M3 coupe DCT vs C63AMG

[Clio16V]

M3 coupe DCT vs C63AMG:
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRgTM4qvKM

[Josers4imola]

but Isn't the M3 equipped with the Hartge exhaust as well?
this M3 DCT isn´t stock, then if the C63 AMG was tuned too, for example Kelmann ECU + 50hps, Waht is the result?
Because M3 DCT STOCK vs C63 AMG STOCK the result is this::hahahehe:

M3 E92 DKG
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 (restricted) km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.3 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.7 seconds
0-200 km/h 15.2 seconds :hihi:
0-300 km/h -
Quarter mile 12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph seconds :hihi: :hihi:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car4823dd9fec763.html

C63 AMG
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.4 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.2 seconds
0-200 km/h 14.0 seconds :bow: :bow:
0-300 km/h -
Quarter mile 12.3 seconds :dance:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car47377fa80ea8e.html

m5board/m3board rules :noshake:

[Clio16V]

Another exhaust damper doesn't give so much more power at a car like an M3. The sound is maybe better or louder but that doesn't mean more power. Although some people are thinking more noise is more power.

And take a look at this test, all stock cars in the same cercomstansis:
http://www.alpina-automobiles.com/fileadmin/user_upload/website/PDFs/Tests_Drive/germany/AMS/ams_04_2008_B3BT.pdf

[Josers4imola]

The M3 Coupe vs Convert E92 shows how much weight slowed the Conv down, maybe 5-6 cars. But when you saw the C63 vs E92 Conv video, you notice that the C63 KILLS IT by way more like 10-15 cars?

So cliffnotes: E92 kills E92 by 5-6 cars, C63 kills E92 by 10-15 cars, therefore IMHO opinion I really think kickdown in the C63 and missing a gear played a role here. And there is no way for the C63 to lose..?

see here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgIT-5_D9jU

m5/m3board rules!!! :noshake:

[Clio16V]

How can you mis-shift with an automatic gear box? ;)
Anyway if there was a mis-shift or what so ever the guys of M5board do always post that in the comment of the video.
Maybe Gustav can tell us more about is video?

[Leadfoot]

Just watched this video and then viewed the similar video linked to this one, particularly the M3 Convertible that raced both of these two cars and there does seem to be issues with either one or all of these races. The M3 coupe in the two races the C63 and the Convertible seems to perform miles better against the Mercedes than the much heavier but similarly powered M3 coupe, why can this be, the Convertible gets destroyed by the C63 in it's rolling race, a result which is more dramatic than the Coupe was capable of.

Was this the same Mercedes C63 or was it another one?

[Ruergard]

Just watched this video and then viewed the similar video linked to this one, particularly the M3 Convertible that raced both of these two cars and there does seem to be issues with either one or all of these races. The M3 coupe in the two races the C63 and the Convertible seems to perform miles better against the Mercedes than the much heavier but similarly powered M3 coupe, why can this be, the Convertible gets destroyed by the C63 in it's rolling race, a result which is more dramatic than the Coupe was capable of.

Was this the same Mercedes C63 or was it another one?

We're on the same thing here...

Same C63 from what I've heard.

[Xpower]

It was the same C63, so there was nothing wrong with it. And they ran 3 times with the same result against the Coupe.

Leadfoot, did you watch the whole video of the C63 against the convertible? Did you see after the rolling run, they did a standing start? The 63 reacted first and then got like a length or 2 ahead through the gears. Then the entire stretch all the way down the airfield until speed limiter, the gap more or less stabilised at a couple of lengths.

Hence, I believe there was a problem with the convertible on the one and only rolling run that was shown on film. Looks like he started in 1st gear with the traction aids on, and when he shifting to 2nd, the traction control kicked in and severely bogged him down, losing all momentum or something. As the very next run he ran very close to the 63.

[Leadfoot]

That is a very reasonable explanation. Do you know if this what happened for a fact or is this just a guess?

The only problem I have with this idea is that after this possible 2nd gear traction issue is that the C63 continued to increase the gap, instead of it stabilizing.

[Xpower]

That is a very reasonable explanation. Do you know if this what happened for a fact or is this just a guess?

The only problem I have with this idea is that after this possible 2nd gear traction issue is that the C63 continued to increase the gap, instead of it stabilizing.

That's just a guess. But if you look the same 2 cars run and on the 1st (rolling run), the gap continues to grow, and immediately after that they run & the gap stabilizes at 2 lengths. So why would the gap grow on one run and not the other? My guess is a total loss of momentum on the shift which just sets you on the back foot for the rest of the run. An M3 needs to be kept in the powerband to run properly.

But hey, this is just my guess from seeing the videos.

[Leadfoot]

That's just a guess. But if you look the same 2 cars run and on the 1st (rolling run), the gap continues to grow, and immediately after that they run & the gap stabilizes at 2 lengths. So why would the gap grow on one run and not the other? My guess is a total loss of momentum on the shift which just sets you on the back foot for the rest of the run. An M3 needs to be kept in the powerband to run properly.

But hey, this is just my guess from seeing the videos.

Sorry but after viewing the Convertible vs C63 the M3 didn't either bog down due to the DSC system kicking in or any other reason other than the C63 was way quicker which is to be expected. I think the reason the second race from a standing start worked better for the M3 was it's Launch Control system, if I am correct it controls the amount of wheel slip thus allowing the M3 to get much better traction than the C63 which doesn't have such a setup. That the reason for the M3 convert doing better in the second race.

The results from the M3 coupe to that of the M3 convertible shout out something is wrong, either the C63 is suffering from excessive over use during the day's racing or this M3 is producing a lot more than it's quoted 420hp. Oh but wait, it can't be the latter one of those two explanations because the Coupe raced the Convertible and we didn't see a massive improvement over what the C63 did, in fact the Mercedes win by a greater margin so it has to be the first reason......the C63 was under the weather.

So lesson learned, if you drive a C63 don't tackle an M3 with M-DGK from the traffic lights as you may stand a chance of getting beaten. :thumb:

P.S.
But neither should take on an RS4 in a similar situation because we all know who will win that battle. :hihi:

[Xpower]

I think the reason the second race from a standing start worked better for the M3 was it's Launch Control system,

I'm sorry but what does the LC have to do with the cars running dead even after 100mph? Did you even see the video? If you look just before they tap off, it even looks like the convertible was coming back at the 63 just before 150mph (on the standing start run).

Hell the C63 outlaunched the convertible anyway, so I don't see how LC had any bearing on the high speed comparison.

[Leadfoot]

I'm sorry but what does the LC have to do with the cars running dead even after 100mph? Did you even see the video? If you look just before they tap off, it even looks like the convertible was coming back at the 63 just before 150mph (on the standing start run).

Hell the C63 outlaunched the convertible anyway, so I don't see how LC had any bearing on the high speed comparison.

Seriously, you are asking how LC has any bearing on the M3 convertibles ability to stay up with the C63. :lovl:

For a start, it controls the wheel whip, something the C63 doesn't have when it's ESP system is turned off. Yes the C63 got away better than the M3 convertible but imagine how much of a difference it would have been if it too had LC.

You say the M3 was gaining back on the C63 as they approached the 150mph point. I sorry but looking at that video and from the view of the C63 in the distance through the M3's windscreen I can't how you can tell if the M3 is catching it or not. Maybe we are just seeing things from a different perspective.

[Xpower]

You say the M3 was gaining back on the C63 as they approached the 150mph point. I sorry but looking at that video and from the view of the C63 in the distance through the M3's windscreen I can't how you can tell if the M3 is catching it or not. Maybe we are just seeing things from a different perspective.

You are obviously talking about the 1st run. Those exact same cars had a 2ND run shown on the same video.

63 reacts 1st & gets like a length off the line with momentum as shown in position 3:02 of the video.

22 seconds later at position 3:24, guess what? It's pulled maybe another length or so in 22 seconds of full throttle acceleration against a convertible! And you can clearly hear the 63 going through the gears with no hiccups.

And all this talk of "what if" the 63 had LC. 1stly an auto car with a torque convertor doesn't need it. The convertor helps it to launch pretty well when held against the brake.

2ndly, the 63 reacted 1st and pulled off with NO wheelspin into the lead. It doesn't even sound like the convertible got a chance to engage the LC.

[Leadfoot]

OK, in the 2nd race between the M3 Convert and the C63 there is a definite argument for saying the M3 put up a better fight, whether it was only a couple of lengths down is debatable, to me it looked more like 3~4 full lengths ahead but that isn't the argument. The 1st race is the one which bearing relevance here because it's the same type of race the C63 had against the M3 Coupe and it's the same type of race the Convertible had against the Coupe.

Here both occasions, the Convertible lost, by about 6~8 lengths against the M3 Coupe and more like 13~15 lengths against the C63. Based on that evidence the C63 should have won it's race against the Coupe by upwards on 6~7 lengths, but the reality was it lost by close to 5 lengths, meaning the Coupe found upwards to 15 lengths of performance between it's race with the Convertible and it's race with the C63.

Was it possible the NOS button wasn't working when he raced the M3 convertible. ;) Because I can think of no other reason for such a marked improvement.

Hey anyway there is not argument from me really, I not own an M3 or a C63, but if the race had of shown an Audi performing like the C63 did in both races then you would have heard me a lot more, that's for sure. :thumb:

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

haven't you already bought an M3 with DCT??

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot,

haven't you already bought an M3 with DCT??

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh269/Footlead/S5.jpg
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh269/Footlead/S5-2.jpg

Will this do.

[Xpower]

Here both occasions, the Convertible lost, by about 6~8 lengths against the M3 Coupe and more like 13~15 lengths against the C63.

Well surely simple logic dictates that the convertible had a problem on that particular run against the 63. And the proof of that would be IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAN RUN, the Convertible ran like 2-3 lengths behind after reacting late. Like I said, I have a fair amount of experience with all these cars and my theory is that either the Conv's oil was cold or the traction control was on. Which sets you on the back foot and drops you further down the powerband for the following gear as it cuts power and your revs fall. Pretty easy for anyone with half a brain to see that on the next run they were pretty evenly matched.

And you can't take the results of Car A vs Car B and draw meaningful conclusions based on the gaps against Car C with they both raced. Each race is different. Even if its the same driver, he may not drive the same each run. He may hit the limiter in one run, or bog or have TC on. Hell the car may get heat soaked, may have a full tank of fuel in a run in the morning and be empty later. May have passengers of different weights/etc on different runs.

Been racing long enough to know these things can't be "deduced". You need to run them against each other. And if the C63 beat the convertible by 2-3 lengths or so, then the Coupe doesn't need NOS to beat it.

[Leadfoot]

Why didn't I expect anything different than for you to say that it was the M3 Convertible that had the problem and not the C63. :lovl:

[Xpower]

Why didn't I expect anything different than for you to say that it was the M3 Convertible that had the problem and not the C63. :lovl:

OK buddy, let's test your IQ.

You see the owner of the C63 posted that he ran the coupe 3 times. And the results were the same on all 3. So what's your deductive logic tell you about that Einstein?

BTW, I don't know much about auto's, but what can do wrong on an auto after you have already jumped the guy off the line? Miss a gear or what?

[Leadfoot]

OK buddy, let's test your IQ.

You see the owner of the C63 posted that he ran the coupe 3 times. And the results were the same on all 3. So what's your deductive logic tell you about that Einstein?

BTW, I don't know much about auto's, but what can do wrong on an auto after you have already jumped the guy off the line? Miss a gear or what?

Please post a link to his comments if you could, I would love to read them and see exactly what he said instead of hearing it third hand.

What can go wrong with an auto, maybe I'm wrong but does the C63 not have a full manual mode where it doesn't shift until you request it, meaning it will bounce off the limit if you want it to. I am not saying that's what possibly happened but you never know.

My opinion is that when you look at the power, torque and weight of the C63 compared to the M3 you are left with the opinion that no stock M3, not even one with an DKG gearbox could possibly win never mind blow it into the weeds.

I am only putting forward the possibility that this M3 Coupe was either chipped beyond the exhaust system that the guy declared or the most likely opinion that the C63 having a problem during the run. Though this also doesn't sound likely if they ran 3 times with the same outcome.

P.S.
No need to lower yourself with comments about someones intelligence, I am not doing it and you don't have to either. :cheers:

[Xpower]

Please post a link to his comments if you could, I would love to read them and see exactly what he said instead of hearing it third hand.


Sounds like sour grapes to me. Insisting the car has more mods, when actually the owner of the M3 gives a full write-up with dyno graphs whenever he does a mod. His exhaust never made more than 10hp at any point in the rev-range.

http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258942

I don´t know what was done to that Coupe, more than the Hartge exhaust, but It was definately something ´cause it was fu**ing fast!

I hardely had´nt driven the Merc before this event ´cause I lost my driverslicense, so I didn´t really "feel it" regarding optimal starts and shifts etc.

At 50-250 km/h i tried starting at M1 but it shifted too fast to second gear so I lost to much time in the start, which explains the big difference in the beginning of the race.




My opinion is that when you look at the power, torque and weight of the C63 compared to the M3 you are left with the opinion that no stock M3, not even one with an DKG gearbox could possibly win never mind blow it into the weeds.


Well they dyno the same on the wheels due to the extra drivetrain loss of the auto box with slush convertor + longer gearing. The 63 is heavier. I'm sure you've heard of this German magazine? This is not an M DCT BTW, just a normal 6MT. Same day, side-by-side tests.

[Leadfoot]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Insisting the car has more mods, when actually the owner of the M3 gives a full write-up with dyno graphs whenever he does a mod. His exhaust never made more than 10hp at any point in the rev-range.

http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258942

I don´t know what was done to that Coupe, more than the Hartge exhaust, but It was definately something ´cause it was fu**ing fast!

I hardely had´nt driven the Merc before this event ´cause I lost my driverslicense, so I didn´t really "feel it" regarding optimal starts and shifts etc.

At 50-250 km/h i tried starting at M1 but it shifted too fast to second gear so I lost to much time in the start, which explains the big difference in the beginning of the race.

Thanks for the link, so he said he shifted too soon, this might explain the M3 getting away at the start and by a length or two but not the way the M3 stormed away.


Well they dyno the same on the wheels due to the extra drivetrain loss of the auto box with slush convertor + longer gearing. The 63 is heavier. I'm sure you've heard of this German magazine? This is not an M DCT BTW, just a normal 6MT. Same day, side-by-side tests.



The magazine review is from who is it?

Though it doesn't really matter, their results speak for themselves. But this M3 manual is at the top end of the scale when it comes to 200km/h times and the C63 is at the bottom. The best time so far recorded for an M3 with DKG is not that much better and using maths the small improvement that such a race should produces is maybe one, possibly two lengths at best but no more and this is using these poor C63 figures and those brilliant M3 figures. Get my drift.

The law of averages would place the C63 ahead and comfortably so.

But all of this doesn't explain the M3 convertibles poor showing against the C63 or amazing results against the Coupe. Oh hey I forgot, you reckoned the Convertible had a poor run but the disagree that it could have been the C63 which had the bad luck.

P.S.
If the M3 vs C63 had 3 runs together why didn't he comment on that?

[Xpower]

Though it doesn't really matter, their results speak for themselves. But this M3 manual is at the top end of the scale when it comes to 200km/h times and the C63 is at the bottom.

Well this test was a shoot-out, so the cars were tested side-by-side under the same conditions. What they may have run in other tests is irrelevant as these 2 cars were present during this test.




The law of averages would place the C63 ahead and comfortably so.


What was a 6-speed manual that was tested faster than a 63 on the same day. The video was of an M-DCT. I say the law of averages are not always right.





But all of this doesn't explain the M3 convertibles poor showing against the C63 or amazing results against the Coupe. Oh hey I forgot, you reckoned the Convertible had a poor run but the disagree that it could have been the C63 which had the bad luck.

P.S.
If the M3 vs C63 had 3 runs together why didn't he comment on that?

The convertible had ONE poor and and the next one was right there. How do you explain the convertible losing a length to reaction time and still being only an extra length behind?

And the coupe did have multiple runs. The owner of the 63 mentioned it on the M5board forums. Although he kept insisting that the Coupe had some "hidden" mods.

[Leadfoot]

Tell me, have you seen this thread.

http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141271&postcount=1 :hihi:

The C63 gets a similar jump on the M3 but pulls away convincingly. The only think I can think for how the M3 owner is feeling is :snow: .

[OfftheHeZie]

Well, I don't need a calculator or schematic to figure out that the video doesn't make sense.

~Mason

[Xpower]

Tell me, have you seen this thread.

http://www.rs6.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141271&postcount=1 :hihi:

The C63 gets a similar jump on the M3 but pulls away convincingly. The only think I can think for how the M3 owner is feeling is :snow: .


Hard to tell anything from that. Looks like guys racing on the street and some of them jumping the others wholesale.

And OfftheHeZie (http://www.rs6.com/forum/member.php?u=2209)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_141298", true); </SCRIPT> I still don't get what's so hard to understand. 309kw vs 336kw. 1609kg vs 1808kg, as tested on the same day, same equipment. Thats a 200kg weight swing.

So the M3 has a 259hp-per-tonne power to weight ration (414hp/1609kg).
The C63 has a 250hp-per-tonne power to weight ratio (450/1808kg).

But thats the power at the crank. Down the wheels, the M3 has a more efficient drivetrain and hence maytake away another 5-10% away from the 63.

It's entirely possible for an M3 to beat a 63 looking at the figures. Problem is, I find the M3's have very poor traction for some reason and never get any good times on instrumented tests. And then the rolling, in-gear tests are pointless when comparing an auto to a manual, as the magazines force the manual into a specific gear and the auto's kick down.

[OfftheHeZie]

You're forgetting 295lb-ft versus 450lb-ft torque at a much higher rev range(for the C63), where it counts in this videos. You also have to consider Mercede's history of understating their power figures as well - especially in this case.

So really, what I'm saying is the video doesn't make sense in the fact the M3 wins too convincingly. I have no problem with the M3 winning, and I could care less about either car; but someone has to call garbage when they smell it.

Yea, I know a double-clutch transmission is supposed to be more fuel efficient than a manual transmission while providing faster shifts. But you're sure it's more efficient than Mercede's torque converter AT? I thought dual-clutches were still having a tough time handling gobs of power. This, logically, would lead my to think the M3-DCT would have a hard time being as efficient; and the power has to travel through more hardware. This could be wrong, and probably is, but I don't think it would make the difference you're seeing here.

~Mason

[Leadfoot]

I love this video from the other thread because it also jumps an M3 as you reckoned was the case with Gustav's video against the Convertible but this time it was the much quicker Coupe and it continues to pull away at a rate of knots.

I like the M3, more so the the Merc but I still BS when I see a car with far more power and torque being so convincingly beaten by a BMW on what is a BMW fan club event.

The German mag that you highlighted and the weigths of the two cars are both outside their respective manufacturers quoted figures, by the looks of it the Merc must have been loaded with extras and the M3 had a few standard items removed to reduce it's weight below the quoted figures. If both cars were stock the Merc would also have walked the M3 which is the order of things.

[Z07]

Heavier convertible lost?

[Xpower]

I love this video from the other thread because it also jumps an M3 as you reckoned was the case with Gustav's video against the Convertible but this time it was the much quicker Coupe and it continues to pull away at a rate of knots.

The street video means nothing. An encounter like that is totally driver dependant. It doesn't look like a controlled test, where the variables were neutralized as much as possbile.





The German mag that you highlighted and the weigths of the two cars are both outside their respective manufacturers quoted figures,

Because they both use different methods of quoting weight.


If both cars were stock the Merc would also have walked the M3 which is the order of things.

Not according to the mag shoot-out posted.

[Leadfoot]

The street video means nothing. An encounter like that is totally driver dependant. It doesn't look like a controlled test, where the variables were neutralized as much as possbile.

And you happen to think that the events that Gustav holds are much more controlled? Those drivers are no more capable or their cars have no more credibility. In fact with it being a BMW fans event that puts the credibility even more in question.


Because they both use different methods of quoting weight.

It's funny but everyone other than BMW seem to use a different method, and in this particular M3 it is actually weighing less than quoted, the two car I know of to have weighed less, the other was in an Autocar test.


Not according to the mag shoot-out posted.

When you average everything out you will find the C63 is quicker, even look at all of the data from as much magazines you can find and you will see the Merc is posting times up to one second quicker.

I am not saying the M3 isn't the better car overall, that is without question, it's handling is in another league but it doesn't have the brute power to achieve the like of victory that was posted in the Gustav event.

Never, no way. :nono:

[Erik]

And you happen to think that the events that Gustav holds are much more controlled? Those drivers are no more capable or their cars have no more credibility. In fact with it being a BMW fans event that puts the credibility even more in question.`

I've been there too, many times :D

[Xpower]

Erik's been to those tests, so I'm sure he can give you the low down. A rolling start like that takes away some of the driver element, along with the "who has better tyres/clutch/traction" etc. It's more like, which car is faster given an open stretch of road. The races on the road of some drunk guys coming home from a nightclub are meaningless.

And BMW quote weight with driver, luggage and half tank of fuel or something.

[KK265]

`

I've been there too, many times :D
So, what do you think?Are the races and results objective?

[KK265]

The races on the road of some drunk guys coming home from a nightclub are meaningless.


How do you know that these guys are drunk?