3, but whose everyday drivability is significantly better. You won't get the same attention in your c55 as the m3 garners, but you will get significantly better build quality, smoothness and comfort with equal performance. Leave the m3 to the poseurs.

 

Gabri343,
Why is it that the only time you post here is to show evidence that the M3 is quicker than the C55. The fact that the C55 and M3 are equivalently priced suggests that each and everyone of us C55 owners could have purchased an M3 if we so desired.. Was one of my shopping criterion whether one was a couple tenths of a second quicker than the other? No...(and I believe I speak on behalf on most everyone here)... I went to your profile and clicked on all the threads started by you and got:
https://mbworld.org/forums/search.php?searchid=415131
Man, you must be a really insecure guy... I feel sorry for you...
Eric....

 

The first year m3's were faster because the had a different rear end ratio than the rest.BMW said the e46 would do 0-60 in 4.7 when it first came out.They then changed the cats a little and the final drive and ended up being around 5 seconds to 60.

The CSL is also geared a little different and is only SMG thats why its 0-60 isnt that much better than the manual.

Can we all stop this mag racing please you guys are bickering over a 1/4 of a second for crying out loud.

 

werd..

 

Only insecure guy can be a Ferrari test driver

 

My question is why you feel the need to come here and post articles on how yours is faster than ours? It just seems so juvenile and pointless.. You posted the same sort of thing in the links below (including an Autocar C55 vs M3 thread).. I'm not going to go on about defending the C55 either, because that is also pointless. The M3, S4, and C55 are all great and quicker than 99%+ of the cars on the road...
Eric....

https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/70199-autocar-m3-v-c55amg.html
https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/85853-auto-zeitung-c55-m3-s4.html

 

Gabri343: I don't have much experience with you and your posts (as some others apparently do). Can you please explain what point you were trying to make with your post?

Rgds,
Norm

 

I assume the new RS4 should be part of this group with close to 450 HP.

 

Why do you fellow members even bother to post comments to such a flagrent post to incite? I traded an E46 M3 to purchase the C55 and could justify either car. But he and others are so obvious with their posts. I think that the moderators should delete obvious incited posts such as this and attempt to keep this forum on the HIGH road.

Just keep it simple and post the following:

 

 

What bothers me even more is why the moderators allow it. One of them, Mr. Vanos, just posted the other day "If you troll, you will be banned.", in this post:

And yet, as anyone who takes two seconds to examine the posting histories of trolls like Gabri343, Tuscanraider, ENARANG, and others that the mods allow to post with impunity can see, this place has become a haven for trolls.

I say get rid of these jokers...they serve NO constructive purpose here, only incite flamefests, and waste bandwidth. A stricter enforcement of the rules would be welcomed. I can promise you that if any one of us went to M5board.com (where Gabri343 posts regularly) and did this crap, Gustav would have banned us long ago.

So why roll out the red carpet for them here?????? It makes no sense. What is the purpose of having moderated forums if the mods don't agressively moderate and enforce?

For those interested in complaining, click on the little red and white triangle with the exclamation point in the middle, in the lower left corner of any offending post, to report it to moderators. Perhaps if people get vocal, we'll get rid of these trolls. Until then, I'd say get used to them, because history has shown that these creeps won't go away on their own.

 

OK Improviz, don't go popping a blood vessek now because I have an opinion. But I think the reason Gabri posted it is because of the false assumption (mostly due to your propaganda) that a C55 will KILL an M3 any time, any place anywhere.

Actually that is false. A C55 may beat an M3, or an M3 may beat a C55. You can see in Autocar test that even over half a mile the M3 was ahead & trapping higher.

On the streets, chances are that with the auto, one will mind lots of M3's getting beat & the car being attributed as the reason instead of the driver. But as most Auto mags have shown, the M3 is actually quicker.

And as for posting the quickest test, well that is normally what one posts. What's th point of posting the slowest test? You post the quickest test of the M3 & the quickest test of the C55. Does that sound fair?

Anyway, A few mags have done shootouts on the the same day & the M3 was quicker. We have a local mag that did that. I'll try to scan it if anyone's interested. Also, I see the Australian mags (WHeels I think) tested the C55 last month & also got it slower than the M3.

AMongst the US mags, there might be one or 2 that found the C55 slightly quicker. I know exactly what Improviz is going to post so let be circumvent that by saying that C&D got the 1st M3 they tested to 60 in 4.6 & 1/4 mile in 13.1 @ 107. Tell me if you want me to post it again Impro.

Oh & I have a some videos again, but I'm sure there will be the usual excuses. I love excuses. Usualy when I lose I just shake the guys hand & congratulate him. Excuses make you look like a whiner.

 

Hmm, what a coincidence: both BMW trolls show up within one day. Might this be because Gabri343, as he normally does when starting a flamefest here, cross-posted in the BMW forums trying to stir up an even greater flamefest?

Or are you telepathic? I suspect the former...

A lie, as is typical for you. Please prove that this "assumption" is widely held. Many times, people have, in this forum and others, told you exactly the opposite, but as typical, you ignore any facts which do not support your argument.

As to Gabri's motivation: I personally think that he posted it for the same reason you post stuff: because of two possible reasons: 1) you're truly, deeply weird; or 2) you're getting compensated for it. I've been truly wondering lately what would motivate a grown man to do such a thing, and frankly, given the systematic efforts being made here to spread disinformation across multiple Internet forums of BMW's competitors (Audi and Mercedes), I'm beginning to smell a rat. This is just too much for coincidence, I'm afraid. Same cherry-picked tests, posted multiple times, by multiple posters, in multiple forums...very convenient--if one's goal is to increase BMW's sales and decrease those of its competitors, that is.

As to my "propaganda", your assertion is laughable. I post test results, like you: only difference is, I post the ones you choose *not* to cherry-pick. I've busted you doing it before, multiple times, as followers of your posting history know all too well.

As to Gabri's cherry-picking, like your cherry-picking: one can examine the test results for the M3's as a whole and get a clearer opinion of the car's capabilities than looking at one example, yes? Or would you, an engineer, be stupid enough to try and argue that a sample size of '1' gives the most accurate results? I've seen you pull some stupid arguments before, though, so it wouldn't surprise me...

And since you've been warned, multiple times, not to troll here, M&M, I'll now gladly report you to the moderators--again.

 

I agree, and wish that others would start actually TELLING them about it. Click on the red triangle in offending posts ahd report them! If the moderators don't realize how much this pisses people off, maybe it's because nobody is making the effort to let them know.

Why these posters haven't been banned already, frankly, is a mystery, and I think an explanation is in order.

In the meantime, I'm going to start a new poll....

 

I'm not trolling, I'm goving my opinion on the subject. ANd yeah, I do believe that a C55 can beat an M3. I've seen it happen. But by the same token, it can go the other way as well. I've seen that happen tool.

 

this test are stupid! where in the U.S. other than a track can this matter. speed limit 65 MPH. and I had the M3 I hated the Car it Sucked! the ride on the car was to stiff and the interior was just ok. we know both cars are fast but who cares! give me the comparison on the comfort level on both cars. drive both cars from LA to NY with pasengers in it! I tell you The benz will blow the bmw on that. we didnt buy this cars to get a speeding ticket everyday and to take it to the tracks and drive like Jeff Gordon on the freeway, if you do then your a stupid *** for indangering inocent drivers out there! now show me a test that really matters!

 

hay Gabri and M&M are you guys trying to sell us a car is that it? what free stuff are you gonna give us? I want a trunk mat on mine for my RC cars.

 

Take mag reviews with a pinch of salt. Here's a Autocar review on C32 and M3 some time ago. I have a M3 SMGII and a C32. There's no way I could get them to produce anywhere close to these timings with street tyres.

C55 has more bhp and torque than C32 and they have the same weight. So I'm more incline to believe that C55 is faster than M3 especially on high speed. Having said that, they are still very closely matched. A better and faster reaction driver will usually makes the difference.

 

The world"s largest car magazine, Car & Driver, posts the results of their tests near the back of the magazine. In reviewing the April 2005 posting the following were their results with respect to the C55 ( tested 11/04) and the M3 (tested 5/03):


C55- M3

0-60: 4.7 - 4.8
1/4 mile: 13.3 - 13.6
trap speed (as I recall): 108 - 106

So, in these tests the C55 BEAT the M3 in every performance category. Therefore, I am concluding that the C55 is faster than the M3. As I said before I have had both cars and in my experience the cars are nearly identical to 100 but above 100 the C55 would be the clear winner.

And as far as this thread is concerned I support the following:

 

One slight correction SilverFox, here's C&D's test of the E46 M3:



Here's the article:

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

And here's the text:

...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.


Don't want to incite a flame war, just want to post what times are possible. In Europe a few mags have got 13.0 @ 108 with fully loaded cars, stock tyres pressures, no cooling, etc.