If the new M3/M4 only has 450hp I think...

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

9-tenths of a second is a hell of a lot of time!!! That's walking all over the AMG. In fact, not only is that walking all over it, that's finishing, jumping out of the car, shitting in your own hand and throwing it at the AMG as it drives by to finish its lap.

The C63 AMG they have tested on the Top Gear Test Track was the Black Series, which is a sort of specialized track car.

When Top Gear tested the RS4, M3 and C63 AMG together on the Ascari Circuit in Spain, the C63 AMG did a 2:45.5 lap, while the M3 did it in 2:38.9. Again, walking all over the AMG the M3 does...

Once again I've proved you WRONG. You are spreading false beliefs based on ZERO evidence.

If you re gonna ignore times where the c63 runs closer times then sure. Here TOP GEAR has the heavier E63 AMG walk all over the M3.
Not bad for another car designed for straight line performance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...imes#section_1

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by gblansten

8:01 --- 153.99 km/h - Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe, 487 PS/170 kg (sport auto 01/12)

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y

That's eight minutes and one second by sport auto in a C63 coupe.

According to some here, M-B doesnt make track car. Hahahahaha

[E46M]

Originally Posted by US///M3

According to some here, M-B doesnt make track car. Hahahahaha

Come out to a track day at Sonoma,Laguna Seca or Thunder hill and count how many C63's you see. I have not seen one in awhile.....

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by E46M

Come out to a track day at Sonoma,Laguna Seca or Thunder hill and count how many C63's you see. I have not seen one in awhile.....

I dont see a lot of Lotus exige/elise in a sea of Evos,M3's,Miatas at local autocross events. Does that make the exige/elise less of an aurocross car?

[kueks29]

Why are you comparing apples and oranges?

A Lotus Elise, you really can not compare to an M3. or would you compare your a 7 Series with a Porsche 911?

As for the C63, so I drove him for four days recently to sample and I drove it well over 1,400 km.
My conclusion was clear! Great car goes forward and bitten by a tarantula and the sound is pure goose bumps!
But only briefly, because if you times 500 km highway is gone it, you have a headache and is nearly deaf.
The steering precision is reminiscent of the Titanic! If a curve is in sight, ever temporarily turn the wheel and hope you somehow come around ...
Of consumption we will not start at all! With delicate gait is always one at 20 liters, but we demand from the power it lies beyond the 40 liter fast! In contrast, the M3 is a true eco-car!

In addition, the prices are steep over! What in the C63 pure pack everything, since it is fast on the level of a comparable equipped M5!
In addition, the insurance company (in Germany) is not a gentle process with the contributions. I would have to pay is 4.2 times as much as for my M3.

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by gblansten

I completely agree. I would love to see Sport Auto do that test. I'm actually surprised that they have not. The 8:01 time for the C63 coupe was merely a point of interest and a demonstration of the car's significant improvement since the sedan version. AMG has made some serious inroads and I as a consumer enjoy the competition.

The C63 is a hell of a car, period. So your point that it's an improvement, I have to agree. It's such a beautiful car, too.

Before I purchased my M3 I had a CPO E60 M5 6-spd, CPO E63 M6 6-spd and 2008 C63 AMG I was looking at buying. Having driven the AMG as many times as I have, I almost don't care that it's an automatic, because it's just too damn much fun to drive.

I obviously went for the M3, because it seemed the most usable to me with better gas mileage over the other 3 cars, just enough room with the E90, and the M3's been my dream since I was 10. So I had to get the dream, ya know?

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by US///M3

If you re gonna ignore times where the c63 runs closer times then sure. Here TOP GEAR has the heavier E63 AMG walk all over the M3.
Not bad for another car designed for straight line performance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...imes#section_1

First, I never said that AMG cars were only meant for straight line performance. The current crop have proved that. However, I did say that the C63 just isn't nearly as balanced, which really helps the M3. The C63 also doesn't have wide enough tires in the rear, I believe. So it hurts when putting the power down.

Also, what am I ignoring where the AMG runs closer? I'm ignoring your comment about the C63 AMG Black Series being faster around the Top Gear track because it's a specialized track car like the M3 GTS/CRT. So yes, I won't include that lap time as being faster or closer to the M3's because it's not in the same league.

So instead of just admitting defeat on the argument of the C63 AMG you bring up a car with 507 hp and 465 lb-ft of torque? You're really throwing random stuff out there now, haha. As much as weight and balance play a role, horsepower can REALLY help at times... especially when you have 93 more hp and 170 more lb-ft of torque.

Care to argue anymore? C'mon, just stop replying to me. It's getting ridiculous when I keep proving that you made a dumb comment by saying I'm spreading false information.

If you have facts, state them. Since you don't, just please stop talking. Not trying to be a dick, I'm just tired of having to comment to you to make sure you get your facts straight.

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by tico1028

You have no idea what you're talking about, so no point in even trying to correct you. Just stop spreading false information.

I don't necessarily need too much of a "faster" M3. The reason I like the M3 over the Vette or GT500 also has to do with the interior. I would like a little more low-end torque, but that's not make-or-break for me. When I'm in the market between a C63 and an M3, I would just like the carsto at least be enjoyable and nice to be in, not just to drive.

+1

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Torque makes a car go, HP makes a car go fast...

Uhhh, no. High torque (typically at low rpm) engines provide a way to get "lazy" acceleration (i.e. without the lowest gear and highest rpm). Ultimate acceleration and overall performance is governed by power to weight ratio.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Uhhh, no. High torque (typically at low rpm) engines provide a way to get "lazy" acceleration (i.e. without the lowest gear and highest rpm). Ultimate acceleration and overall performance is governed by power to weight ratio.

I think we are saying the same thing

Torque is an actual measurable force that an engine produces, hence it makes a car go.

Horsepower is a mathematical concept that evaluates the ability to provide work over time. On a car, this translates to the potential for the engine to produce torque at the wheel, hence what makes a car go fast (i.e. accelerate rapidly and achieve a high top speed).

I probably over simplified it too much in my previous post

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I think we are saying the same thing

Torque is an actual measurable force that an engine produces, hence it makes a car go.

Horsepower is a mathematical concept that evaluates the ability to provide work over time. On a car, this translates to the potential for the engine to produce torque at the wheel, hence what makes a car go fast (i.e. accelerate rapidly and achieve a high top speed).

I probably over simplified it too much in my previous post

Not quite. It is also incorrect to think of one quantity as physical and the other derived. Neither is less mathematical nor more physical. It is just that given one (and engine speed) you know the other precisely. You should read some of the length debates and discussions here in old topics on the forum to better understand these fundamental concepts. There are other much simpler ways of describing the differences. E.g.:

-Peak in gear acceleration will occur at the rpm where peak torque occurs (not counting minor corrections from parasitic losses)..
-Peak acceleration at any given speed occurs by making peak hp (mostly equivalent to saying lowest gear = most acceleration).
-Engine torque is meaningless without speaking of gearing to describe any aspect of vehicle performance
-Overall vehicle performance is much more dependent on peak hp than peak torque (again refer to point above)

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not quite. It is also incorrect to think of one quantity as physical and the other derived. Neither is less mathematical nor more physical. It is just that given one (and engine speed) you know the other precisely. You should read some of the length debates and discussions here in old topics on the forum to better understand these fundamental concepts. There are other much simpler ways of describing the differences. E.g.:

-Peak in gear acceleration will occur at the rpm where peak torque occurs (not counting minor corrections from parasitic losses)..
-Peak acceleration at any given speed occurs by making peak hp (mostly equivalent to saying lowest gear = most acceleration).
-Engine torque is meaningless without speaking of gearing to describe any aspect of vehicle performance
-Overall vehicle performance is much more dependent on peak hp than peak torque (again refer to point above)

Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .

[Xelloss]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .

+1

As a fellow engineer (electrical) I'd like to say thank you for providing a truncated but specific explanation on the issue of horsepower versus torque.

On an aside, I hated engineering dynamics but it was supposedly the easiest of the multidisciplinary electives. I never want to draw/see a "Free Body" or "Effect" Diagram in the future.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Xelloss

On an aside, I hated engineering dynamics but it was supposedly the easiest of the multidisciplinary electives. I never want to draw/see a "Free Body" or "Effect" Diagram in the future.

[malter2.0]

Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.

[Xelloss]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.

+1

[Keik E92 M3]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.

+1000000!!!

[jwickers]

This reminds me of the day when i was playing the first GranTurismo on Playstation, i had a Supra tuned with enormous HP at the expense of torque. as a result it was impossible to launch, it would take an eternity to get past 1st gear from a stop, but once it was moving and reving it was a proper rocket.

On a more real world example, i remember the episode of TopGear where Hammond drove a F1 and the trouble he had launching it, for similar reasons.

For causal driving though, torque *is* "performance". I mean my wife feels uncomfortable reving past 4K ...

[CanAutM3]

I see there are a lot of misconceptions of what torque and power are.

I agree with all of you when looking at standard published values of engine performance of peak power and peak torque, the peak power number is the most important factor in terms of ultimate performance.

However, torque is fondamentaly what an engine produces, this at any RPM. Power is simply calculated by multiplying measured torque by measured RPM at any given point over the entire rev range. Power is a number that represents the ability of an engine to generate useable torque. The distribution of torque on the rev range is therefore very important to performance.

As for saying that torque does not mean anything, well without torque there is no power!

Even on a high strung F1 engine, it is still torque that propels the car. Since the torque is produced at high RPM, it is possible to use a highly demultiplied gearbox and the torque transmitted to the wheels is drastically increased giving the car great performance.

In my world of 30,000 RPM turbine engines (very high power and low relative torque) it becomes even more obvious .

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .

I certainly was not questioning your background but imprecise language.

Not being able to measure something directly and that thing being only a mathematical or derived quantity is not the same thing. Power is no less derived nor mathematical than torque. Torque is a force acting at a distance, thus you have to measure the force not the torque. In addition you can measure power through luminous intensity, temperature change, voltage and current, etc. Power is defined by equations but it is a very real and useful physical quantity.

We may be into semantics at this point...

Cheers

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I certainly was not questioning your background but imprecise language.

Not being able to measure something directly and that thing being only a mathematical or derived quantity is not the same thing. Power is no less derived nor mathematical than torque. Torque is a force acting at a distance, thus you have to measure the force not the torque. In addition you can measure power through luminous intensity, temperature change, voltage and current, etc. Power is defined by equations but it is a very real and useful physical quantity.

We may be into semantics at this point...

Cheers

I am sorry if I seemed imprecise, it was my best effort to vulgarize.

All I can say is that throughout my engineering education and career, I have been taught and trained with the notion that energy is an indirectly observed quantity, a mathematical concept. Albeit a very powerful concept, one that allows the simplification of very complex physical models. Energy itself remains elusive, you cannot isolate energy in the real world. As you say, speed, temperature, distance, gravitation, electric charge, force, radiation, pressure, chemical links can all be correlated to energy levels. But what is energy? A very clever man went as far as deducing that even mass itself can be correlated to energy… but this could lead to metaphysical discussions not appropriate for a car forum .

Hence, the same can be said of power, as it is the rate of change of energy.

Torque can be seen as the force component of the Newtonian equations in the angular referential, very real and measurable. And since we are on the topic of semantics and precision of language, I need to point out that torque is NOT "a force acting at a distance". Torque is fundamentally a twisting force, better represented as a pair of equal opposing linear forces acting at a perpendicular distance from each other .

I guess there are many different schools of thought and it’s a free world, so everyone is entitled to believe what they want .

[duk]

450hp is fine, tq will be up over a 100lb i bet and it'll be lighter = win