My C55 vs new M3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
Originally Posted by motortrend.com
Curb Weight:
C55 AMG: 3583
C55 AMG: 3583
Do a little bit of research, friend
. A friend of mine with a e92 335i used to always say how heavy my car was blah blah blah until he found out his 6cyl coupe weighed more than my v8 sedan.
MBworld Guru
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,058
Likes: 18
From: Diamond Bar, CA
W206 PHEV AMG
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
Do a little bit of research, friend. A friend of mine with a e92 335i used to always say how heavy my car was blah blah blah until he found out his 6cyl coupe weighed more than my v8 sedan.
Do a little bit of research, friend
. A friend of mine with a e92 335i used to always say how heavy my car was blah blah blah until he found out his 6cyl coupe weighed more than my v8 sedan.and the weight are given by MB headquarters which differs from the standard equipment for MBUSA.
different magazine also had listed different weight previously. for example, Road&Track has a category of Test Weight. If i remember correctly the C32 for their test weight was 170-180lbs more than what was listed as curb weight.
Last edited by FrankW; Mar 21, 2010 at 08:04 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
curb weight is the weight with standard equipment and full tank of gas. the options on these cars added a lot of weight.
and the weight are given by MB headquarters which differs from the standard equipment for MBUSA.
different magazine also had listed different weight previously. for example, Road&Track has a category of Test Weight. If i remember correctly the C32 for their test weight was 170-180lbs more than what was listed as curb weight.
and the weight are given by MB headquarters which differs from the standard equipment for MBUSA.
different magazine also had listed different weight previously. for example, Road&Track has a category of Test Weight. If i remember correctly the C32 for their test weight was 170-180lbs more than what was listed as curb weight.
Last edited by RLx02; Mar 21, 2010 at 08:31 AM.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Stock for stock yes. But I'm almost a full 100 pounds lighter than an m3 and have about 80 or more ft/pounds of torque than an m3. Most e92 m3's are making 330-340hp and ~250ft/pounds of torque at the wheel stock.
so 337/345 at the wheels with 3600 pounds vs 340/250 with 3700 pounds?
I'm pretty sure a well modded C32 or a ecu/header C55 could keep up, if not beat a m3 on a roll. I never said smoke or easily walk one, but beat it.
so 337/345 at the wheels with 3600 pounds vs 340/250 with 3700 pounds?
I'm pretty sure a well modded C32 or a ecu/header C55 could keep up, if not beat a m3 on a roll. I never said smoke or easily walk one, but beat it.
Stock for stock, a E92 M3 is faster than a C55. PERIOD.
I just noticed you highlighted the low crank torque figure for the M3. Again, this number DOES NOT MATTER. Engine torque is multiplied by the gearbox. The resultant torque to the wheels is much much greater, and I can guarantee the M3 puts down more wheel torque than a C55. Quit lying to yourself.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,692
Likes: 5
none
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Here you go:
C55:
Final Drive 3.06:1
1st Gear Ratio 3.59:1
2nd Gear Ratio 2.19:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.41:1
4th Gear Ratio 1:1
5th Gear Ratio 0.83:1
E92 M3:
Final Drive 3.64:1
1st Gear Ratio 4.23:1
2nd Gear Ratio 2.53:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.67:1
4th Gear Ratio 1.23:1
5th Gear Ratio 1.00:1
6th Gear Ratio 0.83:1
So in first gear it looks like:
C55: 376lb-ft * 3.59 * 3.06 = 4,130lb-ft to the wheels
M3: 296lb-ft * 4.23 * 3.64 = 4,557lb-ft to the wheels
Second Gear:
C55: 376lb-ft * 2.19 * 3.06 = 2519lb-ft to the wheels
M3: 296lb-ft * 2.53 * 3.64 = 2725lb-ft to the wheels
I could go on but the advantage is always there. Keep in mind the M3 not only produces more torque to the wheels, it does it until 8,400 rpm, giving it a significant advantage. Let it go, it's not a good race, from a dig, from a roll, in reverse, dosen't matter, just stop now.
C55:
Final Drive 3.06:1
1st Gear Ratio 3.59:1
2nd Gear Ratio 2.19:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.41:1
4th Gear Ratio 1:1
5th Gear Ratio 0.83:1
E92 M3:
Final Drive 3.64:1
1st Gear Ratio 4.23:1
2nd Gear Ratio 2.53:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.67:1
4th Gear Ratio 1.23:1
5th Gear Ratio 1.00:1
6th Gear Ratio 0.83:1
So in first gear it looks like:
C55: 376lb-ft * 3.59 * 3.06 = 4,130lb-ft to the wheels
M3: 296lb-ft * 4.23 * 3.64 = 4,557lb-ft to the wheels
Second Gear:
C55: 376lb-ft * 2.19 * 3.06 = 2519lb-ft to the wheels
M3: 296lb-ft * 2.53 * 3.64 = 2725lb-ft to the wheels
I could go on but the advantage is always there. Keep in mind the M3 not only produces more torque to the wheels, it does it until 8,400 rpm, giving it a significant advantage. Let it go, it's not a good race, from a dig, from a roll, in reverse, dosen't matter, just stop now.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 3
From: Houston, TX
C32/C55 AMG
So then if the c55 was geared the same as the e92 m3, then they would have the advantage?
Is it possible to change the gearing in our vehicles? Seems like gearing alone would yield much better power results than most of the mods that we put on our vehicles.
Is it possible to change the gearing in our vehicles? Seems like gearing alone would yield much better power results than most of the mods that we put on our vehicles.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 6
From: Corona, CA
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
Usually in engines thats low displacement high rev's it tends to have shorter gears to make up for the lack of tq.
Higher displacement low revving engines then to have wider gears since they run out of revs quickly.
I wouldn't really mess with any of the individual gears since mercedes geared the car to be a good daily driver.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 647
Likes: 1
From: The Land of Blondes...
2001: Supercharged E55 AMG
Horsepower is how fast you are going to get to the wall, torque is how far you can move the wall.
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 6
From: Corona, CA
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
Horsepower is how fast you are going to get to the wall, torque is how far you can move the wall.
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
HP = (RPM x Tq) /(5252)
If horsepower and gearing determine acceleration, and tq is a factor in determining horsepower. Then tq does matter in acceleration.
Its just generally easier to increase rpms then tq. Hence why the m3 has such a large hp rating for a 4.0L V8.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
It wouldn't work that way, the shorter (numerically higher) you gear a car, the quicker it will have to upshift, and you'll eventually lose the race anyway. You will run out of RPM's. I was just pointing out how comparing flywheel torque figures of two cars is irresponsible.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Horsepower is how fast you are going to get to the wall, torque is how far you can move the wall.
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
Torque has nothing to do with acceleration, it's all about horsepower and gearing. If you have a high torque at some RPM,that also means that your have a high HP number at that RPM and thats what keeps the car accelerating faster, not the torque.
New M3 will walk a stock C55 anyday any year!
Horsepower is a measurement of WORK
Torque is a measurement of power.
Torque describes how much power an engine can exert. Horsepower describes how much power can be applied and also for how long. Although the C55 engine makes more torque at the flywheel, it cannot sustain that power for very long. The M3 engine is less powerfull, but can continue to make that power over a very long time. The key to this equation is that through gearing, we can compress, or spread that power out. Horsewpower is not multiplied by gearing.
As an oversimplification, Horsepower IS torque and gearing.
Last edited by e1000; Mar 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 268
Likes: 1
From: San Diego
ML430, Mini Cooper S and Porsche 911 Twin Turbo
So if torque is king.....
how come Formula 1 race engines are weak on torque but yet still produce incredible output powers and performance ?
I'll give you a clue just like e1000 has below.
It's to do with the engine RPM and gearing and thus torque TO THE WHEELS.
Absolute engine torque needs to be matched to the inertial load for optimum performance - maybe that's why we don't try to set off in 3rd gear :-)
For some reason most people are focused on engine torque and are oblivious to the effects of gearing....
I just noticed you highlighted the low crank torque figure for the M3. Again, this number DOES NOT MATTER. Engine torque is multiplied by the gearbox. The resultant torque to the wheels is much much greater, and I can guarantee the M3 puts down more wheel torque than a C55. Quit lying to yourself.
I'll give you a clue just like e1000 has below.
It's to do with the engine RPM and gearing and thus torque TO THE WHEELS.
Absolute engine torque needs to be matched to the inertial load for optimum performance - maybe that's why we don't try to set off in 3rd gear :-)
For some reason most people are focused on engine torque and are oblivious to the effects of gearing....
I just noticed you highlighted the low crank torque figure for the M3. Again, this number DOES NOT MATTER. Engine torque is multiplied by the gearbox. The resultant torque to the wheels is much much greater, and I can guarantee the M3 puts down more wheel torque than a C55. Quit lying to yourself.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 3
W210 E55 & W204 C63
Horsepower is a measurement of WORK
Torque is a measurement of power.
Torque describes how much power an engine can exert. Horsepower describes how much power can be applied and also for how long. Although the C55 engine makes more torque at the flywheel, it cannot sustain that power for very long. The M3 engine is less powerfull, but can continue to make that power over a very long time. The key to this equation is that through gearing, we can compress, or spread that power out. Horsewpower is not multiplied by gearing.
As an oversimplification, Horsepower IS torque and gearing.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
Well yeah you can mod anything to make it faster. The guy in the M3 can slap on one of those ESS superchargers. Also, take a look at your timeslip in your sig compared to the time for the stock M3 I posted. Yes it might have a bad day but that's a lot of time and speed to make up.
I just noticed you highlighted the low crank torque figure for the M3. Again, this number DOES NOT MATTER. Engine torque is multiplied by the gearbox. The resultant torque to the wheels is much much greater, and I can guarantee the M3 puts down more wheel torque than a C55. Quit lying to yourself.
I highlighted THE WHEEL TORQUE FIGURE, NOT THE TORQUE AT THE CRANK. Now I don't want to insult your intelligence because I believe, that you believe you know what you're talking about except that you MISREAD my posts. However, I'm talking about WHEEL HORSEPOWER, NOT CRANK. I put down 345 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. A very healthy e92 m3 puts down 250 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. I wasn't comparing my crank torque figures to the m3's crank torque figures. Please take that into consideration before you go off into thinking that I don't know the slightest about how to calculate horsepower from torque.
Originally Posted by RLx02
Stock for stock yes. But I'm almost a full 100 pounds lighter than an m3 and have about 80 or more ft/pounds of torque than an m3. Most e92 m3's are making 330-340hp and ~250ft/pounds of torque at the wheel stock.
Last edited by RLx02; Mar 22, 2010 at 12:33 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
Actually, you're wrong. As temjinx pointed out, Horsepower is Torque over Time, or how much torque an engine can produce throughout the RPM band. Gear ratios have nothing to do with how well a car puts down power at the ground because you dyno at a 1:1 ratio. Have you ever put your car on a dyno before? You don't dyno from 1st gear or the last. The gearbox comes into play when seeing how EFFICIENT it is. An e92 m3 loses about 15-17% power through the drive train, which is YES, MORE EFFICIENT than a c32 or a c55 since we factory in a 18% loss.
Now when we are talking about acceleration, gear ratios definitely come into play. BMW's are usually geared lower whereas MB's are geared higher for autobahn cruising. This makes it easier for bimmers to get lower 1/4 mile times and races starting from ~60mph. Above 100 though they tend to lose steam and thats when we start walking away.
because they redline at up to 19,000RPMS. But when you multiply their low torque number over time...it adds up.
Now when we are talking about acceleration, gear ratios definitely come into play. BMW's are usually geared lower whereas MB's are geared higher for autobahn cruising. This makes it easier for bimmers to get lower 1/4 mile times and races starting from ~60mph. Above 100 though they tend to lose steam and thats when we start walking away.
because they redline at up to 19,000RPMS. But when you multiply their low torque number over time...it adds up.
Last edited by RLx02; Mar 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
My timeslip in my sig was when I put down 315hp was with just a tune and removed secondaries and bald 19" tires, not when I put down 337hp I do not have a time slip AFTER my header, new tune, new 18" tires and wheels. And obviously a m3 can slap on a supercharger and make his car faster. I'm not arguing that. Did I ever say that the c55 is faster stock or a mildly modded one is faster than a mildly modded m3? No. Please reread my posts before you try to come up with a rebuttal.
I highlighted THE WHEEL TORQUE FIGURE, NOT THE TORQUE AT THE CRANK. Now I don't want to insult your intelligence because I believe, that you believe you know what you're talking about except that you MISREAD my posts. However, I'm talking about WHEEL HORSEPOWER, NOT CRANK. I put down 345 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. A very healthy e92 m3 puts down 250 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. I wasn't comparing my crank torque figures to the m3's crank torque figures. Please take that into consideration before you go off into thinking that I don't know the slightest about how to calculate horsepower from torque.
Forgive me for over using the bold tag, but I fear you will just take another cursory glance and not understand any part of my post without me having to point out simple facts in bold.
I highlighted THE WHEEL TORQUE FIGURE, NOT THE TORQUE AT THE CRANK. Now I don't want to insult your intelligence because I believe, that you believe you know what you're talking about except that you MISREAD my posts. However, I'm talking about WHEEL HORSEPOWER, NOT CRANK. I put down 345 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. A very healthy e92 m3 puts down 250 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. I wasn't comparing my crank torque figures to the m3's crank torque figures. Please take that into consideration before you go off into thinking that I don't know the slightest about how to calculate horsepower from torque.
Forgive me for over using the bold tag, but I fear you will just take another cursory glance and not understand any part of my post without me having to point out simple facts in bold.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
Quite simply, you're wrong. Torque figures for an engine are all measured at the crank. Torque is multiplied through the gearbox, however horsepower is not. I don't think you're grasping this concept. Think about it for a second, 250lb-ft or even 345lb-ft, would never be able to accelerate a 3500lb mass from 0-60 in under 6 seconds.
Now, are you talking about acceleration or power? I can agree that acceleration is greatly dependent on gearing and torque but putting power to the ground is completely different.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Actually, you're wrong. As temjinx pointed out, Horsepower is Torque over Time, or how much torque an engine can produce throughout the RPM band. Gear ratios have nothing to do with how well a car puts down power at the ground because you dyno at a 1:1 ratio. Have you ever put your car on a dyno before? You don't dyno from 1st gear or the last. The gearbox comes into play when seeing how EFFICIENT it is. An e92 m3 loses about 15-17% power through the drive train, which is YES, MORE EFFICIENT than a c32 or a c55 since we factory in a 18% loss.
Now when we are talking about acceleration, gear ratios definitely come into play. BMW's are usually geared lower whereas MB's are geared higher for autobahn cruising. This makes it easier for bimmers to get lower 1/4 mile times and races starting from ~60mph. Above 100 though they tend to lose steam and thats when we start walking away.
because they redline at up to 19,000RPMS. But when you multiply their low torque number over time...it adds up.
Now when we are talking about acceleration, gear ratios definitely come into play. BMW's are usually geared lower whereas MB's are geared higher for autobahn cruising. This makes it easier for bimmers to get lower 1/4 mile times and races starting from ~60mph. Above 100 though they tend to lose steam and thats when we start walking away.
because they redline at up to 19,000RPMS. But when you multiply their low torque number over time...it adds up.
Here's some reading for you since I can't seem to get it through your thick skull.
http://www.car-videos.net/articles/h...wer_torque.asp
http://www.maelabs.ucsd.edu/mae_guid...Ad/mech_ad.htm
http://www.team-integra.net/forum/di...g+Common+Topic
http://www.modified.com/editors/tech...las/index.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gear_ratio
http://eurowerks.org/showthread.php?t=18937
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Actually I'm not. Why are you trying to change your stance all of a sudden? You were quoted that the m3 puts down more WHEEL torque than a c55.
I just proved you wrong in my other post.
Now, are you talking about acceleration or power? I can agree that acceleration is greatly dependent on gearing and torque but putting power to the ground is completely different.
I just proved you wrong in my other post.
Now, are you talking about acceleration or power? I can agree that acceleration is greatly dependent on gearing and torque but putting power to the ground is completely different.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Actually I'm not. Why are you trying to change your stance all of a sudden? You were quoted that the m3 puts down more WHEEL torque than a c55.
I just proved you wrong in my other post.
Now, are you talking about acceleration or power? I can agree that acceleration is greatly dependent on gearing and torque but putting power to the ground is completely different.
I just proved you wrong in my other post.
Now, are you talking about acceleration or power? I can agree that acceleration is greatly dependent on gearing and torque but putting power to the ground is completely different.
Here's yet another hint.
http://www.calcenstein.com/calc/0773.php
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
If we're going to quote that, then lets bring flywheel power for my c55 and a stock e92 m3.
my c55: 410hp and 425 ft/pounds of torque OR 337hp and 345 ft/pounds of torque
stock e92 m3: 414hp and 295 ft/pounds of torque OR 340hp and 250 ft/pounds of torque
Again and again I'm proving you wrong against your own statements. Why do you even bring up links that just reiterate my points that I showed to you?
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Wow, its like arguing with a 4 year old. Why are you trying digress from the fact that you were proven wrong on how much torque an m3 puts to the ground? Why are you even bringing up the fact that manufacturers state flywheel/crank hp and torque? Do I have to quote your incorrect statement again?
If we're going to quote that, then lets bring flywheel power for my c55 and a stock e92 m3.
my c55: 410hp and 425 ft/pounds of torque OR 337hp and 345 ft/pounds of torque
stock e92 m3: 414hp and 295 ft/pounds of torque OR 340hp and 250 ft/pounds of torque
Again and again I'm proving you wrong against your own statements. Why do you even bring up links that just reiterate my points that I showed to you?
If we're going to quote that, then lets bring flywheel power for my c55 and a stock e92 m3.
my c55: 410hp and 425 ft/pounds of torque OR 337hp and 345 ft/pounds of torque
stock e92 m3: 414hp and 295 ft/pounds of torque OR 340hp and 250 ft/pounds of torque
Again and again I'm proving you wrong against your own statements. Why do you even bring up links that just reiterate my points that I showed to you?
