M&M

http://64.191.54.129/mid/M3VSC55.avi

C55's best run & M3's worst run of the day. But let's forget the excuses this time. M3 went 0.3 quicker when it had the left lane that the C55 was using. Raced each other 4 times. Result was 4-0. Went rolling on the highway after that with the same victor every time (same victor that won the drags).

EuroCoupe

Boy, if I owned a C55 and my best run was a 14.48 I think I'd be bringing it back to the dealership. Elevation should not knock off a full second. What was with the C55 lining up crookedly against the guard railing? Just straightening the car out down the first 60ft certainly didn't help his chances...

BenzoAMGpower

id understand if he was trying to go around the burnout water but looks to me like he lauched from an angle... wtf is that?

M&M

Middle of the track is very slippery when not prepped. I ran 13.68 when I lined up exactly where he did.

BenzoAMGpower

i still never heard of launching sideways!!

Improviz

As 321 ponies, then 341 ponies when you got the new M3? So now you're trolling for attention here? Gawd, some of you BMW people are so insecure.

Road & Track tests E46 M3: 13.5@105.8

Road & Track tests C55: 13.5@106.6

That's what happens when a pro driver tests both, when they're brand new. Your car is broken in, and cars make more power when broken in. Give the guy in the C55 a decent starting surface, some launching lessons, and about 10K Km under his belt, and try again. You're crowing about a loss that was obviously due to the poor launch, not to the car itself, which is rather disengenuous: if you smoked your clutch and he hooked up and smoked you, would you think it was an accurate representation of your cars' capabilities?

Well, none of us think this is an accurate representation of the C55's capabilities either. So, you're basically wasting both our time, and yours.

Have a nice evening.

BenzoAMGpower

well said

M&M

That was the SMG test. R&T got 13.2 for the manual. Look it up.

And I raced the guy with the C55 4 times. He happens to be a buddy of mine. As you can hear in the video, I was the one having traction issues, not him.

ANyway, on the way back we went on the highway & did some rolling runs & I walked him. Believe it, don't believe it. It happened. I ran 13.0 @ 108 at sea-level so my car is not the slowest M3 around.

But you already saw that in the video didn't you? Even with all my wheelspin I still beat the C55 by half a second.

Here's R&T test of 333hp US spec M3 6MT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1

0-60 in 4.7 & 1/4 mile in 13.3 @ 106.8mph. Trap speed still higher than C55's.

Belmondo

All I see is M3 lunch, there is no C55 in hte picture--that C55 lunched at least .5 seconds after the M3----thats why M3 got ahead isn't that obvious? No wonder he chose this video and not any other.
If thats you buddy in C55 why are you here and he is not, where is his story on his sorry a$$ C55 lunch?

Improviz

So, you don't deny that you are, in fact "321 ponies", the same troll who used to haunt the Audi S4 forum. I had you pegged...wtf is it with you trolls? Didn't mommy and daddy give you enough attention when you were children?

Yes, I'm aware of that test...that was the "Blue special", a lightweight, Euro-spec stripper (no power seats, etc.) which was, according to Car and Driver, "flown from the Fatherland specifically for this test" when they tested it...but subsequent tests have not fared as well. For example: in May 2003, Car & Driver ran a 5.0/13.6@105 0-60 and 1/4 in a six-speed manual M3. As you say: look it up. Autoweek ran a 13.6, and Edmunds ran a 13.6, for which I'll post links below. Look them up. Look up the times Auto Motor und Sport ran in the C55 vs the times they ran in the M3. That blue special car was a ringer.

BMW is notorious for this, and the same thing happened with the E36 M3: the initial road tests of that car were miraculously (and suspiciously) faster than the latter versions. And now it's happening again...coincidence? I think not.

And you can spin your own anecdotes all you like, but myself and others with the 5.5l motor have had enough experience to know that in a rolling start run, the 208 CLK55 would easily walk the M3, and so should the C55. So, frankly, I think you're full of it, as I pointed out in the other thread. If your car is making that trap speed at that altitude, it is either several hundred pounds lighter than stock, or has been modded, because a car with a given weight/horsepower WILL not exceed a given trap speed, no matter what, as force DOES equal mass*acceleration, and if mass and force are constant, acceleration isn't going to increase.

And if, as you maintain, you raced and beat a C55 four times, then either the guy doesn't know how to launch (it is tricky with this car, which has 376 lb-ft compared to the piddling 262 lb-ft your little sewing machine puts out, which is why it's weaksauce below 4000 RPM), or he had his traction control on, or he weighs 500 pounds.

You losers are really starved for attention, aren't you? The sad thing is that the C55 and CLK55 are *more* expensive than your car, i.e., if any of us had wanted the high-strung sewing machine, we'd have it. So, apparently your goal is to convince us that your personal preference is superior to our personal preference, or you're just here to get attention and cause trouble, likemost trolls.

But you want some M3 vs AMG anecdotes? Here are some for you, Mr. Troll:


E46
M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46
M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46
M3 owner: multiple races, CLK55 wins all

CLK55
owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55
owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than
M3s)

M5
owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3
owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

(note that W210 E55 is about 200 pounds heavier than W208 CLK55, with same
HP and gearing, so from a roll CLK should be quicker, i.e., based upon
these results it would pull M3)

And here are two more for you:
Motorweek's test of
CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of
E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds's test of M3: 13.5@105

C32
vs M3: guess who won?

Another
C32 vs Another M3: guess who won?

add
another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add
still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

1313

A car with a faster 0-60 or qtr mile may not be the faster car in real life. This is especially so in a standing start situation between manual and auto cars.

I have pulled a slower manual besides a faster auto car on a qtr mile to proof this point. The manual one does 0-60 in 15.4s and the auto one does 10.9s. But the 15.4s manual one was actually ahead of the auto one at 60mph. This is because the manual one gains 3 cars off the line due to its launching capability.

The M3 may be ahead of C55 at 1/4 mile (which i doubt so) but how about after that? My friend's modified STI had ran with M3 and C32 on freeway before. He claims both M3 and C32 were on par with him up till about 100mph. The difference is C32 pulls away from him after that, but he could stick to M3 all the way until 130mph.

Btw I have a 321bhp Euro Spec M Coupe. I know what's M's capability.

M&M

Belmondo, u so dumb. Timing starts whenb you break the beam. It doesn't matter who takes off 1st.

Imporoviz, y u getting so defensive? These are the facts. 1stly Motor Trend got 13.1 for the manual M3. Here's SPort Auto's test of C55 vs M3:

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...Car1=2&Car2=75

As you can see M3 is faster on standing starts all the way to 125mph.
BUT, M3 is faster on EVERY SINGLE ROLLING RUN. 50-112mph in 5th gear as well. M3 smoked C55 by 3 seconds.

I guess that was a special car. Well I've done the same so there must be a few special M3's floating around.

Here's Sport Auto's test of an M3 in 2002:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m32003-2.htm

Gewicht 1570 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,5 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s

That 0-62.5mph in 4.8 & 0-125 mph in 16.8

Here's their test of the C55:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/c55amgst2004-1.htm

Gewicht 1680 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,2 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,3 s

That's 0-62.5 in 5.3 & 0-125 in 18.3. That's slower than they tested the C32.

But these are just the facts. I have witnessed it 'cos I have beaten C55's. I will get it on tape again at our sea-level track where I ran 13.0 @ 108 last time BONE STOCK.

BTW Car & Driver also got 13.1 for a stock M3 manual & 4.6 to 60. Check it out.

I have now posted enough evidence. US mags, German mags, British mags, even a video. But of course, it's not possible for an M3 to beat a C55. It must be a conspiracy.

Improviz

cheap-interiored M3, I'd have one. I drove both, liked the CLK55 better, and didn't look back. And I've spanked each and every M3 I've run, well over twenty now, and not a single M car has gotten by me, from a stop *or* a rolling run.

Sorry, but I think that the only reason you're here is because you had to scrape together every penny you had to afford an M3, you're jealous of the superior panache and name recognition of Mercedes, and you're trying to make yourself feel good by trolling on an internet forum. Just as you did on the Audiworld forum...once a loser, always a loser, I guess.

I mean, seriously, dude: this is what 16-year-old kids do for enjoyment. Whatever floats your boat, I reckon.

Oh, and yes, I see: in classic troll fashion, the facts you posted, in your own mind, render the facts I posted inert. So, only the magazine tests you post are truth; all others are false, even when they're from the same sources. Only your anecdote and experiences are truth; any others posted are lies.

Yup, that's it. Road & Track tested the car twice, but only the first one counts. Car & Driver tested it twice, but only the first one counts. And of course, the CLK55 and M3 tests performed by Motorweek and Edmunds: why, those don't count at all.

So, in your mind, despite my having posted ample test data, and plenty of anecdotes from M3 owners and M5 owners who presumably would have no reason to lie, you have won. Not because all of the facts laid out thus far support your argument, but by simply waving your majestic hand and dismissing arbitrarily any facts which do *not* support your argument.

And to you, this is emminently logical, and free of contradictions.

Lol...this would be funny were it not so pathetic.

Anyway, wasted enough time on you in this thread. I've posted sufficient facts for people to see that your claims of overwhelming "M" superiority ring hollow. Please, continue with your childish trolling. Have fun!

I'll repost the M owner testimonials here again for you, since you seem to have missed them the first time:

E46
M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46
M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46
M3 owner: multiple races, CLK55 wins all

CLK55
owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55
owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than
M3s)

M5
owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3
owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

(note that W210 E55 is about 200 pounds heavier than W208 CLK55, with same
HP and gearing, so from a roll CLK should be quicker, i.e., based upon
these results it would pull M3)

And here are two more for you:
Motorweek's test of
CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of
E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds's test of M3: 13.5@105

C32
vs M3: guess who won?

Another
C32 vs Another M3: guess who won?

add
another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add
still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

SL BRABUS

Mannnnn..... ....The C55 won't get the job done... .....Then got to bring my SL Brabus... :v ....Now that would get the job done.. ......lol....

BenzoAMGpower

and lets not forget the video i posted a while back when my C32 was stock and id pull the M3 from all 6 races, 3 out the hole and 3 from a roll (one roll race i gave him teh hit and i still pulled teh M hard)!!! Anyways... both C55 and M3 are great cars, but the C55 is a far better street car IMO.

Vomit

The average production M3/C55/C32/CLK55 are so close in performance that the outcome of a race depends on a series of variables. Neither car is inherently "faster" than the other. I am sure that the fastest M3 to come off of the production line will absolutely smoke the average C32, C55, or CLK55, and vice versa. To say that one car or the other will always win a race is like saying "All brunettes are hot" without factoring Rosanne Barf or Rosie O'Dogfood into the equation.

Chappy

....biggest flag I could find.... :v

M&M

Vomit seems to be the only one with intelligence here.

Anyway Improviz, it isn't wise to brag about money on the internet. Some people choose more important things to do with their money, other than cars. In any event I have 4 cars & one of them is a project car for ractrack use & is designed for cornering but happens to do the 1/4 mile in 11.1 @ 134mph. It has cost me a lot of money.

Needless, to say, I can afford a CLK55 or a even an E55 if I wanted to. But my family comes 1st & I ensure they have all they need 1st.

But can I ask you this. Why do Australian, British, German, South African, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, etc mags all get the M3 quicker? Do a favour for me. Do a google search for mags all over the world & search for M3 & C32 comparo's. You will see that nowhere on planet earth has any magazine (except the ones you quoted where the gap was less than 0.1 anyway) founf the C32 to be quicker.

Just like all the anecdotes you have provided, I have never lost to a C32 or C55. I have beaten many, as have some of my friends I even have 2 friends with C32's (one uses it as a tow car for his 10 second drag car). They mention how they kill M3's & yet I run them.

Why? Well omit has hit the naul on the head. The cars are actually quite close. Driver & conditions makes the most difference. On a hot day the C32 suffers more than the M3. But the driver is the single biggest factor.

SOme guys aren't as committed & do a momentary lift at the smallest sign of danger. To the other driver it seems his car is quicker, but it's just his opponent has lost meomentum. I'm sure I've beaten a few C32's because I was more committed.

Also, some guys are enthusiasts & will recognise at C32 while others will thnk its a C180. The enthusiast will be in the right gear at 6000rpm & when the slushbox kicks down will gas it & have the jump on the C32 due to the inherent throttle response advantage of an individual throttle body normally aspirated car.

The non-enthusiast will be caught napping & be on the back foot the whole race. One has to make use of one's advantage & an M3's gearing & high rev power vs C32's torque. If you get drawn into a low rev lugging contest, then the C32 will have the advantage & you will struggle to catch up.

The point is that all your kill stories don't count. There are the same number on M3 boards. Go & have a look. But magazine tests show the M3 is quicker. Motortrend & C&D as well. I see you forgot to respond to that. I guess those were rigged as well.

M&M

In my ongoing quest to prove to you that it IS possible for an M3 to beat a C32, I wil track down EVERY comparo done & post it here. You tell me when to stop.

I'll start with a South African test done at 5000ft elevation (so subract a second off the 1/4 mile according to NHRRA correction factor). Here's the C32 vs M3 SMG. Bear in mind that at out strips the SMG is around 0.2-0.3 slower than the manual M3:

http://www.diskdrive.co.za/road_test...g_vs_c32k.html

Quite a nice article anyway.

I have an Australian comparo as well, which I will try to scan. There's a lot more coming.

Improviz

I wrote:

To which the troll responds, in his relentless effort to prove my point:

Just as I wrote: in your world, that of semiretarded Internet troll "321 Ponies" (as he called himself on the Audiworld S4 forum) or "M&M" (as he calls himself here), my kill stories don't count, but yours do. My magazine articles don't count, but yours do. The Motorweek, Edmunds.com, and Car & Driver links I provided don't count, but the ones you provide do.

Thank you for proving my point.

Really, dude...they do have medications for delusional conditions such as this. Look into it.

The troll also spaketh:
Lol, I did, which is where I got many of the kill stories I posted, moron; most of them are FROM the BMW forums! Did you happen to catch the titles of the links, like "M3 owner..." and "M5 owner..."?? So, you have not only proven my point, but you just got busted looking stupid--again. You might try actually reading the stories before you make yourself look like an ***...whoops, too late!!

E46 M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: multiple races, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; CLK55 wins all

CLK55 owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55 owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than M3s)

M5 owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3 owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

(note that W210 E55 is about 200 pounds heavier than W208 CLK55, with same HP and gearing, so from a roll CLK should be quicker, i.e., based upon these results it would pull M3)

add another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

And here are four more for you:
Motorweek's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds's test of M3: 13.5@105

Finally, a few C32 stories:

C32 vs M3: guess who won?

Another C32 vs Another M3: guess who won?

Improviz

Maybe you could start by telling me where I posted that it *wasn't* possible for an M3 to beat a C32? It is you, my assclown friend, who is seemingly intent on proving that a C32 *cannot* beat an M3.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the topic of this thread the *C55* versus the M3? Gawd, you're such a pathetic loser. Really: have you ever considered surfing for **** rather than trolling Internet forums? You might find it emminently more rewarding, and it would have the added benefit of giving one hand a break!

E55 RUSS

Well, guy I dont know why you argue like a little kids...but in the video is clealy shown that M3 beat C55...

May be C55 is not broken in yet...and didnt have a good launch...Anyways AMG should of made C55 faster...at least in a straight line...

...

BenzC32

It's a war between C55 and M3.
Please don't put our C32s in the arguement. :p

M&M, if you come to our mbforums to show off your M3 is a faster car, then you must know what's going to happen. Especially you are talking 2 close performance cars.

There's one E46 M3 *wannabe* kid in this forum asked me out to race a few months ago. End up he's afraid of my stock C32 and chicken-ed out. I remember he still owned me $2000 for the race. (he chicken-ed out= he lost the race)

M&M

Improviz, why you carrying on like a kid. I didn't say its not possible for a C32 to beat an M3. Its very possible. There's probably the same probability of the opposite happening as well.

And I'm not saying which car is better. Just saying which is quicker. I have 4 tests for you which I am busy uploading. I think when I'm finished you will change your tune.

On the road encounters have too many variables to be menaungful.

Anyway, the C55 went down to our sea-level track (where I ran 13.0) & he did 13.41. He now has 6000km's on the odo. My buddy with a Schnitzer M-Coupe (Euro spec 340hp) ran 13.18 & another buddy with an E46 <3 ran 13.31 on the same day. The traction wasn't the best so expect lower times under better conditions.

On the 21st I will be going down to the same track & I've invited the C55 to come with me. 2 C32's will also be coming. I will be sure to get it all on tape just for you.

Jon200

put the same professional driver in ur M3 and the C55, do a series of standing and rolling starts from different speeds and gears and have them all on video. That would be a lot more helpful