AMG C63 vs M3 DCT
10-17-2008, 02:01 AM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Without the revs the M3 doesn't make power for its displacement, neither do F430's, GT3's, Gallardo's, etc.
10-17-2008, 02:02 AM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Generally, yes, displacement rules.
Edit: The v10 strokers put down 560-570 wheel, lofty goal to hit.
Last edited by sticky2; 10-17-2008 at 02:04 AM.
10-17-2008, 02:10 AM
#53
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG C63
Too many unkowns if you blow an engine yourself. Extra cooling more oil
compression ratios, boost levels, Intercooler design etc tecN/A is where its at.
Sticky I can make it down to California speedway in less than 2 hours. But right now I am looking at back surgery in a month. So until thats done I probably wont be on any tracks until after the new year.
Besides stock vs stock according to fast laptimes the the AMG is a half a second faster than the BMW DCT to 100 and 1.2 seconds faster to 120
According to Car and Driver (I hate these mags) the AMG is 0-60 in 3.9 and the M3 is 4.6
IN FACT (I hate this mag too) the AMG ML is 0-60 in 4.5 and the M3 is 4.6
So the nubmers are all over the place
So until I get fixed we'll have to rely on those stupid mags. And Or those videos from the M5 board.
compression ratios, boost levels, Intercooler design etc tecN/A is where its at.
Sticky I can make it down to California speedway in less than 2 hours. But right now I am looking at back surgery in a month. So until thats done I probably wont be on any tracks until after the new year.
Besides stock vs stock according to fast laptimes the the AMG is a half a second faster than the BMW DCT to 100 and 1.2 seconds faster to 120
According to Car and Driver (I hate these mags) the AMG is 0-60 in 3.9 and the M3 is 4.6
IN FACT (I hate this mag too) the AMG ML is 0-60 in 4.5 and the M3 is 4.6
So the nubmers are all over the place
So until I get fixed we'll have to rely on those stupid mags. And Or those videos from the M5 board.
10-17-2008, 02:16 AM
#54
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
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.
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.
When it comes to N/A performance the cylinder heads will dictate potential HP in any application. Intake, cam(s), exhaust, etc. merely determine how much of that potential is reached and where it occurs rpm wise. Essentially cylinder heads are the foundations of a N/A house, without good heads or a good foundation, the house is going to suck.
I've yet to get a E92 cylinder head in my hands (just seen via pics on the net) but after thoroughly going over some 6.2 heads, they are quite sporty. The port angles are basically 45 degrees which is F1 like, you can tell they built the cars around the motors; vs Ford's Modular OHCs with much greater angles as they were designed originally as a 2v destined to fit in a variety of vehicles. Basically performance comes first with the Germans, props to them.
It appears that when we throw some aftermarket sticks atop our ported heads they'll actuate larger valves (stock are 40/33mm, Ford GT heads have 37/32mm valves). From what I've seen in pics the E92s heads are the cats *** as well, but again, they're only filling 4.0L of displacement. Even with a 4.6 stroker they just won't be capable of making the same type of power as a 6.2.
There are only so many ways to make power N/A, and neither motor falls short in any category, save the E92s displacement. Torque multiplication via gearing for the BMW and added heft for the MB is the only reason it's a somewhat close stock to stock race. Tuned vs. Tuned (coming from someone that's seen both stock cals) C63>M3, end of story.
10-17-2008, 02:17 AM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many unkowns if you blow an engine yourself. Extra cooling more oil
compression ratios, boost levels, Intercooler design etc tecN/A is where its at.
Sticky I can make it down to California speedway in less than 2 hours. But right now I am looking at back surgery in a month. So until thats done I probably wont be on any tracks until after the new year.
Besides stock vs stock according to fast laptimes the the AMG is a half a second faster than the BMW DCT to 100 and 1.2 seconds faster to 120
According to Car and Driver (I hate these mags) the AMG is 0-60 in 3.9 and the M3 is 4.6
IN FACT (I hate this mag too) the AMG ML is 0-60 in 4.5 and the M3 is 4.6
So the nubmers are all over the place
So until I get fixed we'll have to rely on those stupid mags. And Or those videos from the M5 board.
compression ratios, boost levels, Intercooler design etc tecN/A is where its at.
Sticky I can make it down to California speedway in less than 2 hours. But right now I am looking at back surgery in a month. So until thats done I probably wont be on any tracks until after the new year.
Besides stock vs stock according to fast laptimes the the AMG is a half a second faster than the BMW DCT to 100 and 1.2 seconds faster to 120
According to Car and Driver (I hate these mags) the AMG is 0-60 in 3.9 and the M3 is 4.6
IN FACT (I hate this mag too) the AMG ML is 0-60 in 4.5 and the M3 is 4.6
So the nubmers are all over the place
So until I get fixed we'll have to rely on those stupid mags. And Or those videos from the M5 board.
10-17-2008, 02:18 AM
#56
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
I've seen the numbers and they are impressive, but nothing we won't beat. TQ won't even be comparable. Keep in mind we've made 597rwhp/450rwtq from a Ford 5.4L/4v with patheticly undersquare 3.57x4.165" (stock bore .020" over and stock stroke) spinning to 8700rpm shifts and 9000rpm traps with steel rods.
Though if you really wanted to compare apples to apples, you'd have to stack a bored/stroked 6.2 up against that 5.6L. That would be UGLY.
10-17-2008, 02:18 AM
#57
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG C63
Andy I agree with you 100%
Lets look at it this way The most expensive tunes for the GT3 (very much like a BMW 4 liter 8200 RPM motor) were thousands for 17 horsepower.
Porsche just didnt leave much on the table for the turners. Its a High RPM motor that just was built out to the max by Porsche.
to do anything else with this motor required tear down and a 3.8 kit. AND 15 THOUSAND BUCKS not including labor
On the BMW you would have to decrease compression ratios slow the RPMs down. It just doesnt make sense for the cost. This motor will never put out the HP the AMG motor will Like NASCAR says "there is no replacement for displacement!:
Now look at the 911 Turbo (like the AMG motor although N/A(AMG is N/A)) Lots of room for tuners like the detuned C63 motor. Probably 100 extra HP for the best tuners.
with just little tweaks. People forget when they are saying "You aint going to get that much out of a N/A motor that is a Detuned 550 hp motor.
Lets look at it this way The most expensive tunes for the GT3 (very much like a BMW 4 liter 8200 RPM motor) were thousands for 17 horsepower.
Porsche just didnt leave much on the table for the turners. Its a High RPM motor that just was built out to the max by Porsche.
to do anything else with this motor required tear down and a 3.8 kit. AND 15 THOUSAND BUCKS not including labor
On the BMW you would have to decrease compression ratios slow the RPMs down. It just doesnt make sense for the cost. This motor will never put out the HP the AMG motor will Like NASCAR says "there is no replacement for displacement!:
Now look at the 911 Turbo (like the AMG motor although N/A(AMG is N/A)) Lots of room for tuners like the detuned C63 motor. Probably 100 extra HP for the best tuners.
with just little tweaks. People forget when they are saying "You aint going to get that much out of a N/A motor that is a Detuned 550 hp motor.
10-17-2008, 02:20 AM
#58
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Andy I agree with you 100%
Lets look at it this way The most expensive tunes for the GT3 (very much like a BMW 4 liter 8200 RPM motor) were thousands for 17 horsepower.
Porsche just didnt leave much on the table for the turners. Its a High RPM motor that just was built out to the max by Porsche.
to do anything else with this motor required tear down and a 3.8 kit. AND 15 THOUSAND BUCKS not including labor
On the BMW you would have to decrease compression ratios slow the RPMs down. It just doesnt make sense for the cost. This motor will never put out the HP the AMG motor will Like NASCAR says "there is no replacement for displacement!:
Now look at the 911 Turbo (like the AMG motor although N/A(AMG is N/A)) Lots of room for tuners like the detuned C63 motor. Probably 100 extra HP for the best tuners.
with just little tweaks. People forget when they are saying "You aint going to get that much out of a N/A motor that is a Detuned 550 hp motor.
Lets look at it this way The most expensive tunes for the GT3 (very much like a BMW 4 liter 8200 RPM motor) were thousands for 17 horsepower.
Porsche just didnt leave much on the table for the turners. Its a High RPM motor that just was built out to the max by Porsche.
to do anything else with this motor required tear down and a 3.8 kit. AND 15 THOUSAND BUCKS not including labor
On the BMW you would have to decrease compression ratios slow the RPMs down. It just doesnt make sense for the cost. This motor will never put out the HP the AMG motor will Like NASCAR says "there is no replacement for displacement!:
Now look at the 911 Turbo (like the AMG motor although N/A(AMG is N/A)) Lots of room for tuners like the detuned C63 motor. Probably 100 extra HP for the best tuners.
with just little tweaks. People forget when they are saying "You aint going to get that much out of a N/A motor that is a Detuned 550 hp motor.
10-17-2008, 02:22 AM
#59
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
10-17-2008, 02:28 AM
#60
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Although they will make more power with FI seeing such beautifully crafted and engineered N/A motors as the M series has under their hoods, with a blower/turbo slapped on seems almost sacrilege.
10-17-2008, 02:48 AM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
I don't give a damn about gearing or weight, b/c those two things will not compensate for the 100 hp difference and the 400+ tq difference!
Iron Sheik
10-17-2008, 11:48 AM
#63
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Raining, WA
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2001 C320
Not to mention the video where a STOCk M6 catches up to a stock SL 65 AMG after 120 mph and passes it like it is standing still!!
I don't give a damn about gearing or weight, b/c those two things will not compensate for the 100 hp difference and the 400+ tq difference!
Iron Sheik
I don't give a damn about gearing or weight, b/c those two things will not compensate for the 100 hp difference and the 400+ tq difference!
Iron Sheik
220 hp 145lb-ft torque 1004 lbs
10-17-2008, 03:32 PM
#65
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Personally I would've liked to have seen an evolution of the classic/timeless E46 styling instead of whatever the hell Bangle & Co brought to market in the E92. Aesthetically speaking it just doesn't do it for me, in either variant.
10-17-2008, 05:40 PM
#66
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E36 people complained about the E46 styling, it is a never ending cycle.
10-17-2008, 07:26 PM
#67
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Bangle designed the E46... considering how that has stood up since its introduction in 1999 I don't see why the E92 would be different. It is modern, muscular, yet far more refined than what he did to the 5 series.
E36 people complained about the E46 styling, it is a never ending cycle.
E36 people complained about the E46 styling, it is a never ending cycle.
Yeah it was the only car he ever got right IMO, he ****ed up all the rest. The E92 just looks weak and subtle by comparison. Obviously appearance is a subjective thing, they're just not my cup of tea.
FWIW I always liked the E36 and E46.
10-17-2008, 08:42 PM
#68
Senior Member
11-20-2008, 08:24 AM
#69
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Hello guys
I know DCT is quick but I don't believe is this quick.
It's from youtube M5board
Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRgTM4qvKM
I know DCT is quick but I don't believe is this quick.
It's from youtube M5board
Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRgTM4qvKM
, but...Road and track has just released the DCT road test and surprise, surprise:
The DCT seems to be a disappointment:
2008 BMW M3 Coupe with M-DCTList price
$57,325
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7178
0–60 mph
4.3 sec
0–100 mph
10.0 sec
0–1320 ft (1/4 mile)
12.7 sec @ 112.4 mph
Top speed
155 mph*
Braking, 60–0 mph
116 ft
Braking, 80–0 mph
205 ft
Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad)
0.93g
Speed thru 700-ft slalom
71.1 mph
Our mileage, EPA city/highway
13.1, 14/20 mpg
*Electronically limited.
6-speed:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d..._datapanel.pdf
0–60 mph
4.1 sec
0–100 mph
9.4 sec
0–1320 ft (1/4 mile)
12.5 sec @ 114.8 mph
Earlier results:
BMW M3 Limousine 6-Gang E90 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 3999 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro 4
PS - UMin 420 PS (309 kW) - 8300/min
Nm - UMin 400 Nm - 3900/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 6/manuell
Test in sport auto 04/2008
Gewicht 1648 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,3 s
BMW M3 Limousine 6-Gang E90 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 3999 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro 4
PS - UMin 420 PS (309 kW) - 8300/min
Nm - UMin 400 Nm - 3900/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 6/manuell
Test in Auto Zeitung 04/2008
Gewicht 1655 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,9 s
BMW M3 Coupé Drivelogic (DKG) E92 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 3999 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro4
PS - UMin 420 PS (309 kW) - 8300/min
Nm - UMin 400 Nm - 3900/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 7/sequentiell (Doppelkupplungsgetriebe)
Test in ams 11/2008
Gewicht 1675 (1655) kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 (4,8) s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 16,0 (16,3) s
BMW M3 Cabrio Drivelogic (DKG) E93 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 3999 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro 4
PS - UMin 420 PS (309 kW) - 8300/min
Nm - UMin 400 Nm - 3900/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 7/sequentiell (Doppelkupplungsgetriebe)
Test in auto motor und sport 18/2008
Gewicht 1839 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 19,3 s
BMW M3 Cabrio Drivelogic (DKG) E93 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 3999 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro4
PS - UMin 420 PS (309 kW) - 8300/min
Nm - UMin 400 Nm - 3900/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 7/sequentiell (Doppelkupplungsgetriebe)
Test in sport auto 06/2008
Gewicht 1870 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 18,4 s
Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG W204 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 6208 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro 4
PS - UMin 457 PS (336 kW) - 6800/min
Nm - UMin 600 Nm - 5000/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 7/Automatik
Test in sport auto 04/2008
Gewicht 1772 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,0 s
Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG W204 - 2008 (Serie)
Motorart V 8 Benziner
Hubraum 6208 ccm
Aufladung Sauger/Euro 4
PS - UMin 457 PS (336 kW) - 6800/min
Nm - UMin 600 Nm - 5000/min
Motorlage/Antrieb Frontmotor/Heck
Gänge/Schaltung 7/Automatik
Test in Auto Zeitung 04/2008
Gewicht 1820 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,3 s
Mercedes C 63 AMG T
Auto motor und sport
Beschleuningung (s)
0-80 km/h Automatik 3.3
0-100 km/h Automatik 4.4
0-120 km/h Automatik 5.9
0-130 km/h Automatik 6.6
0-160 km/h Automatik 9.5
0-180 km/h Automatik 11.8
0-200 km/h Automatik 14.5
11-22-2008, 02:03 PM
#70
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Shanghai, Long Island(NY)
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
m5board is extremely biased period
i dont own neither e46 or e92 m3s, but i love the look of e46 m3. i think it looks wayyyyyy better than e92 m3
i dont own neither e46 or e92 m3s, but i love the look of e46 m3. i think it looks wayyyyyy better than e92 m3
11-22-2008, 10:20 PM
#71
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG C63
i think it looks wayyyyyy better than e92 m3
power. Not so much. There is no replacement for displacement.
11-24-2008, 02:18 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Singapore/Central London UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 biturbo
We tried a few runs over here between a C63, E92 M3 DKG Coupe and modded 335is and the conclusion I reached was:
1) C63 is the same or faster than the modded 335s, depending on level of mods.
2) 335is were faster than the M3.
So in short, I don't see how the M3 can start pulling away from a C63 with or without an exhaust. The c63 pulls like a train above 60mph.
BTW, check out the videos of the awesome new RS6 which destroyed almost everything ... even their beloved M5!!
1) C63 is the same or faster than the modded 335s, depending on level of mods.
2) 335is were faster than the M3.
So in short, I don't see how the M3 can start pulling away from a C63 with or without an exhaust. The c63 pulls like a train above 60mph.
BTW, check out the videos of the awesome new RS6 which destroyed almost everything ... even their beloved M5!!
11-24-2008, 01:00 PM
#73
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Shanghai, Long Island(NY)
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
We tried a few runs over here between a C63, E92 M3 DKG Coupe and modded 335is and the conclusion I reached was:
1) C63 is the same or faster than the modded 335s, depending on level of mods.
2) 335is were faster than the M3.
So in short, I don't see how the M3 can start pulling away from a C63 with or without an exhaust. The c63 pulls like a train above 60mph.
BTW, check out the videos of the awesome new RS6 which destroyed almost everything ... even their beloved M5!!
1) C63 is the same or faster than the modded 335s, depending on level of mods.
2) 335is were faster than the M3.
So in short, I don't see how the M3 can start pulling away from a C63 with or without an exhaust. The c63 pulls like a train above 60mph.
BTW, check out the videos of the awesome new RS6 which destroyed almost everything ... even their beloved M5!!
so which one is faster in straight line? C63 or M5?
cuz I've seen a video claimed a c63 is faster than a new RS6 avant in straight line, and they are both stock.
07-09-2009, 01:44 PM
#75
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
Hello guys
I know DCT is quick but I don't believe is this quick.
It's from youtube M5board
Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRgTM4qvKM
I know DCT is quick but I don't believe is this quick.
It's from youtube M5board
Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRgTM4qvKM
First of all, no matter how good a exhaust system is, it can't significantly change the power of a NA car. So if the M3 DCT can do that with just a exhaust it can do something similar just stock.
The C63 is right below cars like the 911 GT3, AMG 63/65 cars, Gallardo, etc in terms of straight line performance. Basically its right below the level of supercar speed. If a stock M3 DCT can beat a stock C63 that easily (only exhausts don't mean ****), that means a M3 DCT can hang with cars like GT3, Gallardo (not the slowest versions), AMG 63/65 cars, etc and only marginally lose to cars like LP 560-4, Scuderia, and 911 Turbo which is not true.
