C55 vs. M3 comp.
06-01-2006, 02:56 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Magic City
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
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.
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.
Yep, it sure doesn't look like you have any ax to grind, lol.
My comment about "owning all day long" is from actual experiences. I owned an E36 M3 before i ever had an AMG, so i know what they're all about. I had a C32 & C55, & now an E55. With the previous two cars i had numerous M's including a previous year M5 try to race me. I never lossed, that's why i made my comment. You can quote magazine's all day long & have opinions, but when it comes down to it, my AMG's always came out on top.
To counter my arguement, many people might say that the drivers were not good & that it's all about the driver, etc. That's my point of real world driving. The people who test these cars in the magazines are pro drivers, they push these cars to the limit, driving them 10/10ths of the cars potential, they burn clutches trying to get the best times 0-60 times, etc. They drive them in ways that if replicated by regular drivers would most likely result in accidents, burnt clutches or blown motors. That is the difference between stick & auto in these magazine tests.
I have never said that M's were not better handling cars, there is no doubt that they are. I have always said that in everyday city driving (which is what most of us do) the AMG's are much more at home than the M's. A track is a different story.
06-02-2006, 09:31 AM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
M's lend more confidence in curves than AMG's. AMG's give your brute power at the light. It is a matter of what you enjoy more. also I found there is a greater learning curve in terms of driving AMG's faster through curves than M's. The weight transfers in the AMG's is more noticable and the cars feel more ponderous. IMO
06-04-2006, 06:49 AM
#53
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 BMW 540iA ZSP, '94 BMW 530iA (sold)
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
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.
06-04-2006, 06:51 AM
#54
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 BMW 540iA ZSP, '94 BMW 530iA (sold)
Originally Posted by ash-c32
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.
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 always hear good things, but I've been told they are a bit raw.
06-04-2006, 06:56 AM
#55
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 BMW 540iA ZSP, '94 BMW 530iA (sold)
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
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
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
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
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.
06-04-2006, 07:02 AM
#56
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 BMW 540iA ZSP, '94 BMW 530iA (sold)
Originally Posted by Improviz
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.
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.
Last edited by fm.watch; 06-04-2006 at 07:05 AM.
06-04-2006, 03:46 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by fm.watch
I have the right to re-cast my argument to whatever I like (that is objective or subjective) given that I didn't specify it in my first statement (which you so kindly quoted).
Yes, you have the right to wiggle, just as I have the right to point out the obvious reason that you are doing it: because you can't fight the facts. This is called "diversion", and you've resorted to cheap shots and at least two outright falsehoods to do it.
As I showed in quoting your post, you were clearly trying to imply that once the two cars hit the first set of turns, the poor li'l AMG would be left for dead.
Well, the numbers show that's a load of
And you know it. So rather than admit that you were mistaken and didn't have a clue, you simply changed the argument to subjective and pressed on. But the problem is your original statement:
Originally Posted by fm.watch
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 don't think so. You obviously (mistakenly) thought that the M3 would run away and leave it, and when I threw the track numbers up in your face, rather than confront the track numbers, you simply turned tail and ran, hiding behind a cheap subjective argument.
Originally Posted by fm.watch
This of course means that by continuing to quote numbers (and only one track time, I can see, in only one instance...)
But here's another for you: same driver, same track...the brand-spanking-new M5 versus the three-year-old SL55 AMG. In addition to having two fewer gears and no limited slip, the SL55 is 124 kg (about 275 pounds) heavier than the M--three huge disadvantages. Guess which one was faster around the Nurburgring? The SL55. By one full second.
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
It also beat the Z8 by six seconds, same track, same driver:
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
Originally Posted by fm.watch
without taking into account the subjective opinions of the actual drivers, you are avoiding my point, and in quite professional and educated sounding verbage, I might add.
And I never "avoided" the subjective ratings; I pointed out, accurately, that these are subjective. But your statement wasn't subjective, it was a false claim: that once the two cars hit the corners, the AMGs would go down.
Wrong.
Again: the numbers show you're wrong. Go ahead and evade your original claim and argue like a fool about subjective ratings all you like, but the original claim you wrote show what you meant, and the numbers show the real story.
Last edited by Improviz; 06-04-2006 at 07:54 PM.
06-06-2006, 07:30 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
I'm curious: I took a quick look at these links you posted and didn't see a mention of Von Saurma having been the test driver. Can you please confirm?
06-06-2006, 11:44 PM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I'm curious: I took a quick look at these links you posted and didn't see a mention of Von Saurma having been the test driver. Can you please confirm?
This is discussed at the track-challenge site, here, and also here:
You can also read about von Saurma's setting the production car record (7'32.44 minutes)around the 'ring in a Carerra GT in this story:
This article also verifies that von Saurma is the 'ring test driver for Sport Auto:
The journalist von Saurma clocked up the fastest round in the context of a so-called "super test," which the magazine executes regularly. Top times on the Nürburgring, always driven by the same tester, are among the criteria. Wolfgang Dürheimer: "It is precisely for this reason that the 7'32.44 minutes are so easy for us to put in to context and are thus valuable."
06-07-2006, 12:15 AM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
Originally Posted by Improviz
All of the tests at the Nurburgring cited on that site are from the German car magazine Sport Auto. von Saurma (who also happens to be editor in chief of the magazine) conducts the Nurburgring tests so that the results are consistent.
This is discussed at the track-challenge site, here, and also here:
You can also read about von Saurma's setting the production car record (7'32.44 minutes)around the 'ring in a Carerra GT in this story:
This article also verifies that von Saurma is the 'ring test driver for Sport Auto:
This is discussed at the track-challenge site, here, and also here:
You can also read about von Saurma's setting the production car record (7'32.44 minutes)around the 'ring in a Carerra GT in this story:
This article also verifies that von Saurma is the 'ring test driver for Sport Auto:
Maybe it's just my browser, but both those links took me to entries on the track-challenge.com website's "guestbook" where random internet users talked about von Saurma.
Also, I have seen that article you quoted in a number of places and it reads awfully like a press release. I wonder if it was released by either Porsche or Sport Auto. As you know, many of us are skeptical of manufacturer press releases.
I do not doubt that the P Carrera GT is capable of setting a production-car record at the 'Ring -- it could be the fastest, it could be the second fastest ... either way, it's right up there. Only problem is, both Sport Auto and Porsche have a vested interested in claiming this record.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally questioning your credibility. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but these questions came to mind.
06-07-2006, 08:41 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I understand von Saurma is the test driver and editor of Sport Auto. I just don't see the connection (yet) between von Saurma and this track-challenge website.
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
Maybe it's just my browser, but both those links took me to entries on the track-challenge.com website's "guestbook" where random internet users talked about von Saurma.
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
Also, I have seen that article you quoted in a number of places and it reads awfully like a press release. I wonder if it was released by either Porsche or Sport Auto. As you know, many of us are skeptical of manufacturer press releases.
And your case is not buttressed by the fact that the magazine awards this trophy every year, and it has changed drivers' hands--and in different cars--multiple times over the ten year period over which the award has been given, as reported here:
Oh, and BMW AG seems to find Mr. von Saurma and Sport Auto to be quite credible, given that they published this guide to the 'ring which was produced by Sport Auto and edited by Mr. von Saurma:
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I do not doubt that the P Carrera GT is capable of setting a production-car record at the 'Ring -- it could be the fastest, it could be the second fastest ... either way, it's right up there. Only problem is, both Sport Auto and Porsche have a vested interested in claiming this record.
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally questioning your credibility. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but these questions came to mind.
06-08-2006, 03:34 PM
#63
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'98 BMW 540iA ZSP, '94 BMW 530iA (sold)
Originally Posted by Improviz
You clearly were implying that the AMG would be left for dead once the two cars hit the first set of curves, and it really doesn't help your credibility to try and wriggle out of it once the facts are produced to show that this was a false claim.
Yes, you have the right to wiggle, just as I have the right to point out the obvious reason that you are doing it: because you can't fight the facts. This is called "diversion", and you've resorted to cheap shots and at least two outright falsehoods to do it.
As I showed in quoting your post, you were clearly trying to imply that once the two cars hit the first set of turns, the poor li'l AMG would be left for dead.
Well, the numbers show that's a load of And you know it. So rather than admit that you were mistaken and didn't have a clue, you simply changed the argument to subjective and pressed on.
But the problem is your original statement:
So if you weren't saying that the AMG would be left for dead once the two cars hit the corners, what exactly was your point, particularly in a post about a race? That the two cars would be even? I don't think so. You obviously (mistakenly) thought that the M3 would run away and leave it, and when I threw the track numbers up in your face, rather than confront the track numbers, you simply turned tail and ran, hiding behind a cheap subjective argument.
The one instance being both cars' being piloted by Mr. Horst Von Saurma, who just happened to hold the lap record at Nurburgring in a production automobile. So he is not one of your magazine hacks.
But here's another for you: same driver, same track...the brand-spanking-new M5 versus the three-year-old SL55 AMG. In addition to having two fewer gears and no limited slip, the SL55 is 124 kg (about 275 pounds) heavier than the M--three huge disadvantages. Guess which one was faster around the Nurburgring? The SL55. By one full second.
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
It also beat the Z8 by six seconds, same track, same driver:
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
No, but you sure are doing a damn fine job of avoiding the facts. I consider myself an actual driver, have (despite your false claim earlier) driven both cars, and my subjective opinion is the one I'll listen to the most, thank you very much. If you prefer to be led around by the nose by magazine editors, then power to you, but some of us actually prefer to think for ourselves.
And I never "avoided" the subjective ratings; I pointed out, accurately, that these are subjective. But your statement wasn't subjective, it was a false claim: that once the two cars hit the corners, the AMGs would go down.
Wrong.
Again: the numbers show you're wrong. Go ahead and evade your original claim and argue like a fool about subjective ratings all you like, but the original claim you wrote show what you meant, and the numbers show the real story.
Yes, you have the right to wiggle, just as I have the right to point out the obvious reason that you are doing it: because you can't fight the facts. This is called "diversion", and you've resorted to cheap shots and at least two outright falsehoods to do it.
As I showed in quoting your post, you were clearly trying to imply that once the two cars hit the first set of turns, the poor li'l AMG would be left for dead.
Well, the numbers show that's a load of
And you know it. So rather than admit that you were mistaken and didn't have a clue, you simply changed the argument to subjective and pressed on. But the problem is your original statement:
So if you weren't saying that the AMG would be left for dead once the two cars hit the corners, what exactly was your point, particularly in a post about a race? That the two cars would be even?
I don't think so. You obviously (mistakenly) thought that the M3 would run away and leave it, and when I threw the track numbers up in your face, rather than confront the track numbers, you simply turned tail and ran, hiding behind a cheap subjective argument.The one instance being both cars' being piloted by Mr. Horst Von Saurma, who just happened to hold the lap record at Nurburgring in a production automobile. So he is not one of your magazine hacks.
But here's another for you: same driver, same track...the brand-spanking-new M5 versus the three-year-old SL55 AMG. In addition to having two fewer gears and no limited slip, the SL55 is 124 kg (about 275 pounds) heavier than the M--three huge disadvantages. Guess which one was faster around the Nurburgring? The SL55. By one full second.
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
It also beat the Z8 by six seconds, same track, same driver:
http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=81&Car2=48
No, but you sure are doing a damn fine job of avoiding the facts. I consider myself an actual driver, have (despite your false claim earlier) driven both cars, and my subjective opinion is the one I'll listen to the most, thank you very much. If you prefer to be led around by the nose by magazine editors, then power to you, but some of us actually prefer to think for ourselves.
And I never "avoided" the subjective ratings; I pointed out, accurately, that these are subjective. But your statement wasn't subjective, it was a false claim: that once the two cars hit the corners, the AMGs would go down.
Wrong.
Again: the numbers show you're wrong. Go ahead and evade your original claim and argue like a fool about subjective ratings all you like, but the original claim you wrote show what you meant, and the numbers show the real story.
