C63 AMG (W204) 2008 - 2015
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Nurburgring 8:13

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 06-25-2011, 08:34 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
IAA-C63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'11 C63, '22 GLS 63, Porsches, M3, M4
Originally Posted by Klinh
Are you kidding me? 8 second different, is like day and night, specially win or lose usually seperated by tenths of a second. It like two totally different class if you look at the times. There's no more excuses for the C63 anymore specially driven by the same driver and the same track. Btw, the M3 light/track version is alot faster then the standard M3.

8:05 BMW M3 E92 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2007)[54]
8:13 Mercedes-Benz_C63 AMG Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (2/2009)[58]
True, but it's 8 seconds over 8 minutes, so the difference is about 1.6%. That's small enough to be accounted for by differences in tires, driver concentration and performance, track conditions, etc.

And even if the M3 really is 1.6% faster on the track in the hands of a pro driver, I'm not sure that's a meaningful difference for a car enthusiast.
Old 06-25-2011, 09:57 AM
  #27  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
PC Valkyrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
Originally Posted by SMP
Really? ..... the point is: since when does an M3 come with R compound tires from the factory, with exception to the E46 CSL and the M3 GTS? ..... It's just funny how you don't believe in factory times with their drivers and setup, but when Horst von Saurma changes the setup to R compound tires that's alright
Because in Europe, there is the option of buying the M3 with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires straight from the factory. Sport Auto simply tests the cars the way the factory provides to them. They don't "add" or take away anything.

What's your beef here? Not liking that your CLK63 BS didn't do as well you hoped in the Sport Auto Supertest (performed on Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires)?

And it's not about "not believing the factory drivers/setups". It's about using the same driver so that one HUGE variable is taken away when comparing different cars' laptimes around a track like the Ring.
Old 06-25-2011, 10:32 AM
  #28  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Das Geld 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,267
Received 195 Likes on 160 Posts
SL55, S500
The Gay3 had R-Compound Tires

The C63 didnt period.
Old 06-25-2011, 11:07 AM
  #29  
SMP
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
SMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,067
Received 21 Likes on 14 Posts
CLK63 Black Series
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
Because in Europe, there is the option of buying the M3 with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires straight from the factory. Sport Auto simply tests the cars the way the factory provides to them. They don't "add" or take away anything.

What's your beef here? Not liking that your CLK63 BS didn't do as well you hoped in the Sport Auto Supertest (performed on Pirelli P Zero Corsa tires)?

And it's not about "not believing the factory drivers/setups". It's about using the same driver so that one HUGE variable is taken away when comparing different cars' laptimes around a track like the Ring.
What are you talking about? What has any of this to do with my car? Not sure if you can comprehend that, but this discussion is about a C63, not a CLK63 BS. Get it? The C63 wasn't tested with R compounds, so who cares what the M3 did.
Old 06-25-2011, 02:37 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
IAA-C63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'11 C63, '22 GLS 63, Porsches, M3, M4
It seems that a key question is how much difference the tires make. If the difference is substantial, cars clearly need to be tested with similar or identical tires to be properly compared, regardless of which tires they come with from the factory. Does anyone have good data showing the difference in track times for different tires, given the same driver, car, track, etc.?
Old 06-25-2011, 03:43 PM
  #31  
SMP
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
SMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,067
Received 21 Likes on 14 Posts
CLK63 Black Series
Originally Posted by IAA-C63
It seems that a key question is how much difference the tires make. If the difference is substantial, cars clearly need to be tested with similar or identical tires to be properly compared, regardless of which tires they come with from the factory. Does anyone have good data showing the difference in track times for different tires, given the same driver, car, track, etc.?
Since tires are the only thing that connects the car to the road, the compound of which they are constructed of makes a big difference. But like I said earlier, those lap times are not to be taken too seriously. Whether they were conducted by the factory or any of the magazines. They are nothing more than a marketing tool for the manufacturers, a paycheck for whatever tester and provide bragging rights for the end user. It's all second hand information anyway.

The most important thing is what you as the owner of the vehicle can wring out of the car when you take it to the track. Some cars have incredible lap times at the 'Ring driven by experienced drivers, mostly professionals. For instance, a GT3 RS. Up to a certain point, the car handles like a dream. But once you get close to the limit, or at the limit, it's a difficult car to drive unless you get paid. With all the marvelous engineering that went into that car, it's still rear engined and basic physics apply. One of the reason why " inferior" cars can keep up with it at the track when in the hands of a not so experienced driver. The weakest link in the package is still who's behind the wheel and not different equipment ran on the car. Money can buy you technology, but not talent.
Old 06-25-2011, 06:48 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
IAA-C63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'11 C63, '22 GLS 63, Porsches, M3, M4
Originally Posted by SMP
Since tires are the only thing that connects the car to the road, the compound of which they are constructed of makes a big difference. But like I said earlier, those lap times are not to be taken too seriously. Whether they were conducted by the factory or any of the magazines. They are nothing more than a marketing tool for the manufacturers, a paycheck for whatever tester and provide bragging rights for the end user. It's all second hand information anyway.

The most important thing is what you as the owner of the vehicle can wring out of the car when you take it to the track. Some cars have incredible lap times at the 'Ring driven by experienced drivers, mostly professionals. For instance, a GT3 RS. Up to a certain point, the car handles like a dream. But once you get close to the limit, or at the limit, it's a difficult car to drive unless you get paid. With all the marvelous engineering that went into that car, it's still rear engined and basic physics apply. One of the reason why " inferior" cars can keep up with it at the track when in the hands of a not so experienced driver. The weakest link in the package is still who's behind the wheel and not different equipment ran on the car. Money can buy you technology, but not talent.
Great points. I agree that one's own driving ability should be a key factor in selecting a car. The less that ability, the farther we need to stay away from the limit. And that ability can only really be improved through instruction and driving on the track, as I learned from recently attending the AMG Driving Academy. When I went on a hot lap with my instructor, he clearly took the car to the limit, and had to constantly make corrections to maintain control. A little experience on the skidpad quickly shows that making the right corrections isn't easy.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Nurburgring 8:13



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:23 PM.