Sunny
Premium
Yes, and MB didn't make the C63 lighter beacuse they didn't want it to outperform the SLR
or the M3
Vs Italian magazine Auto: M3 sedan vs C63
- Thread starter Guibo
- Start date
or the M3
Why can't I average the weights? Like you said, we don't know what the options are. So what do we know? We know data points. And it only stands to reason that we compare like for like. Otherwise, why not just consider the weight of the heaviest M3 sedan against the lightest M3 coupe and be done with it? Or would you prefer we compare the lightest M3's to the heaviest C63's? After all, we don't know the options, so let's just compare random figures without any regard whatsoever to context (their relative positioning next to each other)?
You expect the weights to be pretty close because you believe in the official MB weight figure. That is very unrealistic, and if you look at all available data, you would realize this. (Even if it's the figure for a stripped C63, how many stripped C63's do you think will be out there on the roads?) The differences between the M3's and C63 isn't likely down to options. We also know that absolutely none of the M3 coupes weighed so far were strippers by any means; they were well equipped.
Using these "data points" to calculate the average weight are mainly pulled from your guesses in car(sedan) options, correct? I believe in manufacturer specifications because they follow a certain standard which is CONSISTENT and REGULATED. BMW states the hp for the M3 is 420 hp, do you believe them or not?
The data points are arranged in such a way that you can reasonably assume a trend; that trend is that the E92's (even the very well equipped ones) are about 200kg lighter than the C63. The guesswork in options is a moot point: considering some of these E92's are very well equipped, there is not much else that increase their weight to within what MB and BMW claim.Using these "data points" to calculate the average weight are mainly pulled from guesses in options the car has, correct? I believe in manufacturer specifications because they follow a certain standard which is CONSISTENT and REGULATED. BMW states the hp for the M3 is 420 hp, do you believe them or not?
I believe it until independent testing states otherwise. In this case, independent testing (through acceleration data and dyno testing) verifies the hp rating on the M3. Independent testing does not support MB's weight figure for the C63; nor does it support completely BMW's claim for the M3 (though to a much lesser degree). I find it very hard to believe that a base C63 with driver, luggage, and fuel would weigh 100kg less than a C63 without driver and luggage; the C63 as standard is already very well equipped!
And in this independent test, MB's hp figures for the C63 and CLK63 Black Series are called into question. Do you believe the C63 in this test is making 50hp less than the CLK63?
The data points are arranged in such a way that you can reasonably assume a trend; that trend is that the E92's (even the very well equipped ones) are about 200kg lighter than the C63. The guesswork in options is a moot point: considering some of these E92's are very well equipped, there is not much else that increase their weight to within what MB and BMW claim.
I believe it until independent testing states otherwise. In this case, independent testing (through acceleration data and dyno testing) verifies the hp rating on the M3. Independent testing does not support MB's weight figure for the C63; nor does it support completely BMW's claim for the M3 (though to a much lesser degree). I find it very hard to believe that a base C63 with driver, luggage, and fuel would weigh 100kg less than a C63 without driver and luggage; the C63 as standard is already very well equipped!
And in this independent test, MB's hp figures for the C63 and CLK63 Black Series are called into question. Do you believe the C63 in this test is making 50hp less than the CLK63?
I edited, I'm talking about the sedan here... since this test has no indication what so ever on what options are included I can't rationalize just how one would "average" the weights. You would be surprised at how much a premium audio system can add in weight. I hope you do realize that the M3s body is still constructed mainly in steel. Only the hood and suspension components are made in full aluminum.
As I stated early in my post, I'm also skeptical about the C63s performance in this test. How did they launch the C63? Did they brake and apply throttle then let it go? Who knows... This "independent" test doesn't reveal much...
We can rationalize that such a relatively light sedan is likely not to have many options and the other data point (from Auto Zeitung) seems to support this. If it were the 1655kg M3 that were the light one, then this indicates BMW were further from the weight mark than they claim.
How much does a premium audio system weigh compare to a non premium audio system? 100kg?
Whether it's steel or aluminum doesn't really matter for this discussion. I already know the M3 is primarily steel. The front fenders on the M3 are injection-molded plastic, and that probably helps in the weight and weight distribution as does the CF roof. Are you implying that MB have done as thorough a job at reducing weight as BMW?
The launch is only part of the question. We can completely rule that out and look at the 60-180 or 100-180 times. Do you think the C63 is really that fast with 457 PS?
Yes. If we take BMW test results completely seriously, we'd have to think the M5 laps the 'Ring in ~7:50, and while perhaps some test mule pulled off such a miracle lap time in absolutely ideal conditions, that is certainly not representative of how the car actually performs. You yourself keep saying that you want to wait for magazine tests of these cars around the 'Ring, which tells me you value independent testing, no? Wouldn't you be the least bit interested if test after test, airfield run after airfield run, an M5 (or E63 or whatever) turns out to be no faster than a standard 5-Series or E-Class?
The fact that many others like to discuss magazine test results indicates I am not alone in this. If you have already made up your mind, on the basis of what the manufacturers tell us, then there's no point in even discussing this here.
We can rationalize that such a relatively light sedan is likely not to have many options and the other data point (from Auto Zeitung) seems to support this. If it were the 1655kg M3 that were the light one, then this indicates BMW were further from the weight mark than they claim.
How much does a premium audio system weigh compare to a non premium audio system? 200kg?
Whether it's steel or aluminum doesn't really matter for this discussion. I already know the M3 is primarily steel. The front fenders on the M3 are injection-molded plastic, and that probably helps in the weight and weight distribution as does the CF roof. Are you implying that MB have done as thorough a job at reducing weight as BMW?
The launch is only part of the question. We can completely rule that out and look at the 60-180 or 100-180 times. Do you think the C63 is really that fast with 457 PS?
Well "likely not to have many options" is pretty vague, no? What options did the other sedan have? How can you compare this number to a C63?
The premium audio(individual) system can include two amplifiers and 16 speakers in the Beemer. Plus there are other options to consider. I wonder why Ferrari decided not to include a sound system in their Scuderia.
I'm not sure why you are refering to the M3 coupe, but the M3 sedan has a steel roof and sunroof as optional. I never implied MB was using weight saving material on it's body however it has used weight saving material in other areas such as the engine. In addition, whatever else BMW has done on the M3 it's still heavy. Why is it so hard to believe that the M3 sedan and C63 will be similar in weight if they are speced similarly. Is it because of the image that MB has?I already gave my answer to what you asked, I said I was skeptical about the numbers in this test... However, I still believe that the C63 will be faster than a M3 sedan, and will have similar if not better performance on a track like the ring. BMW and MB have never issued numbers for the ring considering the amount of variables involved, more importantly, they would be held accountable for it. That's when I read mags to get an indication of how well a car performs because they have not provided the data.
I use the manufacturer's numbers as a benchmark so when I read magazines I expect the numbers to not deviate by a lot.
PC Valkyrie
Headlight Hero
Be careful about comparing weight numbers from different sources. Even manufacturers have different standards, depending on which market they are reporting to......in N. America, manufacturers usually quote the "curb weight", while manufacturers usually quote the "unladen weight" in Europe, which includes a 68kg driver, 90% full gas tank, and 7kg luggage.
When magazines report weight, it could simply be the manufacturer's quoted weight, or it could be an independent measurement of the car tested (test weight). When I look at all the data so far regarding weight, the M3 is consisently lighter than the C63.....that's the bottom line.
And this Italian test again confirms all previous tests between the M3 and C63......the C63 is faster in acceleration, while the M3 is the faster car on a twisty circuit, this time the gap being 2.2 seconds.
When magazines report weight, it could simply be the manufacturer's quoted weight, or it could be an independent measurement of the car tested (test weight). When I look at all the data so far regarding weight, the M3 is consisently lighter than the C63.....that's the bottom line.
And this Italian test again confirms all previous tests between the M3 and C63......the C63 is faster in acceleration, while the M3 is the faster car on a twisty circuit, this time the gap being 2.2 seconds.
I'm going by EU/DIN specs since all of the comparisons right now are done in Europe. Even though the EU specs are different, the same standards are applied to both cars(M3 & C63) so the difference in weight should be the same whether it's with driver and luggage or not.
M3 is lighter than the C63 which I'm not denying but by how much? Not a considerable amount in my opinion especially when they are both heavy to begin with.
M3 is lighter than the C63 which I'm not denying but by how much? Not a considerable amount in my opinion especially when they are both heavy to begin with.
Mr Robert
Kraftwagen König
Absolutely, what we have got so far is independent testing showing that the E90 is about 25 kgs heavier than the E92.
Are you aiming at telling us that the C63 is not at heavy as the tests tell us? I agree that on paper and by manufacturer specifications the difference should not be as much as the real world tells us but that is just the way it is sometimes.
How did they obtain those figures, the weights specifically? What options? It's just a list of numbers. Yes? The difference in base weight for both cars(M3 & C63) are similar... I wouldn't expect the numbers to change that much if they are similarly equipped. I hope SportAuto shows us some ring times soon.
I'm just stating what I see in these "test" and what the manufacturer claims.The Scuderia is designed more as a track-oriented car, so right off the bat, there is a different marketing scheme going for that car. I never said a complete stereo deletion doesn't save weight, did I? You might want to look at the carbon fiber body and engine parts, the titanium springs, the missing carpets and sound insulation, Alcantara in place of leather, Lexan rear window, and standard carbon ceramic brakes...and then consider the 100kg weight loss.Well "likely not to have many options" is pretty vague, no? What options did the other sedan have? How can you compare this number to a C63?
The premium audio(individual) system can include two amplifiers and 16 speakers in the Beemer. Plus there are other options to consider. I wonder why Ferrari decided not to include a sound system in their Scuderia.
So how about the premium system in the C63? What is the weight?
We don't have to have the exact same options in both cars for a meaningful comparison, do we? Going by that logic, absolutely no two cars (or their weights) can be ever compared because we don't know exactly what options they have. At that point, you may as well refrain from partaking in this thread or any thread that involves more than one car being discussed.
So is your theory that MB sent fully loaded cars for press testing while BMW sent strippers?
No. It's because we have multiple independent tests indicating this.
That's not true. BMW issues numbers for their M cars on a regular basis. Example:
"Gerhard Richter, vice president of BMW’s M Division, says the M3 is 3.5 seconds quicker than the M5’s 8min 10sec lap time."
Wheels - Get bent - BMW M3
Two 'Ring numbers issued within a single sentence. In an October 2000 issue of Evo, a BMW M engineer claimed the E46 M3 lapped in 8:22 "in test trim with two people and test equipment." In a 2004 interview with Burkhard Göschel, when asked about the E60 M5's alleged 7:52 lap time, Göschel does nothing to dispel the number, and responds: ""That was a special treat, a piece of racing." Surely, the M5 as we know it in roadgoing production form is not that fast.
If they go such lengths to cut weight on the coupe, why would you assume they stop only there? The C63's is the only engine to use weight-saving measures? No. I think the fact that BMW M bothered to develop an engine for the M3 (while AMG's engine is used in 7 other models) is an indication of their focus on this model, and a commitment to its dynamics. Weight obviously plays a part here. Out of curiosity, does the C63 use an AGM battery?
Zafiro
Supreme Roadmaster
A 335i E92 is 10 kg lighter than a 335i E90. CF roof remove 15 kg from M3 Coupe. So 10 + 15 = 25 kg. Which mean M3 E92 is 25 kg lighter than M3 E90.
E90 / E92
Length: 4520 / 4580 mm
Width: 1817 / 1782 mm
Height: 1421 / 1375 mm
When you look at E92 and E90 side by side you notice that E92 is a big car. So if M3 E90 is 25 kg heavier than M3 E92 then I believe in it.
E90 / E92
Length: 4520 / 4580 mm
Width: 1817 / 1782 mm
Height: 1421 / 1375 mm
When you look at E92 and E90 side by side you notice that E92 is a big car. So if M3 E90 is 25 kg heavier than M3 E92 then I believe in it.
If you read my following post above you can extract where the weight comes from. Base model weight is already stated by BMW & MB. Do you think this number is somehow just made up? I gave you an example then you seem to take my points to the extreme and go off into a tangent. The Scuderia is made for the track and regardless of what else you might think the point is to save weight. Do you really think a manual car with unknown options, and also how the numbers came up is really a fair and legit comparison? I'm talking about being reasonable here. What we have are numbers from both BMW and MB which show similar weight in base form. Why can't we take it from there? Fyi, I believe the MB cars that were tested are most likely way more loaded then the M3 sedan. Please show me what the article says if otherwise.
About the times, I mean't issuing a press release like the GT-R, I don't think BMW nor MB has done that on a comparable scale. Yeah you hear it on the forums, how often does the public get to know?
I was giving you examples of what wieght saving measures were taken by MB. BMWs focus and commitment didn't help them improve their engine weight compared to a bigger liter AMG engine. I don't see what parts they improved on the sedan compared to a coupe. The sedan body is basically a 3 series sedan besides the steel roof. They use the same underpinnings. And please don't infer that I'm saying the M3 is a 3 series or that MB is a lightweight.
