C63 vs. M3--Test Drive

[Powerslide]

One last point - I've never driven a c63 - but I have driven an e55 (which is very comparable in terms of straight-line acceleration) - so I'm sure the c63 is tons of fun to drive as a DD (as I'm sure it would be on the track as well).

But - as long as you're willing to rev the m3 past 3500 rpm - and you have DCT and drive it in D4 - you still have more than enough power for the vast majority of situations and without having to "find the right gear" or shift all the time - so it can, under these circumstances, be a relatively easy or relaxing DD and still be pretty quick at the same time (and again - so would c63, but at much lower rpm). Really does come down to personal preference - I personally like the overall attributes of the M3 compared to the overall attributes of the C63 - which is why I purchased the m3 - no "right or wrong" answer as to which is a better DD...

[stefan]

Originally Posted by gthal

If you drive the M3 like a Camry, why get an M3 unless you spend every week at the track. Saying the M3 is a driver oriented car (which it is) discounts the fact that the C63 is ALSO a driver's oriented car. The issue on this thread, which is expected, is that many draw conclusions based on bias, what they read or VERY limited experience in another car. No one is saying that the M3 isn't an amazing car but to say you don't understand why gobs of instant torque and power that are so easy to get at is a real asset in a car is a little silly. Because the M3 doesn't have it is NOT an insult to the M3. It is not engineered to be a torque monster and that's OK but if you tell me that you wouldn't care to have lots of torque available and that it wouldn't make a car fun around town shouts bias and fanboyism. Back to my original point... if you drive the M3 the way you describe, WHY have an M3? If you drive it more aggressively and in a spirited way, then to say having the torque around town is a waste is just a little silly.

Again... I am NOT saying the M3 doesn't have enough torque around town, it does. I am saying the significant torque available in the C63 is fun, addictive and very useful in DD application. For some people, this is a real plus in a DD.

Wasn't responding so much to you, as much as some of the other weird reasoning in this thread. For the most part I agree with what you say. Though to be honest, I do drive like a grandma in the city. I have an M3 because it makes a reliable weekend track car and a good.. daily driver... Also I simply do not like the power delivery characteristic of turbocharged cars. With that in mind, the list of cars is slim. I simply liked the power delivery better in the M3 and found a few minor things to be more to my liking in the M3.. mainly frivolous things such as interior layout and such. At least that is what I found to be the reasons I'd pick the M3 over C63. Other option was the Audis but.. they did not impress me on any level.

All I'm saying here is that 250lb-ft of torque any way you look at it is plenty enough for daily driving. The M3 doesn't need to be wrung out for daily driving, as its plenty powerful in any gear over 2K rpm. UNLESS, of course, you want to drive like a douche and cut in and out of traffic without shifting. Now I'm not saying you NEED a different car to do this, I just question this as the primary reason. If I had read, "well I prefer the power delivery in the C63 for track purposes or etc etc" that I can get behind. But daily driving advantages? Not so much.

Originally Posted by username11

I get my driving enjoyment around town out of smoothly building the revs, shifting perfectly both quickly and smooth (6MT), and feeling the way the car responds telepathically to every input. Contrary to the "Camry" comment, flooring it everywhere is coarse and misses the point of the car. But hey, I like to shift..

I like this post.. I have the same sentiments about driving in town.

[clar]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

To the DD point - I agree, based upon my experience, that for 95% of the other cars out there, you really don't need to rev that high to pass other cars. I find that from a stoplight that even against "ordinary" cars that are accelerating pretty aggressively, if I'm getting up to about 3500 rpm's before shifting (where I am only about 400 rpm short of the max torque at the crankshaft of 295 ft/lb), I am still easily overtaking the vast majority of other cars on the road - so contrary to some of the posts above - I can easily out-accelerate the most aggressively-driven soccer mom Honda odyssey without having to exceed 4000 rpm's...

Now on the other hand - the same would also be true for cars with more torque such as the c63 - except with the c63, you would be able to do the same thing at a lower rpm compared to the m3...

Bottom line - does one have to rev the m3 higher to get a given rate of acceleration compared to a c63 or 335i? Absolutely. HOWEVER - you certainly do NOT need to rev the crap out of the M3 in order to obtain a very brisk rate of acceleration in DD conditions.

I have driven 335i's and even the 335d which has WAY more torque at the crankshaft (425 ft/lb vs 295 ft/lb). Assuming you do not rev past 3500 rpm - the 335d definitely feels faster. However - I drove my e93 (which is about 300 pounds heavier than a 335d sedan) the day after driving the 335d - and I will say that by 4000 rpm my m3 felt just as quick, and at 5000 tpm or higher - the e93 (even with it's greater weight) was unquestionably faster (so imagine how much greater the difference would be if you're in the M3 sedan or coupe which are both about 450 lbs lighter than my e93)!!

The problem isn't at the lights. It's when you are cruising on a highway and needs to accelerate suddenly to filter to another lane. Another scenario is finding that gap in city traffic and wanting to dart into it. A lot of downshifting and loud noise is required. With a high torque car, it's a breeze and since the act is very brief, it's often over before u even have the time to downshift and get into power band in the M3.

[Salna]

All I'm hearing is "I want a high torque automatic." I guess MB has delivered on that.

[wisesoul]

Originally Posted by gthal

My point wasn't about driving like an idiot really but driving the M3 like a commuter vehicle doesn't allow you to experience the car like it was meant to be experienced. Driving daily for many isn't necessarily a bumper to bumper city experience and you can open up the car (M3 or C63) a bit in a safe, non asshole way. If you can't drive spiritedly frequently, why bother with an M3 unless you track often or like the image of being in the car (not saying either applies to you). But, IMO, driving it in a non spirited way really is a waste of the vehicle and it doesn't get to demonstrate its real strengths.

You are implying the M3 is a dedicated track car, it isn't. It is an all-rounder, which is why it garners so much praise from journalists. It may not have the mountain of torque ready to assassinate you, but it has plenty while giving the driver a better sense of the road. We aren't talking about a GT3 here. M3 still has 4 seats and a sizeable trunk and ground clearance. It all comes down to preference.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by wisesoul

You are implying the M3 is a dedicated track car, it isn't. It is an all-rounder, which is why it garners so much praise from journalists. It may not have the mountain of torque ready to assassinate you, but it has plenty while giving the driver a better sense of the road. We aren't talking about a GT3 here. M3 still has 4 seats and a sizeable trunk and ground clearance. It all comes down to preference.

I wasn't implying that the M3 isn't a great DD because it is. You are also right that when it comes to cars of this caliber it really IS about personal preference. I would maybe say it like this...

M3 - Very good DD (8/10) with great track type performance (10/10)

C63 - Great DD (10/10) with with very good track performance (8/10)

I had two M3s as DDs and they were great cars and I loved them. The C63 is a more versatile DD and a little more fun outside of a track environment due to its sound, torque and techno gadgets. The M3 still a strong DD but with a bias towards weekend track car and is a little more oriented that way. The high strung, high revving M3 engine is built for track use first and DD duties second IMO. The C63 engine with its low end grunt and significant power has track usage as a secondary consideration IMO. Both are great in either venue but each has a slight edge in one place versus the other.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Salna

All I'm hearing is "I want a high torque automatic." I guess MB has delivered on that.

If that's all you are hearing then you aren't listening.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by stefan

...All I'm saying here is that 250lb-ft of torque any way you look at it is plenty enough for daily driving. The M3 doesn't need to be wrung out for daily driving, as its plenty powerful in any gear over 2K rpm. UNLESS, of course, you want to drive like a douche and cut in and out of traffic without shifting. Now I'm not saying you NEED a different car to do this, I just question this as the primary reason. If I had read, "well I prefer the power delivery in the C63 for track purposes or etc etc" that I can get behind. But daily driving advantages? Not so much...

Three things:

First, I don't think you get it when you are discussing low-end torque and its usefulness. This is not about wasting somebody else off a light. This is about "lazy speed", meaning you can pull away effortlessly (always a plus) at low rpm without any frantic behavior on the car's part, thereby avoiding any unwanted attention - from other drivers, passengers, passersby, or the law.

Second, we are talking comparisons between exceedingly high performance cars here, not between an M3 and a Camry four. The M3 is absolutely fine in everyday driving - until you compare it to a 1M, C63, etc. They're just even more fine around town or in traffic.

No biggie, from my point of view, but the torque thing is real.

Last, if the current M3 made more torque down low (same power up top), people would love it even more - even you. Not only would it be livelier around town, it would haul ass (comparatively speaking) in top gear on the highway. That's always a pleasure, for every driver.

See that hole in traffic? Just step on it, and don't bother wasting the second or so it takes for an aggressive downshift.

By the way, the M3 is already pretty damned good in top gear, but more would be better, doncha think?

Bruce

PS: No disrespect intended.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

One last point - I've never driven a c63 - but I have driven an e55 (which is very comparable in terms of straight-line acceleration) - so I'm sure the c63 is tons of fun to drive as a DD (as I'm sure it would be on the track as well).

But - as long as you're willing to rev the m3 past 3500 rpm - and you have DCT and drive it in D4 - you still have more than enough power for the vast majority of situations and without having to "find the right gear" or shift all the time - so it can, under these circumstances, be a relatively easy or relaxing DD and still be pretty quick at the same time (and again - so would c63, but at much lower rpm). Really does come down to personal preference - I personally like the overall attributes of the M3 compared to the overall attributes of the C63 - which is why I purchased the m3 - no "right or wrong" answer as to which is a better DD...

D4?

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by gblansten

D4?

Yes - when I'm driving in stop and go traffic in the third largest city in the USA in rush-hour traffic yes - I do drive in D4...

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Yes - when I'm driving in stop and go traffic in the third largest city in the USA in rush-hour traffic yes - I do drive in D4...

Sorry. Thought you drove in D4 all the time. That's no fun.

[Nine]

I tried to get above 5000rpm without breaking any laws or driving like a douche, couldn't do it. At about 4500rpm in just about any gear I'm breaking the law in just about every way. If I granny shift at 2500-3000, I'm within the law.

For the average person, an M3 has plenty of power for a daily driver, actually too much. c63 on the other hand, it's a tire shredder, you will never use all the power on tap.

[JulieDriving]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Three things:

Second, we are talking comparisons between exceedingly high performance cars here, not between an M3 and a Camry four. The M3 is absolutely fine in everyday driving - until you compare it to a 1M, C63, etc. They're just even more fine around town or in traffic.

No biggie, from my point of view, but the torque thing is real.

I agree with your post.

I feel the M3 has plenty of torque as a DD but the C63 AMG has insane power, which must make being pushed back in your seat in any gear at any time very fun.

When the new M3 arrives, assuming it is just as good a driver's car, I know I will love that additional torque. As well as the much improved fuel economy. Although the reliability of those turbo engines could be worse...

[klammer]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Yes - when I'm driving in stop and go traffic in the third largest city in the USA in rush-hour traffic yes - I do drive in D4...

I don't
Coming from crotch rockets I love the high strung engine. This is why I bot THIS car and the distinguishing characteristic for me was its track prowess. I'll take high revs over high torque in that environment, but as always different strokes for different folks.

[graider]

i understand you are trying to say that the merc has more torque than the m3 and i don't argue that. but the way you put it is a bit misleading for some members because you make it sounds like the m3 torque is a problem on the street and that you need to rev the hell out of it to get to decent speed. it isn't a problem at all IMO. infact i thin it has more than enough torque on the street even at 4-5k rpm.

i don't understand the part about not having to downshift? seriously? how hard is it to downshift and pass someone? shifting is part of the fun even on the street. if you are too lazy to do the shifting, then might as well just buy the DCT and put it into auto mode, it will downshift for you anytime you want without you doing anything. see that hole, just floor the gas pedal and it will downshift instantly for you.

i'm not a fan of the m3 by any mean (you guys know i'm into the gtr now) but bruce you sounds like are you are on here just to nicpic anythying you can find.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Three things:

First, I don't think you get it when you are discussing low-end torque and its usefulness. This is not about wasting somebody else off a light. This is about "lazy speed", meaning you can pull away effortlessly (always a plus) at low rpm without any frantic behavior on the car's part, thereby avoiding any unwanted attention - from other drivers, passengers, passersby, or the law.

Second, we are talking comparisons between exceedingly high performance cars here, not between an M3 and a Camry four. The M3 is absolutely fine in everyday driving - until you compare it to a 1M, C63, etc. They're just even more fine around town or in traffic.

No biggie, from my point of view, but the torque thing is real.

Last, if the current M3 made more torque down low (same power up top), people would love it even more - even you. Not only would it be livelier around town, it would haul ass (comparatively speaking) in top gear on the highway. That's always a pleasure, for every driver.

See that hole in traffic? Just step on it, and don't bother wasting the second or so it takes for an aggressive downshift.

By the way, the M3 is already pretty damned good in top gear, but more would be better, doncha think?

Bruce

PS: No disrespect intended.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by graider

i understand you are trying to say that the merc has more torque than the m3 and i don't argue that. but the way you put it is a bit misleading for some members because you make it sounds like the m3 torque is a problem on the street and that you need to rev the hell out of it to get to decent speed. it isn't a problem at all IMO. infact i thin it has more than enough torque on the street even at 4-5k rpm.

i don't understand the part about not having to downshift? seriously? how hard is it to downshift and pass someone? shifting is part of the fun even on the street. if you are too lazy to do the shifting, then might as well just buy the DCT and put it into auto mode, it will downshift for you anytime you want without you doing anything. see that hole, just floor the gas pedal and it will downshift instantly for you.

i'm not a fan of the m3 by any mean (you guys know i'm into the gtr now) but bruce you sounds like are you are on here just to nicpic anythying you can find.

I don't think Bruce is saying the M3 doesn't have sufficient torque. I read his post as if all things are otherwise equal, who would NOT choose more available torque throughout the rev range. Anyone who disputes that having more torque isn't a better feature on a car for DD duties isn't being honest or never experienced it (general comment not directed at you). That is NOT to say the M3 doesn't have lots because we all know it does. When I owned the M3 I was a defender of the car to those who said it was torque deficient because we all know it has lots of usable torque. Having more torque, however, makes the power more accessable and is a lot of fun in otherwise mundane daily commutes and this is not really debatable IMO. It doesn't necessarily make a car with more torque better as a DD as it is only one of a car's characteristics but it is a positive characteristic and having more torque available is always a better thing.

I would place a very large bet that anyone who drives a C63 for a week would fall in love with the power and torque of the engine... if they put aside their preconcieved bias, fanboyism, etc. That does not mean they would decide it was a better DD necessarily but they absolutely would understand and agree that accessible, significant and allows "on" torque was a hugely fun and very desirable characteristic and the M3 would be an even better DD than it is if it had more throughout the rev range. Arguing otherwise is just being defensive or not having experienced anything else. Again, this isn't a criticism of the M3 or saying it is necessarily lacking torque... it is saying a great car would be even better with more. Put another way... if BMW offered the M3 in 295 ft/lb and 400 ft/lb models for the same price (and otherwise the same car) no one would honestly take the 295 ft/lb model.

An M3 with a better exhaust (say the performance exhaust) and 400 ft.lbs of torque on tap would smoke a C63 coupe as a DD IMO because the cars are otherwise fairly similar but the M3 is a little lighter and nimble.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Sorry. Thought you drove in D4 all the time. That's no fun.

Np - S4/S5 for open roads, D4 for stop and go rush hour traffic (why I love DCT). D4 is what allows you that sudden ability to take advantage of a passing opportunity as well - the car will automatically shift down the number of gears commensurate with how much pedal you apply - you can get just enough power without having to rev high and call attention to yourself - or gun it if you feel like it or need to.

Granted - as effortless as a C63? Of course not. Sufficient torque at the wheels for DD purposes? Definitely. All other factors being equal, would I like even more torque? Of course I would - who wouldn't? Despite the foregoing, any regrets having the M3 as DD instead of C63? No (again though, I'm sure I would love driving the C63 as well - I just happen to like the M3 more)...

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Np - S4/S5 for open roads, D4 for stop and go rush hour traffic (why I love DCT). D4 is what allows you that sudden ability to take advantage of a passing opportunity as well - the car will automatically shift down the number of gears commensurate with how much pedal you apply - you can get just enough power without having to rev high and call attention to yourself - or gun it if you feel like it or need to.

Granted - as effortless as a C63? Of course not. Sufficient torque at the wheels for DD purposes? Definitely. All other factors being equal, would I like even more torque? Of course I would - who wouldn't? Despite the foregoing, any regrets having the M3 as DD instead of C63? No (again though, I'm sure I would love driving the C63 as well - I just happen to like the M3 more)...

S5 only for me. I don't think I've ever tried a D mode.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

i understand you are trying to say that the merc has more torque than the m3 and i don't argue that. but the way you put it is a bit misleading for some members because you make it sounds like the m3 torque is a problem on the street and that you need to rev the hell out of it to get to decent speed. it isn't a problem at all IMO. infact i thin it has more than enough torque on the street even at 4-5k rpm.

What part of "The M3 is absolutely fine in everyday driving - until you compare it to a 1M, C63, etc. They're just even more fine around town or in traffic." didn't you get.

Originally Posted by graider

i don't understand the part about not having to downshift? seriously? how hard is it to downshift and pass someone? shifting is part of the fun even on the street. if you are too lazy to do the shifting, then might as well just buy the DCT and put it into auto mode, it will downshift for you anytime you want without you doing anything. see that hole, just floor the gas pedal and it will downshift instantly for you.

What part of "See that hole in traffic? Just step on it, and don't bother wasting the second or so it takes for an aggressive downshift." didn't you get.

That second may cost you the opportunity. In that context, yes, pretty much any auto will be better on the street than pretty much any stick, but more torque reduces or eliminates the need for a hasty downshift.

Sooner or later, I suppose I'll succumb and buy an automatic for my personal use, but I'm not yet mature enough. The last auto I bought for myself was a '70 Buick GS 455 Stage I, and I sold it after less than two years.

Fast, but way too boring.

Originally Posted by graider

i'm not a fan of the m3 by any mean (you guys know i'm into the gtr now) but bruce you sounds like are you are on here just to nicpic anythying you can find.

The entire concept of the value of torque is far from a nit, in my opinion, but if you disagree, so be it.

See, if I were into picking nits, I'd tell you to learn how to spell "nitpick anything", but I won't.

Bruce

[graider]

but if the m3 comes with 400lb of tq, it will be just another c63 amg. you won't have the screaming character of the current m3 anymore.

porsche gt3 rs doesn't produce that much torque, f430, etc......m3 is similar in power delivery to these cars.

I'm willing to bet if bmw went the merc route with big displacement engine, sale number will plumet even harder.

Originally Posted by gthal

I don't think Bruce is saying the M3 doesn't have sufficient torque. I read his post as if all things are otherwise equal, who would NOT choose more available torque throughout the rev range. Anyone who disputes that having more torque isn't a better feature on a car for DD duties isn't being honest or never experienced it (general comment not directed at you). That is NOT to say the M3 doesn't have lots because we all know it does. When I owned the M3 I was a defender of the car to those who said it was torque deficient because we all know it has lots of usable torque. Having more torque, however, makes the power more accessable and is a lot of fun in otherwise mundane daily commutes and this is not really debatable IMO. It doesn't necessarily make a car with more torque better as a DD as it is only one of a car's characteristics but it is a positive characteristic and having more torque available is always a better thing.

I would place a very large bet that anyone who drives a C63 for a week would fall in love with the power and torque of the engine... if they put aside their preconcieved bias, fanboyism, etc. That does not mean they would decide it was a better DD necessarily but they absolutely would understand and agree that accessible, significant and allows "on" torque was a hugely fun and very desirable characteristic and the M3 would be an even better DD than it is if it had more throughout the rev range. Arguing otherwise is just being defensive or not having experienced anything else. Again, this isn't a criticism of the M3 or saying it is necessarily lacking torque... it is saying a great car would be even better with more. Put another way... if BMW offered the M3 in 295 ft/lb and 400 ft/lb models for the same price (and otherwise the same car) no one would honestly take the 295 ft/lb model.

An M3 with a better exhaust (say the performance exhaust) and 400 ft.lbs of torque on tap would smoke a C63 coupe as a DD IMO because the cars are otherwise fairly similar but the M3 is a little lighter and nimble.

[graider]

who would worry about loosing 1/10th of a second to get through that hole in street traffic. sounds like a douche bag driving style to me at best. i've seen people in civics or jetta did this all the time yet those car are even slower than the m3.

when i had my e46 m3 (less torque than current m3), never really has issues getting through that hole in traffic like you described. what you said sounds very extreme like in a life and death situation that someone needs to pass through traffic IMO. not realistic.

anyway, let's move on as everyone has their own opinion.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

What part of "The M3 is absolutely fine in everyday driving - until you compare it to a 1M, C63, etc. They're just even more fine around town or in traffic." didn't you get.



What part of "See that hole in traffic? Just step on it, and don't bother wasting the second or so it takes for an aggressive downshift." didn't you get.

That second may cost you the opportunity. In that context, yes, pretty much any auto will be better on the street than pretty much any stick, but more torque reduces or eliminates the need for a hasty downshift.

Sooner or later, I suppose I'll succumb and buy an automatic for my personal use, but I'm not yet mature enough. The last auto I bought for myself was a '70 Buick GS 455 Stage I, and I sold it after less than two years.

Fast, but way too boring.



The entire concept of the value of torque is far from a nit, in my opinion, but if you disagree, so be it.

See, if I were into picking nits, I'd tell you to learn how to spell "nitpick anything", but I won't.

Bruce

[gthal]

Originally Posted by graider

but if the m3 comes with 400lb of tq, it will be just another c63 amg. you won't have the screaming character of the current m3 anymore.

porsche gt3 rs doesn't produce that much torque, f430, etc......m3 is similar in power delivery to these cars.

I'm willing to bet if bmw went the merc route with big displacement engine, sale number will plumet even harder.

Ok, now I need to use the dreaded "fanboy" term

Having a 400 ft/lbs torque M3 would NOT make it just another C63. Who said it couldn't still be a screamer? Also, presuming that the "character" of the M3 is somehow more special than other cars screams bias. Sure, the character may be something you like but who is to say the general population agree. There are lots of "special" cars out there with different character to the M3. Special is in the eye of the beholder.

To say the sales of an M3 with more torque would drop as the car somehow would become less special is wrong IMO. 95% of the buying public absolutlely like torque and don't give a rats ass about the "special" character of the M3. My guess is it would get even better reviews (if that's possible) and have higher sales. You forget that the group of hardcore, traditionalist M3 buyers is tiny compared to those buying M3s. The next gen M3 will have a VERY different character than the current and past M3s and I bet (economy aside) it will outsell the current generation in spite of the traditionalists (who represent a small, small portion of the M3 buying public) screaming murder.

Anyway, saying that more torque in the M3 would make if have less character and would be bad shouts bias and fanboyism. I can (and do) understand how many people would prefer the current M3 to other cars like the C63 but I saying that if you added more torque to the M3 it becomes less appealing is... well... silly I stand by my opinion that 98% of us would choose and M3 with more torque all else being equal. Wanting a car with lower torque may be true for a very, very, very small portion of M3 owners who are diehard traditionalists and for many of those folks, the E46 M3 is probably the better choice anyway (E92 is too soft). Remember when a V8 was considered blasphemy for the M3 because it was not in the "character" of the M3... well, it's funny how forward progress made most of the naysayers forgot all about their V8 concerns.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We are all allowed to have our own opinion (even if mine is right j/k).