What can M3 do against Mercedes??

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Interesting, lets compare with a car that has a turbo, and make claims based on that....
Plus different manufactures and different trannys.
Good point.

Great sarcasm....

Add up the shift times for a manual tranny through 4 shifts.... (0.5-0.065) X 4 = 1.74 second advantage for SMG. Significant.

On the Turbo issue, I think the fact that the auto is faster woke up some manual purists for the 911 Turbo.... You will not go faster unless you have a sequential (or auto) box. You lose time on shifting and in the case of the this turbo, you go off boost.

Manuals are fun to drive but antiquated

[enigma]

Originally Posted by meruyailir

So why would BMW put in a manual tranny that's subpar? Did they just put it in just for the sake of "having" a manual choice for the M5 after they were criticized left and right for only having the SMG?

Because there are a bunch of whiny stuck in the past types that think anything new like SMG is bad and they don't want it in their car.

So they got what they want and now they are still unhappy.

Personally I think BMW should have ignored them.

[M3ToolFiend]

M3 vs. Mercedes?, that's an interesting issue.

In all fairness if BMW was given 5.5 L to work with (E55) or 6.2 L as in the current E63, they'd be making a lot more than the 469 and 507 HP made by those engines respectively. The same can be said about the AMG C-class that will eventually be square against the M3.

BMW attempts to take a relatively small displacement engine, and fine tune and properly engineer it to achieve industry leading figures, consistently breaking the 100 HP/Liter mark in the current M cars. Mercedes, on the other hand, takes the easier, but tried and true method of large displacement, over-squared (High stroke) engines to achieve massive torque, a lot of which ends up being scrapped by the ESC b/c a tire just can't handle that much torque. Let's be real though, I'm almost certain the majority of people buying AMG's are not car enthusiasts but affluent customers who just tell the dealer "give me the best you got" For these people, torque just feel right.

BMW also prides itself on its "purist" driving experience, trying to create a total driving experience, as opposed to just shoehorning big muscle under the hood of a sedan, that's just BMW's mantra, and hopefully it stays that way.

I personally prefer higher redlines because they keep you in the powerband longer, are more fun, and tend to produce nice music. High redlines are also a good indication of the quality of the engine, and its purpose. Almost any engine can be force inducted to achieve power, but you can't just bump up the redline w/o doing some serious work to the internals. The M division does that for you. That's the difference. It's a different mindset, that's all. I prefer the BMW mindset.

[singh17]

u wana compare merc to bmw shame man sorry for u!

the only way merc can achive more then 100bhp/litre is with a turbocharger supercharger.

wats the bhp/litre on the m5 nd e63, m5=100/l e63=83/l

old m3 111/l new m3 103/l, new rs4 just about 100/l

nd second thing do not compare a naturally aspirated motor to forced induction because it u know ur engineering u will know the that there correction factors which wud increase the forced ind. motors capacity, likewise dont compare rotary motors to piston type motors, for rotory motors(eg rx8 1.3l 2x rotors) u multiply the capacity by the number of rotors ie the rx8 wud b a 2.6l, 88bhp/l not so grand hey. for turbos no superchargers it is much more complex a calculation

[M3ToolFiend]

I wasn't comparing forced induction w/ N/A, but if you must...

The reason forced induction engines have greater "capacity" as you call it is because forced induction raises the pressure of the intake charge, effectively raising the compression ratio, which is the driving force in engine power and efficiency. If you look at the formula for BMEP, (Brake Mean Effective Pressure), you'll notice in the numerator is the compression ratio.

What I was saying, however, was that BMW gets similar HP to a Merc engine, and they do this w/o forced induction, and with smaller displacement. That's impressive. If BMW built a 5.5 L Supercharged V8 a la the E55, they'd probably get it up yo 650 HP. Although, I have to admit, that engine was definitely downtuned, that's why AMG's are much easier to tune. I mean Brabus gets ridiculous numbers.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by M3ToolFiend

I wasn't comparing forced induction w/ N/A, but if you must...

The reason forced induction engines have greater "capacity" as you call it is because forced induction raises the pressure of the intake charge, effectively raising the compression ratio, which is the driving force in engine power and efficiency. If you look at the formula for BMEP, (Brake Mean Effective Pressure), you'll notice in the numerator is the compression ratio.

What I was saying, however, was that BMW gets similar HP to a Merc engine, and they do this w/o forced induction, and with smaller displacement. That's impressive. If BMW built a 5.5 L Supercharged V8 a la the E55, they'd probably get it up yo 650 HP. Although, I have to admit, that engine was definitely downtuned, that's why AMG's are much easier to tune. I mean Brabus gets ridiculous numbers.

You can hide a lot of poor engineering with displacement. AMG and even the mightly LS7 have huge displacements, this works great for America but consider the tax penalty in countries they tax displacement.

How many 5.0 liter + engines do you see from BMW? I think none....

Different design goals and I agree with if you can BMW engineers to design and build a big displacement engine, they can do as well as AMG or Chevy. The question is can AMG or Chevy do what BMW can do with a fixed displacement and no forced induction?

[carnuts3]

Originally Posted by T Bone

You can hide a lot of poor engineering with displacement. AMG and even the mightly LS7 have huge displacements, this works great for America but consider the tax penalty in countries they tax displacement.

How many 5.0 liter + engines do you see from BMW? I think none....

Different design goals and I agree with if you can BMW engineers to design and build a big displacement engine, they can do as well as AMG or Chevy. The question is can AMG or Chevy do what BMW can do with a fixed displacement and no forced induction?

Not to defend MBenz, but I like the hp and torque in the AMG engines. What I don't like is the gas consumption and the weight that impacts negatively on the driving experience. Having said that, if suspension and steering is improved, I might consider buying one, provided the package includes a auto trans that is as quick and responsive as a F1. Tall order, I know!

Also, IMO, AMG and GM can obviously replicate BMW's engineering successes in engine design and development if they desire - all they have to do is spend the time and the money. However, as was already stated, for a host of reasons, they chose to go in another direction.... I guess that's what keeps life interesting.

[Steved]

Well having plenty of experience of the M5's V10 and being a serial M-car owner, I can provide some perspective since I also already own Merc's 6.2L V8.

I can tell you that it will provide very strong competition to BMW's new V8.

Some of you may be looking at Merc's 6.2L, deducing that it doesn't produce 'that' much power/litre and therefore it's just another torque rich lazy Merc engine. It's not. It's light, smooth and revs as hard if not harder than any M-engine I've owned, and yet it's redline is only 7400rpm. I realise that makes it sound like it should behave similarly to any old Beemer engine, the likes of which would be fitted in a 330i, but it's the closest engine outside of M GmbH that I've come across that could easily be fitted to an M-car.

The other two cars I drive on a regular basis are both M-cars (Z4M and M3 CSL) and Merc's 6.2L V8 is just as sporting and characterful. There's good torque, but only from above 4000rpm and then from there it pulls manically until it reaches the rev limit with no signs of tailing off. This is in a 2.3 tonne SUV, which by the way reaches 100mph in 11 seconds flat and 120mph in under 16 seconds.

Now, Merc will detune this engine when fitted to the C63 (down to around 460bhp from the 511bhp that I have), but it will still be very quick and will create a car that brings the C-class closer to the M3 than it has ever been.

But Merc will need to work a little more magic on the chassis and steering compared to the CLK63 (which already has this engine), which is more a GT tourer than a true sports car.

You can get an idea of how it sounds by listening to these two videos that I made

[gtr]

I'm currently jumping back to the M3 from my W209 CLK55. I hope i'm not making a mistake with the C63 coming soon . I just hope the M3 will be somewhat a lightweight compared to the benz.

[EM_5]

Originally Posted by Steved

Well having plenty of experience of the M5's V10 and being a serial M-car owner, I can provide some perspective since I also already own Merc's 6.2L V8.

I can tell you that it will provide very strong competition to BMW's new V8.

Some of you may be looking at Merc's 6.2L, deducing that it doesn't produce 'that' much power/litre and therefore it's just another torque rich lazy Merc engine. It's not. It's light, smooth and revs as hard if not harder than any M-engine I've owned, and yet it's redline is only 7400rpm. I realise that makes it sound like it should behave similarly to any old Beemer engine, the likes of which would be fitted in a 330i, but it's the closest engine outside of M GmbH that I've come across that could easily be fitted to an M-car.

The other two cars I drive on a regular basis are both M-cars (Z4M and M3 CSL) and Merc's 6.2L V8 is just as sporting and characterful. There's good torque, but only from above 4000rpm and then from there it pulls manically until it reaches the rev limit with no signs of tailing off. This is in a 2.3 tonne SUV, which by the way reaches 100mph in 11 seconds flat and 120mph in under 16 seconds.

Now, Merc will detune this engine when fitted to the C63 (down to around 460bhp from the 511bhp that I have), but it will still be very quick and will create a car that brings the C-class closer to the M3 than it has ever been.

But Merc will need to work a little more magic on the chassis and steering compared to the CLK63 (which already has this engine), which is more a GT tourer than a true sports car.

You can get an idea of how it sounds by listening to these two videos that I made

Not too impressed with a 6.3 pumping out 500+ when a 5.0 does the same. I'm sure AMGs first iteration of a NA "higher" revving motor is a great step forward (no doubt influenced by their plans to re-enter the competitive racing classes), but the weight over the front wheels is gonna take more than some "magic" from the chassis to make it truly a driver's car. 7400 RPM for a larger displacement V8 is quite impressive though (not M territory, but great nonetheless)

Until AMG begins replacing displacement (and FI) with engineering, their cars can only handle so well. I am sure that your ML is a monster in the straights, as all AMG cars are. But in order for the AMG C-Class to beat out an M3 all around, it'll have to beat the RS4 first.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by EM_5

Until AMG begins replacing displacement (and FI) with engineering, their cars can only handle so well. I am sure that your ML is a monster in the straights, as all AMG cars are. But in order for the AMG C-Class to beat out an M3 all around, it'll have to beat the RS4 first.

Believe it or not but the ML63 will lap a circuit at the same pace (or quicker in some instances) than an E46 M3, but it lacks the kind of fluid handling that is found in the equivalent BMW stable.

I get the feeling with Merc and also with Audi that when their engineers set to work on a chassis they are designing it from scratch, whereas BMW and Porsche are building upon years of proven experience. The difference on first encounter isn't massive, but the depth of appeal over time would always make me choose a BMW over anything from MB or Audi. However the gap is closing and there is no room for BMW to rest on its laurels.

[E36325is]

Originally Posted by MisterBMW

I want a sports coupe (BMW M3), not a piece of fast moving aluminium (C AMG)

Nope it's more like a fat chunk of steel!

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by E36325is

Nope it's more like a fat chunk of steel!

More like pig iron...

[bullitt5897]

why dont we compare the m3 to merc through the following standards.

1) power to weight ratio
2) drivetrain and tranny performance
3) suspension and traction
4) Quality of build
5) Track times on road courses (cause we all know you can be as fast as you want in the quarter mile but if you cant turn youll lose in every turn) maybe we can see which vehicle has better entrance speed, mid corner speed and exit corner speed?

these would be the best judges of which vehicle is better.
just my .02 cents

Mike

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by RandyB

More like pig iron...

So easy to build an engine with 400-500 hp with a displacement of 6.3 liters, a Caveman can do it..... Congrats on the big fat motor MB!

[bullitt5897]

HAHAHA look at GM 7.0 and 505hp, 6.0 and 400hp. If you want real performance look at superbikes only 1000cc and 180hp or motogp bikes 880cc and 250hp. thats insane!!

look at yamaha for instance their motogp bike lost to michael schumacher by only .2 of a second in the rain around a closed course. if it was dry that motogp bike would of gave that formula 1 ferrari a run for its money ;-)

hehe cant help it i race motorcycles gotta love em ;-)

Mike

[m_bazeepaymon]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Maybe that is not what you meant: They obviosuly did not mis-read the market. The NA market, as T Bone stated, loves to row their own gears. And this is such a perfect expression for it, kind of a useless rowing motion not really getting you anywhere fast. What BMW did is make a terrible compromise in order to move very quickly. 7sp ZSG > 7sp SMG III > 6sp MT on all performance issues. We will see the performance of the new M3 suffer as well. Since the 6sp MT was designed for the M3 from the ground up it will not have the silly traction control issue. It will, however, be substantially slower on the track and in drags compared to SMG or ZSG. Big mistake to release the car with 6 MT only (which it seems likely).

let me correct you swamp
BMW is not saying your stupid inequality you keep bringing up
ZSG>SMGIII>SMG2>MT

reason i am saying stupid cuz no matter what tranny issues you bring up you state this inequality

they are just keeping us from popping the clutch so we don't have warrany isues for 1800 rpm (in United States)
and in europe above 3000 rpm

i owned an SMG i loved it now i am preferring 6 speed just for drive feel...
the reason they do not promote 6 speed is that bmw knows that true stick lovers do not need advertising to keep them from buying that tranny, cuz they will go for the transmission themselves.. but they need to promote ZSG and SMG because it is a newborn technology in BMW (comparing it to 6 speed)

Basically I am not disrespecting SMG or ZSG just do not disrespect manual transmission

and your inequality is false they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

[bullitt5897]

very true The new semi auto tranny's need to be promoted and advertised. every true manual owner knows he will stick with the manual because he loves the involvement with the car. I know from my previous sports cars that using a manual was a more enjoyable experiance for me. Granted its not as fast shifting as any of these new semi auto tranny's but hey i can do things with my manual tranny that I couldnt do in the smg and my lexus paddle shift automatic. Every tranny has its pros and cons.

ALL in ALL for those who want out right fastest car jump on the newer designed tranny's for those who want interaction with the car at its fullest buy a 6 speed. Its personal preference. new technology will always be superior so get used to it. peace!
mike

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by T Bone

So easy to build an engine with 400-500 hp with a displacement of 6.3 liters, a Caveman can do it..... Congrats on the big fat motor MB!

Lol, love those cavemen!

[Steved]

[QUOTE=T Bone;807855]So easy to build an engine with 400-500 hp with a displacement of 6.3 liters, a Caveman can do it..... Congrats on the big fat motor MB!

There's more than one way to skin a cat, likewise there are more ways of validating an engine's credibility than merely how much power/litre it produces.

Give Merc the credit for building a 6.3 litre engine that weighs less than BMW's 4 litre V8.

It's also really small (externally).

While I was doing the recent group test in EVO between ML63 and Cayenne Turbo we parked both cars side by side with their bonnets up, and the Cayenne's 4.8 litre engine occupied more space in the engine bay than Merc's 6.3. The AMG lump also sat a good 4-5 inches lower. Really, the difference was considerable.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm...-coupe-and-amg

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by RandyB

Lol, love those cavemen!

Interview from Car and Diver March 2007 edition:

C&D: Thanks Wolfgang von Hohlenbewohner, lead engine designer for MB, for joining us today. The first question, why does MB still continue to make Supercharged Engines?

Wolfgang: Ever since we created the Messerschmitt BF109 engine, we have held air superiority with the Supercharged engine and we thought we would continue to ensure our land panzers use the same technology and gain land superiority through power and weight and hood ornaments.

C&D: But your competitors have evolved have developed atmospheric engines that can deliver the same power out of a smaller displacement. Why hasn't MB done the same?

Wolfgang: When you have perfected a technology like fire, why change? I still use flint to start my fires. Just a little secret, you may see a new sparkplug technology in MB engines in the next decade based on the new Flintlock technology we have been developing.

C&D: Even companies like Honda can develop 100 hp / liter with technologies like VTEC. When will MB do the same?

Wolfgang: What? What is VTEC?

C&D: How do you rate your engines versus those from BMW?

Wolfgang: Hah.... The BMW radial engine used in the Fockewolfe 190 is a joke. The Messerschmitt is faster and more luxurious and we use more wood on the interior.

C&D: But it remains BMW can deliver 100 hp / liter consistently without forced induction. How will MB evolve and adapt?

Wolfgang: Nothing needs to evolve. We are perfect as a company and species. Only the weak evolve. We have perfected big displacement engines with our new pig iron foundry technologies.

C&D: Thank you for your time today

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Interview from Car and Diver March 2007 edition:

C&D: Thanks Wolfgang von Hohlenbewohner, lead engine designer for MB, for joining us today. The first question, why does MB still continue to make Supercharged Engines?

Wolfgang: Ever since we created the Messerschmitt BF109 engine, we have held air superiority with the Supercharged engine and we thought we would continue to ensure our land panzers use the same technology and gain land superiority through power and weight and hood ornaments.

C&D: But your competitors have evolved have developed atmospheric engines that can deliver the same power out of a smaller displacement. Why hasn't MB done the same?

Wolfgang: When you have perfected a technology like fire, why change? I still use flint to start my fires. Just a little secret, you may see a new sparkplug technology in MB engines in the next decade based on the new Flintlock technology we have been developing.

C&D: Even companies like Honda can develop 100 hp / liter with technologies like VTEC. When will MB do the same?

Wolfgang: What? What is VTEC?

C&D: How do you rate your engines versus those from BMW?

Wolfgang: Hah.... The BMW radial engine used in the Fockewolfe 190 is a joke. The Messerschmitt is faster and more luxurious and we use more wood on the interior.

C&D: But it remains BMW can deliver 100 hp / liter consistently without forced induction. How will MB evolve and adapt?

Wolfgang: Nothing needs to evolve. We are perfect as a company and species. Only the weak evolve. We have perfected big displacement engines with our new pig iron foundry technologies.

C&D: Thank you for your time today

Good stuff right there!

One more thing - sorry we couldn't get that to you sooner!