Who says M3 is faster on the track?
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
It's all good, I know that in one of these C63 posts that the LSD IS/WAS available seperatly in Europe, aka you did not have to order the whole pacakge. I am also under the impression that there is NO PP in Erurope, as all of the item are ordered ala cart.
Could be wrong, just bringing it up
![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged C63 AMG
The fact that your C63 AMG, my C63 AMG and everyone elses, didn't come with an LSD in the first place...is FAIL. It really disappoints me ... AMG can do whatever non-F/I changes, engine upgrades, drivetrain uprades down the line it wants, but for the time they both got released; the M3 wins hands down.
If you say the LSD makes a difference in bringing the C63 on level with the M3, I wonder what would happen if the M3 had a equivalent sized engine to the C63? 2.2L disadvantage were talking about here, and it still wasn't enough for C63 to pull ahead on track? Poor handling engineering? But excellent power/torque acquisition?
Do those sites I mentioned not provide enough credibility for the basis of the M3s track superiorty over the C63? If that doesn't, what does? Yours? Mine?![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
8:04 Audi R8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (07/2007)
8:05 BMW M3 E92 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2007)
8:13 Mercedes-Benz_C63 AMG Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (2/2009)
What makes it even more credible is that the same driver is driving it. And lets not forget, dear Horst is a very talented driver.
The M3 is almost one with the R8. Now even with LSD, I doubt it would 'beat' the M3, and become close to the R8. I really doubt it. Google is your friend - plenty of other tracks you can use. But we all know the Nurburgring is the ultimate test, hence why all car manufacturers use it as a supreme benchmark/stress test.![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
That is the very reason why I bought my C63. Daily driver. Highways, open roads, plenty of power and torque to use. Sure it is fun at my local track, but I still wouldn't call it track superior to the M3.
Yes, on public road it handles amazingly well. But have you brought you car to your local track, and driven it like its meant to be driven (aiming to get a solid time?). It flys everywhere, and it is definitely not planted and tamed as the M3. Hence the track times speak for themselves.
Errr, that isn't a very good reasoning. The Porsche 997 GT3 RS is a whole different level...that sentence you said is just useless because not everyone can afford cars more expensive than a C63 AMG or E9x M3.......
And for that reason, if you were to have the budget of such cars, we'd only choose cars that are in that similar price bracket or have equivalent/similar performance. Not a Porsche GT3.......
If you say the LSD makes a difference in bringing the C63 on level with the M3, I wonder what would happen if the M3 had a equivalent sized engine to the C63? 2.2L disadvantage were talking about here, and it still wasn't enough for C63 to pull ahead on track? Poor handling engineering? But excellent power/torque acquisition?
Do those sites I mentioned not provide enough credibility for the basis of the M3s track superiorty over the C63? If that doesn't, what does? Yours? Mine?
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
8:04 Audi R8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (07/2007)
8:05 BMW M3 E92 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2007)
8:13 Mercedes-Benz_C63 AMG Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (2/2009)
What makes it even more credible is that the same driver is driving it. And lets not forget, dear Horst is a very talented driver.
The M3 is almost one with the R8. Now even with LSD, I doubt it would 'beat' the M3, and become close to the R8. I really doubt it. Google is your friend - plenty of other tracks you can use. But we all know the Nurburgring is the ultimate test, hence why all car manufacturers use it as a supreme benchmark/stress test.
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
That is the very reason why I bought my C63. Daily driver. Highways, open roads, plenty of power and torque to use. Sure it is fun at my local track, but I still wouldn't call it track superior to the M3.
Yes, on public road it handles amazingly well. But have you brought you car to your local track, and driven it like its meant to be driven (aiming to get a solid time?). It flys everywhere, and it is definitely not planted and tamed as the M3. Hence the track times speak for themselves.
Errr, that isn't a very good reasoning. The Porsche 997 GT3 RS is a whole different level...that sentence you said is just useless because not everyone can afford cars more expensive than a C63 AMG or E9x M3.......
And for that reason, if you were to have the budget of such cars, we'd only choose cars that are in that similar price bracket or have equivalent/similar performance. Not a Porsche GT3.......
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
IFTWB while I am still waiting for your rebuddle to calling me out as an "M3 Hater AMG Fanboy" on the other thread I'll try to stick on topic here.
I agree with a majority of your post. The M3 on the track is always going to put down the better time (all variables equal). Just like from a dig or roll the C63 is always going to put a couple CLs on a M3 (all variables equal). However I don't agree with your argument about the displacement advantage of the C63 as it is presented. There are many engines made by various manufactures with big displacement numbers and not the big horsepower numbers. There is alot engineering that goes into the M156 which yields big horsepower numbers out of that 6.2L. Displacement is only a certian percantage of the whole product. You just can't flat out say if the M3 had 2.2L more of displacement it would be putting out the same numbers as the M156. Granted the M division are very good at building motors, there is just no solid evidence to support this argument.
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
In any event, depending on the track, a P30'd C63 is a worthy competitor to an E9x M3 - at least, likely a driver's race IMHO.
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
IFTWB while I am still waiting for your rebuddle to calling me out as an "M3 Hater AMG Fanboy" on the other thread I'll try to stick on topic here.
You just can't flat out say if the M3 had 2.2L more of displacement it would be putting out the same numbers as the M156. Granted the M division are very good at building motors, there is just no solid evidence to support this argument.
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
They don't need to and like you said, there is no solid evidence to support this because there is no 6.2L V8. But again, you and I could be arguing all day, but at the end of the day, I think we are both aware that it is not a problem at all for M to yield results similar to the 6.2L M156 V8.
After all M division is the heart engine for the Mclaren F1 (fastest N/A car for 5-7 years straight?), Ascari lineup (some of fastest cars on track), Veritas lineup and of course; M3 CSL - 262kW out of a 3.2L inline-6.
Don't forget that the M156 found in a stock, factory C63 is intentionally detuned by AMG by roughly 50 hp. To me, that's the primary reason people post "hey, slap a tune on a C63 and the E9x M3 can't touch it even with any performance mods short of a full aftermarket F/I system." EDIT: Earlyapex beat me to it. ![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
In any event, depending on the track, a P30'd C63 is a worthy competitor to an E9x M3 - at least, likely a driver's race IMHO.
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
In any event, depending on the track, a P30'd C63 is a worthy competitor to an E9x M3 - at least, likely a driver's race IMHO.
But as I said before, despite the fact that engine size and displacement ARE NOT the only variables effectively shaping the horsepower potential of the M156, it is still granted as a very prominent reason to its performance gap over the M3s 4.0L V8. 2.2L is another I-6 engine size on top - so to speak.
"And for those that talk about tuning...get over it - that is the dullest response to what can possibly be done about this comparison. If we all talk about non-factory, aftermarket tuning, it would make things a lot harder to compare."
Sorry for the dull response my point on the tuning was that you can add 70 horsepower for $1,500. How much extra power would that get you on the M-3? Most track day the particpants will have modded the cars so I think it is relavent to point out that if you show up with a tuned C63 you should not have too much trouble with the M-3's (at least I have not
).
Sorry for the dull response my point on the tuning was that you can add 70 horsepower for $1,500. How much extra power would that get you on the M-3? Most track day the particpants will have modded the cars so I think it is relavent to point out that if you show up with a tuned C63 you should not have too much trouble with the M-3's (at least I have not
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Because like Ferrari vs Lamborghini, like Ford vs Holden (in Australia), like Toyota/Lexus vs Nissan vs Honda vs Mazda, like Porsche vs Nissan (since of late), they are eternal rivals.
It is their rivalry that fuels them to produce such great cars for us to use. Ultimately, the crown has to change and each decade, one is superior to the other.
At the moment, IMO, AMG has the lead ever since the induction of M156 V8 engines and current Black Series. But before that, AMG were crapppp - nothing more than torque-brilliant, straight-line monsters.
But with BMW about to release a quicker M3 (CSL? GT4?), the F10 M5 (with 4.4L bi-turbo V8) and in due time, a better looking, quicker M6...many things will change.
We can't forget about Audi too...the Audi 5.2 FSI V10 R8 is a monster.
#30
Super Member
Hey no reason to pig out my friend![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
It's all good, I know that in one of these C63 posts that the LSD IS/WAS available seperatly in Europe, aka you did not have to order the whole pacakge. I am also under the impression that there is NO PP in Erurope, as all of the item are ordered ala cart.
Could be wrong, just bringing it up![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
It's all good, I know that in one of these C63 posts that the LSD IS/WAS available seperatly in Europe, aka you did not have to order the whole pacakge. I am also under the impression that there is NO PP in Erurope, as all of the item are ordered ala cart.
Could be wrong, just bringing it up
![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Top Gears test was a PP car and it was 4 seconds slower. The PP car look unstable ad out of control compared to the composed and fluid M3. The PP might narrow the gap but body motions are still way more crude than the M3 I think.
C63 is faster in a line and sounds far better though.
The really sad part is that an M3 rides better by far than a PP C63
C63 is faster in a line and sounds far better though.
The really sad part is that an M3 rides better by far than a PP C63
Your posts are usually right on and I know you speak with track experience. In the Top Gear test with the Audi and M3, I doubt that the C63 had the PP. The reason is, TG mention the difference in a later written road test with the PP.
In Top Gears road test which is different they refer to the PP for the .01% that want to track their cars and discribe the wicked ride.
I've driven both, and on a track like WSIR the PP would be an easy 2-3 seconds faster in my hands.
I think both cars are fantastic. But for the less than 1% of track time the cars will ever see, its a bit foolish to say one is better.
#32
"And for those that talk about tuning...get over it - that is the dullest response to what can possibly be done about this comparison. If we all talk about non-factory, aftermarket tuning, it would make things a lot harder to compare."
Sorry for the dull response my point on the tuning was that you can add 70 horsepower for $1,500. How much extra power would that get you on the M-3? Most track day the particpants will have modded the cars so I think it is relavent to point out that if you show up with a tuned C63 you should not have too much trouble with the M-3's (at least I have not
).
Sorry for the dull response my point on the tuning was that you can add 70 horsepower for $1,500. How much extra power would that get you on the M-3? Most track day the particpants will have modded the cars so I think it is relavent to point out that if you show up with a tuned C63 you should not have too much trouble with the M-3's (at least I have not
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#33
Super Member
I will get myself into trouble here. But he said that the PP suspension and rotors are just marketing. He uses the two piece rotors for show an the solid one piece for tracking. He also uses a softer setup with his coilovers versus the PP suspension. I have had both suspensions on my car and the softer setup was faster for me.
#34
Haha, I have been saying the same thing over and over whenever there's a debate over the PP. I would venture to guess that any and all noticeable gains are coming from the LSD, and not the PP suspension or 2 piece front rotors. From what I understand, the PP suspension springs are stiffer by 10% over the standard springs. From my experience, stiffer springs are not what the car needs. After comparing my KW V3s with just the stock suspension even, the slightly softer setup of my coilovers seem to stay keep the tires planted much better.
#35
Super Member
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#36
Hmm, yeah that would seem to make sense. I'm sure a lot of those properly setup track cars run a very rigid setup. But simply from what I felt and observed, the tires just seemed to skip all over the place as our cars came configured from the factory. At least I'm not going crazy and am not the only one with this point of view ![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#38
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C63 AMG(sold), 2009 CL550, 2010 S550 Majestic Black, 2010 ML550, 2006 C230, 2009 Venza
The funny thing is that they always use the COUPE M3 version vs a four door. The M3 has a 4-door right? Then why the hell not go 4-door vs 4-door.... I would love to see that
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
The evidence highly supports that the E90/E92 M3 is a faster car when it comes to laptimes around a track (and by a surprisingly significant amount in some cases). The differences are more dramatic than the laptimes differences between the old E46 M3 and W203 C55. The following are all head to head tests where laptimes were measured. It is also not entirely clear that the full Performance Package actually makes a big difference (other than make the ride a lot worse), as some journalists comment on how the ultra stiff suspension can make it harder to counter power oversteer which can easily happen in the C63.
Evo Magazine (1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome):
E90 M3: 1:26,2
C63 (with PP): 1:28,8
Driver's Republic (Silverstone GP course):
E90 M3: 2:15,5
IS-F: 2:17,2
C63 (with PP): 2:18,0
Autozeitung:
E90 M3: 1:38,7
C63 (with PP): 1:40,0
Sport Auto (Hockenheim):
E90 M3: 1:15,2
C63 (with stand alone LSD): 1:15,2
Motive Magazine:
E90 M3: 1:41,8
C63 (with stand alone LSD): 1:42,6
IS-F: 1:43,6
Motor-Australia (Wakefield Park)
E90 M3: 1:09,0
C63: 1:10,1
IS-F: 1:12,0
Motortrend (2.7 mile road course):
E90 M3: 2:34,2
C63: 2:38,6
IS-F: 2:39,0
iafrica (Kyalami):
E90 M3: 2:05,9
RS4: 2:07,5
C63: 2:08,3
Italian magazine Auto (Balocco):
E90 M3: 2:55,22
C63: 2:57,43
Top Gear:
E92 M3: 2:38,9
C63: 2:43,5
RS4: 2:43,9
Evo Magazine (1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome):
E90 M3: 1:26,2
C63 (with PP): 1:28,8
Driver's Republic (Silverstone GP course):
E90 M3: 2:15,5
IS-F: 2:17,2
C63 (with PP): 2:18,0
Autozeitung:
E90 M3: 1:38,7
C63 (with PP): 1:40,0
Sport Auto (Hockenheim):
E90 M3: 1:15,2
C63 (with stand alone LSD): 1:15,2
Motive Magazine:
E90 M3: 1:41,8
C63 (with stand alone LSD): 1:42,6
IS-F: 1:43,6
Motor-Australia (Wakefield Park)
E90 M3: 1:09,0
C63: 1:10,1
IS-F: 1:12,0
Motortrend (2.7 mile road course):
E90 M3: 2:34,2
C63: 2:38,6
IS-F: 2:39,0
iafrica (Kyalami):
E90 M3: 2:05,9
RS4: 2:07,5
C63: 2:08,3
Italian magazine Auto (Balocco):
E90 M3: 2:55,22
C63: 2:57,43
Top Gear:
E92 M3: 2:38,9
C63: 2:43,5
RS4: 2:43,9
Last edited by PC Valkyrie; 10-22-2009 at 12:12 AM.
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
And in the Sport Auto test where the C63 had the same laptime as the E90 M3 at Hockenheim, here is the breakdown of the cornering speeds and peak straightline speed down the longest straight. You can see the M3 is consistently faster around all corners, while the C63 had a significant higher top speed down the straight. In other words, they achieved the same laptime in different ways.
![](https://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7567/trackq.jpg)
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
And here is my take on things based on what I've seen at your average track day for the average non-pro driver.
I suspect that most people will be faster in a C63 than a M3 around most tracks (unless the track is VERY TIGHT with a lot of slow corners.....that is the situation where the C63 is probably at its weakest). At higher speed tracks with fast flowing sweepers, the C63 will likely shine more. And obviously, a lot of time can be made up down the straights with the C63's superior straightline acceleration.
To drive a M3 fast, you have to be skillful/confident to take the car closer to its handling limit. Compared to a C63, it will lose time in the straights, which means the driver has to make up time in the corners. Most average drivers will not be able to drive their M3 as fast as the car is capable of on your average lapping days. On the other hand, anybody with a foot can floor the car on the straights, which makes the C63 the "easier" car to drive fast for non-pro drivers on most tracks where there is any sort of straightaway.
Once you become an experienced lapper, you will probably be able to exploit the M3's superior chassis and balance and then really take it to the C63, especially on tighter tracks.
For those of us who track their cars, we all know that driver skill/courage, horsepower, and tires are probably the biggest factors in determining laptimes on your average lapping day at a track.
I suspect that most people will be faster in a C63 than a M3 around most tracks (unless the track is VERY TIGHT with a lot of slow corners.....that is the situation where the C63 is probably at its weakest). At higher speed tracks with fast flowing sweepers, the C63 will likely shine more. And obviously, a lot of time can be made up down the straights with the C63's superior straightline acceleration.
To drive a M3 fast, you have to be skillful/confident to take the car closer to its handling limit. Compared to a C63, it will lose time in the straights, which means the driver has to make up time in the corners. Most average drivers will not be able to drive their M3 as fast as the car is capable of on your average lapping days. On the other hand, anybody with a foot can floor the car on the straights, which makes the C63 the "easier" car to drive fast for non-pro drivers on most tracks where there is any sort of straightaway.
Once you become an experienced lapper, you will probably be able to exploit the M3's superior chassis and balance and then really take it to the C63, especially on tighter tracks.
For those of us who track their cars, we all know that driver skill/courage, horsepower, and tires are probably the biggest factors in determining laptimes on your average lapping day at a track.
Last edited by PC Valkyrie; 10-22-2009 at 12:08 AM.
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: GMT -8 hours
Posts: 5,640
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
Mercedes-Benz
I think PC valkyrie nailed it. Personally how fast a car goes around a certain track isn't going to sway my buying decision or how much i like the car. These are pro drivers, if you take the avg joe (aka 99% of the owners) like PC Valkyrie said the C63 will prob win because of the gobs of straight line power.
#44
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,732
Received 563 Likes
on
372 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
IFTWB while I am still waiting for your rebuddle to calling me out as an "M3 Hater AMG Fanboy" on the other thread I'll try to stick on topic here.
I agree with a majority of your post. The M3 on the track is always going to put down the better time (all variables equal). Just like from a dig or roll the C63 is always going to put a couple CLs on a M3 (all variables equal). However I don't agree with your argument about the displacement advantage of the C63 as it is presented. There are many engines made by various manufactures with big displacement numbers and not the big horsepower numbers. There is alot engineering that goes into the M156 which yields big horsepower numbers out of that 6.2L. Displacement is only a certian percantage of the whole product. You just can't flat out say if the M3 had 2.2L more of displacement it would be putting out the same numbers as the M156. Granted the M division are very good at building motors, there is just no solid evidence to support this argument.
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
This is a **** poor argument, and you spelled rebuttal wrong. The displacement advantage of the C63 is HUGE. Especially when considering that both cars are NA. For its size and displacement the M156 is not exactly a world-breaker in the specific output department. And it could DEFINITELY be argued that a motor from the ///M division of the same displacement would be putting out substantially more horsepower, due to the fact that every motor that's rolled off their assembly line for the last 8-10 years has sported 100 hp/liter. That's a lot of solid evidence.
If BMW's ///M division made a 6.2 liter motor, it would be putting out 620 horsepower, stock. That's just what they do.
#46
Administrator
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/MB/mbwambassador2.gif)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Orange County, California
Posts: 11,921
Received 796 Likes
on
495 Posts
2020 Audi R8 V10, 2016 AMG GTS, 2018 E63S Edition 1, 2018 Porsche GTS Cab, 2012 C63 BS
This is a **** poor argument, and you spelled rebuttal wrong. The displacement advantage of the C63 is HUGE. Especially when considering that both cars are NA. For its size and displacement the M156 is not exactly a world-breaker in the specific output department. And it could DEFINITELY be argued that a motor from the ///M division of the same displacement would be putting out substantially more horsepower, due to the fact that every motor that's rolled off their assembly line for the last 8-10 years has sported 100 hp/liter. That's a lot of solid evidence.
If BMW's ///M division made a 6.2 liter motor, it would be putting out 620 horsepower, stock. That's just what they do.
If BMW's ///M division made a 6.2 liter motor, it would be putting out 620 horsepower, stock. That's just what they do.
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: N.Jersey and New York, stationed in Germany
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
W164 ML500,SMART For two,1994 C280(5speed manual) 1999 C230k station wagon
This is a **** poor argument, and you spelled rebuttal wrong. The displacement advantage of the C63 is HUGE. Especially when considering that both cars are NA. For its size and displacement the M156 is not exactly a world-breaker in the specific output department. And it could DEFINITELY be argued that a motor from the ///M division of the same displacement would be putting out substantially more horsepower, due to the fact that every motor that's rolled off their assembly line for the last 8-10 years has sported 100 hp/liter. That's a lot of solid evidence.
If BMW's ///M division made a 6.2 liter motor, it would be putting out 620 horsepower, stock. That's just what they do.
If BMW's ///M division made a 6.2 liter motor, it would be putting out 620 horsepower, stock. That's just what they do.
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,732
Received 563 Likes
on
372 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
What, out of what I said, was "crapola" exactly? I make one comment as to MikeG's smarmy response where he says he's waiting for a "rebuddle" and I'm talking crap?? All I did was make corrections, to both spelling and false beliefs.
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor producing 620hp. There's just no evidence.
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor producing 620hp. There's just no evidence.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Last edited by Cylinder Head; 10-22-2009 at 03:23 PM.
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: N.Jersey and New York, stationed in Germany
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
W164 ML500,SMART For two,1994 C280(5speed manual) 1999 C230k station wagon
What, out of what I said, was "crapola" exactly? I make one comment as to MikeG's smarmy response where he says he's waiting for a "rebuddle" and I'm talking crap?? All I did was make corrections, to both spelling and false beliefs.
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor putting out 620hp. There's just no evidence.![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor putting out 620hp. There's just no evidence.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
If you lowered the C63 like it should be and put some real rubber and wheels underneath then it would be a different story on the track (my opinion)
#50
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richmond BC Canada
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C63 AMG
What, out of what I said, was "crapola" exactly? I make one comment as to MikeG's smarmy response where he says he's waiting for a "rebuddle" and I'm talking crap?? All I did was make corrections, to both spelling and false beliefs.
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor putting out 620hp. There's just no evidence.![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
BTW, here are some motor outputs from NA BMW ///M motors over the last decade:
S54- 3.2liter/343hp
S65- 4.0liter/414hp
S85- 5.0liter/500hp
So OBVIOUSLY, going by what MikeG said, there's no way BMW could put out a 6.2liter motor putting out 620hp. There's just no evidence.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Just because bmw can make 4.0 with a V8 make 100hp/L doesn't mean they can make a 6.2V8 make 100hp/L. This is because that in order to make power this efficiently the M division needs to make the engines rev higher.
Being able to rev higher means that each cylinder has to be smaller. Hence 4.0L is a V8 and 5.0L is a V10. I am sure they will be able to make an 6.2L engine at 100hp/L but it would have to be a V12.
Now what is so brilliant about the M156 is even with a high displacement of 6.2L in a V8 it can still rev to little over 7k rpm. This high reving feature makes the M156 a very track worthy engine.