C32 vs M3 in straight line
04-09-2004, 11:57 PM
#76
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Santa Barbara Cali
Posts: 2,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32
Originally posted by KL316
but thats crank, they rate it 360 at the wheels, a stage II C32 runs like 370 crank and is cheaper than the AA supercharger
but thats crank, they rate it 360 at the wheels, a stage II C32 runs like 370 crank and is cheaper than the AA supercharger
04-10-2004, 06:45 AM
#78
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
Originally posted by Thai
Ok...sure...now i believe you!
yeah, no torque...how about gearing?? Or how about the 6-speed manual ratios?? I can be in the powerband at any speed with the manual tranny...so, no torque becomes much less of an issue if i stay in my powerband + final drive ratio. Look, no matter what tests you look at, M3 is faster than C32 by A TINY BIT from any speed. 0-30, 0-60, 0-100, 0-130, 0-100-0, etc.. So, a C32 can definitely beat an M3 and vice-versa...but NOT BY 5 CAR LENGTHS...even with modified 367 HP!
Ok...sure...now i believe you!
yeah, no torque...how about gearing?? Or how about the 6-speed manual ratios?? I can be in the powerband at any speed with the manual tranny...so, no torque becomes much less of an issue if i stay in my powerband + final drive ratio. Look, no matter what tests you look at, M3 is faster than C32 by A TINY BIT from any speed. 0-30, 0-60, 0-100, 0-130, 0-100-0, etc.. So, a C32 can definitely beat an M3 and vice-versa...but NOT BY 5 CAR LENGTHS...even with modified 367 HP!
04-10-2004, 07:33 AM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Actually, Car & Driver does test from a roll...and M3 wins also. Just look at the last comparo between M3, C32, and S4.
C&D acceleration (0-60, 0-150):
C32 = 5.2, 34.0
M3 = 4.8, 32.7
The faster you go, the more the M3 pulls away. So, unlike the above arguments, the C32 does NOT catch up to M3 down the road.
C&D STREET START (5-60 mph): (aka rolling start, NOT top gear accel.!)
C32 = 5.8
M3 = 5.3
Not bad for a car that supposedly has no torque! Notice that there is virtually NO difference between standing start or rolling start between M3 and C32. You guys are underestimating the M3's power AND gearing.
As i stated above, the two cars are basically EQUAL in terms of pure acceleration. And, please, no more arguments that you need a professional driver to drive an M3 well, especially when SMG is available.
The AA S/C is supposed to cost around $8-10K. Dinan costs around $10-15K.
Oh yeah, i am really scared about blowing my motor with these S/C's...the M3's engine is already temperamental enough! Thus, i am gonna wait for a while.
C&D acceleration (0-60, 0-150):
C32 = 5.2, 34.0
M3 = 4.8, 32.7
The faster you go, the more the M3 pulls away. So, unlike the above arguments, the C32 does NOT catch up to M3 down the road.
C&D STREET START (5-60 mph): (aka rolling start, NOT top gear accel.!)
C32 = 5.8
M3 = 5.3
Not bad for a car that supposedly has no torque! Notice that there is virtually NO difference between standing start or rolling start between M3 and C32. You guys are underestimating the M3's power AND gearing.
As i stated above, the two cars are basically EQUAL in terms of pure acceleration. And, please, no more arguments that you need a professional driver to drive an M3 well, especially when SMG is available.
The AA S/C is supposed to cost around $8-10K. Dinan costs around $10-15K.
Oh yeah, i am really scared about blowing my motor with these S/C's...the M3's engine is already temperamental enough! Thus, i am gonna wait for a while.
Last edited by Thai; 04-10-2004 at 08:44 AM.
04-10-2004, 10:54 AM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
STS,FGT,12C,P85D,M4
real experiences with this....
if you're looking at comparing the M3 and C32 in terms of just the 1/4 mile.... it's prettty much dead even.... either can win depending on driver, who got the jump, better launch, etc.. etc...
from my own experience, I have raced around 8 M3's on the highway in my stock C32....
the results have been very similar.... it's VERY close to around 110MPH, sometimes i was ahead at that point, and sometimes I was not, but after that, EVERY SINGLE TIME, I have pulled by them..... all the way to point where the cars were topped out....
the most recent time.... the M3 was ahead of me, and we were pulling onto an open highway.... the M3 did NOT slow down to race even, he just hammered it.... I was about 1.5 - 2 cars behind at the start, finally at 130 MPH I was dead even with him..... then, when my car stopped accerlerating, I was about 2 cars ahead of him, and my digital speedo read 157MPH...
anyone who says one of these cars is killing the other is clueless.... it's very close, but in the end, if you keep going the C32 will pull slightly.....
the M5 is a different story.... I've raced 3 M5's, and after 100MPH, I always get pulled a little... maybe it's the gearing on the M5, since the power to weight ratios of the C32 and M5 are very close....
from my own experience, I have raced around 8 M3's on the highway in my stock C32....
the results have been very similar.... it's VERY close to around 110MPH, sometimes i was ahead at that point, and sometimes I was not, but after that, EVERY SINGLE TIME, I have pulled by them..... all the way to point where the cars were topped out....
the most recent time.... the M3 was ahead of me, and we were pulling onto an open highway.... the M3 did NOT slow down to race even, he just hammered it.... I was about 1.5 - 2 cars behind at the start, finally at 130 MPH I was dead even with him..... then, when my car stopped accerlerating, I was about 2 cars ahead of him, and my digital speedo read 157MPH...
anyone who says one of these cars is killing the other is clueless.... it's very close, but in the end, if you keep going the C32 will pull slightly.....
the M5 is a different story.... I've raced 3 M5's, and after 100MPH, I always get pulled a little... maybe it's the gearing on the M5, since the power to weight ratios of the C32 and M5 are very close....
04-10-2004, 07:18 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Ok...you were behind 1.5-2 cars...then at 130 mph, you pull even, then at 150+ mph, you pull ahead by TWO car lengths! Holy crap, you have one powerful C32!! Damn, you must have one freaky stock C32 to pull that off! And, even more amazing is that you did all this without much help from the supercharger!
Your supercharger shuts off after 2500-3000 rpm (according to an article posted on THIS forum). Supercharger by nature is very inefficient at high rpms anyway. It is parasitic.
Damn, i better watch those C320's on the highway since they can pull ahead of me above 100 mph!
Your supercharger shuts off after 2500-3000 rpm (according to an article posted on THIS forum). Supercharger by nature is very inefficient at high rpms anyway. It is parasitic.
Damn, i better watch those C320's on the highway since they can pull ahead of me above 100 mph!
04-10-2004, 08:00 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally posted by Thai
Ok... And, even more amazing is that you did all this without much help from the supercharger!
Your supercharger shuts off after 2500-3000 rpm (according to an article posted on THIS forum). Supercharger by nature is very inefficient at high rpms anyway. It is parasitic.
Ok... And, even more amazing is that you did all this without much help from the supercharger!
Your supercharger shuts off after 2500-3000 rpm (according to an article posted on THIS forum). Supercharger by nature is very inefficient at high rpms anyway. It is parasitic.
Also the twin screw supercharger in the C32 is very efficient at high rpm's unlike a roots type blower; which it does not have
04-10-2004, 10:14 PM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 CLK 320
Just from reading these posts as I would have to agree that many C32 owners are willing to agree that both cars are great but its ironic that Thai guy is unwilling to accept any stories that the M3 could be beat by a C32 despite the fact he argues not all M3 owners are ****y and always claiming that the M3 can beat the C32 at every speed by a "little bit" I think Thai guy has only undermined himself or is trying to be a troll.
04-10-2004, 10:39 PM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Apparently, reading comprehension is not so good on this forum. READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE. I never argued that a C32 cannot beat a M3. In fact, i say that they are equal...with the edge going either way.
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
Hook on phonics work for some people....
BTW, i am here because i was researching the G-wagon...and came upon this thread.
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
Hook on phonics work for some people....
BTW, i am here because i was researching the G-wagon...and came upon this thread.
04-11-2004, 08:43 AM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63
Originally posted by Thai
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
Because all of the C32 owners have over 400 HP C32........................... I have 367 HP at the wheel....WHEEL, not crank.
Dusting 5 cl is not a problem.
04-11-2004, 02:31 PM
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Cuba/West Bimini
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars and boats!
Originally posted by Thai
Apparently, reading comprehension is not so good on this forum. READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE. I never argued that a C32 cannot beat a M3. In fact, i say that they are equal...with the edge going either way.
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
Hook on phonics work for some people....
BTW, i am here because i was researching the G-wagon...and came upon this thread.
Apparently, reading comprehension is not so good on this forum. READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE. I never argued that a C32 cannot beat a M3. In fact, i say that they are equal...with the edge going either way.
HOWEVER, i do argue about the EXTENT of the beating that you guys are posting...3-5 car lengths is A LOT.
Hook on phonics work for some people....
BTW, i am here because i was researching the G-wagon...and came upon this thread.
04-12-2004, 03:40 AM
#95
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 CL55 AMG
interesting
Thai, seeing you interested in G Wagon, get the AMG one and you will know the difference between the MPower and the AMGPower. but of course don't compare the G with the X5 4.8is. just my opinion. From my experience, AMG cars has a lot of torque, you don't need to downshift often to pass cars. In the other hand, MPower car are always low in torque but enough in horsepower with high rpm, it is pain in the *** when climbing mountain or passing cars on a high speed since you have to keep your rpm high to get the best out of your engine. Lucky, you have the SMG. I believe most of the M3's on the road are equipped with manual tranny, not SMGII. SOme of them know how to drive manual tranny, some of them may not know. But, with manual transmission, can you shift perfectly everytime at the redline of your rpm? I don't think so Thai. I drove a stick shift car when I first learn how to drive car, so it is not really an issue for me. I have a modified mini cooper S manual tranny. Yeah, the car feel fast when you drive it, cause the short gear ratios between each gear. Many other times I smoked civic Si, golf, Celica, etc. But, some other times I got smoked by some of those cars too, cause I hit the rev limiter sometimes and late shifting the gear. And, hell yeah, that makes a big difference in the gap. So, it is not easy to get the perfect shift out of manual car.
Last edited by DeeGuy; 04-12-2004 at 03:44 AM.
04-12-2004, 08:00 AM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
DeeGuy, totally agree with you. Hey, i never said that AMG engines suck. I am just saying that M3 is not as "underpowered" as everyone on here says it is.
The M3's engine has won every award out there...including best in class for 3 years running, beating out Porsche excellent 3.6L Flat 6 (found in GT3). It won International Engine of the Year in '01 when it first came out.
Unlike the other naturally-aspirated high-rev engines (e.g. S2000), the M3 engine does have decent torque. It makes at least 80% of it's torque from 2000 rpm to REDLINE! That's a 6000 rpms spread. The M3 engine also has individual throttle bodies (rarely seen on street cars), resulting in lightening quick, but accurate throttle response. Then, you add in 6 forward gear ratios, aggressive gearing, and a very effective limited-slip differential (M-variable lock differential). The M3 is quite effective at putting power down to the road...it will surprise a lot of cars.
I never said that M3 was better than C32 or vice versa. They are different. However, the owners on this forum seem to twist my meaning around...hmmm, and they say that M-owners are *****?!!
The M3's engine has won every award out there...including best in class for 3 years running, beating out Porsche excellent 3.6L Flat 6 (found in GT3). It won International Engine of the Year in '01 when it first came out.
Unlike the other naturally-aspirated high-rev engines (e.g. S2000), the M3 engine does have decent torque. It makes at least 80% of it's torque from 2000 rpm to REDLINE! That's a 6000 rpms spread. The M3 engine also has individual throttle bodies (rarely seen on street cars), resulting in lightening quick, but accurate throttle response. Then, you add in 6 forward gear ratios, aggressive gearing, and a very effective limited-slip differential (M-variable lock differential). The M3 is quite effective at putting power down to the road...it will surprise a lot of cars.
I never said that M3 was better than C32 or vice versa. They are different. However, the owners on this forum seem to twist my meaning around...hmmm, and they say that M-owners are *****?!!
Last edited by Thai; 04-12-2004 at 08:15 AM.
04-12-2004, 06:01 PM
#98
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Lighten up Thai. Inject a little levity into your posts and maybe one of us will let you drive his C32 one day .
We all know that the M3 is a great car. . . we just like messing with you . I might have even bought an M3, but I didn't want everyone to think I was a *****.
. We all know that the M3 is a great car. . . we just like messing with you
. I might have even bought an M3, but I didn't want everyone to think I was a *****.
04-12-2004, 09:41 PM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63
