[davis449]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

Depending on the car, AWD systems have been known to induce more understeer than RWD alternatives, so handling would take a hit. Plus, they're more expensive (obviously since there are more parts involved) and they're gonna weigh more than if the car started off on a RWD platform.

Otherwise, AWD cars with true torque vectoring will help mitigate some of that understeer and make it an epic performer (see GT-R, 997 and up 911 Turbo/S etc etc.)

^This

Performance is acceleration, handing and braking. Acceleration is helped by AWD because the power isn't going up in smoke. Handling is helped in the same way, 4 wheels pulling, no rear wheel spin and ridiculous, time hurting drifts. Braking isn't helped as much, though you could say the extra weight on the front of the car helps push the tires into the ground since the weight shifts forward on braking and the front brakes do a lions share of the work. Then you have the intangibles, like confidence. The more confidence you have, the harder you're likely to push the car, and AWD greatly helps with that. Ask anybody who's driven a GT-R.

AWD really only helps on the launch as far as acceleration is concerned and, even then, REALLY powerful AWD cars can roast all four tires on the launch and negate that advantage. For a good example of relative equality that negates your argument for AWD here, go watch the RS4 (rear-biased, 60/40 mechanical AWD) get trounced in the Top Gear drag race between it, the M3, and the C 63 AMG where it opened up car lengths in the beginning and then got eaten by both other cars.

Ok so now forget about torque vectoring as mention above for a min. Powerful AWD cars with rear-biased systems STILL oversteer drift and are more prone to understeer than RWD cars so that argument doesn't really hold too much water. The only benefit of AWD in the corners is the ability to roll heavy acceleration earlier upon exit (less oversteer in that situation) which is washed out by its tendency to understeer upon entry. Less rear biased "powerful" AWD cars suffer from understeer that can be as bad as FWD cars.

Not even touching your braking "argument" as that is just plain false.

"Confidence" is certainly tangible. I'll just say that I thought the EXACT same things you did until my buddy who convince me to dump my 365 HP 380 ft./lb torque Audi A3 for my 300 HP 300 ft./lb. torque 135i to "stop being a pussy". Yeah, that A3 was NOT a better car in the handling dept. nor the acceleration. This car is just as fast with 65 HP less...

As for the GTR. I just finished watching a Top Gear USA episode where Tanner takes the GTR and races it in the snow against a racing snowmobile. At the end he praises the ATESSA for it's advanced technology and goes on further to say "it's everything you pretty much DON'T want on a track". So as far as "Ask anybody who's driven a GT-R." goes...I'll take HIS word for it since he races cars for a living and has more seat time than you, me, or 99.9% of people on this forum have had\probably will EVER.

There are just so many other factors to consider here, too, but I'm not gonna dig into them. Refuting just the ones you posted will do.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Ezio

it really has nothing to do with if someone has been on a track . YES i have some track experience. Last time i was at the track i was driving a rented SLS AMG.

it has to do with the point of view from the car buyer. My self, i am looking for a car within a certain price point. I weigh my options out. It just feels like other car companies are do more appealing stuff. thats really all it is.

I mean , ford is about to come out with a high revving flat plane N/A V8 with 600HP. that is totally insane.... thats something Ferrari would do, FORD ? ???

yes, it does

do you honestly believe that it makes sense to talk about the golden age of cars, or which m3 is best if you A) haven't even driven them, or B) haven't driven them on track, or C) have done neither of the above?

why even have or share an "opinion" on something which you have no experience with or know nothing about? it makes no sense to me

[rjd598]

Originally Posted by Ezio

but when it came out, it had the power in comparison to what was out. i mean a mustang GT had 300HP in 2007. Was just as fast as the 911 of those days also. It wasn't until a few years later when other cars really stepped it up.

of course its not all about power. there are just so many fast cars out today, the M3 is less appealing than ever before IMO. I honestly think the golden days of the M3 are over. the E46 days, and its never going to get back to that. the E92 wasn't even that great of a car, i just really really love this engine.

was the e92 not that great of a car for you? or are you saying in general because if it is in general then you might be mistaken there. it was the best in its class overall

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

You've had an impressive array of high-performance vehicles!
Out of curiosity, what are you thoughts on the new M3/M4 then? Or the new Corvette Stingray? Too much power and torque since they're both RWD platforms?

I love my toys.

I haven't driven the M3 or M4 yet, but since theres no AWD available, I'd probably pass on them, buy a 335Xi and mod it.

The Stingray is fair at best. It feels greasy at speed when accelerating. Thats not a feeling I like. I really wanted to like the car, even contemplated buying a new Z06 when they came out, but a drive in the base model killed it for me.

The biggest problem with just having high hp rear drive, especially on a street driven daily driver, is that they become pretty useless in poor weather. In my 300C SRT8, anytime it would rain, I would have to make sure I didn't stop going up hill. Thing had no mechanical limited slip and would just sit there spinning one tire. The snow was even worse. It spent more time going sideways than straight ahead. Absolute nightmare. I assume the V would have been the same, but I never drove it in the snow.

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by davis449

^This



AWD really only helps on the launch as far as acceleration is concerned and, even then, REALLY powerful AWD cars can roast all four tires on the launch and negate that advantage. For a good example of relative equality that negates your argument for AWD here, go watch the RS4 (rear-biased, 60/40 mechanical AWD) get trounced in the Top Gear drag race between it, the M3, and the C 63 AMG where it opened up car lengths in the beginning and then got eaten by both other cars.

Ok so now forget about torque vectoring as mention above for a min. Powerful AWD cars with rear-biased systems STILL oversteer drift and are more prone to understeer than RWD cars so that argument doesn't really hold too much water. The only benefit of AWD in the corners is the ability to roll heavy acceleration earlier upon exit (less oversteer in that situation) which is washed out by its tendency to understeer upon entry. Less rear biased "powerful" AWD cars suffer from understeer that can be as bad as FWD cars.

Not even touching your braking "argument" as that is just plain false.

"Confidence" is certainly tangible. I'll just say that I thought the EXACT same things you did until my buddy who convince me to dump my 365 HP 380 ft./lb torque Audi A3 for my 300 HP 300 ft./lb. torque 135i to "stop being a pussy". Yeah, that A3 was NOT a better car in the handling dept. nor the acceleration. This car is just as fast with 65 HP less...

As for the GTR. I just finished watching a Top Gear USA episode where Tanner takes the GTR and races it in the snow against a racing snowmobile. At the end he praises the ATESSA for it's advanced technology and goes on further to say "it's everything you pretty much DON'T want on a track". So as far as "Ask anybody who's driven a GT-R." goes...I'll take HIS word for it since he races cars for a living and has more seat time than you, me, or 99.9% of people on this forum have had\probably will EVER.

There are just so many other factors to consider here, too, but I'm not gonna dig into them. Refuting just the ones you posted will do.

Comparing the A3, which has a transverse mounted drivetrain and an add-on quattro module, to a 135, which is longitudinally mounted isn't really a fair comparison. The A3 is very nose heavy with both the engine and transmission on the front end, while the 135 is better balanced.

As far as what Tanner Foust says, Randy Pobst said almost the exact opposite in Motor Trend. He loved the way the GT-R handled on the track, and even the Ferrari techs who were there were shocked by how well it got around.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by rjd598

was the e92 not that great of a car for you? or are you saying in general because if it is in general then you might be mistaken there. it was the best in its class overall

Well IMO i like the engine more than anything else. If the M3 didnt have that engine, better believe i would be driving something like a CTS-V right now.

No its a great car, but its not amazing by any means. i think the car isnt going down in history for having crazy perforuamce for its time, more so having a race bred engine.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by W///

See, this is so stupid. People said the same thing about your beloved E92 when it came out! "Only" 420? Well the Benz has more, so it's going to get pillaged by the C63 AND the RS4. You can't just look at everything on paper. What about things like weight?

Personally, I'm looking forward to the C63, but I'm honestly looking to downsize to a smaller model now.

The regular c class lost 220 lbs of weight. So the c63 should be down weight too.

Mind you this, even with 510 hp and weighing over 4000 lbs, the c63 black series EASILY beats the m4 on VIR by almost 3 seconds, and the c63 black last year didn't have the luxury of running on a freshly paved track, so add 2-4 seconds to the m4 lap time for that benefit and you see the c63 black is leagues above while weighing 500-600 lbs more and only having slightly more power.

M4 484 hp/3580 lbs
C63 Black Series 510 hp/4044 lbs

Mercedes these days is no joke and can def make a world class handling car.

[M4isKing]

Originally Posted by Mike_L

Its come to a point where tires technology simply hasn't kept up with engine tech. Engines make way more power than just 2 tires can effectively put down. Hell, last night my 750 squealed all 4, and I wasn't even hard on the gas. Until tire tech catches up, AWD will be considered a must have on performance cars. AMG put it on their more expensive cars because I thought they realized that, and maybe on those cars they did. Perhaps they're making the C63 for hooligans who don't care about real performance and are just interested in making smoke. Thats pretty much what high powered 2wd cars on street tires do best.

Just my $0.10.

Are you saying that performance cars need AWD because you dont' know how to control a slide around a closed circuit? The only performance gained in AWD is in a straight line, but sorry, to me that is performance metric I am least concerned with. Who cares if you're 12.2 or 11.8 in a straight line? Its still boring.

Somebody go tell McLaren, Ferrari, and Porsche that they are doing it wrong with their $1MM cars!

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by M4isKing

Are you saying that performance cars need AWD because you dont' know how to control a slide around a closed circuit? The only performance gained in AWD is in a straight line, but sorry, to me that is performance metric I am least concerned with. Who cares if you're 12.2 or 11.8 in a straight line? Its still boring.

Somebody go tell McLaren, Ferrari, and Porsche that they are doing it wrong with their $1MM cars!

Drag racing is what overpowered AMGs are best at. Its also the only racing I do, so AWD is king. Everything with performance aspirations these days should have AWD and a twin clutch. Thats been proven to be the best combo for performance. Everything else is inferior.

McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche are doing far more wrong than just lacking AWD. They're hybrids, which is the most wrong thing ever.

[M4isKing]

Originally Posted by Mike_L

Drag racing is what overpowered AMGs are best at. Its also the only racing I do, so AWD is king. Everything with performance aspirations these days should have AWD and a twin clutch. Thats been proven to be the best combo for performance. Everything else is inferior.

McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche are doing far more wrong than just lacking AWD. They're hybrids, which is the most wrong thing ever.

wow just wow.

so amg black series are drag racers now?

a camaro z28 has better lap times than your beloved gtr. a 991 gt3 laps faster than a gtr.

i understand youre into drag racing but your defn of performance solely based on that is ridiculous.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

The regular c class lost 220 lbs of weight. So the c63 should be down weight too.

For reference, the MBusa site has the C300/C400 weighing in at 3,594/3,693 lbs and that is both cars having 4matic. For comparison, according to BMWusa the xdrive 328/335 weigh in at 3,625/3,720 lbs. So Mercedes is working with a lighter car to begin with. Although the C63 will end up being heavier than the M3, just not as much as some think.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

For reference, the MBusa site has the C300/C400 weighing in at 3,594/3,693 lbs and that is both cars having 4matic. For comparison, according to BMWusa the xdrive 328/335 weigh in at 3,625/3,720 lbs. So Mercedes is working with a lighter car to begin with. Although the C63 will end up being heavier than the M3, just not as much as some think.

Well said. Good info. Thanks for posting! While BMW is choosing to utilize more carbon fiber technology, Mercedes-Benz has been doing some equally amazing things with lightweight (but still high strength) alumnium.

The new SL is all-aluminum.

[M4isKing]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Well said. Good info. Thanks for posting! While BMW is choosing to utilize more carbon fiber technology, Mercedes-Benz has been doing some equally amazing things with lightweight (but still high strength) alumnium.

The new SL is all-aluminum.

I'll take the sls black series please.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

For reference, the MBusa site has the C300/C400 weighing in at 3,594/3,693 lbs and that is both cars having 4matic. For comparison, according to BMWusa the xdrive 328/335 weigh in at 3,625/3,720 lbs. So Mercedes is working with a lighter car to begin with. Although the C63 will end up being heavier than the M3, just not as much as some think.

I think they will be close. Within 100 lbs of one another.

Thing is, Mercedes chasis and suspension work/geometry the last few years has been putting BMW to shame.
LCI C63 on most tracks was faster than the much lighter m3.
The C63 Black, even at over 4000 lbs, absolutely crushed the M3 GTS. Hell, on VIR the C63 Black is MUCH faster than the M4,2 second gap on a 3 minute lap. And when you add back the time for the advantage the M4 has for a freshly paved track, it shows a deltas of 4-6 seconds in favor of the C63 Black. Those both there say a lot.
And thats not getting into the fact that BMW has nothing at all now or in the near future that is at all comparable to the SLS or SLS Black, and now with the AMG GT.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

I think they will be close. Within 100 lbs of one another.

Thing is, Mercedes chasis and suspension work/geometry the last few years has been putting BMW to shame.
LCI C63 on most tracks was faster than the much lighter m3.
The C63 Black, even at over 4000 lbs, absolutely crushed the M3 GTS. Hell, on VIR the C63 Black is MUCH faster than the M4,2 second gap on a 3 minute lap. And when you add back the time for the advantage the M4 has for a freshly paved track, it shows a deltas of 4-6 seconds in favor of the C63 Black. Those both there say a lot.
And thats not getting into the fact that BMW has nothing at all now or in the near future that is at all comparable to the SLS or SLS Black, and now with the AMG GT.

the pavement on the track argument is just too ambiguous to use, why not just use another track test instead of using wild speculation?

of course the c63 amg black is faster than the m4, it makes more power and is far more expensive. it also has monster brakes and runs Dunlop sport maxx street / track radials which is a lot different than PSS.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...rack-test.html

the c63 was quicker than the e9x in certain situations, and certainly the revised suspension helped. however, what also helped was the new huge BBK they got at LCI and the fact that the car trapped 6-7 MPH faster than the e9x. it was much quicker in a straight line.

I find it hard to belive that this will be the case now. im sure the merc will be quicker, but there is no way it will trap 6-7 mph more again. that would mean it would have to trap between 124-127 MPH stock. Not going to happen.

the merc may be faster, but its too early to speculate. I cant wait to see them track tested in real life.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

the pavement on the track argument is just too ambiguous to use, why not just use another track test instead of using wild speculation?

of course the c63 amg black is faster than the m4, it makes more power and is far more expensive. it also has monster brakes and runs Dunlop sport maxx street / track radials which is a lot different than PSS.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...rack-test.html

the c63 was quicker than the e9x in certain situations, and certainly the revised suspension helped. however, what also helped was the new huge BBK they got at LCI and the fact that the car trapped 6-7 MPH faster than the e9x. it was much quicker in a straight line.

I find it hard to belive that this will be the case now. im sure the merc will be quicker, but there is no way it will trap 6-7 mph more again. that would mean it would have to trap between 124-127 MPH stock. Not going to happen.

the merc may be faster, but its too early to speculate. I cant wait to see them track tested in real life.

How about the Ring, where the C63, again despite a worse power to weight was 4 seconds faster than the M3. Or Hockenheim where it was nearly a full second faster on not even 1:15 lap.
I am willing to bet you the C63 traps 121 and the C63S 122-123. That is in either car minimally 4 mph faster than the M4's 117.x. Either way, it will be a lot faster in a straight, and if the weight is where theyre saying, the M4s going to lose on the track too. The M3/4 are very much a handful at the limit...feels like a bigger 1M, always wanted to oversteer and not hold a line or stay planted. Also, read Randy Pobst's comments on best driver's car. Said the brakes took too much effort, the car was hesitant to turn in and didnt like to turn, and the power felt lazy near redline. And not to mention the steering is pretty numb...not that the e92 m3 had great steering feel either.
As for the C63 Black, it weighs about 4100 lbs and had 510 hp. The M4 weighs under 3600 lbs and has 484 hp yet the despite a huge advantage in power to weight, the C63 Black embarassed it on VIR and embarasses it on any track. The reason it was so expensive was because they only made 1000 of them. Mind you this, it was cheaper than the M3 GTS which it outperformed in spades. Even not taking the newly paved advantage, the M4 was light years off the pace of the C63 Black.
In addition, the M3/4 sound terrible...which is an understatement. The V8 of the Merc is going to rumble and sound great, even the 45 AMG's with AMG perf exhaust sound good for a 4 cylinder. Furthermore, the Merc is going to have so much more power potential. It wont be nearly as tapped out in terms of power as the M4 is given its still got a 4 liter. We've seen the M4s even with dp, tune, exhaust etc have not yielded much better results given they are making nearly 600 whp and can only trap 124 or so IIRC.

[M4isKing]

well the c63 was updated almost yearly, or had many versions come out vs the m3 is basically an '08 model with "zcp" as an update.

i like merc's way of thinking. instead, we got special editions that didnt really do anything. think if the lime rock version had more updates than just a special color - suspension, power, brakes. something in between a gts and zcp.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by M4isKing

well the c63 was updated almost yearly, or had many versions come out vs the m3 is basically an '08 model with "zcp" as an update.

i like merc's way of thinking. instead, we got special editions that didnt really do anything. think if the lime rock version had more updates than just a special color - suspension, power, brakes. something in between a gts and zcp.

Merc did the same thing BMW. Regular version then an LCI version. There wasnt a whole lot they changed between the intro and the LCI version. The biggest changes to the LCI were interior, a slight change to front bumper and the addition of MCT over the traditional auto.
Also note that if Merc were to give the C63 a proper dual clutch, like PDK, the gap would only widen in the C63s favor since that was really the only thing holding it back. The MCT was a huge step up over the tq converter auto of the pre LCI C63. And as anyone could see made a monumental difference that still would have been greater with a proper dual clutch.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

Merc did the same thing BMW. Regular version then an LCI version. There wasnt a whole lot they changed between the intro and the LCI version. The biggest changes to the LCI were interior, a slight change to front bumper and the addition of MCT over the traditional auto.
Also note that if Merc were to give the C63 a proper dual clutch, like PDK, the gap would only widen in the C63s favor since that was really the only thing holding it back. The MCT was a huge step up over the tq converter auto of the pre LCI C63. And as anyone could see made a monumental difference that still would have been greater with a proper dual clutch.

I think there was more than that. IIRC, there was a lot of work done to the suspension/chassis, more than just adjustable dampers with the competition pack on the M3. There is no way the LCI W204 performed the way it did with just a MCT (which isn't even that great in the C63), a lot more was done because the LCI was a significant improvement over the pre-LCI.

There should be a press-release somewhere outlining the changes done.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

I think there was more than that. IIRC, there was a lot of work done to the suspension/chassis, more than just adjustable dampers with the competition pack on the M3. There is no way the LCI W204 performed the way it did with just a MCT (which isn't even that great in the C63), a lot more was done because the LCI was a significant improvement over the pre-LCI.

There should be a press-release somewhere outlining the changes done.

Here's the C&D blurb about it:

But the AMG engineers have fitted the seven-speed Speedshift Plus MCT automatic, which trades a conventional torque converter for a clutch pack.

Mercedes has made some changes to the C63’s suspension, as well. More negative camber has been dialed in, and a larger-diameter rear anti-roll bar has been fitted. New spring and damper rates are supposed to improve dynamics while reducing tire noise and vibration.

Comp Pack
ZCP is only the following:
•359M wheels - wider in front and reat by .5 inches
•10mm lower suspension courtesy of different springs and struts
•Sport setting in EDC has a dynamic rebound rate, instead of the static Sport setting in non-ZCP cars
•MDM is a bit more aggressive than non-ZCP cars

So the changes were relatively similar and IMO more done to the M3 given it got wider wheels and lowered stance which the C63 did not get.

[yousefnjr]

M3 can be had with a 6MT, C63 can't... The most important detail IMO

Shame because the C63 is awesome otherwise. I'd have the w204 if it had a manual.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

How about the Ring, where the C63, again despite a worse power to weight was 4 seconds faster than the M3. Or Hockenheim where it was nearly a full second faster on not even 1:15 lap.
I am willing to bet you the C63 traps 121 and the C63S 122-123. That is in either car minimally 4 mph faster than the M4's 117.x. Either way, it will be a lot faster in a straight, and if the weight is where theyre saying, the M4s going to lose on the track too. The M3/4 are very much a handful at the limit...feels like a bigger 1M, always wanted to oversteer and not hold a line or stay planted. Also, read Randy Pobst's comments on best driver's car. Said the brakes took too much effort, the car was hesitant to turn in and didnt like to turn, and the power felt lazy near redline. And not to mention the steering is pretty numb...not that the e92 m3 had great steering feel either.
As for the C63 Black, it weighs about 4100 lbs and had 510 hp. The M4 weighs under 3600 lbs and has 484 hp yet the despite a huge advantage in power to weight, the C63 Black embarassed it on VIR and embarasses it on any track. The reason it was so expensive was because they only made 1000 of them. Mind you this, it was cheaper than the M3 GTS which it outperformed in spades. Even not taking the newly paved advantage, the M4 was light years off the pace of the C63 Black.
In addition, the M3/4 sound terrible...which is an understatement. The V8 of the Merc is going to rumble and sound great, even the 45 AMG's with AMG perf exhaust sound good for a 4 cylinder. Furthermore, the Merc is going to have so much more power potential. It wont be nearly as tapped out in terms of power as the M4 is given its still got a 4 liter. We've seen the M4s even with dp, tune, exhaust etc have not yielded much better results given they are making nearly 600 whp and can only trap 124 or so IIRC.

you're all over the place here

-race tires vs street tires. it makes a difference, a big one
-ring, the c63amg black is 6 seconds faster than the m4 at 7:46 and 15 seconds faster than the c63 lci. IE bigger difference between the m4 and c63 lci than between the m4 and c63 black
-laguna seca, .79 second difference between the m4 time and c63 black time, both driven by randy pobst
-black series .3 seconds faster than m4 at autocar dry testing track
-not one dct m3 has been magazine tested at 117mph, they have all been 118+
-how do you expect a slightly heavier (at best) c63 with only 50-70 more hp to trap 4-6 mph faster than an m4?
-randy pobst had very little negative things to say about the m4, I read the article too
-the c63 black is NOT more expensive because there are less made, that's preposterous. the audi ttrs was rare too, and it didn't cost that much. nor did the rs4 which is very rare. the c63 black costs more because it has a ton of extra shit on it which the c63 doesn't

Anyway, I have nothing else to say to you. You haven't supported any of your statements with facts at all, and the c63 LCI doesn't compete with the m4, and the C63 black is not that much quicker, and is on track tires and has aero parts.

The rest of your "sound" complaints and the rest are personal preference and have nothing to do with evaluating the performance of these cars.

Link to m4 track times and c63 black track times

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/merceds_...s_package.html

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_m4.html