What can M3 do against Mercedes??

[semifaba]

I believe this topic has been discussed many times.. But on my way home from the airport from Geneva, this random thought came up to me. From reading several mags comparing S6, E63, and M5. E63 was superior then the M5 which carries the V10.
We also know that the upcoming C63 will be similar to the E63. And the M3 is probably ready to be produced, so not much change will be made from now. What's M3 got to compete with the C63 when it has the down grade engine of the M5?
I believe BMW has the technology to make it better then M5, but they wouldn't because M3 is a lower grade. And if we're thinking 1L/100HP, mercedes definetly has the tech to do so. Wouldn't they have 630hp min if they really want to Kill BMW in all series?

[Zirenz2006]

To me it's more than just HP and #'s. I want a great driving experience and to me nothing drives like a BMW. I'd take a BMW with less HP than a Mercedes any day.

[MisterBMW]

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

[MI6]

The new C class is boooring and has an interior that is even worse then the previous gen.....

If you want a Merc you buy an "S", "CL" or "SL" otherwise BMW wins hands down......

Also, there are a billion tuning companies (Hartge etc)that will up the HP of the new M3 to ungodly proportions..............

I like AMG a lot but not for the smaller cars.Thats best left to BMW.

[jbake]

it seems as if the Chrysler ideas are slipping into the Mercedes operation, with it's "hemi-esque" HP battles. BMW is still more of a drivers car IMO, I'd rather drive an M5 around the ring over the E63

[T Bone]

If you bring up AMG, you need to bring up pricing.....the top AMGs are stupidly priced high.

The M5 / M6 is a pretty good bargain compared to the AMG.

Not to mention there is a completeness to the M cars that is sorely lacking in the AMGs.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by semifaba

I believe this topic has been discussed many times.. But on my way home from the airport from Geneva, this random thought came up to me. From reading several mags comparing S6, E63, and M5. E63 was superior then the M5 which carries the V10.
We also know that the upcoming C63 will be similar to the E63. And the M3 is probably ready to be produced, so not much change will be made from now. What's M3 got to compete with the C63 when it has the down grade engine of the M5?
I believe BMW has the technology to make it better then M5, but they wouldn't because M3 is a lower grade. And if we're thinking 1L/100HP, mercedes definetly has the tech to do so. Wouldn't they have 630hp min if they really want to Kill BMW in all series?

the article(s) you're referring to ran comparisons of the M5 with a manual transmission.... a transmission that's been widely panned and criticized on the M5 because it was a vestige of the 550i transmission, and not a true transmission built just for the M5. In fact, the manual transmisison is only 6 speed, and not 7 as it's found in the SMG. That being said, the SMG M5 is a better regarded car than the e63 and the s6, and won engine of the year two years in a row, something that's never happened before or since.

by no measure is the e63 superior to the m5. fin.

[M2002]

Originally Posted by MI6

If you want a Merc you buy an "S", "CL" or "SL" otherwise BMW wins hands down......

i couldnt agree with you more.:rocks:

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by esquire

the article(s) you're referring to ran comparisons of the M5 with a manual transmission.... a transmission that's been widely panned and criticized on the M5 because it was a vestige of the 550i transmission, and not a true transmission built just for the M5. In fact, the manual transmisison is only 6 speed, and not 7 as it's found in the SMG. That being said, the SMG M5 is a better regarded car than the e63 and the s6, and won engine of the year two years in a row, something that's never happened before or since.

by no measure is the e63 superior to the m5. fin.

+1

The crippled DSC on the 6MT for the M5 kills acceleration and also DSC intervenes too quickly and handling suffers. On a slalom run, the 6MT was significantly slower as is the lateral acceleration.

Also (and we will see this issue with the new M3)....the close ratio 7 speed is perfectly suited to the V10, this is why the M6 beats cars like the Gallardo at acceleration. By going with the manual, you only get 6 gears and acceleration is slower.

[lakerfan007]

The test by Car and Driver that included the M5 versus the E63 was a very misleading article in my opinion, they took an M5 with a 6MT that had gear ratios that severly hurt its performance numbers and put it up against an Automatic E63. But no matter what the numbers presented in the data sheets, all the writers wrote about how the M5 was the sportier of the two and the better "sports" car of the two. The C63 will more than likely beat the M3 in power numbers, but that's about it; the M3 will kill it on braking and turns at the track, overall sport feel the M3 has in the bag and looks wise, in my opinion, the M3 has the victory as well.

[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?

[T Bone]

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?

Thanks the North American market which loves to row the gears..... BMWUSA forced this issue and now they are paying for it with bad reviews

[lakerfan007]

Bmw used the old tranny from the previous generation M5's because of the US Market demanded it, they never initially planned on a 6speed when pre-production was being put together

[carnuts3]

Originally Posted by lakerfan007

Bmw used the old tranny from the previous generation M5's because of the US Market demanded it, they never initially planned on a 6speed when pre-production was being put together

BMW is to blame for all the bad reviews on the M5. They seriously misread the N.A. market on the need to offer a MT. How stupid! What were they thinking? As a result, to address the demand, they hastily slapped a MT on the M5 without sufficient development and testing and ended up with a below par result, thereby tarnishing the heretofore stellar reputation of the M5. Big mistake.

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by esquire

the article(s) you're referring to ran comparisons of the M5 with a manual transmission.... a transmission that's been widely panned and criticized on the M5 because it was a vestige of the 550i transmission, and not a true transmission built just for the M5. In fact, the manual transmisison is only 6 speed, and not 7 as it's found in the SMG. That being said, the SMG M5 is a better regarded car than the e63 and the s6, and won engine of the year two years in a row, something that's never happened before or since.

by no measure is the e63 superior to the m5. fin.

Actually, I think the S54 engine has won 6 or 7 years straight.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by carnuts3

BMW is to blame for all the bad reviews on the M5. They seriously misread the N.A. market on the need to offer a MT. How stupid! What were they thinking? As a result, to address the demand, they hastily slapped a MT on the M5 without sufficient development and testing and ended up with a below par result, thereby tarnishing the heretofore stellar reputation of the M5. Big mistake.

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).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by M3onTwomps

Actually, I think the S54 engine has won 6 or 7 years straight.

no actually the m5/m6 engine has won the "engine of the year award" to two years in a row. not 6 or 7. and two years in a row is the record.

[coaster]

Originally Posted by MisterBMW

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

Yeap, had it not been for AMG pushing the power end you would still be driving a 240-HP "sports coupe"!

I bet it will take no more than a year before the first supercharger kit is announced for the new M3 and will be plenty of takers.

Show some for the power wars going on right now. Without them your new M would be a slow poke. Guaranteed!

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by esquire

no actually the m5/m6 engine has won the "engine of the year award" to two years in a row. not 6 or 7. and two years in a row is the record.

I guess I kinda had it mixed up.

The S54 won "Best New engine" and "Best International Engine" in 2001.

It's won the "Best 3.0L to 4.0L Engine" every year since.

I take it you were speaking of "Best International Engine".

My bad.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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).

Substantially? It depends on what you define.
I don't think it will be "substantial".

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Substantially? It depends on what you define.
I don't think it will be "substantial".

Have a look at the 997 Turbo acceleration times. See the difference between the automatic and the manual....

The M3 won't be this exagerated but it will make a significant difference on acceleration and most certainly at the racetrack.

Consider a manual shift takes place between 0.4 - 0.5 seconds for an exceptional driver and SMG3 takes 0.065 seconds.

And BTW, in the 911 Turbo example, I am not strictly citing the lost of boost on the manual but rather more on the shift times and the lost of boost just demonstrates what happens when you lose power for 0.5 seconds.

[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.