C55 vs M3 - Another 5 unimportant reasons ...
All I know is that a stock C32 can't turn for it's life. So what if the M3 is a fender slower, it's still the benchmark in this segment, end of story. Heck, BMW created the sport sedan segment! Not to mention that the M3 has less hp and a lot less torque, who would have thought that it was slower in a straight line.

Pointless bickering.
Mine turns fine its all about your Skills!
Noka, I have a video of an M3 vs a C55. I don't think you wanna' see it though.
but I tell you the sun will shine on a monkeys *** sometime.
but you do agree that a C32 is faster than an M3? if not watch the video. and Im sure you beat C55 all night long with your car.

Rgds,
Norm
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Sorry, but the truth, in my point of view - is a little bit different, according my own experience.
I am a MB/AMG fan - no question, but for trackdays, I purchased a M3 CSL - modified by MGmbh. As well one of my friends took a C55 (with as well heavily mods). We both went to SPA and other race tracks in Europe some time - and whenever I am driving behind him; to take videos, I am really bored ! (and thinking, which "gay" is driving in front of me).
I am not a race driver at all - so is my friend - we both just enjoy driving on race tracks from time to time.
FYI - the recorded time at SPA:
SL65 - 2,58 for one lap
M3CSL - 2,49 for one lap
C55 - 3,10 for one lap
All the written above, should not offend you - Please !! it is just my experience with BMW and AMG. I was as well ready to take one C55 - but after testing both of them ... I went for the M3 ....
wish you all a nice weekend
Walter
Sorry, but the truth, in my point of view - is a little bit different, according my own experience.
I am a MB/AMG fan - no question, but for trackdays, I purchased a M3 CSL - modified by MGmbh. As well one of my friends took a C55 (with as well heavily mods). We both went to SPA and other race tracks in Europe some time - and whenever I am driving behind him; to take videos, I am really bored ! (and thinking, which "gay" is driving in front of me).
I am not a race driver at all - so is my friend - we both just enjoy driving on race tracks from time to time.
FYI - the recorded time at SPA:
SL65 - 2,58 for one lap
M3CSL - 2,49 for one lap
C55 - 3,10 for one lap
All the written above, should not offend you - Please !! it is just my experience with BMW and AMG. I was as well ready to take one C55 - but after testing both of them ... I went for the M3 ....
wish you all a nice weekend
Walter
ppl who want track car doesn't buy AMGs or the Ms or the Audi S for that matter. They could pick up a Miata and have way more fun on the track than the Germans.I can assure you 90% of the ppl who bought the M3 simply because it's the M3. They bought it because ppl recognize it, most importantly chicks recognize it. Believe it or not there's ppl w/ Ms come up to me and ask "what's an AMG?"
I guess that's how 2500 units per yr vs 6-7000 units per yr differs.
nice pimp machine
Contrary to popular opinion, the performance and handling of both cars is also remarkably similar on a track. Both cars did the "ring" in 8:22. See below for some times. The M3 CSL is not a fair comparison because that car was has significant power and chassis tuning advantages over the base M3.
This is from the 2004 Nurburgring Nordschleife Car Lap Time Database:
BMW M3 CSL ( 8/2003) 7:50
BMW M3 ( 12/2000) 8:22
BMW M3 ( 3/1997) 8:35
Here's what the M3 competitors from Mercedes and Audi did (from about the same time periods):
Mercedes C55 AMG ( 7/2004) 8:22
Audi RS4 ( 10/2000) 8:25
Mercedes CLK 55 AMG ( 5/2000) 8:29
Audi S4 Avant (11/2003) 8:29
Mercedes C32 AMG ( 9/2001) 8:37
Audi S4 ( 8/1998) 8:42
Mercedes Benz C43 AMG ( 3/1998) 8:51
PS remember this is the New Audi against the OLDER BMW(M) and AMG.
Last edited by ProjectC55; Aug 6, 2005 at 05:47 PM.
Based upon the S4's as-tested numbers, the RS4's power, and weight, with 70 more horsepower it should be picking up at minimum 0.5 seconds over the S4, so I'll fearlessly predict 0-60 times of 4.5 seconds max, 4.3 min, and a 1/4 in the 12.5-12.7 range....but honestly, even with those numbers I'd have a hard time shelling out $80 large for an Audi; Audi always stupidly waits until the end of the model's lifespan to introduce the RS, and so the competitors' next-gen M and AMG cars are usually as fast if not faster, and cost lost much less. Their stupid "wait till the last minute" market marketing strategy is pretty lame.
Stay tuned!
Based upon the S4's as-tested numbers, the RS4's power, and weight, with 70 more horsepower it should be picking up at minimum 0.5 seconds over the S4, so I'll fearlessly predict 0-60 times of 4.5 seconds max, 4.3 min, and a 1/4 in the 12.5-12.7 range....but honestly, even with those numbers I'd have a hard time shelling out $80 large for an Audi; Audi always stupidly waits until the end of the model's lifespan to introduce the RS, and so the competitors' next-gen M and AMG cars are usually as fast if not faster, and cost lost much less. Their stupid "wait till the last minute" market marketing strategy is pretty lame.
Stay tuned!
Last edited by ProjectC55; Aug 6, 2005 at 06:21 PM.
Their motto should be changed from "never follow" to "always lag"!! In fact, this is a good thing about Mercedes: they always release the AMG versions within a year or so of the model's initial release, unlike BMW which waits 2-3 years, and Audi which waits until the model is about to be cancelled!!
Edit: after a bit of consideration, I'm going to bump up my 1/4 mile estimates for the RS4: I'm going to guess in the 12.7-12.9 range.
Last edited by Improviz; Aug 7, 2005 at 01:41 PM.
You are right. MB is going to be the giant on engine power , just
as a matter of time. Just look at the coming new S500, it is already faster
than the C55 W203. ( C350 W203 is also faster than the 330i E90 )
Audi is always the last one among MB and BMW. Besides, I thought
many like rear drive.
cnt
p.s. do we buy from the loser ?
Last edited by cntlaw; Aug 7, 2005 at 11:00 PM.
Just look at the coming new S500, it is already faster
than the C55 W203.
cnt
Dude you are highly mistaken!
Last edited by ProjectC55; Aug 7, 2005 at 10:09 PM.
Dude you are highly mistaken! 
the 5.4 Litre 4 valve 388hp engine + 7G with it.
I recall 0-100kmh is 5.2./5.4; as fast as C55, despite S600 weighted 2 tons.
cnt
the 5.4 Litre 4 valve 388hp engine + 7G with it.
I recall 0-100kmh is 5.2./5.4; as fast as C55, despite S600 weighted 2 tons.
cnt
Last edited by ProjectC55; Aug 8, 2005 at 02:40 PM.
P.S. I hope they don't use E36 journal bearings on the new M3 like they did initially on the E46. It sure would save BMW a lot of "deathstar" engine replacements.
P.S. I hope they don't use E36 journal bearings on the new M3 like they did initially on the E46. It sure would save BMW a lot of "deathstar" engine replacements.

bmw didnt use e36 bearings in the s54 those 2 engines share nothing from one another.
they used the right bearings,the people who built them were not to spec and didnt alow the right amount of oil to get threw.
you do know that some e46 were not effected with the recall right?
with all high tech high rev engines there more stress on them.
You can't, because there isn't one.
However, *we* can point out a BMW M3 webpage, created by BMW M3 owners, to track blown M3 engines in the M3's first year of production!!
And HERE IT IS, YOU TROLLING WANNABE LOSER:
=> CLICK HERE TO SEE 130 DOCUMENTED CASES OF BLOWN M3 MOTORS, COMPILED BY BMW M3 OWNERS, ON MODEL YEAR 2001 AND 2002 BMW M3's <=
This resulted in a recall of 48,000 BMW M3's worldwide...which, on BMW's $50,000 flagship standard-bearer of the 3-series, is beyond pathetic. Just like it is beyond pathetic that BMW uses a plastic-lined radiator in their 3 series and Z3's which generally go out before 100,000 miles and should be replaced at 50,000 miles according to one expert.
And you want to come in here and lecture us about reliability? Give us a fvking break, loser...you're beyond stupid.
Last edited by Improviz; Aug 9, 2005 at 01:54 AM.






