Who says M3 is faster on the track?
10-20-2009, 07:09 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richmond BC Canada
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C63 AMG
Who says M3 is faster on the track?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdCpx...eature=related
enjoy our mighty 63 beating the m3 around the track. As you can see this c63 has performance pack.
enjoy our mighty 63 beating the m3 around the track. As you can see this c63 has performance pack.
10-20-2009, 07:39 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Trending Topics
10-20-2009, 11:44 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
I always will think the M-3 handles better. It doesn't matter I won a C63 AMG. For the price the C63 AMG cost they should had a rear LSD , no excuses. Also the C63 should have wider and more stickier tires and perhaps wider fenders in the back.
I am absolutely not surprised why the M-3 always wins. The C63 is a great car but bthe M-3 is slightly better handling performer.
I am absolutely not surprised why the M-3 always wins. The C63 is a great car but bthe M-3 is slightly better handling performer.
10-21-2009, 12:17 AM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Do you have any head to head data with a C63 PP vs. an M3. I believe this is the first. It looks like the C63 with PP is slightly faster and not driver dependent.
10-21-2009, 12:25 AM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Nurburgring times, Top Gear test track, Edmunds, Top Gear UK, Fifth Gear ... all show and vote in favor of M3. One is a straightline beast, one is a track legacy. Enough said....
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
Last edited by iftwb; 10-21-2009 at 12:29 AM.
10-21-2009, 02:32 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richmond BC Canada
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C63 AMG
Nurburgring times, Top Gear test track, Edmunds, Top Gear UK, Fifth Gear ... all show and vote in favor of M3. One is a straightline beast, one is a track legacy. Enough said....
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
So how does m3 win hands down then?
10-21-2009, 02:56 AM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
Nurburgring times, Top Gear test track, Edmunds, Top Gear UK, Fifth Gear ... all show and vote in favor of M3. One is a straightline beast, one is a track legacy. Enough said....
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
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. Out of factory, the M3 wins hands down. The world of automotive racing isn't about straight line performance, and for cars like these...the track was what was kept in mind when they were made.
The C63 already has a 6.2L engine, that is a staggering 2.2L over the M3's V8 size; what more does it need just to beat a factory M3?
6.2L saw to that! For public road use the C63 handles amazingly well, you could even say perfectly!
For track use I wouldn't get an M3, I'd get a Porsche GT3 RS.
10-21-2009, 06:00 AM
#13
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W204 C63 AMG, E60 530i, E46 325i
Originally Posted by MikeS54
Tuning put aside LSD is indeed a factory option and is not considered to be aftermarket stuff. As we seen in the video a LSD equiped C63 is in fact slightly (and i mean slightly) faster than a m3 around a track and we all know its quiet a bit faster than m3 in a straightline.
So how does m3 win hands down then?
So how does m3 win hands down then?
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?
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.
Originally Posted by GMW
and one is better on public roads which is were almost all the buyers are going to drive it 6.2L saw to that!
For public road use the C63 handles amazingly well, you could even say perfectly!
For track use I wouldn't get an M3, I'd get a Porsche GT3 RS.
6.2L saw to that! For public road use the C63 handles amazingly well, you could even say perfectly!
For track use I wouldn't get an M3, I'd get a Porsche GT3 RS.
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.......
Last edited by iftwb; 10-21-2009 at 06:03 AM.
10-21-2009, 07:45 AM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
I'd also like to point out that this track is pretty much a long straight with a few tight turns thrown in. That long straight is where the C63 made up its time. On a more complex track, the M3 would dominate.
10-21-2009, 09:54 AM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-21-2009, 10:18 AM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.......
Didn't a new CTS-V do it in under 8 minutes?
10-21-2009, 11:45 AM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
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
10-21-2009, 12:31 PM
#18
Super Member
That episode came out almost a year before PP was even available.
10-21-2009, 12:56 PM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-21-2009, 01:15 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porsche GT3
"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
).
10-21-2009, 01:18 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hainesport, NJ
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 CTS-V (6spd, phantom grey), 2010 Cadillac Escalade ESV (black raven)
Would you rather go into a track battle/race with a CTS-V or an M3? You use these Nurburgring times as a general reference.
Much more valid testing is when the cars are compared the same day, same conditions, same driver, same track. Which has been done ad infinitum in any one of the car mags of your choosing. And if memory serves me correctly, the M3 dominates the C63 on the track.
But a point that has already been brought up is the fact that the vast majority of us do not track our cars. So if I had to choose a car, I would take the C63 over the M3. But to say the C63 is better at the track is simply over rationalizing...
Much more valid testing is when the cars are compared the same day, same conditions, same driver, same track. Which has been done ad infinitum in any one of the car mags of your choosing. And if memory serves me correctly, the M3 dominates the C63 on the track.
But a point that has already been brought up is the fact that the vast majority of us do not track our cars. So if I had to choose a car, I would take the C63 over the M3. But to say the C63 is better at the track is simply over rationalizing...
10-21-2009, 01:42 PM
#22
Super Member
. IIRC none of the early press cars were fitted with PP. I'll gladly eat those words if someone proves otherwise.
10-21-2009, 02:00 PM
#24
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
10-21-2009, 02:00 PM
#25
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audi S4, Mercedes Benz C350 4Matic
BMW M3 handles better than C63 AMG on the track. However, C63 AMG beats M3 in straight line, exhaust sound, and also a lot better in interior fit and finish. Maybe I am just not a big fan of BMW interior....
