AMG C63 vs M3 DCT
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
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!!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!
#28
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Raining, WA
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 C320
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...
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...
Last edited by joebull7866; 10-16-2008 at 01:54 PM.
#29
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.
#31
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: around the world
Posts: 12,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
monowiper
as soon as the road is not straight that c63 would be in M3's rearview mirror
#32
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
#34
hmmm M3 engine has a lot of potential,
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!!
#35
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 C43 AMG. Obsidian Blk w/2 tone slvr/blk interior
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
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2000 CLK 3.2
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.
The race should have been a lot closer than that if both cars are stock.
#39
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.
#40
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
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
#41
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
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
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.
#42
The 63 has greater initial gains and the basic motor has been around in other models longer than the C63 has been for sale.
#43
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.
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.
#44
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
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
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.
Last edited by sticky2; 10-17-2008 at 01:37 AM.
#45
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.
#46
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
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
#47
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
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
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
#48
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.
#49
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
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
#50
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.
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.