So from what I see driver error, vs. modded car...nice non biased results and vid again from m5board

I wonder if they have a talent for picking bad drivers.... no offense to alex, but missing a **** is not really going to help you at all. Leave it in sport mode and down shift to the lowest gear manualy and let the car do the rest...that's if you do not lose time due to traction, if you are heavy footed. Again needs training on how not to trip ESP and kill your launches.

and as others have stated...you need a super car with 10000hp hp to pass a BMW car in that board....even a 997 TT P car got passed by a modded 335.....997TT for gods sake!!!!!!!

 

If someone would like to run without M5board bias, I picked up a DCT M3 coupe a couple weeks back and am past break in. If someone in OC with a C63 wants to meet up, I am game.

 

According to MOTORTREND First Test Results for M3 DCT and C63 AMG; it can come down to the drivers

Stats:

M3 DCT C63
Weight to power 8.9 lb/hp 8.9 lb/hp
GEAR 3.15:1/3.15:1 2.85:1/2.08:1
Curb weight 3678 lb 4004 lb
Quarter mile 12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph 12.5 sec @ 113.5 mph

By MT stats alone, C63 is .1sec faster

Most of you C63 owners make like its freakin 5 second faster due to high HP and Torque. Dont forget--its weight.

They both awesome but if I were to choose one; id pick M3 DCT...its lighter and better in curves and its only .1sec slower behind and that aint a big deal in a straight line...

 

A properly tuned C63 (tuning only) would destroy that M3 all day long--or even a tuned M3. Once the mods begin the 6.2 is a much more favorable engine to tinker with as far as gains go.

 

It's about time some one said that!! Thanks Andy

 

hmmm M3 engine has a lot of potential, it's highly detuned from factory unlike old e46 M3 engine. check out M forums for details.

as soon as the road is not straight that c63 would be in M3's rearview mirror

 

You're not pulling 65rwhp/30rwtq more out of it with just a tune Ms are quicker in the turns but the difference in power is enough to blow their doors off in the straights.

I'll run any E92 M3 at MIR on 11/15 with just tuning/filters/DRs. You can throw the offer up on the BMW boards (friendly offer of course).

We'll have our own tuned E92 results shortly.

Thanks
Andy

 

Oh oww..sounds familiar

 

Huh??!!
and the C63 doesnt? its a Detuned motor where at the M3 is a Tuned M motor. The C63 is tunable easily to over 550 horsepower.

Here is the deal. I test drove the M3, C63, RS4 and the Lexus boy toy.
The Lexus was an immediate last place. The RS4 was going out of production so I crossed that one off the list. It has alot of nice goodies though, like Cf Bits

So it came down to the M3 and the C63. This is my BMW history:
07 335i(gone), 07 Z4M(gone), 06 BMW X6 4.8is and now an 08 335i.
I test drove the M3 at least 6 times in all different trims coupe, sedan, and convertible. I drove the C63 Once. I am on first name basis with the Top BMW salesman and the Sales Manager at my dealer. I have been a member of the Mpost.com and Bimmerfest.com, and this is the truth about BMW posters.
They are the biggest group of crybabies, wannabes, Magazine racers, bench racers, pousers, liars I have ever seen. I came from the Porsche GT3 board and its a VERY mature board. I have NEVER seen anything like the BMW M3 (only)boards. When i was getting close to the M3 I asked how the MPost guys felt about the M3 brakes given they are not trackable. I caught SO MUCH CRAP it was not even funny! They were roasting the crap out of me when what I stated was a truth. All I wanted to know was what upgrade they were using to go to the track.

There were lots of guys backing me up, one guy just kept saying "so me ONE race team that uses the single piston BMW brakes for racing!"
Now I have met LOTS of M3 drivers at the track NOT ONE OF Them is like the posters. The only thing I can figure is that many of these no brain posters are the kids of the M3 owners. Really a single group of car owners
cant be THAT stupid without some kid posers being involved. They lie about any race that happened. They lie about any stat that shows the M3 is slower than a AMG a GTR a Porsche or what ever car is in question. They are in complete denial about the superiority of ANY other car and to be honest its just not fun being around these guys.
The GTR fanboise were doing a lot of hit and run when the GTR was hitting the mags and I have done alot of reading about Nissan failing with this car BUT the M3 children are over on those boards dissing the GTR too. I dont know of another group of snipers that go to other car boards just to fire off shots then leave without backing it up. I can't tell you how happy I am to have NOT purchased the M3 and ended up with a more classy car(C63) and a more classy group of owners(you all). I would have felt like a spoiled little kindergarten brat had I ended up with that car. To be honest the only reason I was getting close to the M3 was my loyalty to my dealer and the easy transactions I make with them. But when you look at it the car (M3) looks just like my wifes 335i which looks just like the 328. I have a distaste for BMW now because of this one group of owners. Its really is just a bunch of trouble makers (I am sure AGAIN that most of these guys are NOT really M3 Owners-Cant be, unless some country licenses people at 12 years old) But still they portray the M3 owners that way.
But as much as I love the X5 I am thinking of getting the AMG ML.
I still really like the wifeys 335 sedan, its loaded and nice but I have no idea whats next for her.
Porsche guys are not like this. AMG guys are not like this EVEN Corvette guys hang out on their own forum and since this M3 debacle I am gaining a new respect for the Z06 owners. Ferrari guys are not like this. I dont know of another group of insecure guys like this M3 bunch. It reminds me of Middle school
Hey they have a nice car- we didn't say it wasn't, but GEESH keep your crap to yourself. Stay on your own forum and get the hell out of our:
Porsche, AMG, GTR, Corvette, Ferrari forums!!!
Have a great weekend guys and enjoy your AMGs!!

 

oh yeah. WAY detuned... youre freaking crazy if you think that 414hp from a 4.0 liter v8 isnt really "tuned up" like the 333hp the e46 makes... or wait 103.5hp/liter VS 104.06hp/liter for the E46. oh yeah LOTS of room for improvements!!

and in case you guys didnt notice, Evosport has been tuning CLK63 BS's (do i need to mention they have the same motor and tranny?) up to 507rwhp... thats approx 640hp... thats right around the 100hp/liter mark. anything past 100hp/liter is VERY hard to acheive. thats why the S2000 still holds the record 237hp out of 2 liters... 118.5. im not saying that you cant aftermarket tune your car to that point but its hard to get motors past that point without some kind of severely expensive/not invented yet technology...

the point is that the puny 4 liter isnt going to see 500hp without FI

 

Not sure I would believe this coming from a BMW board. They are famous for sand bagging some of these races.

The race should have been a lot closer than that if both cars are stock.

 

Can we just drop this "oh the XX is faster than the XX" bull****? The M3 and the C63 are both incredible machines and just leave it at that.

 

Yooker I agree. I just wish they would stay out of our forums

 

Lets just learn to respect each other's car and stop putting each other down. If all you guys care about is straight line performance then i think you guys are shopping the wrong car when an american muscle can easily get into the 9's on the quarter mile.

 

Again I agree, there doesnt seem to be any respect for any car out of the M3 camp. If someone lined up with a Lambo and cooked an M3 they would be all over the Lambo forums showing videos of M3s wasting Gallardos.

I also agree on the track time. thats why I would like to see some laptimes instead of a 1.4 mile time. I will have my car on the racetrack and prolly never on a dragstrip

 

Paul, Dave and I discussed (brought on by your posts in here) tuning for an open track v drag strip earlier today. Dave has had both 9 second cars and driven GT3 cars, he's a very experienced and well rounded racer. Most of my background has been at the dragstrip but I've done a few OT and Auto X sessions.
Honestly there's really not a lot of differnence as far as ECU tuning goes, maybe soften up the bottom end a bit so you don't break loose coming out of a turn, but otherwise you want to make as much avg HP/TQ as you can in both apps. TCU wise you want the quickest possible up/downshifts in both cases. The cooling systems on our cars are capable of keeping temps in check as long as the car is moving, so we're not overly worried about heat either.
Obviously suspension, tire, chassis changes and most importantly the driver mod impact lap times much more significantly than extra HP, but regardless of genre of racing, with otherwise identical cars, he with the most avg HP/TQ wins.

 

C32 people said this as well vs. the E46, once the M3 gets boost, game over.

The 63 has greater initial gains and the basic motor has been around in other models longer than the C63 has been for sale.

 

Andy You have begun to make me agree with you. The point is you have what you have to test. And truthfully unless you come out here and test on my tracks that I am familiar with, laps you come up with aren't going to make me understand that much. 1/4 mile times are easy to digest.
Its just what I am used to. However if you get the chance to go to a track it would be great to see the lap time differences.
I am just going to stay with my point to be consistent. I will eagerly await to see what you do with your tunes and 1/4 mile times.

Now that we got that out of the way tell me if you can Andy what the differences are in the M3 400hp motor and the 457 hp C63 motor and which one has the most room for improvement. It seems to me the detuned AMG motor has more room than the 4 liter BMW motor.

 

Yes, at 4.0 liters the most we will see is 420 wheel. There are already strokers available putting out 540 hp, NA, from a much smaller motor than the 6.2.

And regardless, we all know the big power mods for the M3 will be boost, good luck keeping up in a C63 without adding boost to it as well.

 

Blanket statement and it can be looked at different ways. It can be argued that the BMW motor is a more sophisticated motor than the C63. It can be argued BMW pushed the envelope further and makes more efficient use of its displacement and power. It can also be argued that your statement only makes sense if the motors stay NA. In which case, a stoker 4.6 liter M3 (like Dinan or RDsport stokers) will achieve some serious HP. Once a supercharger or turbo enters the equation it comes down to who spends more money.

 

Sticky first of all let me complement you on your posts well thought out
and no bias. Its ALOT easier to have a debate when the tone is mutually nice and factual. See this is much better discourse than whats been happening before

Now you are absolutely correct on my assumption. I do assume both motors stay normally aspirated. Otherwise the numbers either way would not make sense. Youre last statement is totally true its who wants to bankrupt the other.

Coming from the GT3 world I hope both motors stay normally aspirated. Its a purer feeling and experience that way.

Again thanks

 

I prefer NA as well, unless you get caught up in big hp numbers which on the forums tends to happen.

Ideally if wanting to add power, I would love to get a stroker. I would have to sell one of my relatives into slavery, but it might be worth it.

Maybe you can make it out to California Speedway on the 1st and we can have a discussion in person

 

There's really only so much you can do with a 4.0L motor, regardless of how nice the heads/intake are, you're ultimately going to be rpm limited. We spin our NMRA Pure Street 4.6/4vs to 9700rpm shifts and 10,000rpm through the traps with steel rods (powering 3250lb cars to low tens at 130+) ported heads, aggressive aftermarket cams, basically fully built race motors. They make ~450rwhp SAE on 100 octane. The bottom line is you have to spin a small motor insanely high to make power N/A and the E92s are already going to what 9k?
I also wouldn't ever boost a 63, E46, E92, etc. Static C/R is too high unless you swap slugs, they are killer N/A motors which will naturally take to nitrous if you need more power. Personally I'm a fan of N/A.

 

Agreed, I'm a bigtime fan of N/A. That's the true test of any engine builder, what you can do with a motor N/A. Any jackass can slap a turbo/blower on a motor and make 1000HP, there are 2.3L Evo's making said power, but it takes real talent, knowledge, and skill to make N/A power.

 

Let's make it easy, stock for stock, mod for mod, the 6.2 wins. You simply can't compensate for 2.2L of displacement in this scenario since the motors are otherwise similar (V8, 4v, VVT, high static C/R, solid bottom ends and VT).
We'll be making what the 5.7L V10 strokers make (at least as much power and more tq) with H/C on a stock 6.2 bottom end. Results coming shortly.

I will agree that BMW squeezes their motors harder from the factory than MB by a longshot. That being said there's still not nearly as much left in the stock tune as there is in a 63 tune, and yes, I've seen the E92s stock cals.