Quote:
Originally Posted by adc
And I respectfully disagree. I've been reading his recent articles in Car & Driver and I think he's slipping. (But that's not why I disagree).
|
Your opinion of Davis is immaterial - as is mine. However, your disagreement is interesting.
What is the downside of 50 more horsepower in your opinion? I personally can find no downside at all. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adc
You're headed in the right direction with the adjustable shocks. IMO it also needs more/better tire, a better auto transmission, a standard limited slip and the choice of a manual transmission. And hopefully they would retune the suspension to make it change direction better in hard driving, like the M3 manages (not sure what's involved here - roll centers maybe? is it a track issue?).
|
The one I'm driving (my son's) came stock with Pirelli sneakers, but now has PS2s on the rear. Traction is good, but of course you can overwhelm the tires at low speeds, just as you can in the M3. My son thinks the PS2s might be a tiny bit better than the Pirellis in that regard.
The automatic is terrific. About as good as it gets with a torque converter, and definitely better around town than any twin-clutch auto, including the M3.
The limited slip is an option. I think it ought to be standard, as well, but since it's there on the order form, this is a miniscule point.
It's not as agile as the M3 at speed, but the steering is better at low speeds, as is the auto, and of course the sounds it makes. Take your pick. Better and more lively around town in my experience, or better on track.
If you're a track junkie, M3, otherwise...
In my opinion (and as I've said recently in a fairly complete comparison), the cars are so close that my lack of maturity means I'd have to go with the M3 - in six-speed only, please.
If I actually were mature and would go for an auto, C63. Faster, better auto everywhere but on track. Better sound except when the M3 clears 7000 rpm (where it's a tie between the two, for me).