Mercedes C63 AMG > BMW E92 M3?

  • Thread starter Conza
  • 42 comments
  • 7,475 views
Conza

Conza

Sports Caraholic
Premium
1,528
Australia
Melbourne
Conza_No1
Is the Mercedes simply better than the BMW in this case?

I did a comparison on two stock cars, driven about 20 miles each, with racing soft tires and an oil change. The speed test results had the C63 ahead everywhere except for Gs generated (didn't do a top speed test), then I took them to the twistiest track I could think of, the Nordword, and I took the M3 around, fastest I could manage was just under a 1:07, the C63 beat that with a 1:06.5.

So... perhaps if I hotted them both up, but I thought I saw a turbo option for the C63 and not the M3, besides, while the M3 will finish lighter, the C63 has a head start in BHP 'before' adding a turbo on top.

Is it true? I was hoping not, in the real world people say the M3 will be faster because the C63 will just make smoke... I could try sports hard/soft tires, but something tells me the results won't end up favourable for the M3 anyway.
 
The M is a better balanced car, so with a few more HP it should be right on the money. FR me (PSN: Rhinofrica) & take the M3 that I have on share for a drive & then tell me what you think. :)
 
Last edited:
It's not about speed, its about how the car makes you feel when you're driving it. The sensation of driving. The M3 is a better car in my opinion. One of the best cars in the game.
 
I have tested both these cars stock apart from oil change. I am very biased in the C63 AMG's favour but on the 5 circuits I used Top Gear, Indy Road, Monza, Circuit de la Sarthe, Nurburgring the M3 won on all (albeit by 0.001s on TGTT). I am yet to tune either of them but I'd be interested in the results. The C63 has a big wedge of torque advantage which on a hilly track like Eiger could have resulted in better uphill accelaration and therefore a quicker time.
 
No offense, but testing the cars with R3s basically makes the results meaningless. Not to say that the M3 would definitely be better on more realistic tires, but the possibility does exist.
 
Toronado
No offense, but testing the cars with R3s basically makes the results meaningless. Not to say that the M3 would definitely be better on more realistic tires, but the possibility does exist.
Click to expand...

+1. On the stock tires the Merc is like Kato from the Pink Panther, waiting to strike and kill you at any moment(Yes that's a Top Gear reference). The M3 is much more balanced and handles better in my opinion.
 
Toronado
No offense, but testing the cars with R3s basically makes the results meaningless. Not to say that the M3 would definitely be better on more realistic tires, but the possibility does exist.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on the tires, in my opinion the M3 is more precise but I like the C63 more because it's more fun to drive
 
Toronado
No offense, but testing the cars with R3s basically makes the results meaningless. Not to say that the M3 would definitely be better on more realistic tires, but the possibility does exist.
Click to expand...

👍
Test again op on sport/hard and tell us what you think.
 
What Racing Soft tires do is they eliminate any sort of oversteer or understeer in a car. As a result, the only factor that matters is speed, which the C63 has more of.

Racing Softs tires: 👎
 
Basically as everyone above has said, really.

The C63's main weakness, in terms of driving it, is the love to roast rear tyres. Handling and corners have been the turf of the M3, because it can corner without turning its tyres to smoke and painting the track black with tyre marks. Adding racing tyres removes the M3's advantage in the corners and covers up the rather nasty hole in the C63's cornering. And as it has more power, and can use it more thanks to the added grip, it wins.

If you left the two as they were out the box, it is very likely that the E92 would be the more consistent and more enjoyable car to drive. Whereas the C63 will maybe get a faster lap, it will only do so for…once. Twice, if you're lucky, but with tyre wear on, the C63 will not be able to make the most of its power in the corners.
 
Here's 10 comparison points:

  1. Speed: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's no doubt about it; on straights the Merc blows the Beemer into the weeds. It's hard to believe there's just 40bhp between them.
  2. Fun: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - The Merc's tail-happiness, powerrrrr and unique feel to drive completely wins me over. The BMW, in my honest opinion, is a bit dull for my liking.
  3. Handling: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's absolutely nothing wrong with oversteer. I get on better with oversteer than understeer or even neutral steering, which the BMW has. See below before you start complaining about the Merc's tyre-munching ways.
  4. Endurance Capability: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - You see, I'm not biased. I've picked a comparison that, let's face it, the BMW wins by a country mile.
  5. Noise: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - The BMW's V8 should be growly and ferocious. But it isn't. It's a bit bland. And what's better than a big shouty engine, which the Merc has?
  6. Looks: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - I like the Big Benz. Yes, there's a bit too much chintz, but to look at the BMW is, in search of a better word, horrid.
  7. Suitability for noobs: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - Just because the BMW is more civilised and more manageable on the track. Put a noob in a Merc and they'll just spin into the wall within the first three corners.
  8. Most driven by cocks: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's no getting away from it; both in real life and online on GT5, BMWs are almost exclusively driven by hateful, arrogant people.
  9. Most overrated: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - People speak of the M3 as if it is god with four wheels and a carbon fibre hat. But, in truth, it's not that good.
  10. Desirability: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - Just overall, really. When I first saw the car list before GT5 was released, the 'C63' on it grabbed me. The M3 didn't. Given that the Mercedes is mad, muscly and more exclusive, I'd choose the Merc over the BMW in a heartbeat.

I should add that I'm talking about these cars when they are completely stock, how they should be. And that the Lexus IS-F should definitely be brought into the equasion.
 
Last edited:
Im huuge M3 and BMW fan! But this battle goes to Merc 100-0. It gives so great feeling while driving it! Off course if i go to a race track for a race ill choose the M3. Drifting with the Merc is so easy its easy with the Biimer aswell but so much more fun with the Merc.
 
Stock for stock, the M3 is faster than the C63, by a wide margin. I just ran a heads-up test between the M3, M5, IS-F, and C63 - M3 was fastest around the Ring - C63 was slowest. This was on sport hard tires btw; the main problem with the C63 is it spins the rear tires too easily, so you constantly have to throttle it - if you can't put the power to the ground, it isn't worth much. M3 is also the least powerful out of all of these cars, yet because of the balance, handling, and overall grip, it's faster.

FWIW, the IS-F felt the slowest, but was 3rd quick. Again this was all stock, fresh from the dealer + oil change.
 
CarNut11
Here's 10 comparison points:

  1. Speed: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's no doubt about it; on straights the Merc blows the Beemer into the weeds. It's hard to believe there's just 40bhp between them.
  2. Fun: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - The Merc's tail-happiness, powerrrrr and unique feel to drive completely wins me over. The BMW, in my honest opinion, is a bit dull for my liking.
  3. Handling: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's absolutely nothing wrong with oversteer. I get on better with oversteer than understeer or even neutral steering, which the BMW has. See below before you start complaining about the Merc's tyre-munching ways.
  4. Endurance Capability: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - You see, I'm not biased. I've picked a comparison that, let's face it, the BMW wins by a country mile.
  5. Noise: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - The BMW's V8 should be growly and ferocious. But it isn't. It's a bit bland. And what's better than a big shouty engine, which the Merc has?
  6. Looks: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - I like the Big Benz. Yes, there's a bit too much chintz, but to look at the BMW is, in search of a better word, horrid.
  7. Suitability for noobs: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - Just because the BMW is more civilised and more manageable on the track. Put a noob in a Merc and they'll just spin into the wall within the first three corners.
  8. Most driven by cocks: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - There's no getting away from it; both in real life and online on GT5, BMWs are almost exclusively driven by hateful, arrogant people.
  9. Most overrated: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - People speak of the M3 as if it is god with four wheels and a carbon fibre hat. But, in truth, it's not that good.
  10. Desirability: Mercedes-Benz/BMW - Just overall, really. When I first saw the car list before GT5 was released, the 'C63' on it grabbed me. The M3 didn't. Given that the Mercedes is mad, muscly and more exclusive, I'd choose the Merc over the BMW in a heartbeat.
I should add that I'm talking about these cars when they are completely stock, how they should be. And that the Lexus IS-F should definitely be brought into the equasion.
Click to expand...

Seems to me your a fan of the Merc....
 
Conza
with racing soft tires
Click to expand...

haha 👍 try comparing them on real tyres so you can feel the difference between them. You can drive two cars on those tyres with the same drivetrain and power and you won't notice a difference. Lap times aren't all that come into it remember. The BMW should be the better car here.
 
Who isn't too much a fan of Jeremy Clarkson..

And on topic: I love the M3 👍 but I havta say the Merc is actually kinda fun to drive...
 
aadil717
Or just too much a fan of Jeremy Clarkson.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 'too much' a fan. Who can be too much a fan of Clarkson?

salikriaz
Seems to me your a fan of the Merc....
Click to expand...

How'd you work that one out? ;)


In all seriousness though, I tried not to be biased, it's just that I've never been a fan of the BMW to drive. Bit boring, bit noobish, bit disappointing really. Whereas not much beats a big AMG with a lot to shout about and a desire to travel everywhere sideways.
 
BMW: 4,0 liter engine, 420 bhp @ 8300 rpm, 295 ft-lb @ 3900 rpm, 1655 kg / 3649 lbf
105 bhp / liter

Mercedes: 6,3 liter engine, 450 bhp @ 6500 rpm, 443 ft-lb @ 5000 rpm, 3920 lbf
72 bhp / liter

The "bhp / liter" fighure is def a sign of a high end engine. It requires so much more to produce over 100 bhp / liter (which is the unofficial number to beat to be recogniced as a efficient NA engine) compared to the modest 72 bhp / liter.

Keep in mind that we're talking NA engines. Turbos or superchargers need to produce much more than 100 bhp / liter to be reognized as high end engines.

As a comparison, a F1 car produce around 250-300 Nm @ 2,4 liter.. Bhp around 700.. that's 290ish bhp/liter.. that's a high end engine.. ;)

The Mercedes is more powerful, and also, because of it's engine type, got a better (stronger) average output across the gears due to the engine volume.

When looking at the numbers, it's not obvious that BMW is superiour. 4,0 vs 6,3 is a huge difference.
Sure, part of that is needed to pull the extra weight for the Merc.. But the difference in weight is not that big, so it should defenetly have some power "to spare" for acceleration.

And I also join the guys who suggest that you run both cars on sport hards, cause that's the way to go imo.

The BMW is a much more balanced car, and should be the faster one dispite it's short on power.
Just for fun, try to get the BMW to similar engine specs as the Merc (Not volume, but bhp output and tourque at least), and see what happens.
If you do this, you'll def notice the difference in handling between the 2. 👍
And the BMW will be a lot faster in that case.
Reason it keeps up at current specs is the handling and balance.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, not only the C63 more prone to roast rears, the chassis has more natural "push" than the M3. I quite agree... racing tires will cover up many of the sins of the C63. It's front-heavier and feels more understeery, but it's got much more torque and is also more eager to oversteer.

The M3's balance is much, much superior, and tuned to the same PPs, weight and power, it would demolis the C63. Stock to stock, on a twisty track, the C63 doesn't really stand a chance, as long as you're skilled enough to hold the balance on the M3. (The C63's "push" makes it more forgiving on some corner entries)
 
Everyone needs to stop with the technicalities. Yes, per litre the Merc produces less power, and yes, the BMW is balanced, and yes, the BMW has anal German technology. But who cares when in the Merc you have a big, chunky axe murderer of a V8 that shouts and produces not only 30-40bhp more than the BMW, but 150 more torques. A hundred and fifty. That makes a difference. The BMW is just far too boring. The Merc is fun. And just for that reason, I couldn't give a flying 🤬 about which is marginally faster and which has F1 technology and so on.

And who cares if the M3 is ever so slightly faster around the Nürburgring? The drivers probably won't even notice, they'll be too busy with their head up their own backside.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

ProjectWHaT
2024 Mercedes AMG C63 S E Performance
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Darla Starch
Darla Starch
Bimmercoop303
Help with tuning 07' E92 M3
Replies
7
Views
9K
Afro_Hootie
Afro_Hootie
TheWeapon874
Tuning help request: M3 GT '11 at Monza
Replies
2
Views
806
TheWeapon874
TheWeapon874
Jeje6410
BMW E92 M3 (BMW Motorsport) '10
Replies
0
Views
566
Jeje6410
Jeje6410
Jeje6410
BMW E92 M3 (BMW Motorsport) '10
Replies
0
Views
424
Jeje6410
Jeje6410

Latest Posts

Back