E92 M3 raced a C63
04-27-2008, 01:01 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG
I say its possible with DCT! I mean look at M5 manual and SMG....
That doesnt bother me at all, Any C63 owner can make C63 faster with simple tweaks... AMG left alot on the table... im not so sure about M3's engine. No worries.
That doesnt bother me at all, Any C63 owner can make C63 faster with simple tweaks... AMG left alot on the table... im not so sure about M3's engine. No worries.
04-27-2008, 01:24 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cee Fiddy Five
And history has shown SMG M3's are a tough match for AMG C Class.
04-27-2008, 01:59 AM
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 CLS63
back to the original post..
who cares what somebody else posted.
Why bother posting here.??? that is my question.
a c63 lost to an M3.. big deal.. move on!
There are many excuses you can point out.
He was in C mode, he hesitated, he was in the wrong gear... he had a full tank of gas.. car was not broken in yet.. ect.. ect.
either way.. it would not matter ..its only 1 side of the story.
who cares what somebody else posted.
Why bother posting here.??? that is my question.
a c63 lost to an M3.. big deal.. move on!
There are many excuses you can point out.
He was in C mode, he hesitated, he was in the wrong gear... he had a full tank of gas.. car was not broken in yet.. ect.. ect.
either way.. it would not matter ..its only 1 side of the story.
04-27-2008, 08:01 AM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..
Same deal with the C55 and E46 M3. C55 has 376 ft-lbs of torque while the E46 has 262 ft-lbs. Easy victory for the C55 right? Wrong.
Once the M3 is in the sweet spot of the powerband it doesn't matter. The torque advantage doesn't do a damn thing from a roll. We did over 30 runs on video with my friend's M3 in late 2005 just to shut the BMW fan boys up and the runs were pretty much a toss up with the C55 barely winning most times but they were mostly a wash.
As much as I would love to see the biased M3 fan boys have their feelings hurt, the story probably is the same deal with the current M3 and C63.
04-27-2008, 08:37 AM
#30
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A peak torque at some known rpm is meaningless.
How the torque curve is mapped through the gear ratios matters a whole lot.
and
How the torque curve is mapped through the gear ratios matters a whole lot.
04-27-2008, 11:10 AM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
How much you wanna bet Mr AMG was shifting on the wheel.
I am begging you guys, DON'T SHIFT ON THE WHEEL in a drag race. AMG spends lots and lots of $$$$ in getting the exact shift points perfect. Just no way a man/woman can match that in the heat in battle.
If they were on the road racing course, that is different.
I know it looks cool, but if another one of our guys loses to an M3 and I find out he is paddle shifting so help me I'll
I am begging you guys, DON'T SHIFT ON THE WHEEL in a drag race. AMG spends lots and lots of $$$$ in getting the exact shift points perfect. Just no way a man/woman can match that in the heat in battle.
If they were on the road racing course, that is different.
I know it looks cool, but if another one of our guys loses to an M3 and I find out he is paddle shifting so help me I'll
04-27-2008, 11:12 AM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...d.php?t=127709
I don't believe it...at least I hope its not true!
I don't believe it...at least I hope its not true!
04-27-2008, 02:20 PM
#34
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
I will agree fully with RENNSTAGE with his statement that the torque figure does not matter from a roll.
Same deal with the C55 and E46 M3. C55 has 376 ft-lbs of torque while the E46 has 262 ft-lbs. Easy victory for the C55 right? Wrong.
Once the M3 is in the sweet spot of the powerband it doesn't matter. The torque advantage doesn't do a damn thing from a roll. We did over 30 runs on video with my friend's M3 in late 2005 just to shut the BMW fan boys up and the runs were pretty much a toss up with the C55 barely winning most times but they were mostly a wash.
As much as I would love to see the biased M3 fan boys have their feelings hurt, the story probably is the same deal with the current M3 and C63.
Same deal with the C55 and E46 M3. C55 has 376 ft-lbs of torque while the E46 has 262 ft-lbs. Easy victory for the C55 right? Wrong.
Once the M3 is in the sweet spot of the powerband it doesn't matter. The torque advantage doesn't do a damn thing from a roll. We did over 30 runs on video with my friend's M3 in late 2005 just to shut the BMW fan boys up and the runs were pretty much a toss up with the C55 barely winning most times but they were mostly a wash.
As much as I would love to see the biased M3 fan boys have their feelings hurt, the story probably is the same deal with the current M3 and C63.
04-27-2008, 02:42 PM
#36
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
The Australian magazine "Motor" (Apr08) has a test of M3 (6 speed), C63 (auto) and another local car.
........0-100km/h................0-400m.........................80-120km/h
M3.......5.3................13.5 @ 174.4km/h................3.1sec (2nd/3rd)
C63......5.4................13.4 @ 178.8km/h................2.9sec (D)
My 2c worth - Main reason for the C63 0-100km/h times being anywhere from 4.1 (best I've read) - 5.4, is the trouble reporters are having launching it from a standstill.
In the magazine the reporter even states "So it's (the times) close, but what the figures don't show is how damn difficult the AMG with all its low-down urge...is to launch. While to BMW could be balanced against bogging and wheel spinning thanks to a tactile throttle and linear clutch, the C63 was impossible to launch hard..."
Once the AMG is rolling though, it is quicker throughout the speed range due to its torque.
The rest of the article, the reporter did like the seats, gearbox, brakes, steering, etc and would have the C63 over the M3, it is also AUD17,000 cheaper than the M3.
........0-100km/h................0-400m.........................80-120km/h
M3.......5.3................13.5 @ 174.4km/h................3.1sec (2nd/3rd)
C63......5.4................13.4 @ 178.8km/h................2.9sec (D)
My 2c worth - Main reason for the C63 0-100km/h times being anywhere from 4.1 (best I've read) - 5.4, is the trouble reporters are having launching it from a standstill.
In the magazine the reporter even states "So it's (the times) close, but what the figures don't show is how damn difficult the AMG with all its low-down urge...is to launch. While to BMW could be balanced against bogging and wheel spinning thanks to a tactile throttle and linear clutch, the C63 was impossible to launch hard..."
Once the AMG is rolling though, it is quicker throughout the speed range due to its torque.
The rest of the article, the reporter did like the seats, gearbox, brakes, steering, etc and would have the C63 over the M3, it is also AUD17,000 cheaper than the M3.
WOW! 5.4 is really poor.
. The 335i gets results 5.5-5.7 even with automatic. No other mag shows over 4.5 sec times. Can this be even true? Im sorry but the German mags Sport auto and Auto motor und sport are very reliable. They get similar results I get myself with Performancebox or a little better. However, Carandriver times and Road and track times (c63 3.9 sec 0-60) are usually unusually good. Sometimes the car mags bend the truth a little bit to get tighter results. Like when they tested the 535d against the 545i in Sport auto mag, it was the worst result for the 545i I have ever seen. They had almost even times, but the truth is there is a difference, the v8 is faster.
04-27-2008, 02:44 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..
04-27-2008, 06:43 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
How much you wanna bet Mr AMG was shifting on the wheel.
I am begging you guys, DON'T SHIFT ON THE WHEEL in a drag race. AMG spends lots and lots of $$$$ in getting the exact shift points perfect. Just no way a man/woman can match that in the heat in battle.
If they were on the road racing course, that is different.
I know it looks cool, but if another one of our guys loses to an M3 and I find out he is paddle shifting so help me I'll
I am begging you guys, DON'T SHIFT ON THE WHEEL in a drag race. AMG spends lots and lots of $$$$ in getting the exact shift points perfect. Just no way a man/woman can match that in the heat in battle.
If they were on the road racing course, that is different.
I know it looks cool, but if another one of our guys loses to an M3 and I find out he is paddle shifting so help me I'll
04-29-2008, 03:03 AM
#41
WOW! 5.4 is really poor. . The 335i gets results 5.5-5.7 even with automatic. No other mag shows over 4.5 sec times. Can this be even true? Im sorry but the German mags Sport auto and Auto motor und sport are very reliable. They get similar results I get myself with Performancebox or a little better. However, Carandriver times and Road and track times (c63 3.9 sec 0-60) are usually unusually good. Sometimes the car mags bend the truth a little bit to get tighter results. Like when they tested the 535d against the 545i in Sport auto mag, it was the worst result for the 545i I have ever seen. They had almost even times, but the truth is there is a difference, the v8 is faster.
. The 335i gets results 5.5-5.7 even with automatic. No other mag shows over 4.5 sec times. Can this be even true? Im sorry but the German mags Sport auto and Auto motor und sport are very reliable. They get similar results I get myself with Performancebox or a little better. However, Carandriver times and Road and track times (c63 3.9 sec 0-60) are usually unusually good. Sometimes the car mags bend the truth a little bit to get tighter results. Like when they tested the 535d against the 545i in Sport auto mag, it was the worst result for the 545i I have ever seen. They had almost even times, but the truth is there is a difference, the v8 is faster.what this tells you is:
sweet F A.
it lets you compare the cars under the same conditions, that is all. same driver, weather etc. but who knows how good the driver was, etc, practice time, blah, blah blah. it is called spec sheet racing.
04-29-2008, 03:33 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 CLK350
it could be possible from a start if the M3 driver is good and the C63 driver cant find traction...............but from a roll from 55, i dont think the M3 would come close, there is a HUGE difference in torque.
04-29-2008, 06:55 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
I will agree fully with RENNSTAGE with his statement that the torque figure does not matter from a roll.
Same deal with the C55 and E46 M3. C55 has 376 ft-lbs of torque while the E46 has 262 ft-lbs. Easy victory for the C55 right? Wrong.
Once the M3 is in the sweet spot of the powerband it doesn't matter. The torque advantage doesn't do a damn thing from a roll. We did over 30 runs on video with my friend's M3 in late 2005 just to shut the BMW fan boys up and the runs were pretty much a toss up with the C55 barely winning most times but they were mostly a wash.
As much as I would love to see the biased M3 fan boys have their feelings hurt, the story probably is the same deal with the current M3 and C63.
Same deal with the C55 and E46 M3. C55 has 376 ft-lbs of torque while the E46 has 262 ft-lbs. Easy victory for the C55 right? Wrong.
Once the M3 is in the sweet spot of the powerband it doesn't matter. The torque advantage doesn't do a damn thing from a roll. We did over 30 runs on video with my friend's M3 in late 2005 just to shut the BMW fan boys up and the runs were pretty much a toss up with the C55 barely winning most times but they were mostly a wash.
As much as I would love to see the biased M3 fan boys have their feelings hurt, the story probably is the same deal with the current M3 and C63.
The modded E46 M3's I have run will get a little jump on me on a roll ,where I will then reel them in and run completely away rom them! This may also be because my car is lighter than yours but still I'm surprised at your findings.
04-29-2008, 07:52 AM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..
Yes on a roll at high speeds I am able to pull on an E46 M3 slowly but surely but not multiple car lengths on initial throttle like some cats claim they do.I'm also talking about the 6spd manual E46 M3. When I run my C55 W202 against my fully modded cammed E36 3.2l M332i my C55 would pull convincingly on it only when the M332i was reaching toward the top of third gear.It(M332i) would stay with me on a slow roll /punch throttle in first gear and 2nd gear which truly suprised me. Top of my BMW's 3rd gear it would then be all AMG. I've done the same thing to lightly modded (chipped/intake)Audi biturbo S4's.
For reference... https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/130992-video-my-c55-vs-m3-evo-9-mr.html
04-29-2008, 08:19 AM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
That's not what you said when i posted the results a while back...
Further commentary from you in response to another post thinking the C55 should do better.
For reference... https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130992
Further commentary from you in response to another post thinking the C55 should do better.
For reference... https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130992
At that point when I ran my car it also had a steady CEL due to the terrible after market exh setup I had on the car made by BMC.
My exh setup is totally different now which has made a big difference in the way he car performs now and in the two races I had against TWO modded E46M3's I raced on the same day in Mexico. I still stand by my new findings.
I also have no CEL's whatsoever.
I would also like to make reference to how Improviz's Stck CLK55 (W208) out ran the two modded E39 M5's on the runway in Texas. An E46 M3 can't touch an M5 on a roll.
PS here are the Improviz vids vs the two M5's and to me this says alot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXgg4C51cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP2dvWywZfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqodTn2L7Ao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A7kZSeF-pE
Last edited by ProjectC55; 04-29-2008 at 08:21 AM.
04-29-2008, 11:23 AM
#46
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
in defence of my fine country,
what this tells you is:
sweet F A.
it lets you compare the cars under the same conditions, that is all. same driver, weather etc. but who knows how good the driver was, etc, practice time, blah, blah blah. it is called spec sheet racing.
what this tells you is:
sweet F A.
it lets you compare the cars under the same conditions, that is all. same driver, weather etc. but who knows how good the driver was, etc, practice time, blah, blah blah. it is called spec sheet racing.
I know, but it still beats the threads: my m3 beat a c63 or vice versa. However, despite all that 5.4 is a value I can achieve with a Subaru Impreza with almost 200bhp less. Maybe the road is more slippery down under with less g-force?
04-29-2008, 11:29 AM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,725
Received 558 Likes
on
368 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
I test drove an E92 M3 last week and spoke with one of BMW's regional marketing guys, he insisted that DCT was not released yet nor would it be until the end of this year. This story wreaks of 
04-29-2008, 11:31 AM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Each forum is entitled to put up threads from their members.. and they can say whatever they feel like it.
The fact that somebody posted a thread with a run with a C63 is useless. Unless it was a video or photo or a run what was documented.
You know how many times I have read 335's with a simple piggy back beating up on E55 by car lengths?? quite few.
I just don't bring here.. I leave it alone.
again.. if this was a video, photo or documented race.. it would be a good topic.
but just a random posting.. c'mon
(Yes with DCT, the M3 will probably keep up with the C63) but yet to be tested in North American soil by a respectible magazine.
04-29-2008, 12:09 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gs 300, Rx 330
isn't the DCT option around $2700? If so, wouldn't that make a fully loaded M3 around $73,000? So then a fully loaded M3 is about $8,000 more than a loaded C63? If so, you know how fast you can make a C63 with an extra $8,000
04-29-2008, 12:10 PM
#50
Senior Member
The DCT has been out for a few weeks now on the M3 coupe. It will be available for the sedan in June. Those marketing guys are real geniuses.
