Vs Another comparison Autobild: M3 vs C63

[coolraoul]

Hey hey keep it soft, no war!
Nobody destroys here.

 

[south]

It looks like they quoted factory acceleration times, as most German magazines do, sadly.

PS factory time for M3 isnt 15.2 sec, its more like 16 sec.

Right, factory 0-200 time for M3 is 15.8s!

Best regards, south

 

[Sunny]

I was simply saying what I think MB should do in the future development of the car, and I didn't expect people to react that way. The C63 did very well and I am not complaining about the comparison result. I don't see how what I have said can be seen as an argument.

As an engineering student, I am always thinking of ways to improve existing mechanical designs, so even though I accept how the cars are built, I still think about how it could be improved.

I guess I misunderstood you, sorry about that .

 

[Guibo]

probably, also Autobild think the steering was better "sharper" in the M3 than in the C63.

Thanks. I find it interesting that in your opening post, you mentioned 2 reasons for why the M3 was preferred. Yet those not happy with the outcome continue to believe that only one aspect (fuel economy) was the deciding factor.
Also interesting that the testing method is called into question, even though this C63 was 2/10ths quicker from 100 to 200 than the one in Autozeitung (which drew no doubts of whether the cars were pushed).


And no, the M3 was not meant to destroy the competition. If it were, it would do better than to offer only a 4.0-liter V8 and 6 forward gears where a direct competitor has considerably more displacement and an extra gear. No, the point of the M3 is to offer a different driving experience. (Not necessarily a better one, as that is very subjective.)
I agree that for all intents and purposes a 5-point difference is mostly a draw. Kudos to MB for finally narrowing substanially the dynamic driving gap, as predicted.