E92 M3 and C63 AMG car swappin' and corner weighin'

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by nrgy

Just thought I'd chime in on the subject in support of the AMG as I have had my C63 for about 6 weeks now, and I too was waiting for the new M3 for nearly 5 years before making my decision last fall.

But anyhow in regards to sound level, at cruise and WOT 6 db is fairly significant. 3 db is clearly noticeable while an increase of 10 db would be twice as loud. Obviously this isn't an issue for most, nor is it for me, but just wanted to point out that while 6 db might not seem like a lot, it is definatley discernable.

Also, regarding lap times that people love to compare, the M crowd is very quick to post times where the M3 is clearly the victor, yet say boo when shown times where the C63 and M3 are nearly identical or very close. Not to mention these former times are posted from magazines that seem to have the least credibility on this site such as Motor Trend and Top Gear, yet seem to always be quoted. I remember before any comparisons were made, folks here were already condeming the upcoming Top Gear review, and said to wait for the Sport Auto times as they were one of the last trustworthy publications. But now nearly 6 months later, rarely are the Sport Auto times or more respected magazines times posted, but rather those of Top Gear and Motor Trend.

These comparisons are rarely mentioned around here:

Autozeitung Test Track
M3 E92 = 1:40.1
M3 E90 = 1:38.7
C63 = 1:40.0

Hockenheim Short Lap (Sport Auto)
M3 E92 = 1:14.3
M3 E90 = 1:15.2
C63 = 1:15.2

Hockenheim GP
M3 E90 = 2:02.7
C63 = 2:04.5

I won't deny that the M3 will post better times more consistently, but a lot of people make the C63 out to be a pig on the track. Obviously it is capable of turning out fast times; it just requires a bit more seat time to learn the car's behavior.

The dbs don't lie. The issue is simply my memory of the situation. The M3 is not IMO a "loud" car at all, but it is clearly noticeably louder than the C63.

What you have shown with the additional lap time data is no victory, it is what in statistics we call outliers . The one, two and four second wins by the M3 (coupe) all represent fairly consistent and in some cases drastic bestings. As well you look at slalom times and speeds and skidpad results from various sources. All confirm what we know, the M3 out handles the C63 AMG. Sure MB have done a good job at narrowing the gap but they are still behind and clearly behind. Heck look at the measly 8:02 N'ring lap time from the 500hp "rac CLK63 AMG Black Series.

All that being said I am completely in favor of lots of data and data from all sources. Have a look at the very valuable thread here on the forum (that I have personally put a lot of work into) that serves as a "database" of performance on the M3 and any close competitors. Link here. Feel free to add results, just maintain the formatting and put all new additions in blue.

Anyone have Sportauto N'ring times for the C63 AMG or IS-F yet? Am curious about those.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

Here are the dimensions of each car for reference. The C63 is longer, but a little narrower. Maybe what struck you about its size was its "larger than life" presence! j/k!

M3:
181.7 L
71.5 W
55.8 H

C63:
186 L
70.7 W
56.6 H

Good point. Pretty sure I was incorrect.

A calculation based purely on total bounding volume scaling (LxWxH) accounts only for about a 3% weight variation or about 100 lbs of difference. That means it is actually a density effect, not a volumetric one. In other words, component by component or the presence/absence of components is the real reason the MB weighs quite a bit more. I guess much of this is likely due to the fairly intense weight management issues undertaken by BMW M.

Either way you probably would agree that the MB looks much larger? Part of that is the 18" wheels and four doors... or you could ascribe it purely to "presence" .

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

What you have shown with the additional lap time data is no victory, it is what in statistics we call outliers . The one, two and four second wins by the M3 (coupe) all represent fairly consistent and in some cases drastic bestings. As well you look at slalom times and speeds and skidpad results from various sources. All confirm what we know, the M3 out handles the C63 AMG. Sure MB have done a good job at narrowing the gap but they are still behind and clearly behind. Heck look at the measly 8:02 N'ring lap time from the 500hp "rac CLK63 AMG Black Series.

All that being said I am completely in favor of lots of data and data from all sources. Have a look at the very valuable thread here on the forum (that I have personally put a lot of work into) that serves as a "database" of performance on the M3 and any close competitors. Link here. Feel free to add results, just maintain the formatting and put all new additions in blue.

Anyone have Sportauto N'ring times for the C63 AMG or IS-F yet? Am curious about those.

Data is good for gauging the outright ability of something but in normal everyday life 7/10th is the max most people will every reach and maybe another 1/10th on a track. It's how a car behaves at these points which are far more important than a 10/10th.

It is universally agreed among UK tester at least that the C63 has a much better steering feel and to some they feel it's front end feels the better balanced between grip and slip, when you pull back for going full hog you may just find that the C63 is the sweeter car to steer. Having never driven the C63 I am only putting this possibility out there for debate but it's something I have heard from people I know who are equally skilled at judging the manners and abilities of cars.

What I am trying to say is I am a great believer in judging a car's abilities not at total attack mode but at a maximum level you would feel confident to drive at on the road as it's at this level it will most likely be driven at more often.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Either way you probably would agree that the MB looks much larger? Part of that is the 18" wheels and four doors... or you could ascribe it purely to "presence" .

swamp, you've been staring at your big 19's too long. The wheel thing is an optical illusion.



Maybe the car looks more like a muscle-bound bruiser next to the svelte marathon runner M3?

I'm not sure I've mentioned it yet in this thread but just in case anyone's wondering.... I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the C63. Might not be good form to say that on an M3 board, but I am very happy I made the move. With almost 1300 miles on my car now, I have new respect for the MB brand. Variety is the spice of life.

[ersin]

The pictures in this thread of the C63 wheels are the first one's I've seen that actually make them look good. I think I like them better than the M3 19 inchers. Glad you like your C63 Hans. Traitor.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by ersin

The pictures in this thread of the C63 wheels are the first one's I've seen that actually make them look good. I think I like them better than the M3 19 inchers. Glad you like your C63 Hans. Traitor.

THANKS Gratuitous wheel pic to mess with your head.
swamp and I should have weighed our wheels. All I know is that it's cheaper to replace an 18" tire, with all the tire-smokin' we'll be doing.




doing my best to tempt anyone over to the other side! Yeah, I know... the orange reflectors gotta go!

[WCH]

Great pics Hans!

Wish the M3 had nicer looking calipers like your AMGs.

[armyav8tor]

Picture is worth a thousand words:

18.05


01.06


Picture taken on two separate dates, granted the guy may be the worst driver ever to sit in a C63 but I doubt you'll find any M3s taking the shortcut at the Adenauer-Forst.

Originally Posted by nrgy

Just thought I'd chime in on the subject in support of the AMG as I have had my C63 for about 6 weeks now, and I too was waiting for the new M3 for nearly 5 years before making my decision last fall.

But anyhow in regards to sound level, at cruise and WOT 6 db is fairly significant. 3 db is clearly noticeable while an increase of 10 db would be twice as loud. Obviously this isn't an issue for most, nor is it for me, but just wanted to point out that while 6 db might not seem like a lot, it is definatley discernable.

Also, regarding lap times that people love to compare, the M crowd is very quick to post times where the M3 is clearly the victor, yet say boo when shown times where the C63 and M3 are nearly identical or very close. Not to mention these former times are posted from magazines that seem to have the least credibility on this site such as Motor Trend and Top Gear, yet seem to always be quoted. I remember before any comparisons were made, folks here were already condeming the upcoming Top Gear review, and said to wait for the Sport Auto times as they were one of the last trustworthy publications. But now nearly 6 months later, rarely are the Sport Auto times or more respected magazines times posted, but rather those of Top Gear and Motor Trend.

These comparisons are rarely mentioned around here:

Autozeitung Test Track
M3 E92 = 1:40.1
M3 E90 = 1:38.7
C63 = 1:40.0

Hockenheim Short Lap (Sport Auto)
M3 E92 = 1:14.3
M3 E90 = 1:15.2
C63 = 1:15.2

Hockenheim GP
M3 E90 = 2:02.7
C63 = 2:04.5

I won't deny that the M3 will post better times more consistently, but a lot of people make the C63 out to be a pig on the track. Obviously it is capable of turning out fast times; it just requires a bit more seat time to learn the car's behavior.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

THANKS Gratuitous wheel pic to mess with your head.
swamp and I should have weighed our wheels. All I know is that it's cheaper to replace an 18" tire, with all the tire-smokin' we'll be doing.




doing my best to tempt anyone over to the other side! Yeah, I know... the orange reflectors gotta go!

C63's brake calipers look better than the M3's!

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

doing my best to tempt anyone over to the other side! Yeah, I know... the orange reflectors gotta go!

I wasn't going to mention the reflectors. But since you have all I have to say is

But then, so is the M3 reflectors.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by WCH

Although I ended up choosing the M3, I know exactly what you are saying Hans. I have drifted through several cars, knowing in my heart of hearts that I have always wanted an M3. The problem is that I didn't realize it until I went through 3 other cars. Now that I have the M3, it's obvious - just like you feel about your C63.

It's possible with gas prices that we should all enjoy these great cars as it may be a while before we see another period where auto companies are putting their research into performance (as opposed to efficiency).

Really well said, WCH.

Originally Posted by armyav8tor

I doubt you'll find any M3s taking the shortcut at the Adenauer-Forst.

Actually it looks like that run-off area has been used quite a bit. The C63 driver was probably just looking for a gas station...

Originally Posted by lucid

C63's brake calipers look better than the M3's!

It's all about the bling with a Benz, you know.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

The C63 driver was probably just looking for a gas station...

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

It's all about the bling with a Benz, you know.

So, where's the 26" spinners?

[Ryan(e92)]

In response to Hans' comment about the car feeling faster at night. Couldnt agree more. The more power a car has the shittier they seem to drive during the day. At night my car is a beast. During the day.....meh not so much. Its gotten to the point I dont drive my car hard during the day because it is such a letdown.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Ryan(e92)

In response to Hans' comment about the car feeling faster at night. Couldnt agree more. The more power a car has the shittier they seem to drive during the day. At night my car is a beast. During the day.....meh not so much. Its gotten to the point I dont drive my car hard during the day because it is such a letdown.

Move to Britain where the temperature is shit day or night and your car will be quick all of the time.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by Ryan(e92)

In response to Hans' comment about the car feeling faster at night. Couldnt agree more. The more power a car has the shittier they seem to drive during the day. At night my car is a beast. During the day.....meh not so much. Its gotten to the point I dont drive my car hard during the day because it is such a letdown.

I will 3rd that! (or repeat myself)

I had a similar experience "showing off" my C5 Z06 a few years ago. I had a friend with me who wanted to see how fast my new car was. It was the middle of the summer in the San Fernando valley. Damn my car didn't feel any quicker than a V6. And that was 400hp/400lb-ft in a 3080 lb car. Heat soak FTL.

Repeating myself again, but last night I floored my car out of a freeway onramp and it was just insane. Took it all the way to redline and the car banged off a nice crisp redline shift and it sounded soooooo good. I was probably going about 120 then.... DOH.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by footie

Move to Britain where the temperature is shit day or night and your car will be quick all of the time.

I would love to live there...
How do I meet the gents from Top Gear?

[ersin]

Heat makes the air thinner (i.e. less dense). Less density means less fuel can be burned per unit of time which means less power. Heat soak is not happening in a NA engine.

A turbo engine compresses (makes more dense) the air before feeding it to the engine. So, theoretically it should get the same performance day or night. However, especially on hot days, turbos will end up heat soaking the engine. This is bad.

For those who have never had a convertible, night time is also the best time to drive with the top down. People tell me all the time "It's such a nice day. You should be out with the top down." If they only knew how hot it gets in the sun.

[Hans Delbruck]

Good compilation of info on the often misused term "heat soak"

http://www.350z-tech.com/forums/lofi...hp/t36831.html

[footie]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

How do I meet the gents from Top Gear?

Quite easy really, become a famous or a brilliant driver and then you are invitied on to the show to either drive the reasonable priced car or be the stig.

That's how I got on.

[Hans Delbruck]

I tried getting tickets for Top Gear and their website says there is a 2 year wait... and then there is no waiting list to be found to sign on.... ? I emailed and they didn't respond.

BTW, here is a BRAND NEW ARTICLE comparing the C63 and the RS6 TTV10 estate versions. They also mention the M3.

steveD had a hand in this article, and he's posted on mbworld that he prefers the C63 to the M3 sedan.

http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=gtrpg#/page2/

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

I tried getting tickets for Top Gear and their website says there is a 2 year wait... and then there is no waiting list to be found to sign on.... ? I emailed and they didn't respond.

BTW, here is a BRAND NEW ARTICLE comparing the C63 and the RS6 TTV10 estate versions. They also mention the M3.

steveD had a hand in this article, and he's posted on mbworld that he prefers the C63 to the M3 sedan.

http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=gtrpg#/page2/

0-60 Magazine just did a head to head between the C63 and M3... My favorite part is where they compared the C63 and M3 to fighters. The M3 would be a Ninja while the C63 would be the drunken bar brawler....

Jason

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by JEllis

The M3 would be a Ninja while the C63 would be the drunken bar brawler....

yup.

The article I linked makes it sound like if you are smooth with the C63, it rewards you... up to a point. If you are ham-fisted, the M3 is certainly more forgiving, and ultimately more capable at the limit....