PC Valkyrie

This is the magazine comparison test I was waiting for. This should be from the January issue of Evo, which is not online yet. Taken from another forum, the bottom line summary is the following:

"Straight away the BMW is different to the Merc, with refreshing clarity in its steering"

"By a unanimous verdict, the M3 wins. The others are instantly more appealing; the VXR8 for its sound and oversteer availability, the C63 for its polish, ambience and monstrous pace. Yet while it takes longer to get to know the M3, when you do, it reveals a depth of ability that is more inspiring and rewarding. After a determined drive, it leaves you more satisfied, showing that really big power can only take you so far"

Overall Rating:
M3 5 stars
C63AMG 4.5 stars
VXR8 4 Stars


And here are the laptimes around their benchmark 1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome track:

Bedford Autodrome - West Circuit
1.26,6 BMW M3 (E92)
1.29,5 Mercedes C63
1.30,0 Vauxhall VXR8

Slightly damp conditions





OK, and here are the times Evo got for the E46 M3 CS, C55, and RS4 in a previous head to head comparison (on a dry track):
1.28,6 RS4
1.29,8 M3 CS (E46)
1.30,1 C55




I'm pretty disappointed with the time the C63 posted. In fact, the C63 laptime is HORRIBLE compared to the M3. It is almost 3 seconds slower than the E92 M3 when driven in the same track conditions. 3 seconds is an eternity on a short track like this. At least the C55 was within striking distance to the E46 M3, in that it was only 0.3 seconds behind in a head-to-head comparison.

Improviz

Did the article reflect the large weight difference between the two cars that we saw in the Car and Driver comparison? If the weight is still 3-400 pounds+ apart, that would, sadly, explain it.

dmzz

Wow! the lap results are surprising considering how much more power the C63 puts down. I guess all that handeling improvement is still not enough...

Improviz

I'd be willing to bet that a) big weight difference w/M3 and b) lack of limited slip (which the M3 has) are the culprits here. Not putting an LSD standard on these cars is criminal. It slows the vehicle through the corners dramatically, as with an open diff and that much torque, you can't put the power down with that much weight transfer going to the outside wheels without spinning the inside wheels, which slows you down, which gives you a nice view of the *** of the M3.

I mean, these folks at Mercedes corporate are just class-A morons. To let their flagship AMGs get demeaned like this over a part that their competition has standard (not to mention Camaro SSs, Z28s, Trans Ams, Mustangs GTs/Cobras, and the like all have as well) and which would cost them a few hundred extra to install at most is just pathetic.

Apparently, the wizards in their marketing department have not yet figured out that these track numbers play a big role in which car wins these comparos, which in turn plays a big role in which car many the people who read these comparos will buy.

Oh, well...get used to it until they wise up and start giving their cars the same traction potential as the competition.

Bilal

In the UK, with a price difference of some £700 over the M3; you'd frankly have to be an idiot not to buy the C63. Time and time again, gents, lap times only take you so far; it's the real world performance that counts.

KiwiRobbie

If you look at it another way the VRX8 is a massive bargin, plus you can buy a factory approved supercharger kit for approx £6000 (nearly all the previous model Monaro VRX's were sold in the UK with this kit) which will give you 530hp and it's still gonna be a hell of a lot cheaper than the other two and by a wide margin faster.

see test http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/...d/?&R=EPI-4469

Darren500

evo video here http://www.bimmerpages.com/forums/f2...8-m3-c63-1595/

ash-c32

yes but without an lsd your extra power is just wasted, furthermore in the uk I think the RS4 would outpace both of them on real roads.
I have just driven the new M3 and even it struggled to get its power down in a straight line (temperature was 2 deg C)

with a 3 second difference over a short circuit, there must be huge traction issues with the `63

Andy7oaks

Yeah, I noticed the roads are very slippery at the moment even though it is not particularily wet/icy/cold. they seem to a have thin rime or crust on them. I was having problems with a lowly C43 and 300bhp, so the C63 would be even trickier.

Regards

Andy

Fifth Ring

I honestly don't know how they keep ramping up the horsepower wars without moving to all wheel drive. Then again, AMGs don't even have real limited slip differential!

Bilal

Ash, to be fair, which 300hp+, (non-AWD) car can put its power down on wintry UK roads?

The C63 apparently has quite good traction:

"We’re also genuinely impressed with the way the car puts its power down so neatly. It’ll light up its rear tyres if you turn the ESP off and give it a bootful in a low gear, but with the ESP switched to sport mode the C63 is remarkably well mannered, whilst remaining sharp and pure in its handling."

From:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...63-AMG/229555/

And...

"There are no traction issues either, the C63 deploying every last scrap, the yellow ESP triangle staying resolutely unlit unless you start clomping the throttle provocatively."

From:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...s_c63_amg.html

Improviz

....if the M3 is beating it by 3 seconds a lap on a short track, it obviously has some traction issues! I mean, you can't avoid this with that much power, that much lateral grip, and that thin of a rear tire: if you transfer a large percentage of the weight to the outside of the vehicle around a turn, the inside wheel isn't pressing down onto the surface that hard. So the minute you hit that open diff with 3-400 lb-ft of torque, it's going to transfer power to the wheel with the *least* traction, which means lost time, which means M3 ahead.

All so Mercedes can save a few hundred $ a car, which most customers in this range would gladly pay for the added traction anyway.

IwantA124

Honestly this is getting old. One says the M3 is better, another says the AMG is better. MY GOD MAN. The M3 can be 10 times better than the AMG, I still wouldn't convert to BMW. Yes BMW makes an awesome product but I'm an AMG fan all the way for better or worse. This has been going on since the 190 2.3 16v and the E30 M3 came out. It's a divided market. BMW has their fans and Mercedes has theirs. This will never end. Drive what you want to drive. It's a good thing that one is better then the other, if every car was perfect what would be the point of having more than one choice?

c32used

+1

AWDman

it's not all about being able to get the traction down.....balance, ultimate grip play a big part. the c63 weight and skinnier tires are big negatives. put it to you this way- put good 245s front and 275s rears on the c63 and you may suprised...fast lap times come from higher average speeds thus high corner speeds are very important.

Improviz

Sure it is, when accelerating out of a corner! If you're having to feather the throttle while your opponent can lay it down, well, that's where three second gaps in lap time come from.

Sure, it will help, but an LSD will help even more. As long as there's a threat of that inside tire breaking loose, it will keep the car from realizing its true potential.

AWDman

yes you are correct but....another example- a c63 without lsd, but with dot compound tires - will be quite a bit faster compared to same car with lsd but on street tires. if you travel 1/3 of the circuit (the corners) 5 mph faster then you need a whopping amount of torque and power to make up in the short straights. more than the difference in power between the m3 and c63.

does anyone know what tires were on the m3 and c63? i'd venture to say- put yoke advan neova ad07 on the c63 and go back the c63 may win. but there's so many variables who cares?.......a lotus elise without lsd will eat both m3 c63 as would a old mazda miata cup car.

Improviz

Sure, and if you put a supercharger or nitrous on it, it will be faster than stock as well, but this is an apples to oranges comparison, and really isn't germaine to the point I'm trying to make.

The point I'm trying to make is that, all other factors being equal or relatively equal, the car which gets the power down better is going to be the faster car, and Mercedes greatly handicaps their cars by not equipping them with limited slip differentials as BMW does with their M cars.

To use your example, a C63 with an LSD and dot compounds would certainly be faster than a C63 with an open rear diff and dot compounds.

But unfortunately, the car magazines who perform these comparos are using stock cars, and are not running dot compound equipped C63s against stock M3s.

Yes, and a Lotus elite with LSD would eat a Lotus elite without it.

But again, the point is that the reason the M3 can pull such a big gap is primarily that LSD, and the extra weight doesn't help either...but given that the C63 has that much more horsepower and acceleration, I believe that most of it is the lack of an LSD.

And this hurts us as owners, because as long as the M3 keeps winning these comparos, they will get more favorable press, and our resale will suffer. And it pisses me off that because the ignorant bean counters at Mercedes are too dumb to realize this, it's costing us bigtime in depreciation.

Anyway, ymmv, but I fail to see how having an LSD on a car with 500+ horsepower would be a bad thing. Would it? Would it do anything other than help the vehicle's lap times?

Bilal

Gents, for what it's worth, I read that AMG's ESP programming is designed to mimic the effect of an LSD. This would explain why LSD-equipped AMG's are not that much better than stock AMG's - (see for example CLS63 030 v M5 in recent Sport Auto mag).

rguy

It's possible that the new M3 can outlap a new C63 AMG. I don't think this discussion was ever about that, but may have turned into that. It was originally about this 3 second gap. What I saw in that video was a driver overdriving the car. It looked like sloppy and slow driving. Now, the driver may have been either whiny that he/she couldn't just mash the throttle all the time, and so decided to just power oversteer every turn, or he/she was just having more fun doing that. Either way, if that was how the lap was done, then it is no wonder it was so much slower....LSD or no.

Now about the LSD. Am I the only one under the impression that AMG has left it to us and the driving experiences we are looking for? My understanding of most LSDs available for the AMGs cause a somewhat degraded everyday driving experience, while they excel at the track. The performance package, which is just one checkbox away from being assembled with your car has a stiffer suspension, ~30% Locking Differential, Alcantara steering wheel, two-piece rotors with composite rotors and hats, and a lumpier ride.

I personally don't think it is stupid to give the purchaser more choice, as long as they don't try to rape you on price. Hope you guys can settle your argument. You really seem to be in violent agreement.

c32used

The discussion to my understanding is about the C63 coming in 2nd against the new M3 on a track but honestly," who cares " what those mags say. I would buy a car mostly based on appeal and how it handles on everyday driving with comforts not what its capabillities at a track...So what if the new M3 can outlap a C63 at a track the C63 can be made better with a simple tire swoop imo.....I believe someone mentioned that this AMG C class and M3 battle have been going on for years with pretty much every model replacement. It doesn't give more sales to either maybe to the purest but like i said "who cares". So a person with a new C63 would have to worry about a new V8 M3 on the track course..what about straight awasys or even on a light on regular streets then the M3 owner has to worry right? Just buy what you prefer people and screw those reviews they get no where with alot of us.

Improviz

Ah, now this is something I'd like to see. Do you have 1) the article results, and 2) a similar article where a CLS63 without LSD but with the same tires was run? This would allow, while not a total apples to apples comparison, at least a mostly apples to apples comparison.

Bilal

Here's the link showing the AMG ESP tuning:

"If one of the drive wheels threatens to spin, specific brake pressure is applied to create the effect of a mechanical differential lock. This means that the engine power is optimally transferred to the road."

From:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070704....3-amg-revealed

Here's the CLS63 030 Test v M5:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...&highlight=amg

It has to be said; the numbers are pretty woeful considering the price and the addition of the 030 package. I don't have links to a regular CLS63 test, but the difference between the M5 pretty much says it all...

AWDman

improviz and I are debating the issue....not arguing.:-)

i took a look at speed in gears for the c63 vs the m3. the top 3 gears for c63 are overdrives and 6th and 7th for economy. the car will not pull redline (210 mph, 240 mph respectively). the m3 has a much closer gear set and ratios are evenly spaced 1st to 6th. the c63 gearset is pretty close to c32 and c55~10% 1st though 5th.

c63 torque is heading downhill fast in wide open throttle ie torque rolls of rapidly past 5000 rpm. peak torque is still 50 ft lbs more at redline vs m3 with more area under the curve. hp is down only 36 at peak for m3. m3 has slight gearing and a big weight advantage. 400+llbs according to mag tests. remember torque doesnt matter if you have gearing and the slightly superior gearing of the m3 may eradicate some of c63 hp advantage......(i'm trying to find the calculator for tire torque which would illuminating).

amg simulated lsd is a joke on track. not close to the real thing. cyncarver and smg32 should see this thread. they tracked their cars extensively and can comment the differnce from a real lsd is about 1 second. i myself ordered a quiafe, but found out that i needed axles to make it work. i may yet install it next spring as i have found axles.

does anyone know skidpad grip number for m3 vs c63? the point im trying to make is the c63, a 4000+ lb car is undertired especially when compared to 3500+ lb m3. an lsd will only go so far if you lack ultimate grip.

lotus elises do very well on track without lsd. the car doesnt have that much power and has high corner speeds and corners fairly flat. so the rear wheels are planted most the time.

Improviz

Nice to find someone who knows the difference!

Yes, true: the seven speed Benz tranny is a BIG disappointment from the performance perspective. It does help down low compared to the old one, but up high it is totally geared for mileage, whereas the Ms are geared for performance all the way--but suffer in the mileage department. There is no free lunch.

Yeah, the gearing on the Ms will definitely give them a leg up, no doubt about that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an LSD would totally eradicate the problem, but I think it would have a difference on a car with this much torque. What I'd really like to see is if that magazine has results from a non-030 equipped CLS63, on the same track....I would hope that the 030 package would be faster!

One other thing is, how good is the LSD in that 030? Giving credit where credit is due, the M-lock diffs are pretty well-done units; I wonder how the AMG diffs compare...

Ah, OK, there's what I'm looking for: some quantatative numbers! One second is quite impressive...so if we assume a similar gain for the C63, and also take into consideration that the tires on the M3 are 10mm wider front and rear, we're getting closer. Weight difference is also a big hinderance, particularly when you consider that the AMG has skinnier tires on top of that!

Absolutely. I wonder if the conservative bean counters at Benz are responsible for many of these tradeoffs (skinnier tires=less road noise, taller gears=better economy, etc.)...if so, it seems as though they lost in the ride department, as AMGs do have pretty stout rides in general.

Sure, it helps not to have 4-500 lb-ft!

I think the Ms having their torque peak higher in the rev spectrum, LSD, fatter tires, and better gearing are all stacking the deck in their favor...what I can't figure out is why Benz doesn't at least try to make the track gap narrower....three seconds a lap is pretty abysmal, frankly.