09-19-2014, 04:49 PM | #45 | ||
Captain
423
Rep 887
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 05:01 PM | #46 | |
Major General
593
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 05:32 PM | #47 | |
Banned
1770
Rep 6,696
Posts
Drives: F30 340i
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego,CA
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 05:55 PM | #48 | |
Banned
284
Rep 1,961
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 06:00 PM | #49 | |
Banned
284
Rep 1,961
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 08:23 PM | #50 | |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-19-2014, 08:44 PM | #51 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2014, 09:16 PM | #52 | |
Banned
4
Rep 220
Posts |
Quote:
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! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2014, 09:51 PM | #53 | |
Banned
284
Rep 1,961
Posts |
Quote:
McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche are doing far more wrong than just lacking AWD. They're hybrids, which is the most wrong thing ever. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2014, 10:30 PM | #54 | ||
Banned
4
Rep 220
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2014, 10:32 PM | #55 |
Banned
4143
Rep 6,926
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 12:48 AM | #56 | |
Brigadier General
675
Rep 4,959
Posts |
Quote:
The new SL is all-aluminum.
__________________
Current: '23 G20 M Sport 330i
Current: '20 X253 GLC300 SUV Gone: '20 W205 C43 Sedan Gone: '18 W205 C43 Sedan Gone: '13 W204 C63 Sedan |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 02:23 AM | #57 | ||
Banned
4
Rep 220
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 07:37 AM | #58 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 08:29 AM | #59 | |
Major General
593
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 08:45 AM | #60 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
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. Last edited by Wolfinwolfsclothing; 09-30-2014 at 09:15 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 09:06 AM | #61 |
Banned
4
Rep 220
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 09:27 AM | #62 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 10:05 AM | #63 | |
Brigadier General
3838
Rep 4,672
Posts
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
Quote:
There should be a press-release somewhere outlining the changes done. Last edited by TheBingoBalls; 09-30-2014 at 10:12 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 10:44 AM | #64 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 11:01 AM | #65 |
salty cowboys fan
6239
Rep 3,436
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2014, 11:05 AM | #66 | |
Major General
593
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
-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
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|