Vs Italian magazine Auto: M3 sedan vs C63

[Mr Robert]

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.

The usual way for magazines (as well as others) to obtain figures is to measure...

The difference in what you call base weight and we refer to as a number stated by the manufacturer is not much but weight numbers supplied by manufacturers are more often wrong than right. So, until we have tests telling us otherwise the E90 is about 25 kgs heavier than the E92, which weight in at about 1,620 kgs.

I have never seen a stripped out premium press car.

 

[tvfan84]

Let's be honest, do you really think MB and BMW just makes up these numbers? I'm pretty sure they go through a strigent process. They are held accountable for all their figures they publish. Also, I'm not saying the car was stripped down but rather we have limited knowledge of how they came up with the numbers.

 

[Mr Robert]

Let's be honest, do you really think MB and BMW just makes up these numbers? I'm pretty sure they go through a strigent process. They are held accountable for all their figures they publish. Also, I'm not saying the car was stripped down but rather we have limited knowledge of how they came up with the numbers.

The EC DIN numbers are known to be representative only to a few cars, here in Sweden I know only of Audi who makes separate weight numbers for each car.

All we know is that the measured weights of the cars are more representative than the EC DIN since they are real world measurements of real world cars in well speced cars.

 

[tvfan84]

The EC DIN numbers are known to be representative only to a few cars, here in Sweden I know only of Audi who makes separate weight numbers for each car.

All we know is that the measured weights of the cars are more representative than the EC DIN since they are real world measurements of real world cars in well speced cars.

I don't know what to say, you made up you're mind heh. I just hope you understand where I am coming from.

 

[Mr Robert]

I don't know what to say, you made up you're mind heh. I just hope you understand where I am coming from.

You seem to have made up your mind too. I did not think that there would be such a big difference in real life as it now seems to be. Im waiting for the test that proves me wrong but for now it seems like MB claims a too low figure. It's not the first time this happens, a couple of years ago a Swedish magazine proved that the BMW 5-series that they tested (pretty well equiped but not full) was about 110 kgs more than claimed by BMW.

These irregularities is one of the reasons why many magazines perform their own measurements.

 

[tvfan84]

Yeah let's wait and see. The C seems to be getting less news coverage than the M3.

 

[Guibo]

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.

So instead of critically examining the vast wealth of data (very well loaded E92 coupes) and making a reasonable assumption as it pertains to the sedan, you form a belief on the absence of information?
I will ask you again: do you really think all of those C63's were fully loaded and every single one of those M3 coupes were strippers? What you think of the E90 vs C63 weight hinges on how you resolve this question.

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?

It doesn't have to be an issued press release to be scrutinized.
It's funny you should mention the GT-R. Remember the old Skyline that was supposedly the first production car to lap the 'Ring in under 8 minutes? Turns out in subsequent independent testing that that wasn't true.

BMWs focus and commitment didn't help them improve their engine weight compared to a bigger liter AMG engine.

And you can verify that both manufacturers weighed their engines the exact same way? Can you confirm that some part of the EU governing body even enforces this?

 

[tvfan84]

So instead of critically examining the vast wealth of data (very well loaded E92 coupes) and making a reasonable assumption as it pertains to the sedan, you form a belief on the absence of information?
I will ask you again: do you really think all of those C63's were fully loaded and every single one of those M3 coupes were strippers? What you think of the E90 vs C63 weight hinges on how you resolve this question.



It doesn't have to be an issued press release to be scrutinized.
It's funny you should mention the GT-R. Remember the old Skyline that was supposedly the first production car to lap the 'Ring in under 8 minutes? Turns out in subsequent independent testing that that wasn't true.



And you can verify that both manufacturers weighed their engines the exact same way? Can you confirm that some part of the EU governing body even enforces this?

I believe there is a huge discrepancy on what is stated in this article(test) and what is published by MB and BMW. Again, I didn't say they were strippers but most likely not as loaded compared to the C. I think that is a better way to understand it than just taking the average wieghts of the sedan and saying that's how it compares without knowing more background knowledge.

I don't remember Nissan officially saying it would lap the ring in 8 minutes. Not many people know.

To answer your last question, I'm sure they have rules in place, why do you think the weight of the C63 is similar to a M3 sedan in the first place? They seem to coincide a great deal according to the manufacturer suggested weight, which you fail to acknowledge. I guess it also depends on how you resolve the question.

By the way are you going to even attempt to answer my previous questions? Or you just going to ask some more?

 

[Zafiro]

I doesnt matter how you guys turn it. C63 still accelerate faster and M3 still handle better. Doesnt matter how much they weight these two things will still stay the same.

 

[tvfan84]

we just having a friendly talk Although I'm getting tired now, I think I should sleep.

 

[Mr Robert]

I believe there is a huge discrepancy on what is stated in this article and what is published by MB and BMW. Again, I didn't say they were strippers but most likely not as loaded compared to the C. I think that is a better way to understand it than just taking the average wieghts of the sedan and saying that's how it compares without knowing more background knowledge.

The cars that are sent to testing by magazines are almost always as loaded as possible. But if you can show that this is not the case with the E90 you are welcome to show the rest of us. Thing is that the measured difference in weight between the E90 and E92 is in line with what BMW has stated and the coupes that were tested are proven not to be strippers.

Why do you say that the E90 was not as loaded as the C63? All we are doing is comparing the weight of real wold good speced. There are bound to be dricrepancies but I think it is hard to make a good speced E90 alomst 200 kgs heavier by adding those few extra things that are not already there.

 

[Guibo]

I believe there is a huge discrepancy on what is stated in this article and what is published by MB and BMW. Again, I didn't say they were strippers but most likely not as loaded compared to the C. I think that is a better way to understand it than just taking the average wieghts of the sedan and saying that's how it compares without knowing more background knowledge.

"Most likely not as loaded compared to the C"...sounds a bit vague, no?
Again, you are basing your opinion on an absence of information. What I'm doing is perfectly consistent with statistical analysis (and like I said, with more E90 tests, the average weight figure could very well increase). If we have 100 M3 tests and 100 C63 tests, do you take the absolute lightest M3 and compare it to the absolute heaviest C63? No. The reasonable approach is to compare like for like (lightest vs lightest, heaviest vs heaviest, avg vs avg); that way, you can get an idea. You don't have to know the exact options, otherwise no one on these forums, including you, can come to any conclusion without knowing the precise options.
The way these manufacturers supply press cars is probably not too far off from how they will be configured by the average consumer. Or do you have evidence to indicate that C63 owners will prefer their cars stripped?

I don't remember Nissan officially saying it would lap the ring in 8 minutes.

They did. It was widely published throughout UK car mags. Evo featured the Skyline as one of their 'Ring 8-minute heroes article on the basis of this. It also formed the catalyst for TopGear to try to duplicate the record with none other than the very same Nissan test driver (who not only failed to meet the time, but was faster in a Ferrari 355; he also admitted the test mule wasn't exactly stock).

To answer your last question, I'm sure they have rules in place, why do you think the weight of the C63 is similar to a M3 sedan in the first place? They seem to coincide a great deal according to the manufacturer suggested weight, which you fail to acknowledge. I guess it also depends on how you resolve the question.

Perhaps for the same reason that Goeschel did not back away from the 7:52 time by the M5: perhaps at some time during its development, such a time was miraculously acheived. Perhaps at some time during the C63's development, there was one that weighed that much according to the EU standard. Does an EU commission go into each manufacturer to even verify this?
Please read what Evo magazine wrote when verifying manufacturer weight claims in their 2006 Fast Club article:
"What is 'kerb weight'?
Different car makers have different interpretations, making direct comparisons rather fraught. That's why we've invested in our very own accurate corner weight scales. The weights listed are for cars full of fuel, but without occupants or luggage. Not surprisingly, none of the cars matched exactly what its maker claimed, and all bar three were heavier. To a degree, this is to be expected, as quoted weights are always for the most basic model, while cars supplied for magazine tests are often loaded with goodies.
The greatest discrepancy was recorded by the Ascari - we saw 1410kg against a claim of 1250kg...the Caterham at 617kg against a claim of 575kg, which is over 7 percent heavier. Heftier by a similar proportion were the '06 Gallardo and the new Jaguar XK. The latter was loaded with extras such as active suspension and 20-in wheels, but in our view these don't quite add up to an additional 126kg over the claim"

Now, how about the C63 being 200kg over the claim? Are you going to blame the active suspension? Oh, wait...it doesn't have it. But just about every single one of those M3 coupes was equipped with EDC. Maybe the Caterham weighs 7% more due to the sunroof and premium sound system. Or the motorized "seatbelt butler" that you get on the M3 (but not the C63?).

By the way are you going to even attempt to answer my previous questions? Or you just going to ask some more?

I am answering your questions. Please repeat any I may have missed. Thanks. I did not see your answer as to whether the C63 has an AGM battery.

 

[Guibo]

Regarding the old Skyline claim, this is from that TopGear article:
"But I suppose it was the combination of Nissan's decision to officially import the car into the UK, coupled with their GT-R brochure, that finally spurred us into action here. The brochure reads: 'The Nissan Skyline GT-R is the only production car in the world to have lapped Germany's Nurburgring circuit in under eight minutes.'
Now it's Dirk; in the Skyline. This car is the main reason we're all here but at the same time nobody expects a sub-eight minute lap today because Dirk has explained the circumstances of that one blinding effort. For a start, that particular GT-R was a battered old test mule worth nothing to anyone. It had a racing seat and a roll cage and it had been set up precisely to Dirk's liking. it also happened at the end of three solid days of testing when, even with Dirk's experience, 'things really flow'. In addition, that one Banzai lap necessitated cutting every corner and bouncing off every kerb.What's more, no-one at Nissan has volunteered precisely how much horsepower that car made. (We've heard of Skylines with up to 1,200bhp..,) So, off goes Dirk... and back he comes after 8m 37.10. Fast, but slower than expected.
And the red car? Well, it can't be a coincidence that both Dirk and Whizzo went faster in the F355 than any other car they drove."

This is the list of faster cars in that same session:
F355 - 8:31.42
NSX - 8:33.80
E36 M3 Evo - 8:36.42

 

[tvfan84]

"Most likely not as loaded compared to the C"...sounds a bit vague, no?
Again, you are basing your opinion on an absence of information. What I'm doing is perfectly consistent with statistical analysis (and like I said, with more E90 tests, the average weight figure could very well increase). If we have 100 M3 tests and 100 C63 tests, do you take the absolute lightest M3 and compare it to the absolute heaviest C63? No. The reasonable approach is to compare like for like (lightest vs lightest, heaviest vs heaviest, avg vs avg); that way, you can get an idea. You don't have to know the exact options, otherwise no one on these forums, including you, can come to any conclusion without knowing the precise options.
The way these manufacturers supply press cars is probably not too far off from how they will be configured by the average consumer. Or do you have evidence to indicate that C63 owners will prefer their cars stripped?


They did. It was widely published throughout UK car mags. Evo featured the Skyline as one of their 'Ring 8-minute heroes article on the basis of this. It also formed the catalyst for TopGear to try to duplicate the record with none other than the very same Nissan test driver (who not only failed to meet the time, but was faster in a Ferrari 355; he also admitted the test mule wasn't exactly stock).



Perhaps for the same reason that Goeschel did not back away from the 7:52 time by the M5: perhaps at some time during its development, such a time was miraculously acheived. Perhaps at some time during the C63's development, there was one that weighed that much according to the EU standard. Does an EU commission go into each manufacturer to even verify this?
Please read what Evo magazine wrote when verifying manufacturer weight claims in their 2006 Fast Club article:
"What is 'kerb weight'?
Different car makers have different interpretations, making direct comparisons rather fraught. That's why we've invested in our very own accurate corner weight scales. The weights listed are for cars full of fuel, but without occupants or luggage. Not surprisingly, none of the cars matched exactly what its maker claimed, and all bar three were heavier. To a degree, this is to be expected, as quoted weights are always for the most basic model, while cars supplied for magazine tests are often loaded with goodies.
The greatest discrepancy was recorded by the Ascari - we saw 1410kg against a claim of 1250kg...the Caterham at 617kg against a claim of 575kg, which is over 7 percent heavier. Heftier by a similar proportion were the '06 Gallardo and the new Jaguar XK. The latter was loaded with extras such as active suspension and 20-in wheels, but in our view these don't quite add up to an additional 126kg over the claim"

Now, how about the C63 being 200kg over the claim? Are you going to blame the active suspension? Oh, wait...it doesn't have it. But just about every single one of those M3 coupes was equipped with EDC. Maybe the Caterham weighs 7% more due to the sunroof and premium sound system. Or the motorized "seatbelt butler" that you get on the M3 (but not the C63?).


I am answering your questions. Please repeat any I may have missed. Thanks. I did not see your answer as to whether the C63 has an AGM battery.

How exactly am I forming my argument with "absence of information?" I'm stating what MB and BMW published and that the difference in weight should be similar across the board. Please get this into your head, I'm looking at the degree of discrepency here and it's huge. Lets see the C63 probably had every option, I can easily see it being over weighted. I'm not asking for an exact comparison but at least be within reason. Do you see the point? Edit: Your examples of what's over weight, the only outliner I consider from those test is the Askari, the others are within tolerance. This is not so with the C63 and M3 sedan which is 200kgs or more.

I'm not going to argue what is "official" cause it seems as though we have gotten a bit off-topic from my original point. Think about how the new GT-R was announced by the president of Nissan. What conditions did Top gear test on? What conditions did Nissan say it was on? I don't believe Nissan was specific... The new GT-R has a time of 7:50 on semi-wet track according to Sport Auto, which is respectable and within limits to what Nissan estimates. I suppose for you magazines always take precedence over what manufacturers claim.


I sensed sarcasm "C63 has an AGM battery" but to answer your question no. You can reread what I posted early, I said do you believe that that BMW and MB are making up the weight? And don't you want to be a least a bit scientific in interpreting your data? Instead of guesses based on two results? Let's think of it this way, ignore what BMW has stated... Two mags test the hp ratings of the M. One states 360 hp, the other 400, who do you believe? Hard to decide correct? What's with the variation? Without a benchmark it is hard to judge.

You know why I would believe in BMW or MB more? Cause they are more credible and when they do testing, similar to how scientific research is done, they reduce the amount of variables involved by regulating it so the results are standardized thus making it comparable to all other EU/DIN specifications. If you don't believe this then you are in denial. Also, if you think they are just making these numbers up then there is no point in any further discussion.

 

[tvfan84]

The cars that are sent to testing by magazines are almost always as loaded as possible. But if you can show that this is not the case with the E90 you are welcome to show the rest of us. Thing is that the measured difference in weight between the E90 and E92 is in line with what BMW has stated and the coupes that were tested are proven not to be strippers.

Why do you say that the E90 was not as loaded as the C63? All we are doing is comparing the weight of real wold good speced. There are bound to be dricrepancies but I think it is hard to make a good speced E90 alomst 200 kgs heavier by adding those few extra things that are not already there.

How can you show that the E90 was loaded? Read above to understand why I think the E90 was not as loaded.

 

[Mr Robert]

The new GT-R has a time of 7:50 on semi-wet track according to Sport Auto, which is respectable and within limits to what Nissan estimates. I suppose for you magazines always precedence over what manufacturers claim.

There was one damp part of one section of curves. SA aslo said they were very doubtful regarding the time claimed by Nissan.

I sensed sarcasm "C63 has an AGM battery" but to answer your question no. You can reread what I posted early, I said do you believe that that BMW and MB are making up the weight?

There are many, many instances when manufacturers have stated a weight that is far to low. Hence, magazines tend to measure themselves.

And don't you want to be a least a bit scientific in interpreting your data? Instead of guesses based on two results? Let's think of it this way, ignore what BMW has stated... Two mags test the hp ratings of the M. One states 360 hp, the other 400, who do you believe? Hard to decide correct? What's with the variation? Without a benchmark it is hard to judge.

Grasping are we? Well, lets say that ten magazines test the hp of a car and nine out of them get a result between 395 and 402 hp. The tenth get 355 hp (or say 447 hp for that matter) then we will not regad the tenth result as relevant since it is a to big deviation from the statistic norm. Simple statistics. If we only have two measurements and they differ that much we have to say that we have insufficient data. In this case we have a lot of data telling us the same thing.

You know why I would believe in BMW or MB more? Cause they are more credible and when they do testing, similar to how scientific research is done, they reduce the amount of variables involved by regulating it so the results are standardized thus making it comparable to all other EU/DIN specifications. If you don't believe this then you are in denial. Also, if you think they are just making these numbers up then there is no point in any further discussion.

That's it, you believe more in BMW or MB than in the real world. I do not think we need to discuss this matter anymore. There are way to many instances when the real world do not correspond to the EC DIN measurements by the manufacturers to let them get away with it.

Real world before manufacturer claims. Period.

 

[tvfan84]

There was one damp part of one section of curves. SA aslo said they were very doubtful regarding the time claimed by Nissan.



There are many, many instances when manufacturers have stated a weight that is far to low. Hence, magazines tend to measure themselves.



Grasping are we? Well, lets say that ten magazines test the hp of a car and nine out of them get a result between 395 and 402 hp. The tenth get 355 hp (or say 447 hp for that matter) then we will not regad the tenth result as relevant since it is a to big deviation from the statistic norm. Simple statistics. If we only have two measurements and they differ that much we have to say that we have insufficient data. In this case we have a lot of data telling us the same thing.



That's it, you believe more in BMW or MB than in the real world. I do not think we need to discuss this matter anymore. There are way to many instances when the real world do not correspond to the EC DIN measurements by the manufacturers to let them get away with it.

Real world before manufacturer claims. Period.

That post was for Guibo mostly, but I'll say something else about these two "data" points. I'm not "grasping" anything, it was a simple example to for further my argument. You do not know how these data were gathered, rather limited details, but then you can come up with conclusions from this and I'm suppose to believe it's real? Yeah, you have your right to believe in whatever, and so do I.

 

[Tarek]

Yeah..When you put it like this,It seems that C63 is really fata$$,bada$$ MOFO

Well it's the weight of high strength steel incorporated in the chassis and suspenion parts which is far more rigid and safe than aluminium

 

[Mr Robert]

That post was for Guibo mostly, but I'll say something else about these two "data" points. I'm not "grasping" anything, it was a simple example to for further my argument. You do not know how these data were gathered, rather limited details, but then you can come up with conclusions from this and I'm suppose to believe it's real? Yeah, you have your right to believe in whatever, and so do I.

Yes, you are in your full right to believe whatever you want. I'm merely saying that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

If all data points at the same thing then there is no rational reason to doubt it. The test data for the E90 is a bit weak at the moment but it seems like a figure somewhere around where the initial independent measurements indicate is reliable.

 

[tvfan84]

I'll wait for a bit more data and reliable sources before passing my judgement. Basically sums up what I have being trying to communicate.