stevh0

Why do you drive a c32 ?

Im trying to decide between either the 03 m5 or the c32.

performance wise theres not much difference between the two, im almost sure stock on stock the m5 would be a little bit quicker but im not in it for speed or power although its a bonus, i need a car i can live with on a day to day basis , something i can get in a drive.

Also maintenance between the two cars should also be considered . Is the M or the AMG cheaper to drive . not too worried about insurance due to me being in south africa im certain to be scored alot different to you guys in the states.

Im keen to see what this boards response is to this question as i will post the same question on the M5 board just to see who has the most biased opinions , surely, each to its own and both are totally brilliant cars.

but i need reliability and a lovely day to day car.


thanx guys!

m444

The 2003 M5 is about 10 inches longer and 500 pounds heavier than a 2003 C32.

If I wanted a car that large, then the E55 would be a better choice.

I prefer the Mercedes, since it is more sedate than the BMW, which always attracts attention. On the C32 very few people know what an AMG is.

AWDman

you didnt comment on stick vs manual. how does this play to your needs?

bud4ya

If money was no object I would get both. I had the same decision when I bought my 03 C32. I had just sold my 6 speed/sport 540 that had a bunch of upgrades like Dinan software, 3.15 diff, exhaust, M5 sways etc. I really wanted the E39 M5 but it was more than I wanted to pay. I was then considering the E46 M3 and came across the C32. I believe a stock E39 M5 is running high 12's (Slicks) and low 13's (Reg Tires). A stock C32 I believe runs mid 13's. So stock for stock I would guess the M5 would pull just a bit 0-100. That is both equal drivers. So with pulleys the C32 should post better time than a stock E39 M5 0-100. This is just a guess from looking at power to weight ratio. Please correct me if I am wrong.

They are really 2 different cars. If you like a stick, sound of a V8 and a bigger car the M5 is the choice. If you want an auto, smaller car and a car you can get some real HP/TQ gains for relatively cheap sorta speaking the C32 is the car.

Another factor to consider is the M5 has LSD and the C32 does not. If I was offered an M5 same year miles and cost I myself would go with the M5. Not that I do not like the C32 but I would like a little extra room, sound of the V8, 6 speed and LSD. I really have not had a chance to throw the C32 around so I am not sure how it will handle compared to my 540.

The only downside to the M5 is it will cost you some doe to Mod. The least expensive way out for minor mods would be Dinan stage 2 or 3, intake and exhaust. This in itself will cost $4-5K. Just think what you could do to a C32 for that money. I bet with that money into the C32 it would out perform an M5 in performance. I have driven the M5 and it pulls at every speed.

Only negative on the E39 M5 was a Carbon build up issue, which is a huge expense to fix. I think this was taken care of in 2001-2003 models. This does not sound like it will be an issue since you are looking at the last year of the E39 M5. Like any performance car someone probably bought it for one reason, which is to beat the crap out of it. Not that this is bad this is why you buy a fast car. Just make sure you get service history on the car. I would not say an M car would be any more expensive to fix than an AMG.

If you can drive both that is the best way to tell. You will know which way to go after driving both.

c32used

Being that its an M5 I would pick that but the C32 is not a bad choice either. But if U require manual then the choice

stevh0

Thank you for the great feedback!

Sick vs Auto does not really matter to me, surely the c32 might be abit more laid back in that department, but to me i need the best bang for buck.

The only problem i forsee with the e39 is finding a good very low mileage model , and even then you would probably expect to pay a hefty premium over that.

Does anybody know how big of a difference there is in the fuel consumption?
would the m5 really suck so much more if both cars (c32 included) are being driven the same?

Strangely if never liked the M3, its too unpractical for what it gets used for, 4 doors are so much more user friendly , not that im married or have any kids(not that i know of ), but should that happen in the next couple of years , getting in and out of the back, 4 doors are much better imo.

i think i would be able to pick the 5 up abit cheaper then the c32 tho. But its all mileage dependand, im not interested in anything above 50 000miles / 80 000km

Stomlo

Dude, both out of MP will be equally as expensive to maintain if that is what you are worried about.

I know a guy who needed an engine rebuild on the M5, cost him R250k.

stevh0

luckily some C32's are still covered

bud4ya

A 2003 C32 with the same low miles as a 2003 M5 is going to be much less expensive. You will be able to get into a 2003 C32 for $8-10K less than an M5. A low mileage 2003 M5 is going to cost you in the mid 30's and a 2003 low mileage C32 is going to cost in the mid 20's. Gas consumption for 2003 C32 is 15/19 and 2003 M5 12/19.

Check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/. You can compare cars.

slowrey

My best friend just bought a 2003 M5 last May for 45K and I have a 2006 C55. I would say that they are about equal in performance in a C32 I beat him in my C55. The luxury of the M5 is much nicer like the stereo, alcantara headliner etc. His suspension is also softer than my C55 and his gas mileage is worse even with the 6-speed manual.

The maintenance is MUCH more expensive on the M5 though. He and I talk about a cars a lot and he was mentioning brake jobs running upwards of $1700.

I'd pick a C55 and call it a day. That way you've got the performance of the M5, you're 2-3 years newer and you're in a MB.

Fifth Ring

Even though you said "money is no object" you can't ignore this point. You'll pay a lot less for the C32. You'll also suffer faster/more depreciation.

fivepointfivev8

You should drive them to really get a sense. I almost pulled the trigger on an M5, but didn't (wife can't drive stick). The V8 sound... incredible (on both cars really). I'm glad I went with a C55 though, very powerful and auto is nice to have when you have all that torque.

bud4ya

I agree accel in an E46 M3 6 Speed non vert and a C32 should be about equal. I would say it would come down to a drivers race. But for about $500-$1000 you can get a used set of pulleys and bye bye M3 . You could always S/C the M but it is going to cost a lot of cash. I was going to S/C my 540 but could not see spending $7K on a S/C and then another $2K to get it installed. The S/C for $7K was on the cheap side too.

Great potential for not a lot of money with the C32.

stevh0

whats the ave price of pulleys ?

what should be done interms of fueling ?

slowrey

I meant M5.

bud4ya

Pulleys range used $400 +. LET, Renntech, Evo Sport and ASP are a couple. I think an ECU tune for the pulleys is like $1,000. You do not have to do the tune but it does help optimize the pulley set up. I think the car will compensate for the A/F ratio. There are many here who have just done the pulleys with no ECU upgrade.

There was just a post here where someone just the pulley set up and could feel it just in the seat of pants. Now put a tune with that and it will be even better.

Shake

I'd personally pick the M5 over a C32.

gaz

As the others have said, the M5 is a bigger, heavier car, and it feels it. Mind you, they are still damn quick. Some interior trim gets a bit flaky. Just watch you don't buy an oil burner. My mate sadly did - used a litre in about every 500 miles, and was smoking pretty badly towards the end...

FrankW

e39 M5 is one of my favorite cars, but I'll have to say and agree the maintainance on the e39 is more expensive. plus the M5 parts are not cheap. As Gaz said, I've seen few e39 M5 with oil burning problem that's running around with smokes coming out.

I would pick the M5 if you can handle the maintainance. overall it is a bigger and more luxurious car.

C32 would be cheaper to maintain other than when the unfortunate glycol contamination happens. rebuild on the tranny would be killer. Other things like the intercooler pump, supercharger clutch bearing, etc are cheap to fix items.

stevh0

its strange how dated the e39 shape is starting to look, i have however found a very nice c32 from this board. he is not asking too much either.

ill just need to go drive both cars and decide.

I dont think ill have too much problems with a Full service history low mileage car... would i?

stevh0

Imo , the M5 is a much more muscular looking car..

if it boils down to power vs power

how hard is it to get 400bhp out of the merc?

would a pully and a tune do it ?


Then again , dinan does a 450bhp hop up for the M5 too .. that is apparently a little monster!

c32used

Wheel Hp you mean by bhp? 400rwhp is not that hard if you got the dough....400 at the Crank is easy any stage 1 pullies and ECU will give you that. $1-2k will give you 400 hp at the crank.

stevh0

too be honnest , ive always loved the c32 .. theres just something about it ,
c32used , is the grill in your sig a c230 coupe grill?

stevh0

Yes , sadly the C55 is still slightly above my limit, the e39 M5 is actually cheaper then the 32amg , thats the only reason i considered it

HAHA BYE

Id go with the M5 if money is no object and speed is just a bonus...Good luck