Vs BMW ///M vs AMG, Who tunes better?

[Zafiro]

Andreas im sorry if i offended you. It was an inflammotary statement to wind you up a bit, to get a reaction. I didnt mean it as an insult

Ok fair enough! you provocative bastard!

 

[BMW///MPower]

Yeah you could feel these discussions coming from 10000 miles away douldn't you
It's in fact real simple, and referring to the same episode of top gear I mentioned (see post 2 or something like that) the conclusion is simple. The BMW M3, the Audi RS4 and the AMG C63 are all three great cars, and there are some differences of course, and it are those differences that differ the cars and they also deicde about who likes what.
Results o fdrag race: 1 AMG 2 M3 3 RS4, results on track, 1 BMW 2 C63 and RS4. So probably the new generation RS4 will be faster then M3 on track and fatser then C63 in a drag race, but still I'll have the M3

 

[Karabiner98k]

I think AMG is more like a normal Mercedes with a much bigger engine or a kompressor but the engines of M cars are engineering marvels.The engine of E60 M5 is only 0.2litre bigger than 550i but it delivers a lot more performance. (as Jeremy Clarkson said:
M is the automobile engineering to it's perfection)

As an example for comparison you can compare the current AMG 6.2L engine with the 4.9L engine from E39 M5 in terms of specific output:
For M5 E39=81.6 hp/litre
For E63=82.9 hp/litre

These two engines are based on similar principle(displacement and torque)and both rev to about 7000rpm.

The AMG engine produce almost the same specific output as the M engine that produced about 9 years before E63.

The current V10 has a specific output of over 100 hp/litre.

The AUDI and MERCEDES have always needed big engines or Turbos or Kompressors to be able to follow Naturally aspirated engines of BMW M-division and i think this really shows who tunes better.

 

[Merc1]

Yet in the world of today BMW M is turning to turbos and "tunning" trucks no less.

Too bad the M way of a naturally aspirated, high-rev engine is on the way out, just as Mercedes discovers the practice.

So much for that argument.


M

 

[bum-man]

^ I guess Mercedes and Audi were doing it right all along, but you will never see this guy admit it.

 

[Merc1]

Nope of course not. He had to go back 9 years to prove a point, nevermind that Mercedes' engines are tuned for torque not hp per liter.

Now all of suddens turbos will be the correct solution. The whole M defense is as predictable as falling rain.


M

 

[Karabiner98k]

Yes, M engines are tuned for hp but M5 e39 is an exception,it was tuned for torque more than Hp like AMG 6.2L engine.
I compared M5 E39 with AMG 6.2L engine because these two engines both were tuned for torque more than hp.indeed M5 E39 is more focused at low end torque than 6.2L engine(M5 E39 peak torque at 3800RPM and E63 at 5200RPM)

I wanted to say even with the same principle(tuning for torque and not for hp) the M engine is able to be equal to newer AMG engine.

There is a 1.3L difference of displacement between these two engines and both are tuned for torque but very impressive is the fact that at 2000rpm M5 e39(with 1.3L less) produces 480nm and 6.2L engine produces 500nm!!

1.3L difference and only 20nm more.

I didn't say Audi and Mercedes were doing wrong i just made a comparison between two engines which are based on the same principle.

I went back to 9 years ago because it is not true to compare the M5 E60 engine with 6.2L engine in terms of Hp because E60 engine is based on a different principle compared to 6.2L engine, it is based on revs and hp.This is the reason i compared e39 M5 with E63.

The engine of the year award alone shows which company makes the best engines in the world.

 

[Sunny]

Why all this bs discussion? Seriously, over the last 2 or 3 decades, 8/10 times, M car is better than the equivalent AMG and the numerous comparisons testify to that. When/if AMG can change that, may be we should revisit this discussion then...

 

[bum-man]

Yes, M engines are tuned for hp but M5 e39 is an exception,it was tuned for torque more than Hp like AMG 6.2L engine.
I compared M5 E39 with AMG 6.2L engine because these two engines both were tuned for torque more than hp.indeed M5 E39 is more focused at low end torque than 6.2L engine(M5 E39 peak torque at 3800RPM and E63 at 5200RPM)

I wanted to say even with the same principle(tuning for torque and not for hp) the M engine is able to be equal to newer AMG engine.

There is a 1.3L difference of displacement between these two engines and both are tuned for torque but very impressive is the fact that at 2000rpm M5 e39(with 1.3L less) produces 480nm and 6.2L engine produces 500nm!!

1.3L difference and only 20nm more.

I didn't say Audi and Mercedes were doing wrong i just made a comparison between two engines which are based on the same principle.

I went back to 9 years ago because it is not true to compare the M5 E60 engine with 6.2L engine in terms of Hp because E60 engine is based on a different principle compared to 6.2L engine, it is based on revs and hp.This is the reason i compared e39 M5 with E63.

The engine of the year award alone shows which company makes the best engines in the world.

If you are seriously trying to argue that E39 engine in the M5 is better than the M156 you are beyond hopeless and will not last long here.

 

[Merc1]

Yes, M engines are tuned for hp but M5 e39 is an exception,it was tuned for torque more than Hp like AMG 6.2L engine.
I compared M5 E39 with AMG 6.2L engine because these two engines both were tuned for torque more than hp.indeed M5 E39 is more focused at low end torque than 6.2L engine(M5 E39 peak torque at 3800RPM and E63 at 5200RPM)

I wanted to say even with the same principle(tuning for torque and not for hp) the M engine is able to be equal to newer AMG engine.

There is a 1.3L difference of displacement between these two engines and both are tuned for torque but very impressive is the fact that at 2000rpm M5 e39(with 1.3L less) produces 480nm and 6.2L engine produces 500nm!!

1.3L difference and only 20nm more.

I didn't say Audi and Mercedes were doing wrong i just made a comparison between two engines which are based on the same principle.

I went back to 9 years ago because it is not true to compare the M5 E60 engine with 6.2L engine in terms of Hp because E60 engine is based on a different principle compared to 6.2L engine, it is based on revs and hp.This is the reason i compared e39 M5 with E63.

The engine of the year award alone shows which company makes the best engines in the world.

True, and like I said before Mercedes is doing the naturally aspirated, higher-rev engine now as BMW turns to turbos so whats the point?

The old M5 V8 wasn't designed for torque any more than the current M V10, it just didn't rev as much. It never matched the AMG engines in torque no matter how it was tuned so what was the point? If you aren't going to acknowledge that AMG and M tunes their engines differently for different pursposes then this is another pointless discussion. Again.

Now as BMW switches to turbos, what will be the mantra now? When Mercedes switches to turbos BMW can forget it.


AMG's old Kompressor V8 was a hell of an engine and it did exactly what it was designed to do, provide effortless torque and power all over the place.


M

 

[Merc1]

Why all this bs discussion? Seriously, over the last 2 or 3 decades, 8/10 times, M car is better than the equivalent AMG and the numerous comparisons testify to that. When/if AMG can change that, may be we should revisit this discussion then...

This is true for people who drive at the track and live on lap times and what not, can't argue with that.

Up until the C63 AMG came along the Mercedes was the better all arounder, not sure why AMG can't seem to match handling without the harsher ride.


M

 

[Zafiro]

Of course M is better than AMG. Pointless to argue about, its just the way it is

 

[Merc1]

If you are seriously trying to argue that E39 engine in the M5 is better than the M156 you are beyond hopeless and will not last long here.

Yep is the same old nonsense. Nevermind that the AMG V8 can rev and produce more torque.


M

 

[Sunny]

This is true for people who drive at the track and live on lap times and what not, can't argue with that.

Up until the C63 AMG came along the Mercedes was the better all arounder, not sure why AMG can't seem to match handling without the harsher ride.


M

M won most comparisons vs AMG cause it was the more enjoyable and involving car to drive. It just so happens to be also faster around a track.

 

[Merc1]

M won most comparisons vs AMG cause it was the more enjoyable and involving car to drive. It just so happens to be also faster around a track.

Right, but that doesn't make an AMG unenjoyable to drive and all those wins are usually because the M was more enjoyable to drive around a track.


M

 

[Zafiro]

I wrote this in May last year in this thread: "High-reeving engines, I love it. My concern is what is going to happen to M when they start using Turbos, no more highreeving engines?"

hmm , question remain to be seen

 

[Sunny]

Right, but that doesn't make an AMG unenjoyable to drive and all those wins are usually because the M was more enjoyable to drive around a track.


M

A lot of the comparisons don't even go to a race track and M still wins.

 

[Merc1]

A lot of the comparisons don't even go to a race track and M still wins.

I don't know about European magazines, but most U.S. magazines do when testing an M car otherwise there would be no point. Come to think of it most magazines do some type of track testing when comparing an M and AMG car Sunny so I don't think that statement is true.


M

 

[Zafiro]

I have read several tests were M win against AMG and it has nothing to do with how the car behave on a track. Most magazines do tests on a track and on normal roads at the same time and in those tests, you dont read that the final conclusion is based on how the car did on a track. But of course there are tests were the winner is based on how the car did on a track. There is a mix of everything. Also, you dont need a track to feel there are differences between car X and car Y on normal roads.

 

[Merc1]

I'm sure, but my point is the majority I've seen it is usually the track performance that puts the M car over, at least in U.S. magazines. Not sure about worldwide.


M