Who says M3 is faster on the track?
10-22-2009, 03:39 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
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)
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)
So basically if you modified a C63, it would be faster? Once again, not stock, and very much no evidence to support it. Not to mention, lowering a car doesn't necessarily make it handle better around the track. Ever heard of suspension travel? The Caddy CTS-V has a ride height like a Jeep and it whooped all of our butts.
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.
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.
10-22-2009, 03:44 PM
#52
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
I never said they couldn't, moot point, and you're "rebuddle" has nothing to do with my "rebuddle".
So basically if you modified a C63, it would be faster? Once again, not stock, and very much no evidence to support it. Not to mention, lowering a car doesn't necessarily make it handle better around the track. Ever heard of suspension travel? The Caddy CTS-V has a ride height like a Jeep and it whooped all of our butts.
They made a 6.1 liter V12 engine put out 627 horsepower 20 years ago, I'm pretty sure they can do a little better with fewer cylinders, but with CAFE it'll never happen. Stroker M5's displace 5.7 liters and put out 640hp, BTW.
So basically if you modified a C63, it would be faster? Once again, not stock, and very much no evidence to support it. Not to mention, lowering a car doesn't necessarily make it handle better around the track. Ever heard of suspension travel? The Caddy CTS-V has a ride height like a Jeep and it whooped all of our butts.
They made a 6.1 liter V12 engine put out 627 horsepower 20 years ago, I'm pretty sure they can do a little better with fewer cylinders, but with CAFE it'll never happen. Stroker M5's displace 5.7 liters and put out 640hp, BTW.
10-22-2009, 03:52 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Actually, I have, and so have the engineers at AMG, who were responsible for setting the specs on both the "standard" and "performance package" suspensions for the C63. On the PP, which is made for the track and by many accounts "too harsh", the ride height is what it is because people smarter than you and me said so.
Now wider tires I agree with, Merc has a history of under-tiring their cars and that would have a positive effect, but it still would not be enough to pull R8 numbers on the 'Ring.
Now wider tires I agree with, Merc has a history of under-tiring their cars and that would have a positive effect, but it still would not be enough to pull R8 numbers on the 'Ring.
10-22-2009, 04:20 PM
#54
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
Actually, I have, and so have the engineers at AMG, who were responsible for setting the specs on both the "standard" and "performance package" suspensions for the C63. On the PP, which is made for the track and by many accounts "too harsh", the ride height is what it is because people smarter than you and me said so.
Now wider tires I agree with, Merc has a history of under-tiring their cars and that would have a positive effect, but it still would not be enough to pull R8 numbers on the 'Ring.
Now wider tires I agree with, Merc has a history of under-tiring their cars and that would have a positive effect, but it still would not be enough to pull R8 numbers on the 'Ring.
10-22-2009, 04:37 PM
#55
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
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.
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.
10-22-2009, 05:14 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged C63 AMG
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.
Glad to see the forum's sponsorship funds are being put to good use.
Back on topic. It seems your were basking to much in your glory of detecting my misspelling that you obviously missed my argument. The S65 and M156 are two different engines as you know and achieve there outputs differently and come from two different companies who have two different philosophies. S65 using high revs (Typical of ///M), M156 using displacement (Typical of AMG along with FI). You can't say its an advantage because the ///M engine philosophy at the time the E90/92 M3 was being designed was to produce a high revving motor with the famed 100HP/L output. The engineers over at the ///M division obviously are some of the brightest in the industry as the cars/engines they produce have won numerous comparison tests and awards. ///M and ///AMG both employ brilliant engineers and have the same monetary funds to complete R&D. Both performance divisions however don’t share the same philosophy, so they don’t have a common goal, so there isn’t an advantage. Each engine is designed differently and there are trade-offs associated with each design. However your statement is nothing more then an ASSUMPTION that they can produce a 6.2L 8400RPM Red-Line 630+HP engine which would be aligned with ///M philosophy. Maybe you can site the PRODUCTION ///M car such a motor was installed in?
10-22-2009, 05:22 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged 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 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.
I never said there is no way. In fact it be great for competition if the ///M division's next M3 used a a high displacement V8 like you said producing 100HP/L with an 8400RPM red line.
10-22-2009, 05:51 PM
#58
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 with Eurocharged tune and charcoal delete
OK, I was gonna stay out of this but now I can't resist. The 6.2 V12 that he referred to is the motor in the McLaren F1 and it's widely regarded to be the best internal combustion engine ever built for road use. One could certainly argue whether it's a "production" engine or not, but anyone who questions BMWs ability to build a 600+hp V12 that revs to 8500rpm hasn't been paying attention the last few years. Now, having said that, these are simply two entirely different cars, companies, engineering approaches, etc. and are tools for very different jobs. I've owned both and trust me the M3 is a better track car than anything AMG has ever built, including the Black Series cars. On the other hand, in my opinion, AMGs, especially the C63 and the CLK Black are better than the M3 for daily road use. It's simple....M3/BMW = high revs, low torque, manual transmission = more fun on track, better entry speed into corners, better handling, more control. C63/AMG = moderate revs (by the way, the fact it goes to 7200rpm is meaningless, it runs out of real grunt at about 6500rpm), big torque, automatic tranny = better grunt off the line, passing power regardless of gear, freeway/autobahn/commuter nirvana. I drive my C63 60 miles per day round trip commute to work on mostly unclogged freeways (thankfully against the flow of most suburban commuter traffic) and its a blast. I've often laughed at how much the enthusiast magazines, TV shows, and forums talk about track times, handling limits, power oversteer, etc. For most of us this is irrelevant and anyone who drives like Top Gear videos on the street is courting disaster. This forum is an enthusiast site and probably has more than a typical percentage of guys who track their cars, but even then I bet they are in the vast minority, and if you look at the population as a whole I have to believe very few people who own BMWs M cars, AMGs, or even Ferraris for that matter have ever even seriously thought about driving their cars on a race track. The cost of brakes, tires, maintenance, etc. makes this a pretty daunting proposition. Anyway, the difference between these two cars and their company's design philosophies is very obvious and is quite apparent after a 10 minute test drive of either. You pays your money and you takes your choice. They're both brilliant and we are lucky to own either. For my money the C63 is the better car for everyday road use and that's what I use mine for.
10-22-2009, 06:45 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged C63 AMG
OK, I was gonna stay out of this but now I can't resist. The 6.2 V12 that he referred to is the motor in the McLaren F1 and it's widely regarded to be the best internal combustion engine ever built for road use. One could certainly argue whether it's a "production" engine or not, but anyone who questions BMWs ability to build a 600+hp V12 that revs to 8500rpm hasn't been paying attention the last few years. Now, having said that, these are simply two entirely different cars, companies, engineering approaches, etc. and are tools for very different jobs. I've owned both and trust me the M3 is a better track car than anything AMG has ever built, including the Black Series cars. On the other hand, in my opinion, AMGs, especially the C63 and the CLK Black are better than the M3 for daily road use. It's simple....M3/BMW = high revs, low torque, manual transmission = more fun on track, better entry speed into corners, better handling, more control. C63/AMG = moderate revs (by the way, the fact it goes to 7200rpm is meaningless, it runs out of real grunt at about 6500rpm), big torque, automatic tranny = better grunt off the line, passing power regardless of gear, freeway/autobahn/commuter nirvana. I drive my C63 60 miles per day round trip commute to work on mostly unclogged freeways (thankfully against the flow of most suburban commuter traffic) and its a blast. I've often laughed at how much the enthusiast magazines, TV shows, and forums talk about track times, handling limits, power oversteer, etc. For most of us this is irrelevant and anyone who drives like Top Gear videos on the street is courting disaster. This forum is an enthusiast site and probably has more than a typical percentage of guys who track their cars, but even then I bet they are in the vast minority, and if you look at the population as a whole I have to believe very few people who own BMWs M cars, AMGs, or even Ferraris for that matter have ever even seriously thought about driving their cars on a race track. The cost of brakes, tires, maintenance, etc. makes this a pretty daunting proposition. Anyway, the difference between these two cars and their company's design philosophies is very obvious and is quite apparent after a 10 minute test drive of either. You pays your money and you takes your choice. They're both brilliant and we are lucky to own either. For my money the C63 is the better car for everyday road use and that's what I use mine for.
Excellent Post. I'm sure there are alot of C63 owners like myself who are former E46 M3 owners .This is my first taste of an AMG car, and God only knows if it will be my last.
BTW. Lets Go Yankees!
10-23-2009, 01:32 AM
#61
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
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)
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)
Now considering we all know that it takes more effort, research and testing/evaluation to build a FIA/DTM or F1-based engine, ultimately if what you say were true; one could assume that mastering a production car-based engine should be fairly trivial to them.
Despite the fact the M156 is a masterpiece in itself, (God I love the engine), Mercedes-Benz has actually lost a lot of recognition for its engine designing/engineering capacity over the past decade. One solid example is the International Engine of the Year Award: http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/
BMW - 47
Daimler - 6
Given the circumstances of BMWs engine engineering capacity, I'm sure they can produce the engines were expecting them to build.
I know its merely an award, but if an award is merely an award, it shouldn't be too hard to attain them, especially given the circumstances that you are able to show your full potential in building an engine that will win crowds. e.g as of late; M156. Prop to AMG for that!
As for your arguement about DTM, FIA GT Series and F1:
BMW aren't even in the current DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) because they wanted an International series, not one centralised on Germany anymore, so how can you compare the two companies? And I wouldn't be too worried about BMW in this case, more so; Audi who is kicking Benz' *** in the DTM as of late, consecutively might I add and evenly if you want to consider accumulative wins.
But for the time it was the previous DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft), the lead Benz had over BMW is sufficient enough to say that it slaughtered BMW - considering they were only a few wins more.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
As for FIA GT series, for starters: if you compare the time that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were actually in the races together, they are fairly even. Go look up the FIA races such as 1000hr races, 24hrs of Le Mans, WTC Races and WSC races. You can't count results accumatively because Mercedes-Benz has been immersed in motorsport racing a lot longer, because its an older company. So its a little unfair to count wins based on when BMW wasn't around.
IIRC, in the FIA races that had the E46 M3 GTR or 3.0 CSL or E46 M3 CSL, BMW dominated like crazy. Secondly, the most prominent FIA race going on right now would have to be the GT Championship (i.e GT3), which Benz isn't even in.
As for Formula 1, its kind of hard to conclusively compare engines based on the fact that they are all regulated by strict regulations for Formula 1. Given the fact that the engines are a control variable, wins are based more significantly over driver potential/capacity, and constructor work during the races.
3 teams have M-B engines in them, which is a solid grounding for Benz. But who wouldn't considering 2 of those teams are 2009 entrants and we're comfortable with using the engine of a 2007 team winner for driver.
Better rubber would make a HUGE differance at the ring,have you ever been their, I have and the track is about 20k long.Every person that has replaced their suspension on the C63 says that there has been a dramatic improvement, and I have had many benzes my self and all have had a dramatic improvement in handeling. I myself dont own a C63, yet but I do have well over 1000k in different C63s and felt that the suspension was to soft and not to harsh like some have said. Since AMG and MB have been together, AMG must follow certain rules and regulations along with MB politics ie smoother and softer ride,comfort. The M3 is pretty much maxed out in these departments to where the C63 has alot of room for sport improvement that can easily be made.
The 'Ring is a test of all the components of a car working together in a systematic effort. No one variable prevails over the other significantly, and you can't make up for one variable with another.
Last edited by iftwb; 10-23-2009 at 01:39 AM.
10-23-2009, 03:17 AM
#62
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
Like some people here have mentioned that track times are irrelevant to typical everyday daily driving commuters, the ability of MB AMG to build great, sophisticated engines in DTM, FIA GT and F1 is irrelevant because those engines aren't used in everyday production cars. However, their engineering capacity can be translated to everyday production cars.
Now considering we all know that it takes more effort, research and testing/evaluation to build a FIA/DTM or F1-based engine, ultimately if what you say were true; one could assume that mastering a production car-based engine should be fairly trivial to them.
Despite the fact the M156 is a masterpiece in itself, (God I love the engine), Mercedes-Benz has actually lost a lot of recognition for its engine designing/engineering capacity over the past decade. One solid example is the International Engine of the Year Award: http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/
BMW - 47
Daimler - 6
Given the circumstances of BMWs engine engineering capacity, I'm sure they can produce the engines were expecting them to build.
I know its merely an award, but if an award is merely an award, it shouldn't be too hard to attain them, especially given the circumstances that you are able to show your full potential in building an engine that will win crowds. e.g as of late; M156. Prop to AMG for that!
As for your arguement about DTM, FIA GT Series and F1:
BMW aren't even in the current DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) because they wanted an International series, not one centralised on Germany anymore, so how can you compare the two companies? And I wouldn't be too worried about BMW in this case, more so; Audi who is kicking Benz' *** in the DTM as of late, consecutively might I add and evenly if you want to consider accumulative wins.
But for the time it was the previous DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft), the lead Benz had over BMW is sufficient enough to say that it slaughtered BMW - considering they were only a few wins more.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
As for FIA GT series, for starters: if you compare the time that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were actually in the races together, they are fairly even. Go look up the FIA races such as 1000hr races, 24hrs of Le Mans, WTC Races and WSC races. You can't count results accumatively because Mercedes-Benz has been immersed in motorsport racing a lot longer, because its an older company. So its a little unfair to count wins based on when BMW wasn't around.
IIRC, in the FIA races that had the E46 M3 GTR or 3.0 CSL or E46 M3 CSL, BMW dominated like crazy. Secondly, the most prominent FIA race going on right now would have to be the GT Championship (i.e GT3), which Benz isn't even in.
As for Formula 1, its kind of hard to conclusively compare engines based on the fact that they are all regulated by strict regulations for Formula 1. Given the fact that the engines are a control variable, wins are based more significantly over driver potential/capacity, and constructor work during the races.
3 teams have M-B engines in them, which is a solid grounding for Benz. But who wouldn't considering 2 of those teams are 2009 entrants and we're comfortable with using the engine of a 2007 team winner for driver.
Rubber does make a huge difference at the Ring, but it's not the only factor/variable that accentuates the M3 to its glorious track win over the C63 AMG. If the E9x M3 was inferior to the C63 in a lot of other components, no matter how good the rubber is; it will still not prevail.
The 'Ring is a test of all the components of a car working together in a systematic effort. No one variable prevails over the other significantly, and you can't make up for one variable with another.
Now considering we all know that it takes more effort, research and testing/evaluation to build a FIA/DTM or F1-based engine, ultimately if what you say were true; one could assume that mastering a production car-based engine should be fairly trivial to them.
Despite the fact the M156 is a masterpiece in itself, (God I love the engine), Mercedes-Benz has actually lost a lot of recognition for its engine designing/engineering capacity over the past decade. One solid example is the International Engine of the Year Award: http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/
BMW - 47
Daimler - 6
Given the circumstances of BMWs engine engineering capacity, I'm sure they can produce the engines were expecting them to build.
I know its merely an award, but if an award is merely an award, it shouldn't be too hard to attain them, especially given the circumstances that you are able to show your full potential in building an engine that will win crowds. e.g as of late; M156. Prop to AMG for that!
As for your arguement about DTM, FIA GT Series and F1:
BMW aren't even in the current DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) because they wanted an International series, not one centralised on Germany anymore, so how can you compare the two companies? And I wouldn't be too worried about BMW in this case, more so; Audi who is kicking Benz' *** in the DTM as of late, consecutively might I add and evenly if you want to consider accumulative wins.
But for the time it was the previous DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft), the lead Benz had over BMW is sufficient enough to say that it slaughtered BMW - considering they were only a few wins more.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
As for FIA GT series, for starters: if you compare the time that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were actually in the races together, they are fairly even. Go look up the FIA races such as 1000hr races, 24hrs of Le Mans, WTC Races and WSC races. You can't count results accumatively because Mercedes-Benz has been immersed in motorsport racing a lot longer, because its an older company. So its a little unfair to count wins based on when BMW wasn't around.
IIRC, in the FIA races that had the E46 M3 GTR or 3.0 CSL or E46 M3 CSL, BMW dominated like crazy. Secondly, the most prominent FIA race going on right now would have to be the GT Championship (i.e GT3), which Benz isn't even in.
As for Formula 1, its kind of hard to conclusively compare engines based on the fact that they are all regulated by strict regulations for Formula 1. Given the fact that the engines are a control variable, wins are based more significantly over driver potential/capacity, and constructor work during the races.
3 teams have M-B engines in them, which is a solid grounding for Benz. But who wouldn't considering 2 of those teams are 2009 entrants and we're comfortable with using the engine of a 2007 team winner for driver.
Rubber does make a huge difference at the Ring, but it's not the only factor/variable that accentuates the M3 to its glorious track win over the C63 AMG. If the E9x M3 was inferior to the C63 in a lot of other components, no matter how good the rubber is; it will still not prevail.
The 'Ring is a test of all the components of a car working together in a systematic effort. No one variable prevails over the other significantly, and you can't make up for one variable with another.
10-23-2009, 04:11 AM
#63
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
Some DTM news
DTM 2009 season numbers;
3 of the first 5 drivers for points are MB
MB Salzgitter are in first place in team points, and 3 of the first 5 are MB teams.
The 2009 MB has the most ballast (weight rules in DTM) for the final season race at Hockeheim ring.
Season wins MB 5 Audi 4
I see that Audi is really killing them.
DTM History 1984-2009
Most driver wins: The first three drivers are MB, Bernd Scheinder 1st and Klaus Ludwig 2nd.
Most driver points: The first four are MB.
Company wins: MB 147 (1st place), BMW 50 (2nd place), Audi 48 (3rd place)
DTM 2009 season numbers;
3 of the first 5 drivers for points are MB
MB Salzgitter are in first place in team points, and 3 of the first 5 are MB teams.
The 2009 MB has the most ballast (weight rules in DTM) for the final season race at Hockeheim ring.
Season wins MB 5 Audi 4
I see that Audi is really killing them.
DTM History 1984-2009
Most driver wins: The first three drivers are MB, Bernd Scheinder 1st and Klaus Ludwig 2nd.
Most driver points: The first four are MB.
Company wins: MB 147 (1st place), BMW 50 (2nd place), Audi 48 (3rd place)
10-23-2009, 08:50 AM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Like some people here have mentioned that track times are irrelevant to typical everyday daily driving commuters, the ability of MB AMG to build great, sophisticated engines in DTM, FIA GT and F1 is irrelevant because those engines aren't used in everyday production cars. However, their engineering capacity can be translated to everyday production cars.
Now considering we all know that it takes more effort, research and testing/evaluation to build a FIA/DTM or F1-based engine, ultimately if what you say were true; one could assume that mastering a production car-based engine should be fairly trivial to them.
Despite the fact the M156 is a masterpiece in itself, (God I love the engine), Mercedes-Benz has actually lost a lot of recognition for its engine designing/engineering capacity over the past decade. One solid example is the International Engine of the Year Award: http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/
BMW - 47
Daimler - 6
Given the circumstances of BMWs engine engineering capacity, I'm sure they can produce the engines were expecting them to build.
I know its merely an award, but if an award is merely an award, it shouldn't be too hard to attain them, especially given the circumstances that you are able to show your full potential in building an engine that will win crowds. e.g as of late; M156. Prop to AMG for that!
As for your arguement about DTM, FIA GT Series and F1:
BMW aren't even in the current DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) because they wanted an International series, not one centralised on Germany anymore, so how can you compare the two companies? And I wouldn't be too worried about BMW in this case, more so; Audi who is kicking Benz' *** in the DTM as of late, consecutively might I add and evenly if you want to consider accumulative wins.
But for the time it was the previous DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft), the lead Benz had over BMW is sufficient enough to say that it slaughtered BMW - considering they were only a few wins more.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
As for FIA GT series, for starters: if you compare the time that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were actually in the races together, they are fairly even. Go look up the FIA races such as 1000hr races, 24hrs of Le Mans, WTC Races and WSC races. You can't count results accumatively because Mercedes-Benz has been immersed in motorsport racing a lot longer, because its an older company. So its a little unfair to count wins based on when BMW wasn't around.
IIRC, in the FIA races that had the E46 M3 GTR or 3.0 CSL or E46 M3 CSL, BMW dominated like crazy. Secondly, the most prominent FIA race going on right now would have to be the GT Championship (i.e GT3), which Benz isn't even in.
As for Formula 1, its kind of hard to conclusively compare engines based on the fact that they are all regulated by strict regulations for Formula 1. Given the fact that the engines are a control variable, wins are based more significantly over driver potential/capacity, and constructor work during the races.
3 teams have M-B engines in them, which is a solid grounding for Benz. But who wouldn't considering 2 of those teams are 2009 entrants and we're comfortable with using the engine of a 2007 team winner for driver.
Rubber does make a huge difference at the Ring, but it's not the only factor/variable that accentuates the M3 to its glorious track win over the C63 AMG. If the E9x M3 was inferior to the C63 in a lot of other components, no matter how good the rubber is; it will still not prevail.
The 'Ring is a test of all the components of a car working together in a systematic effort. No one variable prevails over the other significantly, and you can't make up for one variable with another.
Now considering we all know that it takes more effort, research and testing/evaluation to build a FIA/DTM or F1-based engine, ultimately if what you say were true; one could assume that mastering a production car-based engine should be fairly trivial to them.
Despite the fact the M156 is a masterpiece in itself, (God I love the engine), Mercedes-Benz has actually lost a lot of recognition for its engine designing/engineering capacity over the past decade. One solid example is the International Engine of the Year Award: http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/
BMW - 47
Daimler - 6
Given the circumstances of BMWs engine engineering capacity, I'm sure they can produce the engines were expecting them to build.
I know its merely an award, but if an award is merely an award, it shouldn't be too hard to attain them, especially given the circumstances that you are able to show your full potential in building an engine that will win crowds. e.g as of late; M156. Prop to AMG for that!
As for your arguement about DTM, FIA GT Series and F1:
BMW aren't even in the current DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters) because they wanted an International series, not one centralised on Germany anymore, so how can you compare the two companies? And I wouldn't be too worried about BMW in this case, more so; Audi who is kicking Benz' *** in the DTM as of late, consecutively might I add and evenly if you want to consider accumulative wins.
But for the time it was the previous DTM (Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft), the lead Benz had over BMW is sufficient enough to say that it slaughtered BMW - considering they were only a few wins more.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
As for FIA GT series, for starters: if you compare the time that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were actually in the races together, they are fairly even. Go look up the FIA races such as 1000hr races, 24hrs of Le Mans, WTC Races and WSC races. You can't count results accumatively because Mercedes-Benz has been immersed in motorsport racing a lot longer, because its an older company. So its a little unfair to count wins based on when BMW wasn't around.
IIRC, in the FIA races that had the E46 M3 GTR or 3.0 CSL or E46 M3 CSL, BMW dominated like crazy. Secondly, the most prominent FIA race going on right now would have to be the GT Championship (i.e GT3), which Benz isn't even in.
As for Formula 1, its kind of hard to conclusively compare engines based on the fact that they are all regulated by strict regulations for Formula 1. Given the fact that the engines are a control variable, wins are based more significantly over driver potential/capacity, and constructor work during the races.
3 teams have M-B engines in them, which is a solid grounding for Benz. But who wouldn't considering 2 of those teams are 2009 entrants and we're comfortable with using the engine of a 2007 team winner for driver.
Rubber does make a huge difference at the Ring, but it's not the only factor/variable that accentuates the M3 to its glorious track win over the C63 AMG. If the E9x M3 was inferior to the C63 in a lot of other components, no matter how good the rubber is; it will still not prevail.
The 'Ring is a test of all the components of a car working together in a systematic effort. No one variable prevails over the other significantly, and you can't make up for one variable with another.
Bravissimo. Now THAT is somebody doing their homework. AMGC60-3 continues to argue for DTM even though BMW isn't even in the series.
Great post by Palladin as well, exactly what I was talking about.
10-23-2009, 09:25 AM
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Some DTM news
DTM 2009 season numbers;
3 of the first 5 drivers for points are MB
MB Salzgitter are in first place in team points, and 3 of the first 5 are MB teams.
The 2009 MB has the most ballast (weight rules in DTM) for the final season race at Hockeheim ring.
Season wins MB 5 Audi 4
I see that Audi is really killing them.
DTM History 1984-2009
Most driver wins: The first three drivers are MB, Bernd Scheinder 1st and Klaus Ludwig 2nd.
Most driver points: The first four are MB.
Company wins: MB 147 (1st place), BMW 50 (2nd place), Audi 48 (3rd place)
DTM 2009 season numbers;
3 of the first 5 drivers for points are MB
MB Salzgitter are in first place in team points, and 3 of the first 5 are MB teams.
The 2009 MB has the most ballast (weight rules in DTM) for the final season race at Hockeheim ring.
Season wins MB 5 Audi 4
I see that Audi is really killing them.
DTM History 1984-2009
Most driver wins: The first three drivers are MB, Bernd Scheinder 1st and Klaus Ludwig 2nd.
Most driver points: The first four are MB.
Company wins: MB 147 (1st place), BMW 50 (2nd place), Audi 48 (3rd place)
Posting wins from 1984 ... which is the dawn of DTM (mind you Meisterschaft, not Masters) right to 2009 is not very accurate information comparing the manufacturers. Why?
How about I teach you a little timeline about DTM - its not hard to search:
1984 to 1996 - Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft
1997 to 1999 - International Touring Car Championship - Not HELD!
2000 to 2009 - Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters
Sources:
- http://www.autoevolution.com/sport/dtm/history/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch..._Meisterschaft
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch...nwagen_Masters
1. Now let us concentrate on Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft (1984 - 1996) because it is this race series that is valid for comparative reasons between BMW and M-Benz.
Keep in mind, BMW AND Audi left DTM in 1993. That is, 1993 was their last year of racing in the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft due to new class regulations on their cars.
So let us compare the years that BMW and Mercedes-Benz are actually racing eachother. So that narrows results down to 1984 to 1993. If you add up the number of times each team scores a position from 1st to 3rd, they are dead even with 9 forms of wins. If you want to calculate wins based on coming first only: BMW scores 3 first places vs. Benz scoring 1 first place.
2. Now lets us concentrate on the new, revised Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, what we know made AMG relatively famous. DTM (Masters) emerged in 2000 (The new Millenium) and it was the dawn of new DTM style racing and new regulations and unfortunately, less teams - but it still saw Audi coming back into the DTM.
Now lets look over the wins from 2000 to 2008, because they have been finished and finalized, irregardless of current standings of 2009 season. 4 wins for 4 wins. But when I said 'Audi is kicking Benz' *** as of late' - the statement stands correct. Two consecutive wins, is still two consecutive wins. Benz had it before, but the emphasis on the words as of late accentuates the fact that recently Audi is winning.
If you want to say something like this:
Originally Posted by AMGC60-3
I really think you need to read again the past performance and put some more thought to it.
Last edited by iftwb; 10-23-2009 at 09:30 AM.
10-23-2009, 09:38 AM
#66
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Now let me again make this very clear...
I am not bashing at Mercedes-Benz Motosport accomplishment. They have been long into the sport, very successful at it against those that are comparable and have been in the industry as long as them.
I drive one myself, and I drive one proudly. We all have a fan boy of something in each of us, but don't go talking up a car manufacturer like its the next best thing to electricity, because no manufacturer holds the crown forever; even if they were the first car makers.
I just find it ironic that despite how successful they are in Motosport racing, AMG vehicles are seen as nothing more than straight-line monsters. They still haven't accomplished that sport, track prospect behind them like Porsche have.
This is where I argue for the E9x M3. Not for BMW ... the M3 - which is the focal argument in this thread. It is a legacy like a Porsche bounded to its track. It's a racing legacy just like how the Gullwing has now been revitalized by AMG as the SLS; as a Benz icon in automotive architectural design.
Like how BMW just came to the Motosport scene (so to speak) as a fresh kid to the scene, the C63 AMG is the first car to actually have a chance at getting to the M3. The release of the E46 M3 was just a simply a brutal killing for Mercedes-Benz - one of the most brutal killings for any rival comparison. They didn't stand a chance of what came out of that car: let's recall the E46 M3 CSL, E46 M3 GTR and of course, we can't forget that this very platform is the platform for the 7:50 and 7:22 times (clarification please?) for the CSL and CSL 'LOADED' cars on the Nurburgring.
Even till this day, a SL63 AMG Black Series still fails to beat the time that Horst van Saurma set for Sports Auto in the CSL. They can throw the best rubber on there if they want ... but at the end of the day ... that time is still there. Don't even start to put the 'LOADED' tuning company's version of the CSL into the equation.
I am not bashing at Mercedes-Benz Motosport accomplishment. They have been long into the sport, very successful at it against those that are comparable and have been in the industry as long as them.
I drive one myself, and I drive one proudly. We all have a fan boy of something in each of us, but don't go talking up a car manufacturer like its the next best thing to electricity, because no manufacturer holds the crown forever; even if they were the first car makers.
I just find it ironic that despite how successful they are in Motosport racing, AMG vehicles are seen as nothing more than straight-line monsters. They still haven't accomplished that sport, track prospect behind them like Porsche have.
This is where I argue for the E9x M3. Not for BMW ... the M3 - which is the focal argument in this thread. It is a legacy like a Porsche bounded to its track. It's a racing legacy just like how the Gullwing has now been revitalized by AMG as the SLS; as a Benz icon in automotive architectural design.
Like how BMW just came to the Motosport scene (so to speak) as a fresh kid to the scene, the C63 AMG is the first car to actually have a chance at getting to the M3. The release of the E46 M3 was just a simply a brutal killing for Mercedes-Benz - one of the most brutal killings for any rival comparison. They didn't stand a chance of what came out of that car: let's recall the E46 M3 CSL, E46 M3 GTR and of course, we can't forget that this very platform is the platform for the 7:50 and 7:22 times (clarification please?) for the CSL and CSL 'LOADED' cars on the Nurburgring.
Even till this day, a SL63 AMG Black Series still fails to beat the time that Horst van Saurma set for Sports Auto in the CSL. They can throw the best rubber on there if they want ... but at the end of the day ... that time is still there. Don't even start to put the 'LOADED' tuning company's version of the CSL into the equation.
Last edited by iftwb; 10-23-2009 at 09:42 AM.
10-23-2009, 12:46 PM
#67
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
Now let me again make this very clear...
I am not bashing at Mercedes-Benz Motosport accomplishment. They have been long into the sport, very successful at it against those that are comparable and have been in the industry as long as them.
I drive one myself, and I drive one proudly. We all have a fan boy of something in each of us, but don't go talking up a car manufacturer like its the next best thing to electricity, because no manufacturer holds the crown forever; even if they were the first car makers.
I just find it ironic that despite how successful they are in Motosport racing, AMG vehicles are seen as nothing more than straight-line monsters. They still haven't accomplished that sport, track prospect behind them like Porsche have.
This is where I argue for the E9x M3. Not for BMW ... the M3 - which is the focal argument in this thread. It is a legacy like a Porsche bounded to its track. It's a racing legacy just like how the Gullwing has now been revitalized by AMG as the SLS; as a Benz icon in automotive architectural design.
Like how BMW just came to the Motosport scene (so to speak) as a fresh kid to the scene, the C63 AMG is the first car to actually have a chance at getting to the M3. The release of the E46 M3 was just a simply a brutal killing for Mercedes-Benz - one of the most brutal killings for any rival comparison. They didn't stand a chance of what came out of that car: let's recall the E46 M3 CSL, E46 M3 GTR and of course, we can't forget that this very platform is the platform for the 7:50 and 7:22 times (clarification please?) for the CSL and CSL 'LOADED' cars on the Nurburgring.
Even till this day, a SL63 AMG Black Series still fails to beat the time that Horst van Saurma set for Sports Auto in the CSL. They can throw the best rubber on there if they want ... but at the end of the day ... that time is still there. Don't even start to put the 'LOADED' tuning company's version of the CSL into the equation.
I am not bashing at Mercedes-Benz Motosport accomplishment. They have been long into the sport, very successful at it against those that are comparable and have been in the industry as long as them.
I drive one myself, and I drive one proudly. We all have a fan boy of something in each of us, but don't go talking up a car manufacturer like its the next best thing to electricity, because no manufacturer holds the crown forever; even if they were the first car makers.
I just find it ironic that despite how successful they are in Motosport racing, AMG vehicles are seen as nothing more than straight-line monsters. They still haven't accomplished that sport, track prospect behind them like Porsche have.
This is where I argue for the E9x M3. Not for BMW ... the M3 - which is the focal argument in this thread. It is a legacy like a Porsche bounded to its track. It's a racing legacy just like how the Gullwing has now been revitalized by AMG as the SLS; as a Benz icon in automotive architectural design.
Like how BMW just came to the Motosport scene (so to speak) as a fresh kid to the scene, the C63 AMG is the first car to actually have a chance at getting to the M3. The release of the E46 M3 was just a simply a brutal killing for Mercedes-Benz - one of the most brutal killings for any rival comparison. They didn't stand a chance of what came out of that car: let's recall the E46 M3 CSL, E46 M3 GTR and of course, we can't forget that this very platform is the platform for the 7:50 and 7:22 times (clarification please?) for the CSL and CSL 'LOADED' cars on the Nurburgring.
Even till this day, a SL63 AMG Black Series still fails to beat the time that Horst van Saurma set for Sports Auto in the CSL. They can throw the best rubber on there if they want ... but at the end of the day ... that time is still there. Don't even start to put the 'LOADED' tuning company's version of the CSL into the equation.
10-23-2009, 01:20 PM
#68
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
There are 7 AMG MB powered cars with faster times than your CSL 7.50 time. Can you find them all. Dont forget BMW was in the old DTM 4 years prior to MB, I know you forgot that part. Oh and BMW is leaving F1 because of the embarrassment up top that they cant compete.
10-23-2009, 03:51 PM
#69
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Well, if you want talk about other AMG/M powered cars, the Ascari A10 (BMW M Powered) is actually quicker around the track than any Pagani car. It is due for a run on the Ring' very soon, but for a track where they have been compared ... that being Top Gear UKs Power Lap, Ascari A10 pulled out harder and quicker.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_L...ar)#Power_Laps
1:17.3 - Ascari A10
1:17.8 - Pagani Zonda F Roadster
----------------------------------------------------
As for the Ring itself and actual BMW vs Benz cars:
Source: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
7:11* -- 172.07 km/h - McLaren F1 #LMXP1 (Promotional Car), Mika Hakkinen, www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html
7:22.1* 169.74 km/h - Schubert BMW 320d VLN SP10, 260 PS (sport auto 11/08) *race car
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h - Loaded BMW M3 CSL, 532.7 PS/1427 kg, Richard Goransson (nov,15 07) www.loaded.se/sd_page/29/1/index.php?
7:24.65 168.40 km/h - Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, 641 PS/1230 kg, Marc Bassenq (evo #123) www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=true&bottom=120&gID=0&fID=2&tID =164756
7:32* -- 164.07 km/h - Pagani Zonda F, 650 PS/1230 kg (*mfr.) www.pagani-automobili.de/pagani-zonda-r.htm) www.autodrome-cannes.com/index-eng.asp
7:38* -- 161.63 km/h - Mercedes SLR 722 GT, *company test driver Chris Goodwin www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/auto_-_produkte/hxcms_article_507671_13987.hbs
----------------------------------------------------
No point arguing with a person with a username 'AMGC60-3'.
The name says it all... It would be like converting a Muslim to a Christian....
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_L...ar)#Power_Laps
1:17.3 - Ascari A10
1:17.8 - Pagani Zonda F Roadster
----------------------------------------------------
As for the Ring itself and actual BMW vs Benz cars:
Source: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y
7:11* -- 172.07 km/h - McLaren F1 #LMXP1 (Promotional Car), Mika Hakkinen, www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html
7:22.1* 169.74 km/h - Schubert BMW 320d VLN SP10, 260 PS (sport auto 11/08) *race car
7:22.9 - 169.07 km/h - Loaded BMW M3 CSL, 532.7 PS/1427 kg, Richard Goransson (nov,15 07) www.loaded.se/sd_page/29/1/index.php?
7:24.65 168.40 km/h - Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, 641 PS/1230 kg, Marc Bassenq (evo #123) www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=true&bottom=120&gID=0&fID=2&tID =164756
7:32* -- 164.07 km/h - Pagani Zonda F, 650 PS/1230 kg (*mfr.) www.pagani-automobili.de/pagani-zonda-r.htm) www.autodrome-cannes.com/index-eng.asp
7:38* -- 161.63 km/h - Mercedes SLR 722 GT, *company test driver Chris Goodwin www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/auto_-_produkte/hxcms_article_507671_13987.hbs
----------------------------------------------------
No point arguing with a person with a username 'AMGC60-3'.
The name says it all... It would be like converting a Muslim to a Christian....
10-23-2009, 03:59 PM
#70
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
At least I've driven and owned other vehicles from other manufacturers to respect other companies too... 
But I guess if all things must go in favor of the company that BOTH your cars belong to, than I guess...by all means... Mercedes-Benz is the best in your view. 
It doesn't look like you even own a C63? You own two C-classes, but no AMG. I bet you stick AMG on your car don't you...
But I guess if all things must go in favor of the company that BOTH your cars belong to, than I guess...by all means... Mercedes-Benz is the best in your view. It doesn't look like you even own a C63? You own two C-classes, but no AMG. I bet you stick AMG on your car don't you...
10-23-2009, 04:11 PM
#71
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
At least I've driven and owned other vehicles from other manufacturers to respect other companies too... But I guess if all things must go in favor of the company that BOTH your cars belong to, than I guess...by all means... Mercedes-Benz is the best in your view.
It doesn't look like you even own a C63? You own two C-classes, but no AMG. I bet you stick AMG on your car don't you...
But I guess if all things must go in favor of the company that BOTH your cars belong to, than I guess...by all means... Mercedes-Benz is the best in your view. It doesn't look like you even own a C63? You own two C-classes, but no AMG. I bet you stick AMG on your car don't you...
10-23-2009, 04:21 PM
#72
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Of course you don't AMGC60-3...of course you don't. What was I thinking?
Extracted from Got a run with 2 x F430...
You're 48, driven 7 MBs in your lifetime and two are current ones till you order your C63. That says it all....
Extracted from Got a run with 2 x F430...
Originally Posted by AMGC60-3
Listen you little a$$ clown. I have had 7 MB,s in my lifetime and dont feel that I need to list what I have had. I have driven a Benz since 1987. I have enough in savings to buy a C63 cash, but its not time and I am waiting.
10-23-2009, 04:45 PM
#73
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 C63 with Eurocharged tune and charcoal delete
You guys are a freaking riot !!!! Ironically, if you read most of the posts in this thread many of us (who are in fact C63 owners and have also owned many other great cars including M3s, Audis, and Porsches, etc.) are just fine with conceding the point that M3s and maybe even RS4s are better track cars than our beloved C63. So is a Lotus Elise for that matter, but I don't really care, since I can't fit my big American *** into one and I don't ever drive on a race track (much less the waaaaay overhyped and overdiscussed Nurburgring lap times), unless you count US-59 South at rush hour as a race, which by the way I routinely take the checkered flag for. 
All these debates about lap times are so academic for road cars. It seems that most of the guys here understand where our cars fit into the pecking order and are just fine with that. Anybody who bashes BMW, Audi, or Porsche to justify their current ride is very much missing the point. At one time or another each of these great and famous companies has dominated their chosen form of racing. And while we are talking about how wonderful and glorious Benz's racing and engineering history is let's not forget about the 1999 LeMans event where Mercedes had trouble keeping their cars from flying over the fences and into the trees. Every company has their share of wins and losses. Let's at lest try to keep reality in perspective in these discussions.
All these debates about lap times are so academic for road cars. It seems that most of the guys here understand where our cars fit into the pecking order and are just fine with that. Anybody who bashes BMW, Audi, or Porsche to justify their current ride is very much missing the point. At one time or another each of these great and famous companies has dominated their chosen form of racing. And while we are talking about how wonderful and glorious Benz's racing and engineering history is let's not forget about the 1999 LeMans event where Mercedes had trouble keeping their cars from flying over the fences and into the trees. Every company has their share of wins and losses. Let's at lest try to keep reality in perspective in these discussions.
10-23-2009, 05:16 PM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
You guys are a freaking riot !!!! Ironically, if you read most of the posts in this thread many of us (who are in fact C63 owners and have also owned many other great cars including M3s, Audis, and Porsches, etc.) are just fine with conceding the point that M3s and maybe even RS4s are better track cars than our beloved C63. So is a Lotus Elise for that matter, but I don't really care, since I can't fit my big American *** into one and I don't ever drive on a race track (much less the waaaaay overhyped and overdiscussed Nurburgring lap times), unless you count US-59 South at rush hour as a race, which by the way I routinely take the checkered flag for. All these debates about lap times are so academic for road cars. It seems that most of the guys here understand where our cars fit into the pecking order and are just fine with that. Anybody who bashes BMW, Audi, or Porsche to justify their current ride is very much missing the point. At one time or another each of these great and famous companies has dominated their chosen form of racing. And while we are talking about how wonderful and glorious Benz's racing and engineering history is let's not forget about the 1999 LeMans event where Mercedes had trouble keeping their cars from flying over the fences and into the trees. Every company has their share of wins and losses. Let's at lest try to keep reality in perspective in these discussions.
All these debates about lap times are so academic for road cars. It seems that most of the guys here understand where our cars fit into the pecking order and are just fine with that. Anybody who bashes BMW, Audi, or Porsche to justify their current ride is very much missing the point. At one time or another each of these great and famous companies has dominated their chosen form of racing. And while we are talking about how wonderful and glorious Benz's racing and engineering history is let's not forget about the 1999 LeMans event where Mercedes had trouble keeping their cars from flying over the fences and into the trees. Every company has their share of wins and losses. Let's at lest try to keep reality in perspective in these discussions.
Gentlemen, and for the few ladies out here, there is ALWAYS somthing better/faster than what you have. Go to ANY local track, drag or road course, and there will always be a piece of s-it that hands you your head on a platter. Just keep that in mind when you get a piece of humble pie handed to you. It is not a disgrace or an embaresment, just a fact. Laugh and move on as life is way too short to worry about things you have NO control of.
PS: But I still wouldn't own a P-car
10-23-2009, 07:07 PM
#75
MBworld Guru
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 22,007
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
white and whiter
the real question is if the C63 can keep up with those times lap after lap with the heavy front end cooking those tires up much faster than the M3 does.
