German Car Forum

Originally Posted by Deutsch

Never made any comparisons between the 63 and 55 engine... at all. This is the problem; people read too much into others posts, take it for what it is and if you don't understand something, ask. Being presumptuous doesn't do us any good on here.

If you were reading close enough you'd realize that I was talking about the amount of torque available from a certain RPM, as it is the BMW's torque figure is lower than the MB's- it's my guess that the BMW's 4.0 V8 will be slightly smoother based upon this observation alone... but the difference will be negligible.

Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie

Way too early to make this comparison, so all we can do is assume based how the previous M3 and C-AMG cars did.

Some of you have already concluded that the C63 will be a "purpose built luxury drag racer", while the new M3 will be more of an "all out track car". This is very typical of many BMW enthusiasts who have never driven any of these cars on a track, but make their conclusions based on reading car reviews and other people's comments on car internet forums.

The impression that C-AMG cars don't handle as well as the M3 counterpart is not inaccurate. The W202 C36 and C43, and W203 C32 all had suspension tuned more for comfort (relatively), rather than hard core track duty. As such, laptimes were correspondingly slower than the M3 competitors of the day. The bottom line is that the C-AMG cars were more comfortable road cars than their M3 counterparts.

Then came the facelifted W203 C55. There was very little promotion for this car on MB's part, and many people (including car journalists) often concluded that it was exactly the same as the C32 but with an even heavier engine in the front which would make the handling even worse than the C32. Nothing could be further from the truth, as this car was a significant improvement as a track car because of upgrades to the steering and suspension.

The W203 C55 has been compared head to head to a E46 M3 on a track just twice, as far as I know. The first time was in Evo magazine around Bedford autodome. It was the M3 CS (with upgraded suspension and brakes over the standard M3) that was used, and the standard C55 was only 0.3 seconds slower (89.8 seconds vs 90.1 seconds). The second time I know of was in iafarica.com, which tested the C55 and M3 on Zwartkops Raceway. The C55 was 0.2 seconds behind the M3 in laptime (77.8 seconds vs 78.0 seconds).

So in head to head comparisons where they were tested with the same drivers and same track conditions, the M3 is consistently faster on a track when on the limit, but the difference is so small that it really becomes a driver's race for most people.

Outside of head to head comparisons, the Sport Auto Supertests offer the next best thing in comparing laptimes for cars. The C55 and M3 have identical Nurburgring times, but the C55 was 1 second slower than the M3 on Hockenheim. The Sport Auto Supertests do definitively show you how much of an improvement the C55 is over the C32. The C55 is 15 seconds faster than the C32 on Nuburgring and 2 seconds faster than the C32 on Hockenheim. Those are pretty huge differences.

This tells me that the MB-AMG can put out a C-class competitor can keep up with a M3 on a track, yet maintain a more luxurious and slightly more comfortable ride for daily road use. The question now is whether MB is content to stick to this forumla: better road car, but slightly inferior track car.......or maybe they will try to take the M3 head on as a track car. I doubt they will take that 2nd option with the C63.

Having said all this, I took my C55 to the track again 2 days ago.....this time I played around with a lot of Porsche 911's........bigger boys compared to the M3's I played with last time.......maybe I'll make a thread about it soon.....

Originally Posted by Just_me

1. In EVO they said the tires in M3 CS were brand new (I think that was the explanation) and they said it affected the laptime in a negative way. So no, the test in EVO is no good source.

2. Wrong, M3 e46 is 2.3 seconds faster than C55 on hockenheim. Correct (best) laptime for M3 E46 is 1.16,3 min and laptime for C55 is 1,18,6 min


PC_V, even if you have nice post there, there was some errors and I corrected them for you

Originally Posted by The Artist

i know you didnt compare it to the 55 but your way of talking sounded to me like you felt it was a low torque monster like the 55 .. and that it isnt..its a very smooth and broad engine.. some hate it.. like most US AMG fans..and others love it..

about an M car being smoother than an AMG..that wont happen anytime soon..that i can tell you before the car is launched..
ive driven the old M3 vs the C55.. and god damn that M3 was edgy..

by the way thats how the M3 should be..and we loves it

Originally Posted by RICHBOY

What does it matter, the RS4 had better times than both!

Originally Posted by Just_me

1. In EVO they said the tires in M3 CS were brand new (I think that was the explanation) and they said it affected the laptime in a negative way. So no, the test in EVO is no good source.
Quote: "Three more different styles would be hard to find. The Audi's peerless traction means it holds its line brilliantly around the tricky Bank complex. The suberb brakes can upset its composure into Pif-Paf, though. The Merc's auto box is frustrating as it rarely responds immediately to your commands at these speeds. It particulary likes to prevent you from changing down. The way you can use the M3's tail to point the car into the apex is very effective, particulary through Bank and the last two corners. It would've have gone quicker had it not been delivered on new tyres."

2. Wrong, M3 e46 is 2.3 seconds faster than C55 on hockenheim. Correct (best) laptime for M3 E46 is 1.16,3 min (see issue 3/2003) and laptime for C55 is 1,18,6 min

3. C55 can keep up on tracks where speed is more important, N-ring is one of those tracks were speed is very helpful. Smaller and tighter tracks the M3 will have an advantage over C55.


PC_V, even if you have nice post there, there was some errors and I corrected them for you

BTW whats the name of the guy that do the trackdriving around Bedrome? I assume they ALWAYS use the same driver with every tested car, right?

Originally Posted by Just_me

PC_V, even if you have nice post there, there was some errors and I corrected them for you

Originally Posted by Luwalira

Give me a car with the front of the M3 and the rear of the C63

Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie

Concerning the Evo test and the comments that were posted about the tires, that is just pure speculation from the editors. What if they tested standard M3 without the CS package? Suspension is not as hardcore, and the brakes are not as good. That itself may be worth a few 10ths of a second of laptime. What if the C55 had the optional LSD from AMG Manufaktur? Another few 10th's in favour of the C55......the speculation can be endless.

With regards to the Sport Auto Hockenheim times: This has always bothered me and I've always tended to trust times from the Supertest only. We know the same driver drives the cars for the Supertest on Nurburgring and Hockenheim, but there are a whole bunch of other drivers which drive the cars only on Hockenheim (not part of a Supertest). Therefore, are all the Hockenheim times comparable? The M3 was tested multiple times by different drivers on Hockenheim, whereas the C55 was tested only once (to my knowledge) as part ot the Supertest.

Most of the data (including slalom speeds, skidpad grip) suggests that the handling advantage the M3 has over the C55 is a small one. The only piece of data which shows a more significant advantage is the Hockenheim times. All the others show a very small difference. Everyone is in agreement that the M3 is a superior track car in terms of driving feel and fun, but it is NOT going to blow by a C55 on a twisty track, as some of you think.

Originally Posted by Bruce

I happen to think PC Valkyrie makes some interesting (and informed) points and he is right regarding the Supertest Hockenheim Lap Times. Regular Hockenheim circuit runs (non-supertest) are tested by various drivers (HVS usually not being one!)

Originally Posted by Just_me

Thats not what I have been told. Can you show me how you know this?
Just look at the Supertest and the Hockenheim times, they always use the best time when comparing with other cars from their supertests. If the same driver isnt always used this carmag doenst mean much to me anymore, thats sad.

Originally Posted by Just_me

condescending? I wasnt condescending, I just presented some facts. Excuse me if english isnt my main language, I dont always know how to write without sounding condescending. Its nothing I do on purpose.

Originally Posted by Just_me

hmm bruce now you sounded condescending towards me.

Originally Posted by The Artist

to BMW making the M3 a car you can live with on a day to day basis?

Originally Posted by Bruce

As far as I'm aware (and you can ask Ajzahn to confirm it), regular tests are rarely conducted HVS. For instance, when the Corvette Z06 was first ran around the Hockenheim it was tested by Jochen Ulber, meanwhile the slightly slower time (published in the Supertest) was actually acheived by Horst Von Saumra.

Originally Posted by The Artist

im sure ppl can forgive it.. but i think its somehting bmw will focus on..and try to make it more comfortable..

Originally Posted by Just_me

Then I have lost faith in Sportauto and its no long a good source.
I have seen the time 1.16,3 min for M3 being presented in Supertests and now it turns out that sportauto use different drivers.
Now this thread is worthless:
http://www.germancarforum.com/test-da...-laptimes.html

The best thing is probably to delete the thread.

Also laptimes from EVO, autobild are worthless as well becuase they also use different drivers

Originally Posted by Bruce

Nonetheless, I think it's perfectly fair to compare one set of supertest lap times (both Hockenheim and 'Ring) against another set of supertest lap times. Afterall, just about all of them were done by the same driver

:

Originally Posted by The Artist

i think the prob the MB boys have with this discussion
is the never ending attitude from BMW fans that AMG´s suck on tracks
maybe some here belive so
maybe others dont but dont know how to express themselfs..
aint no MB fan saying that the AMG is a better track car.. but they are just pointing out that the diffrence isnt huge..
i belive there is no crime in doing so

But it seems that we all can agree that the C55 wasent so far behind the M3 on track..
on the other hand..i can tell you this..the M3 was NOT near as comfortable as an C class AMG.. no way.. it was raw..and had you bumpiing all over the place during ordinary drives..

so with that in mind.. do you belive that the new M3 will be as RAW..
and are you willing to live with such a RAW ass car..when the AMG obviously isnt to far behind on track.. and probably faster in most real life conditions..

so lets refocus.. and take the focus away from MB makin the C63 a better track car..
to BMW making the M3 a car you can live with on a day to day basis?

PS
I know this might sound like the M3 is a lotus..
but that isnt the case..it is okay when it comes to comfort..
but the diffrence in comfort seems to be more significant
than the diffrence in track performance M3 vs C55

Originally Posted by Deutsch

Point is the two will cater to like, but slightly different crowds. I formed my opinions based upon what I know and having driven both cars on more than one occasion. The M3 is an all out track car with a few creature comforts to keep drivers happy. The C63 is more, like I said, a purpose built luxury drag racer much like the C55 was/is - goes fast but probably won't like corners as much as any M3, guaranteed. No doubt it will have some handles, but I'm sure they'll be pale next to the M3's. It's not that hard to form a conclusion on two cars whose base variants have already been tested and are on the market, though of course I'd expect their characters to be quite different, but the basic foundation has already been proven.