M3 vs C63

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

All of this appears to be, ahem, not the case.

That big 6.2 V8 outpowers the M3 while managing to be 6 pounds lighter than the 4 liter BMW powerplant. The transmission is also a gem. 7-speeds, no waiting. It also isn't plagued with bugs, unlike the M3 automatic.

If the M3 had the C63's engine and transmission, it would arguably be a better car, although I must say it would probably be harder to control around a road course. All that power and torque driving only two wheels would likely make for just as "lively" a drive in the M3 as in the C63 under such circumstances. Fun, though.

By the way, pretty much everybody says the C63 is a delight on the street, and only gets to be a handful when you're going for ten tenths on track.

Bruce

PS - In regard to your Canada remark - and the tone of your remarks in general - it appears that whatever your actual age and station in life, you're posting from a dorm room.

Do a search and look at the thread where I posted my M3 pics to see where I am posting from. I could personally care less what you think about my tone.

That big 6.2 liter v8 was not designed with the M3 in mind. There is no M3 automatic, so I have no idea what you are talking about, especially in relation to bugs.

If the M3 had the C63's engine and transmission, it would not be the balanced car it is. See, the motor itself is LARGER even though it weighs slightly less. It would not sit in the same spot under the hood. A better car with the motor? Insane, I suppose Ferrari should throw out the motor in the F430 and put in the mercedes v8 to make a better car.

By the way, I have driven the C63 and M3 so I know what I think about the car and not what others say. Torque is a lot of fun on the street, the difference is the M3 is fun even without having to stab the throttle. The C63 is a bit one dimensional. All that power and torque is actually only driving one wheel, but if you feel that is "lively" good for you.

The M3 motor is a more sophisticated piece of engineering with smooth, even power throughout the range and allowing greater gear multiplication due to the revs.

In regard to your remarks, and your tone in general, it appears that whatever your actual age and station in life, you won't have either of these cars and have not driven them.

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

All of this appears to be, ahem, not the case.

That big 6.2 V8 outpowers the M3 while managing to be 6 pounds lighter than the 4 liter BMW powerplant. The transmission is also a gem. 7-speeds, no waiting. It also isn't plagued with bugs, unlike the M3 automatic.

If the M3 had the C63's engine and transmission, it would arguably be a better car, although I must say it would probably be harder to control around a road course. All that power and torque driving only two wheels would likely make for just as "lively" a drive in the M3 as in the C63 under such circumstances. Fun, though.

By the way, pretty much everybody says the C63 is a delight on the street, and only gets to be a handful when you're going for ten tenths on track.

Bruce

PS - In regard to your Canada remark - and the tone of your remarks in general - it appears that whatever your actual age and station in life, you're posting from a dorm room.

I have to disagree. If the M3 had the engine of the C63 it would not have it's characteristic 8400 rpm redline and it's awesome F1 sounds which I prefer over the Muscle car sounds of the C63. It also wouldn't have have the 100+ hp/liter that the M3 has nor the uniqueness of an engine only used in one car and designed ONLY for that car and not swapped in from a parts bin that is used on several other cars. That being said, I am a big fan of the C63, it's just not as good as the M3 IMO. PLUS putting in a huge engine is not characteristic of M.

[DiscoZ]

Your comments reflect your own opinion. Here's mine: I, for one, am not overly impressed by the M3's 8,400rpm redline; where it is approximately on par with a S54 at 7,900rpm in terms of Hp/litre, with terrible torque. what I wil give it is that it can do it with greater displacement (and it sounds good).

The C63 motor is phenomenal and with a few minor tweaks can make 560hp - i.e. detuned.

[ihyln]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

Your comments reflect your own opinion. Here's mine: I, for one, am not overly impressed by the M3's 8,400rpm redline; where it is approximately on par with a S54 at 7,900rpm in terms of Hp/litre, with terrible torque. what I wil give it is that it can do it with greater displacement (and it sounds good).

The C63 motor is phenomenal and with a few minor tweaks can make 560hp - i.e. detuned.

Here's what happened in the past and I've reiterated this before, the C32 and M3 came out at the same time and people complained about the lack of power in the M. Fast forward to today and the C32 is nowhere to be seen. Same prediction holds for the C63

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

Your comments reflect your own opinion. Here's mine: I, for one, am not overly impressed by the M3's 8,400rpm redline; where it is approximately on par with a S54 at 7,900rpm in terms of Hp/litre, with terrible torque. what I wil give it is that it can do it with greater displacement (and it sounds good).

The C63 motor is phenomenal and with a few minor tweaks can make 560hp - i.e. detuned.

I realize this is your opinion but I am not sure how a longer stroke bigger displacement engine that makes more power is that impressive.

I am not sure how much you have looked at the Tq curve of the M3's V8 but it truly is a beautiful thing.

And you said it yourself the Hp/Tq figures are virtually the same as the S54 which is actually impressive considering we are talking about a V8 here...

Either way, both are impressive cars, the C63 AMG just isnt very emotionally involving in design for me and the big displacement engine is nothing new for anyone......

Its all subjective

Jason

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by JEllis

I realize this is your opinion but I am not sure how a longer stroke bigger displacement engine that makes more power is that impressive.

I am not sure how much you have looked at the Tq curve of the M3's V8 but it truly is a beautiful thing.

And you said it yourself the Hp/Tq figures are virtually the same as the S54 which is actually impressive considering we are talking about a V8 here...

Either way, both are impressive cars, the C63 AMG just isnt very emotionally involving in design for me and the big displacement engine is nothing new for anyone......

Its all subjective

Jason

The E9x M3 has good area under the torque curve, but on comparable terms it's not that much more superior than any other M motor out there and the overall torque number is not very impressive vis a vis kerb weight. I realise I am being athe devil's advocate --and I do like the new M3-- but I do not think the E9x M3's all that amazing.

What annoys me is the blatant fanboism (sic) that I experience with any M product, esp. in relation to the C63. I personally find the C63 to be the first C class AMG vehicle that I could purchase --rather, any real auto enthusiast with a need for four doors could purchase; mostly because it can handle well, it actually looks good and it has a technologically advanced motor (believe it or not) --It is nothing like the C3; that is an irrelevant comparision.

It is all subjective at this point. To each his/her own, I suppose.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

The E9x M3 has decent area under the torque curve, but on comparable terms it's not that much more superior than any other M motor out there and the overall torque number is not very impressive vis a vis kerb weight. I realise I am being a devil's advocate --and I do like the new M3-- but I do not think the E9x M3 all that amazing.

What annoys me is the blatant fanboism (sic) that I experience with any M product, esp. in relation to the C63. I personally find the C63 to be the first C class AMG vehicle that I could purchase; mostly because it can handle well, it actually looks good and it has a technologically advanced motor --It is nothing like the C3; that is an irrelevant comparision.

It is all subjective - at this point. To each his/her own.

You should drive both...even Hanz who is a C63 AMG owner had to admit he was surprised with the DCT M3 after trying out Swamps new M.

Jason

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Do a search and look at the thread where I posted my M3 pics to see where I am posting from. I could personally care less what you think about my tone.

Right. I'll get on that straightaway. Thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by Sticky

That big 6.2 liter v8 was not designed with the M3 in mind. There is no M3 automatic, so I have no idea what you are talking about, especially in relation to bugs.

We've been through this - apparently while you were off setting fire to your cat, or scotch-taping peanuts to the insides of windows so you could watch the pigeons beat their brains out. In short, some folks feel that two pedals and no driver intervention needed to go from zero to flat out means it's an automatic, regardless of the design of the box itself. I'm one of those folks.

As for bugs, when you run out of peanuts take a look at any one of several current MDCT threads in this overall venue.

Originally Posted by Sticky

If the M3 had the C63's engine and transmission, it would not be the balanced car it is. See, the motor itself is LARGER even though it weighs slightly less. It would not sit in the same spot under the hood. A better car with the motor?

Could be a point. Just what are the dimensional differences? Be specific, please.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Insane, I suppose Ferrari should throw out the motor in the F430 and put in the mercedes v8 to make a better car.

I'd take the Ferrari as is, thank you. However, the M3 would also be a better car if it had that Ferrari engine - or even the Chevy LS3 or LS7 engines.

Originally Posted by Sticky

By the way, I have driven the C63 and M3 so I know what I think about the car and not what others say. Torque is a lot of fun on the street, the difference is the M3 is fun even without having to stab the throttle. The C63 is a bit one dimensional. All that power and torque is actually only driving one wheel, but if you feel that is "lively" good for you.

I've driven the M3, already documented in "Pecuniary Canons of Taste", plus a subsequent follow up drive wherein I could air it out a bit. Nice. Still a bit bigger and heavier than I prefer for a car that has an M3 badge on it, but overall better than the '04 E46 that graced our garage - now gone, and completely unlamented. Overall, however, the new one feels a bit less wieldy than our '04, so for me, this latest isn't particularly fun unless you're banging on it some. Absolutely love that exhaust note.

You're right that I haven't driven the C63 yet. The local dealers have been selling them before they hit the lots.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The M3 motor is a more sophisticated piece of engineering with smooth, even power throughout the range and allowing greater gear multiplication due to the revs.

These are both extremely sophisticated powerplants. I wouldn't know how to pick one over the other from that standpoint. I will say, however, that even though the M3 is down on torque, it has the flattest curve I have ever seen.

By the way, what does "greater gear multiplication" actually do for you? Try and be specific, please.

Originally Posted by Sticky

In regard to your remarks, and your tone in general, it appears that whatever your actual age and station in life, you won't have either of these cars and have not driven them.

See above as to what I've driven, but the M3 doesn't float my boat enough to covet one. Perhaps the C63 will and I'll succumb, once I've driven one. Perhaps not, though. As documented, not a good time to be drawing down on our 401Ks. We'll see, but it'll have to be something even more special than the M3. Doubt it.

Bruce

[DiscoZ]

I am planning on giving them both a back to back run late Aug/Early Sept.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Right. I'll get on that straightaway. Thanks for the tip.



We've been through this - apparently while you were off setting fire to your cat, or scotch-taping peanuts to the insides of windows so you could watch the pigeons beat their brains out. In short, some folks feel that two pedals and no driver intervention needed to go from zero to flat out means it's an automatic, regardless of the design of the box itself. I'm one of those folks.

As for bugs, when you run out of peanuts take a look at any one of several current MDCT threads in this overall venue.



Could be a point. Just what are the dimensional differences? Be specific, please.



I'd take the Ferrari as is, thank you. However, the M3 would also be a better car if it had that Ferrari engine - or even the Chevy LS3 or LS7 engines.



I've driven the M3, already documented in "Pecuniary Canons of Taste", plus a subsequent follow up drive wherein I could air it out a bit. Nice. Still a bit bigger and heavier than I prefer for a car that has an M3 badge on it, but overall better than the '04 E46 that graced our garage - now gone, and completely unlamented. Overall, however, the new one feels a bit less wieldy than our '04, so for me, this latest isn't particularly fun unless you're banging on it some. Absolutely love that exhaust note.

You're right that I haven't driven the C63 yet. The local dealers have been selling them before they hit the lots.



These are both extremely sophisticated powerplants. I wouldn't know how to pick one over the other from that standpoint. I will say, however, that even though the M3 is down on torque, it has the flattest curve I have ever seen.

By the way, what does "greater gear multiplication" actually do for you? Try and be specific, please.



See above as to what I've driven, but the M3 doesn't float my boat enough to covet one. Perhaps the C63 will and I'll succumb, once I've driven one. Perhaps not, though. As documented, not a good time to be drawing down on our 401Ks. We'll see, but it'll have to be something even more special than the M3. Doubt it.

Bruce

Anyone who mentions the LS3 and LS7 as better motors than the S65 simply does not know what they are talking about. I am do not find large V8's with low specific outputs impressive, whatsoever. Chevy produces the same basic small block they have produced for what... the last 30+ years? Hard to skrew that up, and they do it because they can't afford (literally) to do anything requiring more advanced engineering and resources.

See, the S65 differs in that the VANOS (Chevy and Mercedes do not have as advanced valve timing systems as BMW) is operated from engine oil pressure, negating the need for a separate hydraulic pump like in the V10 reducing weight and lowering the placement of the motor. The V10 has two heavy sensors to monitor knock but BMW improved the system on the V8 with lightweight spark coils on each cylinder fitted with individual knock sensors (Chevy does not monitor each cylinder individually).

The alternator disconnects during full throttle allowing less drain due to the accessories. The cylinder block is aluminum-silicon and sourced from the BMW F1 factory, sharing the material with the actual F1 blocks. Chevy's block is... well pretty much the same outdated design.

The pistons are lightweight aluminum and coated with iron for strength. The connecting rods are forged steel-magnesium. If you are familiar with the LS3 you would know the internals are cast, and that under some boost they tend to pop. Some engineering when BMW's old M3 6 cylinder can take more boost than the Chevy V8 practically twice the size.

The LS3 can't rev as high as the heads are not up to the same level. The motor dies up top, as the large valves flow well down low but up top they allow for a 6600 RPM redline due to their, well, crappy flow.

The Crank in the S65 is forged steel, in the LS3 it is cast iron, which is heavier and weaker.

I could go on but what is the point? You will never get it, it is beyond your level of comprehension it seems. You believe this motor is better simply because it has some more torque down low? Since when has this been a characteristic of M motors? The LS7 has more torque than a formula 1 car will ever have, yet, the F1 car makes 3 times the power. Why? Thanks to a ridiculous torque curve and revs, product of superior engineering.

I don't need to read about DCT, I have it. I have no issue with it as I had an SMG E46 M3, I am use to the characteristics. I have no issues with it, it is practically flawless, and it makes the manual seem like a throwback to the stone age. You call it an automatic, you obviously have no understanding of dual clutch technology and its advantages in fuel economy and performance. Maybe you should drive a DCT... but I doubt PA has any and they are leaving the lots in Orange County very quickly.

As far as the C63 selling, ha! No offense, but there are more C63's in my neighborhood than in your entire state. The local dealerships have plenty on the lots but the M3 production is smaller, especially in regard to DCT's. I won't even go into how many dealerships I went to before finally getting my car.

If you knock the M3 motor and DCT it obviously is not the car for you. Go get yourself a Vette as it seems you crave a big V8. If you are such a fan of the C63 why don't you have one yet? You haven't even driven one yet you know it is better somehow? The C63 is one dimensional and it seems that all people enjoy is the large V8, how exciting. The M3 V8 is a race bred motor that will dominate in all aspects as all previous M's have with time on the market.

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by stockwizard

It also suits my style more. More blingy.

perfect car for a style man

[J08M3]

I gotta say the stock sound of the exhaust on the C63 is really sweet

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

First off, I asked you two specific questions, each based on what you've said. The first was my inquiry in regard to the relative external dimensions of the M3 vs MB 6.2 engines, and the second was, what exactly does greater gear multiplication do for you? Since they're based on your input, please answer those questions.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Anyone who mentions the LS3 and LS7 as better motors than the S65 simply does not know what they are talking about. I am do not find large V8's with low specific outputs impressive, whatsoever. Chevy produces the same basic small block they have produced for what... the last 30+ years? Hard to skrew that up, and they do it because they can't afford (literally) to do anything requiring more advanced engineering and resources.

See, the S65 differs in that the VANOS (Chevy and Mercedes do not have as advanced valve timing systems as BMW) is operated from engine oil pressure, negating the need for a separate hydraulic pump like in the V10 reducing weight and lowering the placement of the motor. The V10 has two heavy sensors to monitor knock but BMW improved the system on the V8 with lightweight spark coils on each cylinder fitted with individual knock sensors (Chevy does not monitor each cylinder individually).

The alternator disconnects during full throttle allowing less drain due to the accessories. The cylinder block is aluminum-silicon and sourced from the BMW F1 factory, sharing the material with the actual F1 blocks. Chevy's block is... well pretty much the same outdated design.

The pistons are lightweight aluminum and coated with iron for strength. The connecting rods are forged steel-magnesium. If you are familiar with the LS3 you would know the internals are cast, and that under some boost they tend to pop. Some engineering when BMW's old M3 6 cylinder can take more boost than the Chevy V8 practically twice the size.

The LS3 can't rev as high as the heads are not up to the same level. The motor dies up top, as the large valves flow well down low but up top they allow for a 6600 RPM redline due to their, well, crappy flow.

The Crank in the S65 is forged steel, in the LS3 it is cast iron, which is heavier and weaker.

I could go on but what is the point? You will never get it, it is beyond your level of comprehension it seems. You believe this motor is better simply because it has some more torque down low? Since when has this been a characteristic of M motors? The LS7 has more torque than a formula 1 car will ever have, yet, the F1 car makes 3 times the power. Why? Thanks to a ridiculous torque curve and revs, product of superior engineering.

I actually didn't say any of those motors were better than the M3 motor. What I said was that the M3 would be a better car if it had any of those engines. The MB would be better based on making more power with less weight (although you'd at least make that up with heavier driveline components and increased cooling), so the car would be faster with no handling penalty (prove your remark about engine dimensions). The Ferrari engine would make for a better car based on power and torque - and because of the noises it makes, which are pretty much worth any price of admission.

Either Chevy would make for a better car because they make more power and torque while weighing about the same (LS3 slightly less at 436 pounds, LS7 slightly more at 453), while each being more compact than the bimmer motor, and each with better fuel economy when equipped with the Chevy six-speed and stock M3 final drive.

For me, it's simple. I am actually a fan of the M3 powerplant (especially with that terrific torque curve), but it's down on power and especially torque in a fairly heavy car. Oh, by the way, I can and do appreciate the engineering that went into the bimmer, but don't tell me the alternator disconnect is hot stuff, because you might save around two horsepower if you were using a lot of electrical power when you floor it.

As for reliability and longevity, you'll have to search far and wide to find something better in that regard compared to the the Chevy small block.

Originally Posted by Sticky

I don't need to read about DCT, I have it. I have no issue with it as I had an SMG E46 M3, I am use to the characteristics. I have no issues with it, it is practically flawless, and it makes the manual seem like a throwback to the stone age. You call it an automatic, you obviously have no understanding of dual clutch technology and its advantages in fuel economy and performance. Maybe you should drive a DCT... but I doubt PA has any and they are leaving the lots in Orange County very quickly.

You have been luckier than many others.

I will say, however, that once I do succumb to the dark side of automatic driving, something like the DCT or DSG will likely be in that car that lures me into that automotive boredom.

Originally Posted by Sticky

If you knock the M3 motor and DCT it obviously is not the car for you. Go get yourself a Vette as it seems you crave a big V8. If you are such a fan of the C63 why don't you have one yet? You haven't even driven one yet you know it is better somehow? The C63 is one dimensional and it seems that all people enjoy is the large V8, how exciting. The M3 V8 is a race bred motor that will dominate in all aspects as all previous M's have with time on the market.

I've actually already said the M3 is not for me. Where are your reading skills? That said, I actually really like the M3 motor - which doesn't change the fact that other powerplants might do a better job under the M3's hood - meaning a faster car, or even a faster car with better mileage.

I've already said I don't think the C63 is going to do it for me either. Vettes? Ran them for ten years, and am not tempted again. Really fast cars for really short money, but not what I'm into anymore.

As far as automatics go, again, something like the MDCT automatic (or the VAG DSG/DKG units) are probably what's going to eventually lure me to the dark side of stab it and steer it driving.

Bruce

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by Sticky

As far as the C63 selling, ha! No offense, but there are more C63's in my neighborhood than in your entire state. The local dealerships have plenty on the lots but the M3 production is smaller, especially in regard to DCT's.

Absolute bullshit. But, whatever makes you feel better about your purchase.

Bruce A.... where would intelligent discussion be without you?

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

I think what's happened is that MB has finally built a worthy competitor.

[stockwizard]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

Absolute bullshit. But, whatever makes you feel better about your purchase.

Bruce A.... where would intelligent discussion be without you?

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

I think what's happened is that MB has finally built a worthy competitor.

Indeed.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

I think what's happened is that MB has finally built a worthy competitor.

I think you're exactly right. The old C32 and C55 weren't even worth comparing to the M3. The C63, while not my cup of tea, is a legitimate competitor and an excellent car in its own right.

I think that some get worked up because they're defending their purchases. Others get worked up because they're passionate about cars and have strong opinions, which is exacerbated by the fact that these are two very different cars.

You can tell those who haven't actually driven the C63 because they spout off old conceptions of MB products, which the C63 and the new Black series cars absolutely destroy.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by stockwizard

I have driven both! C63 stands out way more than the M3 Sedan!!!

Now I have people on here saying the M3 interior is nicer? lol
The seats in the C63 are totally different that the c300 and way better than the m. Everyone knows this.

As far as the ride being stiff, it depends what you are used to. To me it didn't feel that harsh really.

The engine sound is better as well. The only thing the M is better at is if you are tracking it consistently and it is a little smoother ride.

Some of you are way too biased. If you guys took the time to drive the car, most would agree with me.

A 335 EVEN HAS MORE TORQUE THAN A M3!!!!. EMBARRASSING. CAN"T IMAGINE A C300 HAVING MORE TORQUE THAN C63!!!!!!!!

YES!!! More ignorant comments from people who have no clue about what torque is or the concept of when you need it, how you get it and the difference between torque, and torque to the wheels and torque to the ground. Not like we haven't gone into great and detailed technical discussions on the importance of torque v. hp.

Get a clue, then come back and feel free to post on this forum. Till then watch videos of straighline races of Dinan tuned 335is putting 100+ more lbs of torque than the M3 and more horsepower than the M3 losing to the M3. Wonder how that happens

Frankly, I don't care what people drive: C63, 335i, M3, S4, RS4, EVO, etc......what I do care about are statements stemming from those who have no clue what the hell they are talking about. Do what I learned to do long ago: leave comments about torque to the engineers on this site who actually know wtf they are talking about.

Thanks.

[stockwizard]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

YES!!! More ignorant comments from people who have no clue about what torque is or the concept of when you need it, how you get it and the difference between torque, and torque to the wheels and torque to the ground. Not like we haven't gone into great and detailed technical discussions on the importance of torque v. hp.

Get a clue, then come back and feel free to post on this forum. Till then watch videos of straighline races of Dinan tuned 335is putting 100+ more lbs of torque than the M3 and more horsepower than the M3 losing to the M3. Wonder how that happens

Frankly, I don't care what people drive: C63, 335i, M3, S4, RS4, EVO, etc......what I do care about are statements stemming from those who have no clue what the hell they are talking about. Do what I learned to do long ago: leave comments about torque to the engineers on this site who actually know wtf they are talking about.

Thanks.

Listen, you are right. However..

The difference not only in the feeling of power or "perceived power" when you test drive the 2 back to back (m3 and c63), and real power (timed 0-60 times) is there.

As I said earlier if I want a track car I will get a Porsche GT3.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Either Chevy would make for a better car because they make more power and torque while weighing about the same (LS3 slightly less at 436 pounds, LS7 slightly more at 453), while each being more compact than the bimmer motor, and each with better fuel economy when equipped with the Chevy six-speed and stock M3 final drive.

I don't agree with this part of your argument at all. The C6 gets better fuel mileage because it's lighter, has CAGS, and an uber tall sixth gear. Without getting into a debate about the merits of CAGS and the tall sixth gear, it's safe to say BMW would never put either on an M3. You'd be perverting the basic nature of the M3; Not only by adding the aforementioned transmission "tweaks", but by using a high displacement, low revving (relatively) V-8 vs. a lower displacement, higher revving V-8. There's no proof this LS3 engined M3 would be faster either. I recall GM sticking an LS2 in a 3,700 lb sedan, a.k.a. the 2006 Pontiac GTO. That car ran about 13.3 @ 108mph, stock. Knock three tenths off that for the LS3 and you're still not much faster than the current M3, if at all.

I'd agree that an LS3 engined M3 would drive differently, but not better. I'd even go as far as to say its power might very well be more "accessible" in many normal driving situations, but M cars have always been about high rpm thrills.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

Absolute bullshit. But, whatever makes you feel better about your purchase.

Bruce A.... where would intelligent discussion be without you?

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

I think what's happened is that MB has finally built a worthy competitor.

Please, show me how that is bullshit. Please?

There are more C63's available than DCT M3's, for sure, and Caliber, my local dealership, has more C63's than M3's in the 5 dealerships I checked out to get my M3. Maybe I was seeing things?

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First off, I asked you two specific questions, each based on what you've said. The first was my inquiry in regard to the relative external dimensions of the M3 vs MB 6.2 engines, and the second was, what exactly does greater gear multiplication do for you? Since they're based on your input, please answer those questions.



I actually didn't say any of those motors were better than the M3 motor. What I said was that the M3 would be a better car if it had any of those engines. The MB would be better based on making more power with less weight (although you'd at least make that up with heavier driveline components and increased cooling), so the car would be faster with no handling penalty (prove your remark about engine dimensions). The Ferrari engine would make for a better car based on power and torque - and because of the noises it makes, which are pretty much worth any price of admission.

Either Chevy would make for a better car because they make more power and torque while weighing about the same (LS3 slightly less at 436 pounds, LS7 slightly more at 453), while each being more compact than the bimmer motor, and each with better fuel economy when equipped with the Chevy six-speed and stock M3 final drive.

For me, it's simple. I am actually a fan of the M3 powerplant (especially with that terrific torque curve), but it's down on power and especially torque in a fairly heavy car. Oh, by the way, I can and do appreciate the engineering that went into the bimmer, but don't tell me the alternator disconnect is hot stuff, because you might save around two horsepower if you were using a lot of electrical power when you floor it.

As for reliability and longevity, you'll have to search far and wide to find something better in that regard compared to the the Chevy small block.



You have been luckier than many others.

I will say, however, that once I do succumb to the dark side of automatic driving, something like the DCT or DSG will likely be in that car that lures me into that automotive boredom.



I've actually already said the M3 is not for me. Where are your reading skills? That said, I actually really like the M3 motor - which doesn't change the fact that other powerplants might do a better job under the M3's hood - meaning a faster car, or even a faster car with better mileage.

I've already said I don't think the C63 is going to do it for me either. Vettes? Ran them for ten years, and am not tempted again. Really fast cars for really short money, but not what I'm into anymore.

As far as automatics go, again, something like the MDCT automatic (or the VAG DSG/DKG units) are probably what's going to eventually lure me to the dark side of stab it and steer it driving.

Bruce

You must be one of those people that finds SMG boring. I guess I am one of those people that finds the third pedal outdated. But hey, if you appreciate the LS3 vs. the S65 I guess we have different standards. The alternator was one thing in a long list I mentioned, where are your reading skills or did you have very little to choose from in a vain attempt to criticize? When the quality of the parts and engineering are stacked up against one another the LS3 appears to have the level of quality of an engine made out of playdough by kids at recess.

Faster does not equate to better. There are many motors that would be quicker in an M5, or M3. Without the Motors the cars lose the characteristics that make them the complete motorsport package they are. BMW makes a complete vehicle, it is the most well rounded sum of its parts.

You don't understand gearing? Horsepower is torque x rpm / 5250. The torque curve on the M3 being as flat as it is, they can gear it shorter, allowing larger multiplication of the torque to the rear wheels. When someone goes to a shorter final drive, they are not increasing power, simply increasing torque multiplication. This is one of the reasons the M5/M6 is so balls out fast from a roll, spanking things like, all the 63 AMG's which have far more torque through the curve.

This torque nonsense is exactly that. I will take a smooth powerband with higher revs, which is what I bought. I also love that BMW raced the hell out of this motor. The upside in the aftermarket and longevity should one leave it stock is huge.

The Chevy V8's don't get better mileage, they cheat the EPA and skip gears. All they do is play the test well, no bearing in the real world. The most popular mod to the cars is the Cags defeat.

The M3 is down on power? Compared to what? It is a 4.0 liter V8 that runs with the cars in its class that have larger motors. There is nothing special about a large V8 producing 450 hp. The M3 makes far more efficient use of its power. Is it more impressive that a 6.2 liter V8 can keep up with a 4.0 liter V8 or that a 4.0 liter V8 is keeping up with the 6.2?

Here is a list of cars with larger motors producing more torque the M3 outperforms (or it is a drivers race):

1. Jaguar XKR - 4.2 liter WITH a supercharger
2. Ford GT500 - 5.4 liter V8, WITH a supercharger
3. Aston Martin AMV8 - 4.2 Liter V8 and 4.7 liter V8
4. Dodge Challenger / Charger SRT-8 - 6.1 liter V8
5. Chevy Camaro - 6.2 liter V8
6. Pontiac GTO - 6.0 liter v8
7. Lexus IS-F - 5.0 liter v8
8. Aston Martin DB7 - 6.0 liter V12
9. Bentley Continental GT - 5.5 liter twin turbo W12
10. Audi R8 - 4.2 liter v8
11. Chevrolet Corvette - 6.2 liter v8
12. Maserati Gran Turismo S - 4.7 liter v8
13. Mercedes CL63, SL63, S63 - 6.2 liter v8
14. Audi S6/S8 - 5.2 liter V10
15. Mustang GT - 4.6 liter v8
16. Ferrari 612 Scaglietti - 5.7 liter v12
17. Pontiac G8 GT - 6.0 / 6.2 liter v8
18. Cadillac XLR-V - 4.4 liter V8 WITH supercharger

Pretty long list... yep, the M3 sure is underpowered and underpeforming compared to the ENTIRE automotive landscape. And all those cars have larger engines, embarassing for BMW or for them? Only one company produces a smaller naturally aspirated motor that can beat BMW at its own game, and it has a GT3 badge on the back and a hell of a sticker price on the side. Feel free to list the cars with motors that beat the M3 with less displacement. I'll spare you the trouble, the GTR which needs its turbos and then the top cars in the 911 range.

Give BMW 6 liters and they will produce a motor which makes the world take notice. Oh wait, they did, BMW powered the McLaren F1 to feats the world had never seen. Plus, actual automotive engineers and journalists, not magazine racers on messageboards, awarded the M3 V8 engine of the year 2008 in its class. You are looking at the motor the wrong way, I will trust the M engineers opinion as to what is best for the chassis over you, sorry. Maybe they should have sent an order in for some Ls3 crate motors and spared themselves the trouble?

[Krueger///M3]

This whole ls3, ls7 engine in an M3 is frankly ridiculous IMO. That would be the automotive equivalent to telling Mozart that he would've made more money if he sold out and wrote butt-rock.