RENNTech C63 non-S Stage 1 - 602 HP and 595 ft/lb torque

[Roadkiller]

Originally Posted by kkashanchi

actually... the new c63S is awd as far as i know so it should actually put down power better than the m3/m4 in straight line acceleration

Nope.

RWD -- maybe we'll see AWD in a few years but not this year.

[orevah]

Assuming a 15% drivetrain power loss that would equate to 510 wheel horsepower so my assumption of stock whp (440-450) might be pretty close. considering that renntech tunes give anywhere 50-70 whp.

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by kkashanchi

actually... the new c63S is awd as far as i know so it should actually put down power better than the m3/m4 in straight line acceleration

AWD? Where did you get this information?

[8600RPM]

Who else is not impressed. What I'm seeing is the f80 is putting down 420whp and this would be about 440 whp (520 crank). This means it's really not underrated vs m3 is drastically underrated .

[YMB_M3]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

AWD? Where did you get this information?

my apologies, didn't mean to spread false information, I just looked more into it and apparently it was just a rumor floating around...

[M&M]

That's crank power. so that's on par with an M3/M4.

[gxman]

Most M3's dyno @ 405 rwhp SAE. So around 460hp with a 12% drivetrain loss.

[alms21]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

LOL... not as ugly as GT-R is

and still not as ugly as that vessel known as the M6

[alms21]

Originally Posted by ixse

Lol what a useless comment.. Only in M forum lol

So the fact that a car is very fast but not much of a looker is a useless comment huh...........ohkaaaaay

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by alms21

and still not as ugly as that vessel known as the M6

LOL... Calm down kid....
First of all you are the one who said C63 is ugly and I just said not as ugly as GT-R. Nobody was talking about M6 there...
Second, my German made BMW flagship M6 (vessel known in your culture) is much more beautiful than most of (if not any) Japanese car in the market including Nissan GT-R
Third, tell me about any piece of exterior or interior of M6 you believe is as ugly as GT-R
Finally, why are you so sensitive about the car (GT-R) that you don't even own it currently?

[buildbright]

I love dyno graphs in corrected engine power only lol Impressive numbers regaurdless but I hate marketing like this.

[Longboarder]

RennTech is the best Merc tuner bar none that I have seen for AMG turbo motors. This is likely a conservative tune.

My buddy Eric with an E63 RennTech tune only put down 648/750 to the wheels on EAS dyno and at many airstrip events pulled on all the [insert other brand here] Merc tuned even upgraded turbo E63's, plus pulled on stuff you wouldn't imagine like Aventadors, McLaren's, etc. All on vid.

The other Merc tuners do great on NA or blown cars. But the new turbos cars are much harder to tune and you need a company with tremendous resources to understand and re-write the ECU to get power. Simply editing maps won't do it.

[auf Deutsch]

Originally Posted by gxman

Most M3's dyno @ 405 rwhp SAE. So around 460hp with a 12% drivetrain loss.

I've seen 420 RWHP consistently on forum graphs. So more like 480 with 12% loss

[/// M sa]

Good luck putting that power down with those skimpy tires... Does the car allow for higher offsets (as would they fit??) and then there is the look of the car, that rear end has no character.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by kkashanchi

actually... the new c63S is awd as far as i know so it should actually put down power better than the m3/m4 in straight line acceleration

You sure about this ?

[alms21]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

LOL... Calm down kid....
First of all you are the one who said C63 is ugly and I just said not as ugly as GT-R. Nobody was talking about M6 there...
Second, my German made BMW flagship M6 (vessel known in your culture) is much more beautiful than most of (if not any) Japanese car in the market including Nissan GT-R
Third, tell me about any piece of exterior or interior of M6 you believe is as ugly as GT-R
Finally, why are you so sensitive about the car (GT-R) that you don't even own it currently?

calm down... over what Sport?

And nobody was talking about a GTR either until you felt the need to. Jesus, are you that dense to make an idiotic comment like that?

The M6 is ,and has always been, an ugly duckling. Way too long for a coupe. M6 Grand Coupe? nice looking car. 4 doors makes all the difference.

Don't get all sensitive junior. Its ok. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I never thought the GTR was a pretty car. Only had mine for about 9 months because it was an itch I wanted to scratch purely for its performance. Wouldn't buy another one.

Enjoy your German boat. Sail away!

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by alms21

calm down... over what Sport?

And nobody was talking about a GTR either until you felt the need to. Jesus, are you that dense to make an idiotic comment like that?

The M6 is ,and has always been, an ugly duckling. Way too long for a coupe. M6 Grand Coupe? nice looking car. 4 doors makes all the difference.

Don't get all sensitive junior. Its ok. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I never thought the GTR was a pretty car. Only had mine for about 9 months because it was an itch I wanted to scratch purely for its performance. Wouldn't buy another one.

Enjoy your German boat. Sail away!

The idiotic comment is coming from a dense guy who has owned the ugliest car in the world (Nissan GTR) and has shit comment on the look of other cars including C63
Kid, it's Sunday... go get some rests or fresh air... cold shower helps a lot too

[8600RPM]

Gtr vs m6 thread now? Silliness.

I still am missing how this impressive. C63 is putting down exactly it's rated hp. M3 is way underrated and putting down nearly as much. Factor 200 pound less weight and I'm not sure tge c63s stock will outrun it in the straights afterall

[gxman]

Originally Posted by auf Deutsche

I've seen 420 RWHP consistently on forum graphs. So more like 480 with 12% loss

Look again, what you are seeing are std and not sae numbers. Std generally reads higher.

[alms21]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

The idiotic comment is coming from a dense guy who has owned the ugliest car in the world (Nissan GTR) and has shit comment on the look of other cars including C63
Kid, it's Sunday... go get some rests or fresh air... cold shower helps a lot too

This is the first I've been called kid in quite some time

pssst... the thread is about the C63. You brought up the GTR. Idiotic comment was made by you by bringing another car (the GTR) into the equation. Capiche? Now, you should have been in Sunday School today but I suspect you missed class today. Just consider this your Sunday School lesson. Later, kid

[8600RPM]

Originally Posted by gxman

Look again, what you are seeing are std and not sae numbers. Std generally reads higher.

80 percent of dynos are reading 410 to 420 whp for the m3. That's also reflected in its trap speeds. No debate the m3 is putting out 480 plus crank power at the very least. Most underrated bmw engine ever as its making its stated crank hp at the wheels. Even the 335 when it came out was "only" putting out 270 whp rated at 300 which was seen as underrated

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by auf Deutsche

I've seen 420 RWHP consistently on forum graphs. So more like 480 with 12% loss

Stock, that feels optimistic to me. After my Turner tune, probably 480, but certainly not before. If it was, it would be much quicker to 60MPH and through the quarter mile. Still a fast car, but feels like it loses steam above 5,000 RPMs stock. Fairly sure the C63S will be quicker once more head to head comparos are done. I really like my M3 but just being honest.