it's called more-money-than-brain syndrome. I really want to make a username to point out some of the stuff they said are really idiotic. Didn't know the m5board are filled with idiots now compare to few years back.

idiot #1 said MB had to modified the CLK for the F1 safety car while M6 is used for the MotoGP stock. That was just too funny that he didn't know the previous safety cars were all production AMGs. Only reason the CLK63 black is the new safety car is for show/promotion.

idiot #2 talks about praticality while driving a M6 convertible himself. LMAO...

idiot #3 then comes in with "the M6 has better numbers and brakes, MB slushbox suck, and throw on pilot cup tires on the M6". I'm sure the tire helps, but it's not going to help the M6's body-roll... and somehow the ignorant still don't want to recognize the MB/AMG having a better performing gearbox than their precious SMG which is routinely criticized

idiot #4 called it "still a C-class" but fail to realize the limited production M3 GTR cost way more for a "3-series".

 

You forgot to play up the fact that, while huge, the single caliper brakes on the M6/M5 are the car's single biggest failing. The brakes on the Black Series sound immense, though it's always amusing how no car maker can come close to Porsche in this regard.

As regards Motorsport vs. AMG, I think it's horses for courses but in the braking department M are certainly behind AMG and S/RS.

 

Hence why I believe this thread was started:

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...79#post2348579

They have some real good guys there I know personally but the majority of them are superclueless, superbiased imbeciles.. I'll stress again not all of the members there but alot of them who are just ridiculous in there loyalty to BMW, while supercriticizing other car makes..

I'm dying to see what they say when all the Black Series AMG63 cars come out and the Normal AMG C63 arrives.

 

OK, you've lost me. I don't recall locking horns with you or being ever more spiteful each time I've engaged you since. Sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

Anyways, I value the published numbers as much as other people on this forum. But I also like to offer my (by definition, subjective) opinion. That's what forums are for. Otherwise MBW could just have a directory of every published number, and there would be no need for any member to post anything.

Lastly, I will offer my (by definition, subjective) opinion that the numbers lose some of their meaning when comparing apples to oranges. IMHO I don't think anyone except you compares a GT3 to an M6. As nice as the M6 is, that's just an affront to the GT3

PS: This is not a personal attack on you

 

I don't think so, but I'll go back and look just the same....however, basically calling me "dumb" for comparing the GT3 to the M6 didn't do much to get things off on the right foot.

I certainly don't have any issue with your posting opinions, but implying I'm stupid isn't going to get you into my Hall of Favorites....my statement about subjectivity came from your seeming to assert that your subjective opinions were concrete facts; they are not.

(sigh)...again, you are utterly ignoring the context of my remarks, and are basically acting as though I had basically started a thread to compare the two cars. Is this all that complicated? I was saying that if one was buying an M6 for track numbers, then one is an idiot, as a GT3, for only a few thousand dollars more, will utterly destroy the M6 at any track, *OR* that the Z06 will do it for thousands LESS.

And to you, my saying that the GT3, when compared to the M6, is a superior track machine and posts better numbers constitutes "an afront"? Perhaps you would prefer that I state the GT3 would lose???

And gee, a quick google search reveals that I'm not the only one to realize that a GT3 is an attractive alternate to the M6:
I agree.

I also agree with Edmunds.com, when they wrote in their M6 review:Which, on the surface, would seem to be exactly the point I was making, namely because it is exactly the same point that I was making. If track numbers are your priority, your money is better spent on the GT3 or Z06 than an M6.

As to your statement that I'm the only one comparing the two, well, even though it ignores the context of my remarks as I noted previously, I can promise you that I'm not "the only one" comparing the two:

Autocar magazine and SpeedTV compare the M6 and GT3:

German car magazine compares M6, Z06, GT3, others:

Forbesauto.com sez:
No, but essentially saying that I was "dumb" for comparing the two certainly was.

 

When did I assert my (by definition, subjective) opinions as concrete facts? Look man, at the end of the day this is just a car forum - most people aren't going to structure their posts like academic essays - people are going to be quick and to the point. Not every opinion posted here has to be prefaced by IMO, IMHO, IMNSHO, "in my opinion," "I believe/think/opine," etc.

Since you keep bringing up context, perhaps you should revisit the context yourself. Look at post 39 onwards. NOBODY brought up tracking prowess (or lack thereof) of an M6. The whole "if tracking numbers are paramount..." or "if you bought an M6 for tracking...." argument was brought up by no one other than you.

People post published numbers all the time here, including you more than most. That does not mean or imply that each respective poster bought his own car for its tracking prowess, its drag racing prowess, etc? Posting an M3's published time does not mean an M6 owner bought the 6 for tracking, just the same as posting a C55's track time does not mean a CLK55 owner bought the CLK for tracking.

People post kill stories all the time, in both AMG cars as well as non-AMG cars, SUVs, etc. Does that mean all those owners bought their cars as drag racers or street racers?

 

As for the M6 vs. GT3 comparison, perhaps you should revist the context there too. In both the C&D and Edmunds articles, the GT3 is mentioned in passing before the author basically dismisses the comparison. You should really post the entire paragraphs from those two articles instead of just ending where the google-highlighted word "GT3" comes up (or where you think it will help makes your point).

The link to the video is titled a Top Speed Test of the Porsche GT3 vs Corvette Z06 vs BMW M6 vs Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera vs McLaren SLR 722 vs RUF RT12. That's not a comparison either, unless you are suggesting that the M6 should be compared to all those cars.

Forbes - I don't really care what they have to say about cars. Do you? General (i.e. undedicated to automotive) publications are usually terrible when it comes to car reviews. IMHO, etc etc....

The speedtv.com article - they did not make the comparison by design (and source the vehicles from the manufacturers for that very purpose), as most bonafide magazines do when they organize a comparo. When they got a GT3 for review, they "by chance, had an M6 in the office." They take both cars to the Nurburgring, where unsurprisngly the GT3 rips the M6 a new one. At the end of the day, however, they did compare the M6 vs. the GT3, by chance or not, so I'll have to grant you that one

 

In my opinion, you were acting as though your opinions were concrete facts.

I am starting to get the feeling that rather than simply not reading the context of these posts, you are deliberately ignoring it in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong. I brought it up IN RESPONSE to another member asserting that AMGs would be "chasing" M cars. He wrote:

This post clearly was performance-related, and "chasing" in this context is obviously a performance statement, as is arguing that lightening the cars (which helps performance, i.e. acceleration, braking, and handling), and a manual (ditto).

So, in response to this post, I wrote:
There's your context. Again: nothing about this is difficult to comprehend, and you seem reasonably intelligent, so I can only conclude that you're being disengenous here. Track and performance numbers are *directly* related to what he wrote.

More ignoring of context. See above.

Also note that the poster in question owns an M6. I suppose that when he spent around $15,000 more to buy an M6 instead of a 650i, performance was the furthest thing from his mind, and that he instead bought this because it is a great grocery getter.

Sure, he obviously bought it to haul construction material, for a family car, to save on gasoline, to drive to Church on Sunday morning, etc.

And yet again, you deliberately ignore the context and conveniently ignore the fact that he brought up performance, and that I was replying to his post.

You somehow think that you will win an argument by trying to take what I wrote out of its context and raise all sorts of irrelevent, rhetorical questions. You won't. This is not a kill story. This is about a post I wrote in response to a member comparing the performance of M cars to that of AMG cars. Performance numbers are directly related to this topic. Wrt to drag racing numbers, I again invite you to actually read his post:

 

OK, now you're starting to cross the line into outright dishonesty. FIrstly, the articles repeat my point verbatim. If that isn't "agreeing with a point", then nothing is. Secondly, NOWHERE does the Edmunds article "dismiss the comparison" between the cars. It states the following:
They IN NO WAY dismiss or contradict their statement that the 911 Turbo and GT3 are superior performers in acceleration and handling.

As to the Car and Driver article, I find your intellectual dishonesty here to be astonishing. Firstly, article compares the M6 to the 911, the Turbo, *and* the GT3:
So, they compare the rear seat room to the 911 (as I did), the performance to the Turbo, and note that one could get a GT3 for this kind of money, the obvious implication being that the GT3 is an attractive alternate, particularly for those who are after performance.

And to claim that the author is "dismissing" the comparison is dishonest and laughable; in the first place, what he is "dismissing' is NOT the (red) statement of other guys who work for the magazine who pointed out the same thing I pointed out, that a GT3 can be purchased (therefore, it is an option) for this kind of cash; how can he? It's a fact, not an opinion!

What he is disagreeing with is the second (blue) statement, which is an OPINION, namely that the PERSONA of the car. Here's how he follows it up: This has nothing to do with the GT3 cost/alternative point and everything to do with the following one, "character" of the car. He was clearly trying to establish an opinion that HE felt the car is a good car.

And even if HIS intent was to "dismiss" the opinions of the otherS (i.e., more than one person felt this way), which it clearly wasn't, it would hardly support your weak attempt to dismiss my argument: his opinion would not change the fact that multiple persons on the road test team raised the point that one could buy a GT3 for the same money.

More outright dishonesty, no need for comment. It is becoming clear that you are one of those "never admit I'm wrong no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented" types, and so I'm disinclined to argue with you, instead letting the evidence speak for itself. Case in point" "vs" is shorthand for "versus". Versus is defined as:
A vs. B vs. C vs. D is, prima facie, a comparison of A, B, C, and D.

More deflection and evasion. YOU claimed that "I was the only one" who compared the GT3 to the M6. I presented three articles that did so. There are numerous posts on web forums as well comparing the two. Prima facie, your statement was false, and twisting and evasion won't change that.

Wow, amazing. More sub-atomic hair-splitting, followed by a grudging admission that the article was a comparison. Whether it was by chance or deliberate, the authors clearly felt that a comparison between the cars was a valid one. So you admit that your statement that I am "the only one" who compares that two cars was prima facie false, *and* that a major, respected automotive publication did just that?

 

At the end of the day, who cares about all the numbers, all the tests done from various magazines, or all the videos....it's the owner that have the last laugh. If he's happy, it's a great car!

 

+5

Besides....magazines are 65% of the time, right everytime.

 

ah my eyes the pain

 

Indeed C63 is lacking in style.

 

C63>m3

 

And C63>MZ4

Put that V8 in the MZ4 and you'll have a monster though. Then watch out because the SLK63 will then come in the mix! SLK63>V8 MZ4

 

$C63>$M3
So what do you expect? Get better value for less money? No way!

BTW keep on comparing apples and apples, no oranges.

 

Are'nt the two cars in the same class?? When did you find out the price of both V8's as well?

 

I meant some other post involving Z4M.

Actually some people can see future. But you do not need to be Nostradamus to tell that better car deserves higher $.

 

Not a single doubt, SLK63 will an exciting upgrade for C55 owners. C63 is close to a W210 weight, weight to power ratio comes down to about the same as the new M3? Locally here, annouced price of the new M3 is double the M3 E46 and close to a 911 price. (Many cancelled their M3 orders) C-class AMG were never been a too good seller in Asia anyway, so we here don't really 'compare' in details like we owners do in the forums. C63 will not be cheaper than the M3, Benz is always more pricey anyway. M3 might be doing a bit better in figures on the track, but that is probably not everyone's concern. As a daily driver, for the same money, I probably will enjoy a 5 seaters and paranomic roof than a big piece of boring carbon fibre. Now not even sure if a coupe is still a fashion if Porsche makes a Panamera? In terms of style, the 3er is always a bit too 'flashing' for Benz lovers; and like it or not, I will feel great to be seen driving a fat fenders C63. For Automatic lovers, we are still not knowing the performance differences of the M3 DSG and the new AMG 7Speed? The M3 is always a more 'prefect' car in the eyes of bimmer lovers. Paying a 911 price, I'll take the Benz because I know I can relax and have real good fun with it if I want to.

 

Car magazines are quite disappointed with C300 handling, I doubt that C63 wil make it much better. So althought C63 will win in drag, it will lose in slalom. Anyway if C63 will $10K more expensive than M3, then I'll take M3.

 

Perhaps you should actually spend a bit of time perusing the car magazines rather than basing your biased impressions upon past reviews. First, the suspension and chassis are markedly different than the C300. Secondly, according to Motor Trend (see below), the C63 will be priced about the same as (possibly less) than the M3.

Thirdly, several highly respected automotive magazines *have* tested the C63, and have heaped praise upon its handling. Conversely, the new M3 has been getting less-than-favorable reviews.

Here is some truth for you. Hopefully some of it might penetrate the roundel fog that surrounds, but I doubt it...

Autocar tests the C63:
Motor Trend tests the C63: Edmunds.com tests the C63:
Car and Driver's first drive of the C63:
Writing about the M3, Car & Driver sez:
Btw, just curious: if handling and (presumably) track numbers are what you're after, why would you buy an M3? A Z06 Corvette starts out at $70,000 and will destroy the new M3 on any given track, and acceleration isn't even in the same league.

 

Besides C and D, no other magazine that I've come across has really called the M3's handling a step up from the previous generation. The biggest problem was the weight gain, which is always a demon for handling.

The C300's review is hardly indicative of the C63 especially since the front subframe and suspension are different. It's not the same as slapping on a sport package and give it a bigger motor.

 

I'll be happy seeing C63 over handling M3 and having lower price.As an ordinary consumer I like MB over BMW. I really hope that C63 will be better from all sides, because C300/C350 are out of completion with 335.