MB_Forever

Granted, but even 30 extra hp and tq should give a slight advantage. However, like others have said, I do agree that it will come down to a driver's race.

Note that this puts the current model M3 customers in an embarrasing situation since someone with a 335 (non-M model) can "easily" beat them in a heads up race.

amgmark

I can chime in since I sold my C32 for a 335i. My c32 was stock and felt faster than my 335i stock. The C32 has more immediate power where it takes a bit longer with the 335i. Both auto trans..

Given even drivers in stock cars I would take the C32 to about 100..

I have the AA Xede chip and can tell you the 335i feels much faster than my C32 now. Its a completely different car.

MB_Forever

I like the setup of your car, do you have more pictures?

bud4ya

Now I wonder what the outcome would be with a chipped 335 and a C32 with ECU/pulley kit? Wonder if it would go back to being a drivers race like when they are stock? I am thinking with the V2 in the 335 it would beat a C32 with pulley and ECU tune. That is just a guess though

amgmark

Again.. it would be close, but agree that the V2 Proceed is putting up great numbers.

Here are some additional pics of my 335i.. I need to take more! and brighter.. LOL

MB_Forever

Your car looks super nice........... very sporty, very aggressive, and super clean

c32AMG-DTM

[QUOTE=MB_Forever;2560572] I'm sure it is not 4.8 seconds [QUOTE]

I don't know what to tell you, my friend, I guess I trust the mags to publish accurate test data, especially since they seem to all be in roughly the same ballpark:

http://www.autospies.com/news/BMW-33...eat-RS4-14022/

http://www.leftlanenews.com/bmw-335i...-m3s-0-60.html

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...5i_vs_G37S.pdf

Besides, it's not really a slap in the face of NEW M3 owners, since their car runs 0-60 in 4.3, per Car & Driver's test:

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf

Also worth noting - the C63 ran 0-60 in 3.9

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf

Finally, don't forget that while the C32 does enjoy a slight hp/tq advantage, it also weighs a couple hundred pounds more - which is why I'm not so sure it'd have any appreciable advantage to the 335i, stock vs. stock.

Agree w/ bud4ya, chipped 335i vs. Stage I C32 should also be a driver's race...

chuckactor

The 335 will win hands down. The C32 will be broken at the dealer.

c32used

To all As I stated a stock C32 is more capable imo then a stock 335i but I also said that a stock C32 most likely won't take a modded 335i but it leaves to wonder how a modded C32 will fair up against a modded 335i? "AMGMARK" maybe if you know a modded C32 you can ask to try a quarter mile race if safe to do so.....Have you dynoed your modded 335i? I joined the bimmerforum and asked if a any Chitown 335i or a modded 335i would like to join us in the dragway in Spring 2008 so lets see what happens. Ever since I modded my C32 it feels much faster then stock also but the track will tell in the Spring.

c32used

c32used

AMGMARK just like your previous C32 you sure know how to make your cars look great! You have very good taste

c32used

[QUOTE=c32AMG-DTM;2560988][QUOTE=MB_Forever;2560572] I'm sure it is not 4.8 seconds C32AMG-DTM numbers means crap when your drag racing possibly matched cars... it helps but only in the mind not the foot. I remember putting up a thread asking what chances would be against my friends WS6 and most thought driver's race others thought advantage C32 and some WS6 but everyone thought close and it wasn't close....

c32AMG-DTM

"numbers mean crap when you're drag racing" ???

Numbers are THE measuring-stick when it comes to racing... probably because, I dunno, "numbers don't lie" i.e. they are what they are.

I mean, jeez... look at your sig. Do you quote how many wins or losses you have racing? No... you've quoted the numbers your car has been able to achieve.

I appreciate MB_Forever's posts and frequently learn from (and agree with) what he writes. However, I simply don't agree with his logic "335i can't run a 4.8 because that'd be a slap in the face to E46 M3 owners" (yes I'm paraphrasing a bit). Car manufacturers are always raising the bar... it frankly doesn't surprise me at all that a 335i can run similiar times to a stock E46 M3, but that the E90 M3 runs a 4.3 - comfortably ahead of it's "same chassis, non-M" little brother. If anything, this might persuade an E46 M3 owner to "upgrade" to a 335i OR an E90 M3... which results in a new-car sale for BMW, either way. Similiar thing happened with Audi's awhile back - the B6 A4 V6 had 255hp engine, the B5 S4's biturbo engine was only 250hp. Is that an embarrassing situation for B5 S4 owners?

So your car in stock form beat a WS6, and it wasn't even close... that's fine, and I'm happy for your car.

Frankly, I don't even know what all the arguing is even about - I think for the most part, everyone agrees that neither car has a significant advantage, and therefore should come down to which is the better driver (or more aggressive driver, or who gets an earlier jump, etc etc etc.) FWIW, it'd be more interesting IMHO if they lined them up at a local strip - so we'd not only know which car wins, but also know the real-world numbers they each achieved...

ProjectC55

Jody! See what u started!

c32used

Look sorry to anger you that was not my intention.... I was simply stating that numbers from a magazine don't really mean as much as the magazines that post it. If I/we went by those reported numbers then we might not even attempt to race cars like those or any other car that posted better times so I take those times and add 1-2 sec average and consider that as an average for the average joe......I only took my car to the track twice and personel best 13.29 but PW was in the 15 sec range thats why I say numbers from a mag in closed circuit with pro driver times created are best case scenerio but could imagine it wasn't anywhere near the first run. I have read many threads claiming the 335i is faster then C32 or E46 M3 well quite frankly I am like mb forever and can't see BMW doing that to their M class especially the M3...eventually with these power wars the average mini van are gonna put up similar numbers. I am done on this topic besides AMGMARK's answer to my questions.....I still say the advantage falls on the C32 driver and not the stock 335i driver.

Race safely guys!

Quick Silver

I work as a strategic analyst and can tell for sure that there are statistics and damn lies. You can take stats/numbers and make any case you want, starting points v. stopping points, growth percentages, etc. I could write a book on this. I think anyone who works with numbers on a daily basis will argue the same thing.

c32used

MB_Forever

The articles you provided above give numbers that definately don't fall in the same ballpark, which is my point exactly. There are so many variances in the magazine tests, it seems like they're almost guessing. However, they are not. They are manipulating numbers to their best agenda. Like Quick Silver said, you can play with numbers and make them show whatever you want shown. For instance, here are some quoted 0-60 mph numbers from the links you provided above:

--> 4.8 seconds (AutoSpies.com)
--> 4.9 seconds (Car and Driver Magazine)
--> 5.1 seconds (Automobile Magazine)
--> 5.2 seconds (Auto Zeitung German Magazine)
--> 5.5 seconds (BMW claims)

I'm sure they all tested the same car, but as you can see, the quoted figures are all over the place. My guess is that the correct number falls right in between the lowest and highest figures. So on average, the car probably does 0 to 60 mph in 5.0 to 5.1 seconds. Many of these so called magazine reviews depend on how close the "relationship" is between the car manufacturer and the magazine itself. For example, how much they pay for publicity, etc..........

I was talking about the current M3 model (E46 M3 - since the new shape M3 is not officially out in the U.S. yet). I honostly think it would put the owners of the current M3 owners in an akward position. Imagine a customer bought a brand new M3 last year for $65k and then later found out that BMW started offering a model (the 335) for $40k which bests his 0-60 and other performance categories. I would imagine the customer would feel (at least) disapointed

I can assure you that the C63 does not do 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds. If Mercedes' fastest car, the SLR, does 0-60 mph in 3.8 to 3.9 seconds (and costs $450k), then I can garauntee you, the C63 will not do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Maybe if you run on a perfectly-surfaced road, with almost empty tank of gas, empty out the trunk (spare, tools, accessories ~ 100lbs), brand new tires, perfect weather conditions, and one super experienced professional driver, you may hit 4.1 seconds. Otherwise, you'll average 4.4 to 4.5 seconds

c32AMG-DTM

MB_Forever,

Agree to disagree, my friend.

F/I cars' performance stats vary significantly from car to car, and day to day. When the C32 was tested, I saw 0-60s as low as 4.8, as high as 5.2 or 5.3 (I can't remember exactly). MB claimed 4.9, which most felt was a bit "optimistic," let's say. As for the 335i numbers above being "all-over the place," I don't think a couple tenths is a huge variation, when you think about real-world test variables coming into play. Even if all of the mag's were given the exact same test track on the exact same day, I bet the individual drivers' methods could cause a tenth or two of variation... and don't forget that the euro mag tests are 0-62 (I realize it's negligible, but still takes longer).

Maybe I'm a "naive consumer," but I just don't buy the cynical position of "magazines make up performance data based on how much advertising the manufacturer places with them." Now, I agree that manufacturer's "claims" can sometimes be bogus, or have an agenda - I recall many instances in the past when manufacturers would claim a conservative 0-60, when the car would actually perform significantly better. Also, don't forget that BMW is a bit of an odd-duck when it comes to releasing M cars, IMHO. E90 chassis has been in production since 2005, therefore, ever since then, E46 chassis is consequently "previous-gen" and E90 is "current-gen" - why BMW chooses to wait 3 years to release the current-gen chassis M car is beyond me... maybe it's to squeak out as many previous-gen model sales as possible, I dunno. Although I'm frankly not even sure you could buy a "2007 E46 M3" - did they even make one, or was the model on hiatus until 2008 MY?

As for the "C63 does not do 0-60 in 3.9, because the SLR does 0-60 in 3.8 to 3.9" comment... I don't know what to say; your line of logic is the same as the BMW issue, and I don't agree. SLR and C63 are TOTALLY different cars, aimed at totally different target audiences (not the least of which, price points). FWIW, while I wasn't present to verify the accuracy of the test with my own eyes, I've read that the SLR's tested 0-62 time was 3.5. SLR was among the pinnacle of performance when it was engineered over 5 years ago - but a lot changes in 5 years too.

The C63 is competing directly against the new M3 (4.3 0-60), Lexus IS-F (4.4 0-60), and Audi RS4 (4.5 0-60) - and it's comfortably the most powerful of the group. While I agree that a pro test driver vs. avg. joe, the pro's going to post better times with some practice in the vehicle, I disagree that Car & Driver simply fabricated their test results because they like the ad revenue from Mercedes Benz. FWIW, the RS4 came in third place in that comparison test (C63 vs RS4 vs M3) - do you think C&D was wringing their hands with worry that Audi might not place as many ads going forward? I don't.

If you haven't yet, you really should peruse the .pdf data sheets from the C&D test for those three vehicles - they're very informative... could they be bogus? Sure, I guess... but I highly doubt all the info is just "wishful thinking"

Finally, to the OP - sorry for the thread tangent/hijack... tell your little bro be safe and good luck!!

sales@eurocharged.com

Good debate guys...

It sucks that FI cars vary so much. Where were each of the above tests done? If they were at different locations on different days, then there's your answer.

Do I think the 335 can do 0-60 in 4.8? Yes, given the right conditions it should be able to pull it off.

Do I think most 335 owners could get the 335 to hit 0-60 in 4.8? Nope...

Do I get worried when I pull up next to a 335? Nope again... I'm glad that my 5-6 year old car can still put up a fight against the youngsters of today.

V12Godspeed

Hahaha, Didn't mean for it to turn out like this...Talk about intensity. My brother will let me drive the C32..I will go and beat the damn 335. I will also get it on tape. Period.

c32used

Yes video please! Thats the only way to prove it but then again someone will say something I guarantee you that

MB_Forever

c32AMG-DTM, again........ I respectfully disagree:

You mis-understood my point. I did not mean that this delimma only applied to BMW 335. It applies to C32 and almost every other performance car produced by major manufacturers. When the C32 was first announced, some tested numbers as low as 4.7 while others tested as high as 5.2. When the car finally came out to the public, we found out that the actual number (on average) was about 4.9 seconds. All I'm saying that, on "average" the number really falls in between. The 4.8 second is the most optimistic. Like AMG-Jerry said, yes it could be gotten under certain conditions. However, on "average" conditions, the car will likely do 0-60 in 5.1 seconds.

The numbers above vary by 0.7 seconds! I guess it depends who you ask. To me 0.7 seconds is a huge variation. I accept 0.1 or 0.2 seconds to be a small variation, but definately not 0.7 seconds!

Again, that is my point exactly. There are so many varying conditions that allows the magazines to "bend" numbers in their favors. If one magazine wants the number to be 5.3 seconds, they can (fairly easily) show that the number is 5.3 seconds. If another magazine wants it to be 4.8 seconds, they can also publish numbers to be 4.8 seconds. This game of alterning numbers and statistics to maximize profit for your business does not only happen here with car magazines. It is used by almost every corporation on earth in almost every industry. You'll see an add for a medicine saying it reduces pain or a disease by 82% (they actually publish numbers verified by a couple of "independent" research labs), then a couple of years later they take it off the market because it causes heart attacks

It is simply business. The magazines have to make money. A big portion of their survival depends on good "relations" with manufacturers. That is why, you'll see one magazine testing numbers at 4.8 seconds and others at 5.4 seconds. Now please don't mis-understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying they "lie" or "mis-represent". I'm simply saying the magazines will likely "bend" numbers in their favor a little. They'll focus on the good portion of the number vs the bad portion of the number. If the car can do 4.8 in perfect conditions and 5.5 in crappy conditions, then on "average" it will probably do 5.0 to 5.1 seconds. Some magazines will choose to focus on the 4.8 while others will focus on 5.5. All I'm saying is that, most likely, the actual number falls right in between. Meaning, if you randomly select a 335i and randomly select a driver and place him on a randomly selected street. The car will likely do 5.0 to 5.1 seconds, which is not by any means slow; it is a very fast and respectable number.

Most of the test results of the SLR actually verified 3.8 to 3.9 seconds. But yes, the SLR 722 managed 0-62 mph in 3.5 seconds. The SLR may have been designed 4 years ago, but it was not released until 2005. The engine (as well as the whole car) has so much technology and deploy "best-of-the-best" design philosophy that it destroys the 63 engine 10 times over. It wasn't meant to stay 4 or 5 years and then get surpassed. It was designed to be a supercar. Consider this: the SLR is lighter than the C63, has about 150 hp more than the C63 and a lot more torque. If you are saying that these two cars perform nearly the same numbers in 0-60 mph, then I continue to disagree with you.

I've seen reviews publishing the following numbers (which I think is more realistic)....

C63 = 4.4 seconds
M3 = 4.6 seconds
IS-F = 4.8 seconds

But again, those numbers won't mean much until we see what the "average" (or actual) numbers will come out to be.

+10000...... sorry we detoured a bit from the main point. Good luck with your race......

jturkel

is your car the sparkling graphite metallic?

jturkel

to add to this debate, i raced a stock 335i about a month ago. it was myself and a friend in my C32, which has evosport pulley, filters, sprintbooster, and a full tank of gas at the time. The 335i was a sedan with THREE passengers. raced the guy twice, only beat him by about 1 car length. he said it was stock. it was kind of hard to believe but when i asked him about having a piggyback he didnt understand what i was saying. it must have been a very strong one from the factory or my car must have been a little warm from driving around for a while. either way, they are very fast cars.

i believe that a piggybacked 335i will be a very close race with a pulley/ecu C32. Also, it depends whether its auto/paddle or manual. i hear that BMW has gotten so good with their auto, that it shifts faster than any professional can shift a manual.