Italian magazine Auto: M3 sedan vs C63

[Mr Robert]

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.

I get that you think the E90 is to light but nothing points at future tests will have it weigh 200 kgs more than what the first two have shown. That simply will not happen, as long as the same standard of measuring is used (no driver and no luggage).

 

[tvfan84]

I get that you think the E90 is to light but nothing points at future tests will have it weigh 200 kgs more than what the first two have shown. That simply will not happen, as long as the same standard of measuring is used (no driver and no luggage).

I'm not asking for the E90 M3 to be exactly in weight as the C. What I'm questioning is this margin of 200 or more kg difference in both C63& E90 M3, which seems to be rather large. Do we at least agree that the base model for each car is similar, like 50kg? Regardless of who would acutally buy this trim. I just know right now there is insufficient data to drawn any good conclusions about both cars.

 

[Zafiro]

weight difference between 335i E90 and 335i E92 is 10 kg.

 

[tvfan84]

Yeah, the M3 sedan will be heavier though, and the options are so different that I don't really think the weight difference will be proportional to a E90 335i.

 

[coolraoul]

I've seen everywhere that the C63 is really heavier than the M3 e92, around 200kgs average...

The e90 is according to BMW around 25kgs more than the e92. The carbon roof saves 5kgs...So these 25kgs sound quite logical. Say 50kgs,let's be generous...

It would make the C63 around 150kgs heavier.

So. The C63 always comes with sunroof in tests, more or less 15kgs. The M3 I don't know, but let's add it. Makes 135 kgs more. I think it will be that, around 150kgs more for the C63.

Options can't make 100kgs in a C or 3-Series, unless you want a bullet-proof car with 48" wheels and 30cms thick leather.

I don't understand all that buzz around the weight...what does it change?

 

[tvfan84]

DCT and a sunroof would bring this much closer to the expected weight. Not out of the realm of possibility in testing cars once DCT is released. I just know options can accumlate weight. I guess some just want to question the validity of what MB or BMW publishes.

 

[Mr Robert]

I'm not asking for the E90 M3 to be exactly in weight as the C. What I'm questioning is this margin of 200 or more kg difference in both C63& E90 M3, which seems to be rather large. Do we at least agree that the base model for each car is similar, like 50kg? Regardless of who would acutally buy this trim. I just know right now there is insufficient data to drawn any good conclusions about both cars.

We can agree that the weight stated by the manufacturers are about the same. The figures of the E92 seems to add up and so does those of the E90 and I'm talking strictly real world figures here. The weigt figures measured by independent tester show that BMW have been quite honest when stating the weight figure for the M3, both in sedan and coupe shape.

What we need to focus on is why the figures for the C63 comes in so high. The difference is to large to let the options take the blame, that is for sure, sine the C63 like the M3 comes very well equiped. Do we simply have an ordinary case of a manufacturer stating a to low weight figure?

 

[Mr Robert]

I guess some just want to question the validity of what MB or BMW publishes.

For a very good reason.

 

[tvfan84]

We can agree that the weight stated by the manufacturers are about the same. The figures of the E92 seems to add up and so does those of the E90 and I'm talking strictly real world figures here. The weigt figures measured by independent tester show that BMW have been quite honest when stating the weight figure for the M3, both in sedan and coupe shape.

What we need to focus on is why the figures for the C63 comes in so high. The difference is to large to let the options take the blame, that is for sure, sine the C63 like the M3 comes very well equiped. Do we simply have an ordinary case of a manufacturer stating a to low weight figure?

I'm not sure, it's a good question. I still believe in standards though.

This test just reveals the weight of both cars and nothing else. Yes I do agree that E92 and E90 add but is there something else going on? I don't really know what kind of car BMW or MB sent. I guess this discussion is just going in circles but I get your idea.

 

[Mr Robert]

I'm not sure, it's good question.

This test just reveals the weight of both cars and nothing else. Yes I do agree that E92 and E90 add but is there something else going on? I don't really know what kind of car BMW or MB sent. I guess this discussion is just going in circles but I get your points.

I get your points too

The way im seeing it, the weight of the E90 will increase when the new gearbox arrive, that is for sure, but in its current form I think it is hard to make it weigh much (20-30 kgs heavier tops, and that is stretching it) more than it does in these tests.

Future tests of the C63 will show if the first few cars tested was equiped with those optional sand bags for safer winter driving (an actual option on old Volvos).

 

[tvfan84]

I would like to know too

I guess this is coming to a close now, finally

 

[coolraoul]

Future tests of the C63 will show if the first few cars tested was equiped with those optional sand bags for safer winter driving (an actual option on old Volvos).

The old Renault Dauphine needed them too in the front luggage space, but even on the dry, otherwise it just went on the roof at the first corner...Rear engined small family car, quite scary the first time... But sooo cute!

 

[Guibo]

How exactly am I forming my argument with "absence of information?"

You seem to be saying: Since we don't know the exact options on these cars, any comparison regarding their weights (and relative to what the mfr states) is invalid.
Consider the following 2 cars:
1. E92 M3 with 18530 euro in options including (but not limited to):
EDC
19" wheels
Nav with MDrive
Full leather
Parking sensors, front & rear
Adaptive cornering lights
Mirror package
Light package
2. C63 with 17160 euro in options including (but not limited to):
Nav
Full parking sensors
Leather
Sunroof
Rear airbags
Keyless Go
Do you think it's comparable to examine their weights relative to each other? Ie, neither of these cars are strippers, and some options on the M3 weigh more while others on the C63 weigh more as well.

Your examples of what's over weight, the only outliner I consider from those test is the Askari, the others are within tolerance.

How is the Caterham within tolerance? What options are in a Caterham that would weigh that much? And as Evo mentioned, the Jagaur's weight difference is not due to the options.

What conditions did Top gear test on? What conditions did Nissan say it was on? I don't believe Nissan was specific... I suppose for you magazines always take precedence over what manufacturers claim.

Of course Nissan wasn't specific. They weren't specific about the condition of that car (which later transpires had intake mods and its limiter removed), and why would they be? It underminds the acheivement.
Conditions, doesn't really matter because in the subsequent test, we have other figures for other cars to compare. If you believe Nissan's press on that old car, then you'd have to believe the old GTR is slightly faster than today's E92 420hp M3 on semi-slicks. But in the same session, the GTR was no faster than a 321hp E36 M3.

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?

That wasn't sarcasm. That was a legitimate question. It's these seemingly minor details which in isolation don't mean much (an AGM battery can actually save as much as 20 lbs, but its use on the M3 highlights regenerative braking, not weight savings), but when you take them all together, the sum adds up. BMW will release figures that they think are worth releasing, for marketing purposes; whether they release every single piece of information about how they cut weight...well, they'd be sort of foolish to do that.
And no, they don't make up the weight. When and how they weigh the cars is what matters: you provide no single shred of evidence that the EU even bothers to enforce its guidelines. In the Evo magazine article, they conjectured that the weight difference is largely down to when the car was weighed. Earlier on, during its development, it might have weighed less. Later on, it might have added or lost weight due to different materials being used, or a change in specification to meet changing market demand. Same thing with the C63: MB may have decided later on, after more development testing, to beef up various components that needed beefing up to handle the power and torque. A lot of the design and initial testing can be done through modelling, but it's not always enough.

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.

They regulate the variables, but who regulates them to ensure that comparable measurements are made? Does the EU go into the factory to verify this? Do they both submit equivalent production models for EU testing?

Regarding hp, it's a pretty easy process: You take the mfr's word until independent testing proves otherwise. Mazda and Ford have both taken a hit in the past couple of decades due to consumers finding out that their products don't make the quoted power. If all we did was take your approach, then we'd have to swallow what the mfr says, no questions asked. Ever. How's that for scientific?

 

[Steve]

It is funny how before when Magazines were comparing M3 coupe and C63, the excuse was the M3 was faster cause it was a coupe. Now we have two test comparing the M3 sedan and C63 and the results has hardly changed and now somehow the tests are not valid any more.

who cares the C63 did 0-100mph in 9.17secs

thats really ******* fast........i hope when mine arrives its the same spec

 

[tvfan84]

You seem to be saying: Since we don't know the exact options on these cars, any comparison regarding their weights (and relative to what the mfr states) is invalid.
Consider the following 2 cars:
1. E92 M3 with 18530 euro in options including (but not limited to):
EDC
19" wheels
Nav with MDrive
Full leather
Parking sensors, front & rear
Adaptive cornering lights
Mirror package
Light package
2. C63 with 17160 euro in options including (but not limited to):
Nav
Full parking sensors
Leather
Sunroof
Rear airbags
Keyless Go
Do you think it's comparable to examine their weights relative to each other? Ie, neither of these cars are strippers, and some options on the M3 weigh more while others on the C63 weigh more as well.


How is the Caterham within tolerance? What options are in a Caterham that would weigh that much? And as Evo mentioned, the Jagaur's weight difference is not due to the options.


Of course Nissan wasn't specific. They weren't specific about the condition of that car (which later transpires had intake mods and its limiter removed), and why would they be? It underminds the acheivement.
Conditions, doesn't really matter because in the subsequent test, we have other figures for other cars to compare. If you believe Nissan's press on that old car, then you'd have to believe the old GTR is slightly faster than today's E92 420hp M3 on semi-slicks. But in the same session, the GTR was no faster than a 321hp E36 M3.


That wasn't sarcasm. That was a legitimate question. It's these seemingly minor details which in isolation don't mean much (an AGM battery can actually save as much as 20 lbs, but its use on the M3 highlights regenerative braking, not weight savings), but when you take them all together, the sum adds up. BMW will release figures that they think are worth releasing, for marketing purposes; whether they release every single piece of information about how they cut weight...well, they'd be sort of foolish to do that.
And no, they don't make up the weight. When and how they weigh the cars is what matters: you provide no single shred of evidence that the EU even bothers to enforce its guidelines. In the Evo magazine article, they conjectured that the weight difference is largely down to when the car was weighed. Earlier on, during its development, it might have weighed less. Later on, it might have added or lost weight due to different materials being used, or a change in specification to meet changing market demand. Same thing with the C63: MB may have decided later on, after more development testing, to beef up various components that needed beefing up to handle the power and torque. A lot of the design and initial testing can be done through modelling, but it's not always enough.


They regulate the variables, but who regulates them to ensure that comparable measurements are made? Does the EU go into the factory to verify this? Do they both submit equivalent production models for EU testing?

Regarding hp, it's a pretty easy process: You take the mfr's word until independent testing proves otherwise. Mazda and Ford have both taken a hit in the past couple of decades due to consumers finding out that their products don't make the quoted power. If all we did was take your approach, then we'd have to swallow what the mfr says, no questions asked. Ever. How's that for scientific?

Guibo, do you even bother to read my entire post or just skipping parts? I stated many times, I'm looking at the discrepancies here. How do you justify the weight difference? Don't you believe that there will be similar tests in the future to show added options to the sedan or that the C63 gets less options? Also, are you saying that each car that rolls out of the factory, we as consumers have no protecting at all? Come on now, there are laws. There are standards man, conditions that must be fullfilled before something is tested. If it does not, well then take it with a grain of salt as you believe it to be.

Yeah, you agree it undermines their achievement, meaning they are held accountable for what they release.

You said it yourself "take the mfr's word," this test right here doesn't have any substance at all but just numbers so should I be taking the mfr's word?

 

[Guibo]

Guibo, do you even bother to read my entire post or just skipping parts? I stated many times, I'm looking at the discrepancies here. How do you justify the weight difference?

I already answered that. Now I must ask you: did you bother to read my previous post (because the answer was in there, and I alluded to as such when bringing up the M5's 7:52 time).

Don't you believe that there will be similar tests in the future to show added options to the sedan or that the C63 gets less options?

I have already said it twice now, so let me be clear for you because I can't help but think you will miss this the 3rd time: I expect that with future tests, the M3 sedan weight avg will go up. I can repeat a 4th time, if you'd like.
What do you think of those 2 spec'ed cars I listed up there? Are they not comparable? If not, why not?

Come on now, there are laws. There are standards man, conditions that must be fullfilled before something is tested.

And please relay to me these exact conditions that are in fact fulfilled. You have given absolutely zero insight on whether comparable versions of each car were weighed, at what point of development (see Ascari case), and whether anyone representing the EU confirms these specifications. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Period. Then let the rest of us discuss the merits of independent testing, about which you obviously have little interest other than to relay the official company line.

Yeah, you agree it undermines their achievement, meaning they are held accountable for what they release.

And do you not agree, then, that subsequent independent testing has revealed information contrary to what Nissan released?

You said it yourself "take the mfr's word," this test right here doesn't have any substance at all but just numbers so should I be taking the mfr's word?

No substance? We can see the E90 M3 is hardly any slower around a track than the E92. We can see that it is slightly quicker than a C63 that is faster than even the CLK63 Black Series in a straight line. That the C63 is that fast is really worth discussion in and of itself.
And please do not quote me out of context. Refer to my exact quote:
"take the mfr's word until independent testing proves otherwise"
And this independent test raises again the question about the C63's weight. Of course, in your mind, there is no question.

 

[tvfan84]

I already answered that. Now I must ask you: did you bother to read my previous post (because the answer was in there, and I alluded to as such when bringing up the M5's 7:52 time).



I have already said it twice now, so let me be clear for you because I can't help but think you will miss this the 3rd time: I expect that with future tests, the M3 sedan weight avg will go up. I can repeat a 4th time, if you'd like.
What do you think of those 2 spec'ed cars I listed up there? Are they not comparable? If not, why not?


And please relay to me these exact conditions that are in fact fulfilled. You have given absolutely zero insight on whether comparable versions of each car were weighed, at what point of development (see Ascari case), and whether anyone representing the EU confirms these specifications. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Period. Then let the rest of us discuss the merits of independent testing, about which you obviously have little interest other than to relay the official company line.



And do you not agree, then, that subsequent independent testing has revealed information contrary to what Nissan released?


No substance? We can see the E90 M3 is hardly any slower around a track than the E92. We can see that it is slightly quicker than a C63 that is faster than even the CLK63 Black Series in a straight line. That the C63 is that fast is really worth discussion in and of itself.
And please do not quote me out of context. Refer to my exact quote:
"take the mfr's word until independent testing proves otherwise"
And this independent test raises again the question about the C63's weight. Of course, in your mind, there is no question.

As I stated early in my thread, do you grasp the difference in magnitude in which I keep trying to make it as clear as possible.

If you think the E90 M3 weight will go up and subsequently the C63 stays the same. Don't you think the difference in weight will be closer to reality hence supports what the manufacturer published? Which I intepret as both cars having similar weight. Why are you comparing a E92 to a C63 anyways?

Okay, if you want to think of it this way, then I'll reverse the logic for you. What evidence makes you believe that the weights stated by auto makers are way off? Only your example of the Askari is an outliner. The degree in which both cars are different is way higher in the E90 M3 and C63 compared to your examples. We are looking at 200kg or more here...

And how does this compare to how the new GT-R launch? We talking about global scale here?

So all these numbers that you posted up in your first post is the truth? I could use more numbers to fit your "avg" data and make it look pretty. Or do we wait and see some more numbers accompained by an actual article? I can tell you this, right now based on this so-called evidence, I put more faith in the mfr. It's not proven right now so why not take the word of the mfr? Why draw conclusions so early? You can see how fast the E90 M3 is compared to a E92 M3 with just these numbers on the track?

 

[Guibo]

If you think the E90 M3 weight will go up and subsequently the C63 stays the same. Don't you think the difference in weight will be closer to reality hence supports what the manufacturer published? Which I intepret as both cars having similar weight.

I said I expect the weight to go up. I did not say by how much. Therein lies the issue. What options would go onto an E90 that would increase its weight by 150-200kg? You never did answer the question about how much a premium audio system weighs, or how much the one in the C63 weighs. And you call me out for skipping some things.
Forget about why I'm comparing E92 vs C63 for the moment. Just answer the question. Or are you incapable?

Okay, if you want to think of it this way, then I'll reverse the logic for you. What evidence makes you believe that the weights stated by auto makers are way off? Only your example of the Askari is an outliner. The degree in which both cars are different is way higher in the E90 M3 and C63 compared to your examples. We are looking at 200kg or more here...

First of all, I never said they are all way off. Just some more than others. The example of the Ascari is used to explain to you (if you would bother to understand it) why such a discrepancy may exist; forget about the magnitude for a moment. We still don't know when the C63 was weighed relative to when the M3 was weighed, at what point in their development. We don't know who verifies the information within the EU; you seem hesitant to reveal this information. Perhaps because you yourself don't know?
The Caterham CSR is not likely to gain that kind of weight through options alone. A few bits of leather here and there, in an already very small cockpit, isn't going to amount to a lot. Evo felt the same way about the Jag, and you would probably too if you didn't take everything from the manufacturer at face value, and apply some skeptical critical thinking.
So, manufacturers don't have to "make up" figures for a discrepancy to exist; the discrepancy could exist for other reasons.

And how does this compare to how the new GT-R launch? We talking about global scale here?

I don't know, I don't speak Japanese. I would not be surprised if the information would find its way back home.
But that's not even the point. Why are we even talking about the new GT-R? I'm talking about a clear-cut case (well, I reckon it would be clear-cut for most members here) of a manufacturer claiming something that was debunked in subsequent testing. So I'll ask you point blank, and this is a question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no": Doesn't the independent testing done by TopGear effectively refute what Nissan were claiming?

So all these numbers that you posted up in your first post is the truth? I could use more numbers to fit your "avg" data and make it look pretty. Or do we wait and see some more numbers accompained by an actual article? I can tell you this, right now based on this so-called evidence, I put more faith in the mfr. It's not proven right now so why not take the word of the mfr? Why draw conclusions so early?

So early? We have 9 tests of the E92 and almost as many tests of the C63 to give us an idea of how they match up in terms of weight. If you want to ignore such results, then you may as well refrain from partaking in such discussion in the future. Why not take the word of the manufacturer? Because in multiple tests of the C63, the weight is way off relative to the M3's. What part of this are you not grasping?
What makes you think I'm unwilling to wait for more tests? I already said to the exact opposite, if you had bothered to read and understand.

 

[Guibo]

Here is an article, as it relates to Mazda and Ford claimed horsepower ratings:
"The Miata was by no means the first production car that failed to deliver performance commensurate with its power claims. A couple of years ago, when Ford uprated the SVT Mustang Cobra from 305 to 320 horsepower, we found very much the same circumstance. The 320-hp cars didn't run one iota quicker than the old 305-hp ones. After investigating, Ford stopped Cobra production for more than a year and searched for a way to make sure that the additional horses ended up in the production cars.
Although some of you may suspect that such horsepower shortfalls are the result of base chicanery or outright lying, the reality is far more banal. In the case of the Miata engine, 15 additional horsepower was indeed generated by various engine improvements. But changes to meet stricter emissions requirements absorbed most of those incremental ponies, and somehow the engine's power was never reverified after it was certified for emissions compliance.
In the case of the Mustang Cobra, we've been told the problem was in the intake and exhaust systems that, in production, proved to be more restrictive than they were in the design prototypes."
Who Let the Ponies Out? - Column / C/D Columns / Columns / Features / Car and Driver - Car And Driver

And also:
USATODAY.com - RX-8s fall short of power claims, so Mazda will buy them back

See? Even though these cars had gone through technical revisions during development, the old (inaccurate) hp ratings for the prototypes were assigned to the production models even after they were released.

 

[tvfan84]

I said I expect the weight to go up. I did not say by how much. Therein lies the issue. What options would go onto an E90 that would increase its weight by close to 200kg? You never did answer the question about how much a premium audio system weighs, or how much the one in the C63 weighs. And you call me out for skipping some things.
Forget about why I'm comparing E92 vs C63 for the moment. Just answer the question. Or are you incapable?


First of all, I never said they are all way off. Just some more than others. The example of the Ascari is used to explain to you (if you would bother to understand it) why such a discrepancy may exist; forget about the magnitude for a moment. We still don't know when the C63 was weighed relative to when the M3 was weighed, at what point in their development. We don't know who verifies the information within the EU; you seem hesitant to reveal this information. Perhaps because you yourself don't know?
The Caterham CSR is not likely to gain that kind of weight through options alone. A few bits of leather here and there, in an already very small cockpit, isn't going to amount to a lot. Evo felt the same way about the Jag, and you would probably too if you didn't take everything from the manufacturer at face value, and apply some skeptical critical thinking.
So, manufacturers don't have to "make up" figures for a discrepancy to exist; the discrepancy could exist for other reasons.


I don't know, I don't speak Japanese. I would not be surprised if the information would find its way back home.
But that's not even the point. Why are we even talking about the new GT-R? I'm talking about a clear-cut case (well, I reckon it would be clear-cut for most members here) of a manufacturer claiming something that was debunked in subsequent testing. So I'll ask you point blank, and this is a question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no": Doesn't the independent testing done by TopGear effectively refute what Nissan were claiming?


So early? We have 9 tests of the E92 and almost as many tests of the C63 to give us an idea of how they match up in terms of weight. If you want to ignore such results, then you may as well refrain from partaking in such discussion in the future. Why not take the word of the manufacturer? Because in multiple tests of the C63, the weight is way off relative to the M3's. What part of this are you not grasping?
What makes you think I'm unwilling to wait for more tests? I already said to the exact opposite, if you had bothered to read and understand.

So you’re just assuming that I expect both cars to be exactly the same weight? I never said it will reach 200 kg but 100kg is pretty close isn’t it? So are 16 speakers and two amplifiers suppose to be lightweight? They are kevlar cones powered by two digital amplifiers. Should add weight right? I think it’s sensible to reason so. There are other options such as DCT and a moon roof. Seems like typical options that might get used for future testing. I’m talking about collective weight here. Why don’t you understand it? Why do I have to answer your question in detail when you just omit mine.

Yeah forget about the magnitude… that’s the whole point of my inquiry. Let’s see, you discredit MB and BMW because you aren’t sure of how EU gathers their information but you would rather indulge with just numbers from this magazine. (Btw, you have no idea how it was obtained.) So what now? You are just trying to run circles around my argument. Why don’t you use some critical reasoning instead.

The new GT-R launch wasn’t a big deal? Why are you dismissing it? My main point was about public awareness. If it were just one test, I’d say there’s insufficient data to really come up with a conclusion. I don’t know how Nissan or Top Gear tested the old GT-R.

Umm, I’m questioning the weight of both the E90 and C63. You’re just making general assumptions based off E92. Call your calculations scientific if you must. You have TWO test, one test being just numbers. I’m comparing numbers to a benchmark, you're just going of what you calculate to be avgs with each other, which is from a very very very small sample.

You make blank statements like after the fact of going through testing do they scientifically find the figures to be wrong. Are there enough tests between the E90 M3 and C63 to show for it? I don’t think so.