Top Gear TV feat. M3, C63, & RS4 scheduled for 12/23/07

[swamp2]

OK here is goes ... in gory detail.

Here are the known performance numbers from C&D. Granted we all know C&D usually gets some of the best numbers around, but this alone can not refute the case that follows below:

0-60:3.9 s
0-100: 9.2 s
0-150: 22.8 s
1/4 mi: 12.3 s @ 116 mph
(source here)

I also have good reason to believe that the default parameters in the CarTest software for automatic transmissions may be a bit biased (actually simply "dated" is a much better and more fair term) in terms of less performance than a modern well designed auto box can obtain. Although I do not have good known data to populate the required inputs I carried out a enveloping process to show no matter how great the tranny is, the car is still under-rated given the C&D results and the weight of the car.

Here are the cases I ran:

1. Stated MB hp/tq figures of 451/443 with the non-default transmission parameters shown in fourth spreadsheet table column ("Improved"). Here the times and losses are impressive, but still not as good as a MT. A pretty reasonable estimation.
2. Same tranny parameters from case #1 with a whopping 493 crank hp, 485 crank ft lb.
3. Stated MB hp/tq figures again with the transmission paratmeters from column 5 ("Unrealistic"). These numbers are so good and so much better than a much simpler MT that it is almost absolutely certain no such AT can be built this good.
4.Same tranny parameters as #3 with a hp/tq adjusted to try to match stated performance results. Specifically I used 461 hp/453 ft lb.

So the conclusion is: Even if MB built a "magically" fast and low loss transmission the C63 AMG is under-rated (absolutely minimally by 10 hp). There is simply no way to obtain the times C&D has with the weight of this car without it being under-rated. It is more likely that they have a very good, lower loss and very fast transmission with a more significant under-rating of about 40 hp.

Other comments:

-footie/bruce: I call the agreement between the test case and my simulation case (#3) "reasonable", what do you call it?

-ruff: No, according to my simulations the M3 with M-DCT still won't best the C63 AMG in time to get to speed X. Is it simply close enough that it will be a drivers race (or technology race...) in cases that involve launching. The cars will be VERY close less than 80 mph with the real differences occuring 80 mph+. You can see the M-DCT results I have predicted in other threads. Also this German Autobild test did find some speed to speed tests identical for the two cars without the M-DCT. It also found many much closer than C&D. So again - mostly a drivers race likely here in many circumstances. I still think the M3 M-DCT AND 6MT will best the C63 AMG at the N'ring as well. The CLK63 AMG is very close to the same car (same engine (right South?), same transmission, same weight distribution) and it ran a absolutely unimpressive 8:22. PS: Note that test above found a whopping 450 lb difference between the cars. I know you care about weight so keep that in mind.

-This does not really take anything away from the MB! It is a darn fast and (finally) a great handling car. It is just a bit dishonest of MB to claim their car will best the M3 with "only" 451 hp.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I am not back pedaling swamp, re-read what I originally wrote and you will see as much.

I will explain what I mean with this, I am not against the technology as such I think they are great in fact, the EDC suspension which I may add that I have specced myself is brilliant no denying that but why give all the options, especially three when no one will ever use the comfort setting as the difference between it and normal is barely something you can feel. The M-DCT gearbox is also great if you are the type who doesn't really mind the lack of interaction between driver and machine but from a technical exercise it again is brilliant, my concern is not the technology but what BMW might do with it especially when to remember the M5's SMG, seriously why all the settings like I say surely all that is required is auto, sport and manual. Let the technology do the thinking for you. As for the steering resistance, again why when most other brands offer a variable setup which works just fine.


Surely what you are writing now is as much back pedaling as you accused me of. You want it to be simplified which is basically what I am wanting, numerous settings only confuse the consumer and will ultimately lead to the owner never finding a setting they truly like.

Back pedal on, back pedaler. You said explictly that cars should be designed with a single setting and one that works for all circumstances. Correct? You then back pedal to South and said well customization is OK it is just that BMW has too many settings. Wake up, man.

Specifically on EDC from what I have heard, Comfort is more comfortable than the 335i whereas normal is not and the difference is clear. You say you want EDC and now you like it (again way ciritical of it's too many settings previously). If you don't want comfort and don't want sport all you are really left with is 1 setting and that is not EDC, that is simply active suspension. Do you get the difference, comfort and normal are active, with one more comfortable and one more sporty, sport is not active and is very highly damped. For christs sake what can BMW do to please poor picky footie? 3 settings is too many and 2 pretty much is as well, 1 is not enough, maybe they can have 1.5.

I never made any claims that BMW customizations offered just the right number of settings, I only claimed that I am all for user adjustable and customizeable driving experiences. Just because I agree that SMG II may have too many settings does not mean I am back pedaling on customization. You really need to wake up here. Your BS defensiveness and offensives will not fool an single careful reader of what you have already posted.

[footie]

swamp,

Why comment on EDC, especially when you haven't driven the thing unlike myself who has.

I can tell you that unless the roads are bloody awful you will not feel that much of a difference, not enough to warrant the need for the setting that is. You are right in saying that the first two settings are active and the last isn't, but am I not right in saying that the M3 IS a sportscar and why offer a comfort setting at the expense of body control, it's the one difference between comfort and normal that is easily felt, so like I say why offer a setting which goes against what the M3 really is. Like I said 2 settings is enough, one for track and the other for the road.

swamp, I haven't a problem with you attacking me, I expected as much. You may feel my opinions are BS and that is your opinion but don't for one minute believe that you can speak for everyone on this.

You are into technology and numerous settings and no doubt you will pick an M3 with M-DCT and all it's goodies as being quickest is the most important thing but just because some other may prefer their M3 a little bit more old-school doesn't mean we are wrong and you are right or vice versa.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

Why comment on EDC, especially when you haven't driven the thing unlike myself who has.

I can tell you that unless the roads are bloody awful you will not feel that much of a difference, not enough to warrant the need for the setting that is. You are right in saying that the first two settings are active and the last isn't, but am I not right in saying that the M3 IS a sportscar and why offer a comfort setting at the expense of body control, it's the one difference between comfort and normal that is easily felt, so like I say why offer a setting which goes against what the M3 really is. Like I said 2 settings is enough, one for track and the other for the road.

swamp, I haven't a problem with you attacking me, I expected as much. You may feel my opinions are BS and that is your opinion but don't for one minute believe that you can speak for everyone on this.

You are into technology and numerous settings and no doubt you will pick an M3 with M-DCT and all it's goodies as being quickest is the most important thing but just because some other may prefer their M3 a little bit more old-school doesn't mean we are wrong and you are right or vice versa.

Yep, resort to the infamous "seat time" argument. Resort to the constantly changing the discussion as well to forget about your past inconsistencies and errors and hypocrisy. You simply do not respond to my posts.

I tend to disagree with a majority of your opinions, "facts", likes and dislikes. Enigma has called you out on being way too brand conscious at the expense of real performance and I agreed with him as well. Why should I think your and my perception of EDC would be similar? Frankly I trust what I have read in the mags over you.

The problem is simple and remains. You can not accept the changing face of BMW and of the M3. I'm sorry, but accept it or move on. If you don't know why someone would want a comfortable M3, you are simply beyond help. How about it prevents you for buying two cars???

I don't start any attacks. I vehemently disagree with your OPINIONS and incorrect facts. I dislike your general attitude of always complaining and always thinking you know better than BWM. I also dislike your contstant passing off of your opinion as fact. All I do, however, is elevate our exchanges right along in parallel with you. I have never attacked you because your opinion on which car is better for you is different than my opinion of which car is better for me.

And lastly that position, my opinion, is clear. I like technology for what is brings to driving, not for technologies sake. Pigeon hole me as much as you like, it won't stick.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by southlight

Did I already mention what I read on a German forum:
Dyno test of a C63 - result: 498PS

Originally Posted by southlight

OMG, a bad mistake I made. Don't shoot me, guys...it was a CLK63. Sorry.

Indeed it does not really matter. MB stuffs nearly the exact same 6.2l V8 with nearly identical specs into a wide variety of cars, the C63 AMG and CLK63 AMG included. All they have to do to get a large range of powers out of this engine is to change the intake/exhaust/ECU. They simply claim a hp/tq of 481/465 for the CLK and 451/443 for the C63. They are likely both under-rated.

I still want to know if the 498PS was crank or wheels then corrected to be crank, or something else!

[ruff]

Originally Posted by southlight

OMG, a bad mistake I made. Don't shoot me, guys...it was a CLK63. Sorry.


Best regards, south

Thanks for pointing out an honest mistake.

Originally Posted by chitown08

oh... would you look at that.

swamps 'subjective' physics puts ruff in his place.... again.

Time to jump off the band wagon Mr. Coattail. Watch the Big Macs, you may find you put on weight rather quickly when you get in your 30's. Hint, Mcdonalds does not make food, I really don't know what you call it...processed garbage? You really need to rent Super Size Me this weekend, then we can see if you have a change of "philosophy." Ya, I know, I am stupid for making the effort to eat fresh food from my garden when there is fine dining at Mcdonalds.

Originally Posted by leakybimmer

yah he loves to guesstimate.

Nice argument leaky. Ever heard of do-diligence or actually having an argument yourself? Time for you to exit stage left off the band wagon as well.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK here is goes ... in gory detail.

Here are the known performance numbers from C&D. Granted we all know C&D usually gets some of the best numbers around, but this alone can not refute the case that follows below:

0-60:3.9 s
0-100: 9.2 s
0-150: 22.8 s
1/4 mi: 12.3 s @ 116 mph
(source here)

I also have good reason to believe that the default parameters in the CarTest software for automatic transmissions may be a bit biased (actually simply "dated" is a much better and more fair term) in terms of less performance than a modern well designed auto box can obtain. Although I do not have good known data to populate the required inputs I carried out a enveloping process to show no matter how great the tranny is, the car is still under-rated given the C&D results and the weight of the car.

Here are the cases I ran:

1. Stated MB hp/tq figures of 451/443 with the non-default transmission parameters shown in fourth spreadsheet table column ("Improved"). Here the times and losses are impressive, but still not as good as a MT. A pretty reasonable estimation.
2. Same tranny parameters from case #1 with a whopping 493 crank hp, 485 crank ft lb.
3. Stated MB hp/tq figures again with the transmission paratmeters from column 5 ("Unrealistic"). These numbers are so good and so much better than a much simpler MT that it is almost absolutely certain no such AT can be built this good.
4.Same tranny parameters as #3 with a hp/tq adjusted to try to match stated performance results. Specifically I used 461 hp/453 ft lb.

So the conclusion is: Even if MB built a "magically" fast and low loss transmission the C63 AMG is under-rated (absolutely minimally by 10 hp). There is simply no way to obtain the times C&D has with the weight of this car without it being under-rated. It is more likely that they have a very good, lower loss and very fast transmission with a more significant under-rating of about 40 hp.

Other comments:

-footie/bruce: I call the agreement between the test case and my simulation case (#3) "reasonable", what do you call it?

-ruff: No, according to my simulations the M3 with M-DCT still won't best the C63 AMG in time to get to speed X. Is it simply close enough that it will be a drivers race (or technology race...) in cases that involve launching. The cars will be VERY close less than 80 mph with the real differences occuring 80 mph+. You can see the M-DCT results I have predicted in other threads. Also this German Autobild test did find some speed to speed tests identical for the two cars without the M-DCT. It also found many much closer than C&D. So again - mostly a drivers race likely here in many circumstances. I still think the M3 M-DCT AND 6MT will best the C63 AMG at the N'ring as well. The CLK63 AMG is very close to the same car (same engine (right South?), same transmission, same weight distribution) and it ran a absolutely unimpressive 8:22. PS: Note that test above found a whopping 450 lb difference between the cars. I know you care about weight so keep that in mind.

-This does not really take anything away from the MB! It is a darn fast and (finally) a great handling car. It is just a bit dishonest of MB to claim their car will best the M3 with "only" 451 hp.

Swamp,

Good post. You are a smart guy, maybe a bit vain at times, but then who isn't? IMO, you have a tough battle with some arguments, since you really are a BMW and DCT propoganda kind of guy.

I on the other hand, have an easier job with making arguments because I love all cars. I am not really that partial to any brand when it come down to the rubber really hitting the tarmac and the bank account getting pummelled. If I find one car proves to meet my needs better than the car I was previously going purchase, then I make the change. I am not loyal to any car company because they are not loyal to their core customers. You see it with hard core sports fans. They support their team, whether they win or lose, but is the team supportive of that fan when they raise their prices so high that they can no longer afford to go to a game? So who ends up attending the games? Are they the real fans? I don't try to justify and convince myself one car is better than another because of the company who built it. I am especially not badge concious, if anything, I am badge embarrassed.

You choose to limit yourself to arguing exclusively for the M3 and having to find, presume, and present only the positive data on the M3 to support your argument. I on the other hand, have the benefit of throwing any car into my arguments against yours. In other words, the best traits of any car against your single car.

So, given your decision to argue exclusively for my beloved M3, I give you Kudos on your abilities to debate and present singular data on it's behalf.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by ruff

Thanks for pointing out an honest mistake.

Time to jump off the band wagon Mr. Coattail. Watch the Big Macs, you may find you put on weight rather quickly when you get in your 30's. Hint, Mcdonalds does not make food, I really don't know what you call it...processed garbage? You really need to rent Super Size Me this weekend, then we can see if you have a change of "philosophy." Ya, I know, I am stupid for making the effort to eat fresh food from my garden when there is fine dining at Mcdonalds.

Nice argument leaky. Ever heard of do-diligence or actually having an argument yourself? Time for you to exit stage left off the band wagon as well.

wow, you have got to be the most irrational poster I have ever encountered.

You are attacking me for being on a bandwagon?
If the bandwagon is REASON, then you're damn right. I will defend reason over your stupidity until the day I die.

And I don't eat McDonalds, hotshot. but good try.
This attack only proves once again that you never understood the point of the thread in which I referenced McDonalds in the first place. Which ultimately, is not surprising.

[MrHarris]

lol its ruff! i see conflict with mr. ruff every time i visit m3post!

[ruff]

Originally Posted by chitown08

wow, you have got to be the most irrational poster I have ever encountered.

You are attacking me for being on a bandwagon?
If the bandwagon is REASON, then you're damn right. I will defend reason over your stupidity until the day I die.

And I don't eat McDonalds, hotshot. but good try.
This attack only proves once again that you never understood the point of the thread in which I referenced McDonalds in the first place. Which ultimately, is not surprising.

Like I said, you should present your rational arguments to BMW Marketing. They are going to need them.

You even have trouble convincing your fellow BMW fan boys of your so called rationale, let alone someone with even a pittance of objectivity.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

lol its ruff! i see conflict with mr. ruff every time i visit m3post!

Objectivity is a tough gig on this forum.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by ruff

Like I said, you should present your rational arguments to BMW Marketing. They are going to need them.

You even have trouble convincing your fellow BMW fan boys of your so called rationale, let alone someone with even a pittance of objectivity.

My debate in the other thread has absolutely no relevance to BMW marketing! It didn't even have anything to do with BMW or any brand. It was about manual vs. DCT/DSG. Hellooooo, did you miss all of the OFFTOPIC insults?

Having trouble convincing my fellow BMW fanboys of what?
My argument had nothing to do with BMW in the first place! The only purpose of my argument was ask manual lovers why they like manuals so much. Which is why everyone who heatedly responded to me was ironically a manual diehard (you included) What that has to do with fanboyism is beyond me (there goes your 'reason' again)..You're seriously the most ignorant poster on any forum. congratulations.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by chitown08

My debate in the other thread has absolutely no relevance to BMW marketing! It didn't even have anything to do with BMW or any brand. It was about manual vs. DCT/DSG. Hellooooo, did you miss all of the OFFTOPIC insults?

Having trouble convincing my fellow BMW fanboys of what?
My argument had nothing to do with BMW in the first place! The only purpose of my argument was ask manual lovers why they like manuals so much. Which is why everyone who heatedly responded to me was ironically a manual diehard (you included) What that has to do with fanboyism is beyond me (there goes your 'reason' again)..You're seriously the most ignorant poster on any forum. congratulations.

Mister BMW, please teach me about the M1, E30, E36, and E46, profanity excluded. Oh ya, and no cheating by Googling.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by ruff

Objectivity is a tough gig on this forum.

Seriously ruff, why don't realize that we ARE objective and we DO value objectivity. All this bickering is getting old.

There is nothing more I could respect you for than if you were simply objective. I believe you try to be, but you think nobody else has that capacity. We do.

You flatter yourself with your brand neutrality. I respect your neutrality. I feel exactly the same. You presume that everyone is a fanboy and then you feel the need to attack. Stop. Most of your posts are just a few little exaggerations and a contradiction away from being completely valid and enjoyable. But you seem to take it too far always somehow, someway, and then the rest of the objective world (myself included) feels the need to bring you back to center.

thats all I'm gonna say. You basically think everyone is a fanboy, so you present oppositely biased counterarguments. But then you are just as wrong, just on the other side. Sticking to facts would be much more 'objective' if that is what you strive for. And I respect that, so I hope you do. I like your passion and sarcasm so I would love nothing more than to support your assaults on fanboyism if you kept your posts 100% factual.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

Swamp,

Good post. You are a smart guy, maybe a bit vain at times, but then who isn't? IMO, you have a tough battle with some arguments, since you really are a BMW and DCT propoganda kind of guy.

I on the other hand, have an easier job with making arguments because I love all cars. I am not really that partial to any brand when it come down to the rubber really hitting the tarmac and the bank account getting pummelled. If I find one car proves to meet my needs better than the car I was previously going purchase, then I make the change. I am not loyal to any car company because they are not loyal to their core customers. You see it with hard core sports fans. They support their team, whether they win or lose, but is the team supportive of that fan when they raise their prices so high that they can no longer afford to go to a game? So who ends up attending the games? Are they the real fans? I don't try to justify and convince myself one car is better than another because of the company who built it. I am especially not badge concious, if anything, I am badge embarrassed.

You choose to limit yourself to arguing exclusively for the M3 and having to find, presume, and present only the positive data on the M3 to support your argument. I on the other hand, have the benefit of throwing any car into my arguments against yours. In other words, the best traits of any car against your single car.

So, given your decision to argue exclusively for my beloved M3, I give you Kudos on your abilities to debate and present singular data on it's behalf.

Thanks ruff. I will take your compliment and your criticism as a bit vain as well.

I have applauded you on multiple occasions for your objectivism, realism and for keeping the discussions more balanced here with some good BMW criticism. However, a big fan of BMW M does not equate to a brand whore. I have chosen two M3s in the past because they have represented the best combination of things important to me which are price to performance ratio, handling, reliability, looks, build quality and luxury, roughly in that order. I have pointed out time and time again the criticisms I have placed on BMW and on the M3. How many times do I have to list those problems? If I post them each 4 times per day will I get into the ruff club? These problems include but are not limited to: no DFI, too much weight, too much marketing fluff on "weight savings", potential "dishonesty" with regards to tire choice to obtain a good Ring time, lack of innovation in the V8 (almost identical to the M5 V10 in most ways), poor options groupings/pre-requisites, poor trim and color selections and a butt ugly muffler. Others I can't recall right now are avialable for all to see in my previous posts.

I too like a lot of cars but I definitely don't love a lot of cars. So were are maybe a bit different here, but not really that much. It is simply easier for me to chat, discuss, debate and often defend a car that I am passionaite about. Thats why I hang out here. I also can't say how many times I have called the RS4, C63 and IS-F great competitors who have significantly upped their game. Although I can't really get over some looks aspects of the C63 and IS-F, and their automatic trannies, at some price I would absolutely park them in my garage.

Do go ahead and believe you are the only one here worthy to be called totally objective or that you are the only one here who will jump from the M3 ship as required, but it simply is not true. Cheers.

[paulyd]

Originally Posted by ruff

Mister BMW, please teach me about the M1, E30, E36, and E46, profanity excluded. Oh ya, and no cheating by Googling.

gosh... you posted this before I posted mine. What is this? Its just garbage. what does this have to do with anything I have ever said? This is the type of unreasonable irrelevancy I was just talking about in my last post.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by chitown08

All this bickering is getting old.

You always start all the bickering with me. You were quick to jump on the bandwagon tonight with your side kick show, then found out South made an honest mistake. So once again your side kick show held no water. Of course you still couldn't leave it alone, now could you? Answer my questions above Mr. BMW of 20 so odd years?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by chitown08

Seriously ruff, why don't realize that we ARE objective and we DO value objectivity. All this bickering is getting old.
...
There is nothing more I could respect you for than if you were simply objective. I believe you try to be, but you think nobody else has that capacity. We do.
...
Most of your posts are just a few little exaggerations and a contradiction away from being completely valid and enjoyable. But you seem to take it too far always somehow, someway, and then the rest of the objective world (myself included) feels the need to bring you back to center.
...
I like your passion and sarcasm so I would love nothing more than to support your assaults on fanboyism.

It looks like Chitown my "little underling" (not!) and I are trading PMs before we post, but we are not - I assure you.

Chi and Ruff both - a big +1 on the trimmed down portions above!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

You were quick to jump on the bandwagon tonight with your side kick show, then found out South made an honest mistake. So once again your side kick show held no water. Of course you still couldn't leave it alone, now could you? Answer my questions above Mr. BMW of 20 so odd years?

Ruff, did you miss my post #75 above, it sure seems like it.

I also completely fail to see the relevance of quizzing Chi on BMW facts and history. Totally irrelevant.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by chitown08

what does this have to do with anything I have ever said?

Originally Posted by chitown08

You're seriously the most ignorant poster on any forum. congratulations.

You are not experiencing short term memory loss now are you?^ Looks like my questions are very relevant, now aren't they. Mr. BMW, now go ahead and teach me more about the M's vaunted history. This is an M3 forum now isn't it?

[paulyd]

ruff my friend

the ignorance I was referring to is the disconnect between your perceived intelligence and your actual intelligence. Not your ignorance of automotive history. If you had the ability to put two and two together, you would realize that I have never attacked a post of yours about history. I was barely alive when those cars came out. Instead, I only attack you when you say generally stupid shit. Ridiculously biased statements presented as fact. Glaring contradictions. Fundamentally flawed arguments.

I'd have more respect for someone who didn't know the M3 had throttle butterflies than for someone who thought physics was subjective(you).

I typically insult you for failing to understand capitalism every time you get mad at BMW for not producing the car YOU want. Thats just dumb.

My lack of knowledge regarding 15 yr old BMW's does not disqualify such an attack. Nor are you the gatekeeper of M3post. BTW, isn't that what you accuse swamp for being? An admin? Interesting, seeing as now you apparently have the power to impart an M history test upon members before they are allowed to post. I'd call that hypocrisy but I must be careful in using such a term because Epacy thinks its my new buzzword and I don't want to lose any of my dear internet friends.

anyway, I tried seeing the good in u, but you're clearly immune to rational argument.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by chitown08

ruff my friend

the ignorance I was referring to is the disconnect between your perceived intelligence and your actual intelligence. Not your ignorance of automotive history. If you had the ability to put two and two together, you would realize that I have never attacked a post of yours about history. I was barely alive when those cars came out. Instead, I only attack you when you say generally stupid shit. Ridiculously biased statements presented as fact. Glaring contradictions. Fundamentally flawed arguments.

I'd have more respect for someone who didn't know the M3 had throttle butterflies than for someone who thought physics was subjective(you).

I typically insult you for failing to understand capitalism every time you get mad at BMW for not producing the car YOU want. Thats just dumb.

My lack of knowledge regarding 15 yr old BMW's does not disqualify such an attack. Nor are you the gatekeeper of M3post. BTW, isn't that what you accuse swamp for being? An admin? Interesting, seeing as now you apparently have the power to impart an M history test upon members before they are allowed to post. I'd call that hypocrisy but I must be careful in using such a term because Epacy thinks its my new buzzword and I don't want to lose any of my dear internet friends.

anyway, I tried seeing the good in u, but you're clearly immune to rational argument.

Chitown, You are right. You make BMW fans proud. Please submit your theories of physics, Mcdonalds, DCT, and philosophy to the M marketing department. It would really open their eyes to their new core constituancy of badge enthusiasts and debtors. Only one bit of advice, if I may, leave out the profanity, it will not bolster your rising status in the BMW community.