Jon200

forget it man

Trekman

M&M is a sore looser! I heared that you got your butt kicked by a C55..... thats why you are here. hahahaha

AgentQ

You're right, that elasticity test is just a test of gear ratios, not a test of actual acceleration. I'd bet almost anything that a C55's 5-60 time is quicker than an M3's.

skahung

My C55 brings all the boys to the track
And they're like, it's better than yours
Damn right it's better than yours
I could smoke you
But I need the supercharge

My C55 brings all the boys to the track
And they're like, it's better than yours
Damn right it's better than yours
I could smoke you
But I need the supercharge

Jon200

I wouldn't be so sure of it purely because anything could happen on the road But hey, based on stats, you do have a point

M&M

Improviz, good theory man. I love your work. I recon you should write a letter to Sport Auto & ask them why they do performance tests at 1/4 throttle. Hell threaten them with legal action as well.

Do you realise how lame your excuse sounds? I love excuses as much as the next guy, but yours takes the cake.

If you read the top of the elasiticity column you will see that they started each run in 4TH gear! C&D did the rolling runs in kickdown. IF you really want to test the torque if eacg car, you put both of them in the same high gear & run them side by side.

But anyway, I'm out. Nothing more to discuss here. C55 is the best car of all time & M3's suck!

reggid

you haven't read the whole thread! About two pages ago Improviz posted the times for the M3 and CLK55 (close to a c55) and they were the same.

Why do people think that the m3 is a topend car? The m3 engine is a very flexible and produces a pretty steady torque curve for what it is, the c55 on the other hand makes big numbers early in the bamd but cannot maintain that without tuning (otherwise it would be ~400-450hp from the factory at 6000rpm). So its not that the m3 has nothing down low its that the c55 has nothing up top in relative terms to its bottom end and midrange

then again the two engines were designed to have different characteristics

Improviz

Nothing theoretical about it. Unlike you, I own a Mercedes, and it is impossible in my car to conduct a full throttle test from 50 mph with the car manually shifted into fourth gear, because if full throttle is applied, the car will kick down into second gear at this speed.

Further, I showed using actual test data (nothing theoretical here either) that the car's 0-xxx times were faster than the fourth gear 50-xxx speeds, which again shows how useless the fourth gear 50-xxx times in establishing which car's rolling start maximum acceleration times are better.

The owner of a particular vehicle speaking from personal experience and stating that something cannot be done in his vehicle may be an "excuse" in your book, but in the real world this is called "evidence". In the lexicon of BMW spokespeople, I suppose that "excuse" means "anything which does not support BMW."

For example, if I stated that your car redlines at 6,000 rpm and you corrected me, this would not be an "excuse", just as my pointing out that a C55 will not hold fourth gear at full throttle at 50 mph is not an "excuse".

What **I** would call lame and an excuse is trying to use fourth gear acceleration figures from 50 mph to establish rolling-start *race* superiority between cars which in any race would not be using fourth gear until over 100 mph.

*That* I call an excuse.

The M3 redlines in fourth gear at 136 mph, the C55 at 143. Runs from 50 mph in these gears are irrelavent to what is being discussed, full throttle or not. *Neither* car will attain anything remotely *close* to maximum possible acceleration in such a run. It is about as practical and relevant as using braking distances using only the parking brake to claim that one vehicle's minimun stopping distance is shorter.

Car & Driver *has* conducted full-throttle acceleration runs from 5-60 in both of these cars, and the M3 was 0.3 slower from 5-60 than the C55, running 5.2 seconds to the C55's 4.9.

Chew on that.

[QUOTE=Compensated BMW spokesman and shill] If you read the top of the elasiticity column you will see that they started each run in 4TH gear! C&D did the rolling runs in kickdown. IF you really want to test the torque if eacg car, you put both of them in the same high gear & run them side by side.[/QUOTE

Yes, which as I pointed out was not done in the test you're citing, and thus the test you're citing in no way, shape, or form supports your claim that in a side-by-side rolling-start race the M3 is faster--unless the race in question is conducted by two totally incompetent drivers who don't have the good sense to put their cars in the proper gear when racing. Perhaps this applies to you, eh?

Actually, I believe that BMW is paying you to come to our forums (and all of its competitors' forums), and argue the opposite. Talk about lame...

M&M

Yeah Impro, Sport Auto, one of the most respected mags in the world, conducted bogus tests. Did you check the Autocar rolling runs done in kickdown? I guess that mag must be rigged as well?

ultraseven

Good job on posting your last unrelated article.

Seriously, who would race in 4th gear? Would you actually roll down your window and ask the other person, "Hey, let's gun it on 4th gear to see who wins"?

I must applaud you on continuing this thread for sheer entertainment, be it either your incessant stubborness or just plain insecurity.

Jon200

and once again, you have failed to answer why the M3 has 3.4L as mentioned in your highly credible article. It goes to show how useless your articles are, they can't even give the correct information

Trekman

[QUOTE=M&M]Improviz, good theory man. I love your work. I recon you should write a letter to Sport Auto & ask them why they do performance tests at 1/4 throttle. Hell threaten them with legal action as well.

Do you realise how lame your excuse sounds? I love excuses as much as the next guy, but yours takes the cake.

If you read the top of the elasiticity column you will see that they started each run in 4TH gear! C&D did the rolling runs in kickdown. IF you really want to test the torque if eacg car, you put both of them in the same high gear & run them side by side.

But anyway, I'm out. Nothing more to discuss here. C55 is the best car of all time & M3's suck![/QUOTE]


I say dont let the door hit you! or have a c55 run you over!

Improviz

Witness what a lousy debator does when cornered: change the subject and/or argue about minutae, and put words in people's mouths.

Case in point: topic is about maximum possible acceleration in a rolling-start race, which prima facie is NOT going to be obtained at 50 mph in fourth gear in either of these cars.

So I take it that since you're now trying to concentrate on this side issue, rather than on the main issue, you're ceding that your citing the 50 mph fourth gear runs was a mistake, and does not establish which car would be faster in a true 50-xxx RACE.

Fine.

Second case in point: putting words in people's mouths. I did not claim that the Sport Auto test was "bogus"; I DID state that 1) it does not support your argument, and 2) that since it is impossible to perform a full throttle 50-xxx test in fourth gear IN MY CAR, I doubt that the Auto Motor und Sport test was conducted at full throttle--UNLESS the car has changed since mine. I asked any C55 owner to verify this, but none has.

But even if it has changed on the C55, it doesn't matter: your numbers are still irrelavent: I also cited standing-start acceleration data showing that REGARDLESS of whether the car has changed the 50-xxx tests were meaningless insofar as determining which car is faster from 50 mph, because, and this is important, so pay attention: no human with a brain would race either of these cars from 50 mph in fourth gear anyway!

I know that you often have "issues" with comprehension, but this really isn't all that difficult to grasp.

Third case in point: the results of the Autocar kickdown test from 50-70 very closely mirrors the results Car & Driver got, so why would I argue with those??

Finally, the rolling-start 5-60 numbers from Car & Driver, which WERE done at full throttle, DO show that while the M3 lost 0.5 seconds (5.2 vs 4.7) in comparing 0-60 and 5-60, the C55 lost only 0.2 (4.9 vs 4.7). This plainly shows that in a rolling-start run from 5-60, where the M's launch advantage was eliminated, the C55 was tested faster.

But this doesn't support your argument, and so you ignore it, refuse to address it, and instead use your standard array of cheap tactics, just as you refuse to acknowledge that 50-xxx runs in fourth gear in no way, shape, or form prove what you're trying to claim. And unless you have some true head-to-head numbers like those in Car & Driver's runs of *maximum* acceleration, not meaningless fourth gear runs from 50 mph that would never be done in any sort of race, you really don't have anything to support your argument. The Car & Driver data, otoh, refutes your argument.

Or, put more succinctly: you lose.

Improviz

Exactly! Those numbers are utterly worthless insofar as what he's trying to prove, and he knows it.

Or trying to earn a paycheck from BMW...this guy's been at this stuff for too long, on too many forums, for me to believe he's doing it for nothing, and he's not alone.

mrankovic

Impro... you're a classic man! I gotta know - you don't happen to be a lawyer do you?

Jon200

Don't expect a reply from M&M on this matter. When he replies, it will be a complete change of topic. I am sure he is reading this right now, he must be going through his thousands or 99% of his mags to post useless stats and numbers

Improviz

Thanks!!

Actually, I'm not an attorney, but I have seriously been contemplating a run at law school...which might be a good idea, because I get asked this question a lot!

Cheers...

M&M

30-70mph, through the gears. M3 was 0.4 faster. Improviz, please stop tlaking bull & sy athat 0.4 seconds is not significant. C'mon, when 2 evenly matched cars race, even 0.1 is significant in my book. 0.4 is significant.

So I applaud you on your theory about the launch. You are, in fact, correct. But there's more to it than that. An M3 CAN pull away from a C55 on a rolling run as well. I have more articles that I will try to scan & post if anyone's interested.

OR, you could just accpet that the majority of car mags around the world are right & not bogus.

BTW, Impro, I know no-one's going to race in 4th @ 50mph, but surely if they did the TORQUE-monster car would win? Apparently not.

M&M

& onward we go with the C55 vs M3 thread. Greattopic BTW guys. To avoid being targeted as a guy that picks test I will pick the 2 FASTEST tests of each car on the GErman site. No point choosing the slowest tests is there?


http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/c55amg2004-1.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

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



Test in ams 07/2004
Gewicht 1660 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 8,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,8 s
400 m, stehender Start 13,5 s

Now, 0-100mph for both tests was 11.7, which seems to be pretty consistent & representative as these are 2 separate mags testing different C55's at different venues & they got similar numbers.

C&D in the US got 11.3 to 100mph, but obviously they have a different surface, testing technique, testing equipment, conditions on the day, etc. It's more important to compare tests from the same mag as normally they use the same venue, equipment, technique, etc.

SO here's the 2 fastest M3 tests from the same site:

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/bmw/m3e462005-1.htm



Test in sport auto 01/2005
Gewicht 1565 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,6 s

So, also pretty consistent to 100mph. 1st test got 10.9 to 100mph & 2nd test got 11.0.

Bit now all this theory that the M3 is only faster than a C55 due to the launch falls apart right here. From 100kmh to 200km/h (60-124mph), both M3's pull away from both C55's.

1st C55 does it in 13.0 secs
2nd C55 does it in 13.5

1st M3 does sit in 12.0
2nd M3 does it in 12.8

Obviously environmental conditions on the day have an impact on acceleration at higher speeds, but even the slower of the 2 M3's is FASTER than the quicker C55 from 60-124.

So, I say the cars are evenly matched but the majority of evidence seems to indicate that the M3 has a slight edge. Unless, of course, anecdotal evidence from owners like "I smoked him on the highway", counts as proof. I have, of course, heard many of those from my C55 buddy & I have absolutely no reason to doubt him as anything can happen on the road when cars are closely matched.

E55 RUSS

Sorry but SL65 has factory AMG LSD and C55 should be faster the M3, but in the real world C32 is faster...Yes???

PC Valkyrie

I don't think so. I don't know why there is an impression that the C32 is faster than the C55. I have never seen any North American magazines publish faster acceleration times for the C32, yet there was such a jump to this conclusion that the C55 is slower than the C32, when the C55 was initially introduced last year. If anything, most North American Magazine tests publish faster times for the C55 than the C32.

Where does this erroneous conclusion come from?

skahung

yea...and the C240 is faster than the C32.........
Can we end this madness

Improviz

Jon, you were right...back to the magazines he goes, and look at how he desparately tries to use standing-start acceleration data to prove rolling-start acceleration. This is bogus, as I shall now prove.

Btw, BMW salesman: you keep citing test conditions as being paramount, and yet keep citing the Autocar numbers as representative, even they they plainly state DAMP beside the C55. Runs on a DAMP test surface compared against runs on a DRY surface would hardly constitute a fair comparison.

Now let us go back to the debate at hand. Debate at hand is that the M3's superior traction (via limited slip differential and wider tires) allow a more agressive launch, while C55 cannot be launched as agressively.

This has already been proven, by using Car & Driver's test numbers for the two cars. The M3 loses 0.5 seconds in 5-60 over 0-60. 5-60 is a simple punch of the throttle (i.e., a rolling start race), while 0-60 is done with an agressive launch. Therefore, any agressive launch advantage (or traction disadvantage) will show up in the discrepancy between the two figures.

Car & Driver has tested two different M3s in this fashion: the first was the one I published earlier in the thread, the second in the three-way shootout with C32 and Audi S4. In both cases, the M3's rolling-start 5-60 runs were substantially slower than its 5-60 times: in the shootout with the CLK55, the M3 ran 4.7 seconds 0-60, but only 5.2 5-60. In the second shootout, the M3 ran 4.8 seconds 0-60, but 5.3 seconds 0-60.

In fact, one thing holds in these tests: the better a car's traction at launch, the more its 5-60 time will suffer.

AWD cars have the best traction of all, and from the same (second) aforementioned test, we see that while the Audi S4 ran 5.0 seconds 0-60, it ran 5.9 seconds 5-60. This, too has held constant among tests: in the test I posted previously, the S4 ran 5.1 seconds 0-60, but took 6.1 seconds to go from 5-60. Clearly, the car's time-to-speed numbers *and* its time-to-distance numbers are affected by traction, which makes sense: the more force you can apply to the vehicle, the faster it will accelerate. The limiting factor is the amount by which the traction limits the application of force, and as can be seen by the Audi, a high amount of initial traction can overcome even a substantial horsepower-to-weight disadvantage.

Contrast the Audi's numbers with the 0-60 and 5-60 numbers for the CLK55 and E55: the CLK55 ran 5.0 seconds to 60, and 5.2 seconds 5-60, while the C55 ran 4.7 seconds 0-60, and 4.9 to 60.

So, across two different tests, the results were clear: the AMG CLK55 and C55 lost only 0.2 seconds from 5-60, while both M3s lost 0.5 seconds. The AWD Audi lost even more, one full second. Traction makes the difference!

Note that these were not time-to-distance, but time-to-speedtests. And these tests *clearly* show that from a rolling start, the M3 does not obtain the same time-to-speed numbers that it obtains with an agressive launch from a standing start. Thus, as usual, the BMW shill's attempt to cook the books and spin is bogus.

He claims that one can obtain the rolling-start numbers simply by subtracting two speeds from the 0-xxx numbers. But this is prima facie false, as can be seen by examining the numbers above: whatever time the cars took to get from 0-5 mph MUST be greater than 0, yes? Of course. And so if we use the salesman's method, will our results be correct?? Of course not.

Now, using the Car & Driver data, we know that the M takes 5.2 or 5.3 seconds to get from 5-60, and 4.7 to 4.8 seconds to get from 0-60. Unfortunately, wedon't have the 0-5 speed for the cars, but let's assume these cars did 0-5 mph in 0.2 seconds. So, using the salesman's methodology, we could get the car's rolling-start 5-60 time by simply subtracting its 0-5 mph time from its 0-60 mph time. For the faster car, this gives us a calculated-by-the-salesman's-method estimated 5-60 time (4.7 - 0.2) = 4.5 seconds; for the slower, it gives us (4.8 - 0.2) = 4.6 seconds.

And yet, from the same tests we know that the cars *were* tested at 5-60 NOTat 4.5 sec. or 4.6 sec., but at 5.2 sec. and 5.3 sec!!! Even if you set the 0-5 mph time at **zero**, which is physically impossible, this methodology simply does not work.

Similarly, look at the 0-60, 5-60, 30-50, and 50-70 numbers for the AWD Audi RS 6 versus the CLK55 and C55. The RS 6 ran significantly faster in 0-60 and 0-1/4 mile, but in 5-60 it was slower than either, and in 30-50 and 50-70 the AMG cars tied it. More proof that you can't use standing start numbers to determine rolling start results. I'll post those numbers tonight when I get home.

Which the salesman knows, but as usual, he's trying to use spin and deception todiscredit BMW competitors and sell more BMWs, which he does on this forum, onAudi forums, and has for over three years in his little negative advertisingcampaign. Gotta earn that BMW paycheck!

M&M

He Improviz, relax dude. Don't pop a fuse man. It's just a discussion & these are just cars.

BTW, how much does the damp affect your car at 30mph rolling?

AgentQ

With all that torque, probably a lot more than it would affect an M3.