I know! It's really too bad MB doesn't offer any manual transmission cars in the US.

6 months ago my bro was on the market. 3 very simple criteria: power, AWD and stick.

Unfortunately, no MB USA car could make the cut (no stick!).

 

Nice kill. Definately a driver's race.

 

It's not just aftermarket, the M3's suspension is better stock.

I've driven a stock M3 and a stock C55 AMG and I'd take the M3's handling over the AMG's anyday. AMG's may be fast in a straight line but they have nothing on the M cars in terms of handling (except maybe on paper) and road feel.

 

I love automatic, kills........the light turned green and I stepped on the gass as hard as I could and beat him.............yea yea yea I know some of the fastest cars are auto but they are built completely different.....

 

Maybe on paper? Here's a head-to-head. C55 AMG lapped nurburgring in the same time as an M3, and the M3 has an extra gear plus a limited slip diff, both of which give it a huge advantage on a track.

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...r1=2%26Car2=75

The diffferences between these cars' handling are minute. The BMW has somewhat better dynamics, and is a bit more easy to control due to lower torque (makes corner control easier to dial in) and the limited slip, but in terms of ultimate grip, the Benz's skidpad numbers are higher, and its slalom numbers are a whopping 1 km/h slower (see page). Braking for the two cars is also within fractions of a meter.

 

Because of the squirrely dynamics (i.e., lack of road feel) of the C55, only someone with years of experience on the track (and the added ability of not having to worry about hitting something or someone on a public road) can figure out where the car's limits are. The M3, on the other hand, clearly indicates to the driver through road feel and excellent steering dynamics exactly where the limit is allowing the driver to push it right up to the that edge. Like I said before, I've driven both cars, and I felt completely uncomfortable and out of control with the c55, whereas the M3 fit like a glove. So ultimately your numbers are merely on paper, because although a skilled driver on the track can take both cars up to similar limits, one car gives the driver a lot more real and percieved control when doing so, and that car is the M3.

Additionally, my opinion that the overall handling and road feel characteristics of the AMG's in general doesn't match up to the m cars is backed up by several car publications.

For example: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...cls55-amg.html

Quoted is a car and driver comparison on the CLS55, the CTS-V and the M5, and the CLS55 came in last place. Some of the reason is this:

 

That is true of *any* car, including an M3.

So have I. And you're absolutely wrong about the M3's steering. Many automotive journals have criticized its steering, which SUCKS compared to the E36's. Further, I own an E46 3 Series, and its steering is the same. Too light of effort, and too short on communication.

Maybe I'm a better driver than you, then, because I could drive either one at its limits pretty comfortably.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Are you seriously trying to argue that, even given the fact that in the hands of the same driver, at the same track, the cars' lap times are the same (despite the C55's handicaps of a) one less gear, b) no limited slip diff, and c) narrower rear tires), that by golly, these lap times are irrelavent because they are "on paper"? Wtf does that mean? What is "on paper" is the recorded lap times of the two cars! The results show that under scientific conditions, the cars' lap times are the same.

Ergo your idiotic earlier statement that the C55's handling is not comparable to that of the M3 is prima facie false.

So I won't waste time arguing with you.

And you cite a CLS55, a completely different car, to compare the C55 to the M3? Niiiiice. And oh, btw: in addition to being about an entirely different car altogether, that review you cited is also "on paper", so by your arcane rules, it doesn't count.

 

Yea, not like there's any difference between a regular 3'r and an M3 right? How could there be?

Well then maybe you should look my point again. You completely missed it. I'll give you 3 trys. Or, do you really not know the meaning of "prima facie"?

And yet you just did.

Yea, the CLS55 site was a point to my general statement, not the C55 only, which you didn't bother to quote. You obviously knew that but choose to ignore it completely just to bolster your weak argument for the C55. AMG's do come in second or third place consistantly to M cars time and time again in car publications, but you would never admit it. There is a reason BMW is the standard for sports sedans that other brands (like Lexus) are trying to reach, and Mercedes is not. Mercedes has always made a nice (and often incredibly fast) luxo cruiser, but handling has never been it's strong suit. That's reality.

Sorry you got all butt-hurt about this. I didn't realize that pointing to a flaw in AMG's obvious perfection would put you in "pissing contest" mode. I guess I'll look somewhere else for adults.

 

Of course, you're going to say all this, afterall you have 2 bimmers. Also, why is it that BMW people ALWAYS bring up the track/handling issue, when 99% of the time people drive their cars in the real world, you know city streets & highways not at Watkins Glenn.


By the way adults as you put it, don't come to a website dedicated to a specific car brand & do nothing but put it down. That's called trolling, but i'm sure you knew that already.

 

Put words in people's mouths much? That's not at all what I wrote. What I wrote was that, having driven both extensively, I can confidently state that the steering on the E46 BMWs is worthless for high performance driving. Accurate? Extremely, but so is Lexus. Road feel? Practically none. Effort does not increase with cornering loads--a hallmark of good steering.

And this is by no means solely my opinion: many car magazines have noted the lack of feel and too-low effort in the E46s' steering rack compared to the E36. And *neither* of them are comparable to a Porsche, to be sure.

Yes, I do. It sure seems, however, that you don't. Your statement that the C55 does not handle as well as the M3 is rendered prima facie false by the FACT that the two cars got exactly the same lap times, the same slalom times, etc...

Or are you seriously trying to argue that a car which does not handle well somehow managed to match the M3 in both slalom and lap times?

What does this say, then, about the M3's handling prowess?

You are arguing that a poorly handling car can somehow, magically it would seem, match the Mighty M3's lap time. How is this possible?

Please explain.

Only as sufficiently necessary to slap you down, which I did. So why not do it some more? You make it so easy....

And again you exhibit extreme hypocrisy by citing subjective magazine ratings (as if this somehow trumps scientifically conducted track tests) while simultaneously dismissing said track test results as "on paper". So, actual test data is "on paper", while subjective editors' ratings are The Final Word?? Get real.

This is a childish debating trick: casting aspersions rather than countering the facts. You do not like the fact that the C55 got the same lap time as the M3. So you attempt to dismiss the fact by saying that it is "on paper", as if somehow, writing down actual track results "on paper" dismisses their credibility or worth.

Well, it does not. The results are in, and they plainly show that the C55, with one fewer gear and no limited slip, hangs right with the M3 in both slalom and track times. You can try to divert attention from this fact by citing subjective magazine ratings from editors who would never choose a vehicle with an automatic over a manual because they are philosophically opposed to automatics all day long, but it does not, can not, and will not change the fact that the C55's handling numbers and track numbers match those of the M3

Adults being defined as those who will tolarate your patently false claims without dissent, I assume....

No, I'm not hurt, just annoyed. You made a false claim, the data show that you are wrong, but given that admitting you are wrong is not in your character, you simply try to reframe the debate to subjective ratings rather than deal with the concrete data I presented, which shows that you were wrong. But concrete data is measurable; subjective claims are not, which is why, of course, you try to shift from the scientific to the subjective.

Again: if the C55 is such a poorly handling car and yet in the tests I cited has the same acceleration and braking numbers as the M3, then how did it manage to match the M3's lap time without a huge acceleration advantage?

And what does it say about the M3's handling if a "poorly handling" car like the C55 matches its Nurburgring lap time?

 

Do we really need a "C55 is better than M3" or "M3 is better than C55" thread?

Frankly, the cars are so different from each other that they arguably do not warrant comparison. How many people, with their different respective needs, actually come to a very, very close call between buying the M3 vs. the C55 (or vice versa)?

Whether it's because of 2 vs. 4 doors, auto vs. manual, luxury vs. taut suspension, etc., IMHO most buyers make that call pretty quickly and the "comparison" is out the window. For example, the guy in the other thread who talked about buying the C55 because he wanted speed/power but needed 4 doors and luxury because he carried clients in the car. He obviously made that call pretty quickly. Ditto for anyone prioritizing stickshift, high revs and/or coupe exterior ... very quick end of "comparison" for that buyer.

Perhaps we only compare these 2 because we generally compare MB's to BMW's and, more specifically, because we compare the 3-series to the C-class (and there's also very little else to compare the M3 and C55 to)? IMHO: In design, philosophy and evolution away from their "base" 3/C origins, MB and BMW made very different cars catering to very different tastes.

 

Oh c'mon.... don't spoil the party... MBWORLD has been very boring... no fight at all...

But I agree with you, I made decisions between M5 vs. E55 and M3 vs. C55 quite easily... this should tell something....

But please once again, don't spoil the party....

 

Fine ... everyone please ignore my last post

Let it rumble

 

Out of the woodwork "BM"W Newbie Crusader

vs.

Our very own, longstanding defender of BENZZZZZ, *uck 'em up with FACTS argued in an irrefutable way and make them regret that they ever came here

. . M
. . R
. . V
. . Z

 

Wow, I thought you weren't going to argue? What happened? Another post?

 

"Defender of Benz"... LOL. I didn't realize I hurt everyone's ego so much by suggesting BMW's have better road feel and handle well that a "defender" needed to be called for MB. I guess MB's "quality" can't speak for itself?

So sad. Why do you guys all take this seriously? AMG doesn't have to be better than everything. Mercedes's are nice cars, just in a different way, why can't you all be happy with that instead of trying to pretend the cars have no weaknesses, especially in areas where a lot of people agree they do. Hell, BMW's have all kinds of problems too, just in different areas. Anyone try to use i-drive?

 

You can confidently state that the steering on e46 non-m 3'rs are "worthless" for high preformance driving (although I've never had a problem, back when I had a 325xi). Your confident statement is totally irrelavent because we were refering to an M3, which you've never driven. Like I said before, the M3 IS A DIFFERENT CAR.

Compared to the e36, yes. Compared to the AMG? No.

(this part is "above"... you'll see below) Explaination: A book of lap times doesn't substitute actual driver feel. It's like trying to convince someone a food tastes good based on it's chemical composition. Like taste, road-feel and driver comfort and ease in handling is a subjective value. Just because two cars can get the same lap times doesn't mean both drivers were as comfortable and happy with both cars. That's why subjective ratings by car enthusiasts (for example, the people at car and driver) are so important. The truth is, the mercedes feels unconnected and somewhat out of control, while the BMW, although not being perfect, feels much more in control. Yes, you may get the same lap times, but one driver is going to be biting his nails, annoyed, and raw on nerves at the end of the run, and the other is going to want to do it again. I wanted to go again when I drove the M3. I was just happy to get out of the AMG and never see it again. I just sited the article to point out that, it would seem, that car and driver agrees with me.

Blah blah blah. Do you want a prize or something? You might convince everyone on this forum your right (baring me) but your not going to convince the general car community that AMG's have better road feel and are easier to control than M's.

Oh yea. I'm going to "get real" "dawg". See above.

Huh? Right....

Ok, see above again.

See above again.

 

I was bored, sorry. BMW's (especially the M cars) do handle better generally, and most car people prefer the handling of BMW's over Mercedes (even the AMG's). I just wanted to see if anyone on a Mercedes forum would ever admit it. I guess not. Oh well, it's still worthwhile entertainment.

 

I think the c32 doesnt handle as well as an M3,however the c32 rides better.

For fast luxury, AMG make some superb products

For handling I choose porsche!


The M division`s latest offerings are too compromised, they are generally too stiff to give an acceptable ride and too heavy to be agile.

 

I agree with you for the most part. But it can be irratating when many BMW (M) owners automatically assume that all AMG's handle like P.O.S. Yes, AMG cars are generally heavier and lack the same tactile feel that BMW M cars have. M cars tend to be more confidence inspiring when at the handling limits. However, the smaller vehicles (like the C55/SLK55) and the ones with ABC (SL55) tend to do quite well on a track and don't give up much in terms of absolute grip. Unless you track your car regularly, there is no handling benefit that the M cars have over the AMG cars on everyday twisty roads. At the limit of grip/understeer/oversteer is where the M cars shine.

About the C55 vs M3 handling debate, I've been through this extensively before on this thread on a BMW fourm.
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...d.php?t=489643

It was a good educational exercise to inform some of the BMW fans blinded by BMW's marketing, thinking no car can ever match or even come close to their cars in terms of handling, especially Mercedes Benz.

 

I agree with you with this as well, although I would say that you probably didn't have enough time in the C55 to "learn" how to drive it at the limits. The M3 indeed is an easier car to drive at the handling limits. When I first got my C55, taking curves at high speeds made me slightly nervous. It doesn't communicate as well as the M3 in terms of how close you are to losing grip. It's only after I got through the curve with no drama and no slipping that I realized this car grips SO WELL. With time, confidence grew as I discovered the car's limits. Bottom line: I think it takes a little more time to feel comfortable in the C55 compared to the M3 on any sort of track/autocross course.

 

Did you even read what i said? Maybe on a track BMW's are better, but in the REAL WORLD AMG's own you all day long. Of course car magazines are going to pick the M's, where do they usually test the cars? In a track At the end of every test they always give a slight nod to M's becasue of their handling at the track, not their everyday capability. If i wanted a car for the track, i'd get a Nissan Z.

Also, you still haven't answered the question as to why the C55 is just as fast around the 'ring as the "almighty" M3?

 

And now you've crossed over into pure (and wrong) speculation: claiming that I've 'never driven" an M3, which you could not possibly know, and which I already stated I've done, extensively, in my previous post.

So much for your careful reading....

And you continue to divert...but unfortunately, your original post was a bit more specific:.

The clear implication being that once you hit some curves, or a track, the poor, hapless C55 would simply get thrashed by the M3.

Unfortunately, the data I provided, from the same track, with the same driver, show that this assertion is prima facie false. (Btw, did you bother to look up the definition I provided for you after you falsely accused me of not knowing its meaning?)

1) the C55 matched the M3's 8'22" lap time at Nurburg ring. The C55 was not measured faster than the M3 in acceleration in this test (I double checked the numbers, and in fact it was tested to be slower than the M3!). Ergo, it is impossible for the C55 to have matched the track time of an M3 without handling equally as well, particularly given that it was measured with slower acceleration times. So unless you are prepared to admit the M3 handles poorly, your earlier statement is DOA.

2) the C55 matched the M3's slalom time, which measures transitional handling ability. Again, if it handled poorly, then by extension the M3 handles poorly as well.

The data clearly show that, despite your false claim to the contrary, "once the road turns twisty", the C55 matches the M3's handling ability, *and* its lap times despite being tested slower, having one fewer gear, and no limited slip--three crucial disadvantages which the C55 overcame to tie the M3's lap time. Ergo, your earlier statement is prima facie false.

Period.

Which is why you desparately keep trying to recast the debate to subjective ratings.

Unfortunately, facts are stubborn things.

 

the xtra two people in the car helped you get traction...

 

I don't think you need to counter one sweeping generalization with another. Your comment is a broad generalization that would be hard to substantiate.

I don't have a huge axe to grind here. I can respect both MB/AMG and BMW/M. But IMHO I, for one, find the "own you all day long" comment a little hard to believe.

Bonafide publications test on tracks as well as real roads. "Fun to drive" is a factor that can be assessed on real roads as well as tracks, albeit differently. How a car handles at its limit (and where that limit lies) is not exactly the same thing as the car's "fun to drive" factor.

Regardless of all of that, if a C55 is less "communicative" than an M3, then it's fine to acknowledge that. Remember, "communication" not only involves road/wheel/brake feel but also includes noise.

The C55 has different traits by design. It was intended to be less "communicative" in all these respects (including noise) because it was designed to be a luxurious yet fast sedan, not a racing coupe. Ride vs. handling is an inherent compromise in automotive design. It was intended for a C55 to have a different ride/handling balance vs. the M3. Similarly, the M3 was intended to have "more involved" handling at the expense of a harsh ride.

You can dismiss this as yet another magazine comment but I found this to be a good summary of the two cars' different designs (from C&D):

"The most profound conclusion, we agreed, was that individual needs and preferences will undoubtedly rank these cars — even with the aforementioned price discrepancy — in a different order. If you want speed and stability without a high level of mechanical interface or noise, the C55 is a good choice. The M3 still calls to the boy racer in all of us with its high levels of involvement and authentic race-car personality."

I also don't buy the "Of course car magazines are going to pick the M's" comment, as C&D (for example) has praised the S4 when comparing to the M3 and C32 and subsequently the RS4 when comparing to the M3 and C55. The M3 is a great car that deserves its respect -- give credit where it's due -- and don't dismiss any deserved credit just by saying 'of course magazines will always choose the M car over any other' (that's another sweeping generalization). One can love his or her C32/55 without having to unfairly criticize another car.