AutoBild: M3 ZCP vs CTS-V vs C63 PP vs IS-F vs Alpina B3

[330CIZHP]

Thanks to **************






1st place: BMW M3 Sedan DKG Competition Package

420 hp, 1670 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,5 s
0-200 km/h: 15,6 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 34,3 m


2nd place: Alpina B3 S Biturbo

400 hp, 1637 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,5 s
0-200 km/h: 15,4 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 34,8 m


3rd place: Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Performance Package Plus

487 hp, 1795 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,4 s
0-200 km/h: 14,0 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 36,3 m


4th place: Cadillac CTS-V

564 hp, 1964 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,6 s
0-200 km/h: 14,0 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,8 m


5th place: Lexus IS F

423 hp, 1717 kg
0-100 km/h: 5,1 s
0-200 km/h: 16,6 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,4 m


Sachsenring times:

1:40,1 min - C63 AMG PPP (on Continental SportContact 5P M0, 18")
1:40,6 min - M3 Sedan CP
1:40,9 min - B3 S Biturbo
1:41,7 min - CTS-V
1:42,1 min - IS F

[Mjolnir]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

[ssabripo]

good read. thanks

[graider]

the win just keep coming. hehe

[brava09]

Nice win...a BMW front row this time.

Surprised to see the Merc faster on track though...

[bobbyd1961]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Thanks to **************
Attachment 444419

Attachment 444420



1st place: BMW M3 Sedan DKG Competition Package

420 hp, 1670 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,5 s
0-200 km/h: 15,6 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 34,3 m


2nd place: Alpina B3 S Biturbo

400 hp, 1637 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,5 s
0-200 km/h: 15,4 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 34,8 m


3rd place: Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Performance Package Plus

487 hp, 1795 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,4 s
0-200 km/h: 14,0 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 36,3 m


4th place: Cadillac CTS-V

564 hp, 1964 kg
0-100 km/h: 4,6 s
0-200 km/h: 14,0 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,8 m


5th place: Lexus IS F

423 hp, 1717 kg
0-100 km/h: 5,1 s
0-200 km/h: 16,6 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,4 m


Sachsenring times:

1:40,1 min - C63 AMG PPP (on Continental SportContact 5P M0, 18")
1:40,6 min - M3 Sedan CP
1:40,9 min - B3 S Biturbo
1:41,7 min - CTS-V
1:42,1 min - IS F

i love my M3

[AudiS5]

Originally Posted by brava09

Nice win...a BMW front row this time.

Surprised to see the Merc faster on track though...

Me too, but in all fairness it does have 65+ hp.

[dlbrooks18]

cool post! now turn up the boost in that Alpina B3

[jmunro]

Lol, get the Lexus IS-F out of there and put in the Mustang 5.0

[amdmaxx]

BMW biased a bit? Lets throw a callaway caddy and renntech MB in there for good measure..
I do understand that Alpine is backed by BMW..

[AudiS5]

Originally Posted by shift@red

but also another 400 lbs to more than offset its hp advantage. ill take the 400 lbs less weight any day over 65 more hp.
still surprised to see it was ahead but half a second in what is a pretty short lap.

400 pounds? Maybe for the Coupe with a CF roof. Keep in mind this was a sedan and was most likely equipped with a moonroof.

According to THIS test

C63= 3,957 pounds
M3 3,681 pounds

Difference of 276 pounds. Also many things can influence a track time...we don't know the factors each car was driven in, tire tread, drivers etc.

[Schm]

I'm supprised the CTSV lost to the Alpina B3, it should be at least 2nd place.

[crackberry]

im surprised the cts-v didnt get first on track times and that a merc beat them all.

[jaybird124]

Something seems a little off with the Caddy. Slower than the M3? I'm BMW through and through but all the American mags put that thing at sub 4 times. Bias?

[graider]

Originally Posted by AudiS5

400 pounds? Maybe for the Coupe with a CF roof. Keep in mind this was a sedan and was most likely equipped with a moonroof.

According to THIS test

C63= 3,957 pounds
M3 3,681 pounds

Difference of 276 pounds. Also many things can influence a track time...we don't know the factors each car was driven in, tire tread, drivers etc.

don't be surprise, he will just find any chance he can to exaggerate thing to dismiss the m3.

[Ironring Racing]

I met Frank (picture at the bottom of the article) this summer, he came over to report on Race the Base. Great guy!

Without starting a 335/M3 war, it's just a great day for the E90's! Happy the tuned 335 more than held it's own. Really surprised the Merc's lap time was that good, I've never had the opportunity to drive one on the track.

[cheese on fried toast]

to bad u cant read the article

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by jaybird124

Something seems a little off with the Caddy. Slower than the M3? I'm BMW through and through but all the American mags put that thing at sub 4 times. Bias?

+1

The Cadillac commercials put it's 0-60 at 3.9 seconds. Pretty biased reviews all around.

[luckistryke]

Merc beat them all w/ 255 tires too

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by ssabripo

good read. thanks

Originally Posted by AudiS5

400 pounds? Maybe for the Coupe with a CF roof. Keep in mind this was a sedan and was most likely equipped with a moonroof.

According to THIS test

C63= 3,957 pounds
M3 3,681 pounds

Difference of 276 pounds. Also many things can influence a track time...we don't know the factors each car was driven in, tire tread, drivers etc.

Interesting that the C63, even with its ~250-300 lb disadvantage bested both the M3 and the CTS. You would think if it beat the M3 that the circuit would be more of a power track, but then the CTS should've pulled in a much better time. The track might've been just right for the C63's combination of power and weight.

Originally Posted by jaybird124

Something seems a little off with the Caddy. Slower than the M3? I'm BMW through and through but all the American mags put that thing at sub 4 times. Bias?

Check the more important specs. 0-200 km/h clearly shows the Caddy stomping everyone else. 14s vs the M3's 15.6s. That's definitely not faster.


All these launches are slower than the auto review averages. 0.2s slower to 60 could be chalked up to nothing more than traction issues as a result of poor surfaces. Or not factoring in rollout (which I can't stand) like most US mags do. Or even the fact that 100 km/h translates to 62 mph, not 60.

[Convertible]

Originally Posted by Nikkahtropolis

Interesting that the C63, even with its ~250-300 lb disadvantage bested both the M3 and the CTS. You would think if it beat the M3 that the circuit would be more of a power track, but then the CTS should've pulled in a much better time. The track might've been just right for the C63's combination of power and weight.



Check the more important specs. 0-200 km/h clearly shows the Caddy stomping everyone else. 14s vs the M3's 15.6s. That's definitely not faster.


All these launches are slower than the auto review averages. 0.2s slower to 60 could be chalked up to nothing more than traction issues as a result of poor surfaces. Or not factoring in rollout (which I can't stand) like most US mags do. Or even the fact that 100 km/h translates to 62 mph, not 60.

So what does the US magazines do? Take flying starts when doing 0-60?

The difference 0-60 or 0-62 is actually quite much, but rolling starts WTF?

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Convertible

So what does the US magazines do? Take flying starts when doing 0-60?

The difference 0-60 or 0-62 is actually quite much, but rolling starts WTF?

Taken from Insideline.com

A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.