MRAMG1

Hey no reason to pig out my friend

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

MikeG_C63_AMG

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.

c32AMG-DTM

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.

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.

iftwb

Wait as long as you want - I'm getting it.

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.

Yeah, definitely. If a C63 M156 had the same power as its bigger, beastier M156 found in other 63 AMGs, the C63 would beat the M3 by more than 0.1secs. As for the track, maybe, maybe not be equal - given the fact that a E92 M3 still pulls ahead on track against E63, CLK63 (Non BS), CLS63.

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.

True, very true. But you can't forget, the M3 is a 4.0L engine. So of course even with N/A tunes, it will never reach the horsepower/torque available from a 6.2L engine. There is too much of a displacement gap based on engine size difference: 'There is no replacement for displacement'.

Just to clarify a point I make, I am not a AMG hater or a M fanboy. As you can see peeps, I do and have owned cars from both brands. I love the C63 for whatever purpose(s) it serves me, but respect must be given, where respect is due ... not based on the straight-line beastiality of the AMG marque.

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.

nrgy

You could very well be right as some of what you say sounds familiar. But in the end I guess it's a moot point anyway since I agree with most of your statements I've seen enough data to convince me that regardless of PP or not, on most tracks the M3 has the advantage.

Jim Brady

Cyn,
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.

Z99

I agree here. On the tuning point, the C63 is detuned while they are ringing practically everything they can out of M3 engine. All we are doing is bringing the engine up to same specs as other AMG cars. I know driver factor is a consideration. But, I have run with multiple M3s and they have not been faster. Yes, I have tune. But, I do not consider tuning a C63 to get 100% WOT is the same as lets say putting larger turbos and more boost on a turbo car. Plus, the M3s I have run against had tune and exhaust. I just think the gap is not as big as the media says. Also, I believe the best setup for the car is the softer suspension with LSD. The PP suspension is just too stiff to put power down efficiently. Hartmut at Renntech was kind enough to spend some time with me on the phone. I called him seeking a solution for my rotor problems. 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. I have my PP struts for sale with only 1000 miles on them. The LSD is the big variable here. Did everyone notice that the new PP plus uses a different rotor design for better heat dissipation. Did AMG know something? Mine were shot after one track event.

nrgy

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.

Z99

Yes. Throttling out of fast corners, the softer set up just sticks better. The PP would do some crazy skipping. When I first installed it, I posted that it felt good. That was based on driving around town, We tend to think stiffer feels good from a handling perspective. But, does not play out that way on a track at the limit. There is a fine line between soft and hard. Those that have KWs and know what they are doing, have the ability to adjust it just right. I would just screw it up. I am on H&Rs now. Much softer then PP and much faster as well. Speaking to one of the instructors at Beaver Run, the stiffer the suspension, the stickier the tire needs to be. Maybe with R compound tires the true potential of PP would show.

nrgy

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

Z99

I posted about this. I have times for all three setups at Beaver Run. Non PP set up ran low 1.09s. PP jumped to 1.11s. H&R got me into the 1.07s. All three days were similar temperature days. Low 70s.

hhughes1

For sake of accuracy the "stock "M3 was shod with Michelin Cup competion tires for the 8:05

Z99

Those tires make a huge difference. Would love to try them on my car. But, after doing multiple tack events in the rain, I am scared to go that extreme.

soldier2304

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

PC Valkyrie

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

PC Valkyrie

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.

PC Valkyrie

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.

Kar don

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.

iftwb

Answers above.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

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.

Vic55

F'in CH always finds a way to make a solid point and .... make a solid point.

AMGC60-3

god you talk some real crapola.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

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.

AMGC60-3

Believe me MB has the capability to build a 100hp per liter motor and you would be ignorant to think they cant.Since the late 1980`s BMW and AMG MB have raced head to head in several race series and MB has kicked BMW in the arsch with their superior motors in the DTM, FIA GT race series and F1.
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)

MikeS54

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.