M3 vs C32 vs C55 vs S4

check out the supercharged C55 at the top of the list... runs like an E55 and costs about the same!


M3 vs C32 vs C55 vs S4 (http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.php?make1=5&model1=110&op1=%3E%3D&year1=2001&make2=30&model2=467&op2=%3E%3D&year2=2001&make3=4&model3=46&op3=%3E%3D&year3=2001&make4=30&model4=853&op4=%3E%3D&year4=2001&submitButtonName=Compare%21)



.

I think one or two of those cars maybe stock...the rest arent...so...it's really pointless since we dont know what level of mods each has...but stock vs stock...for me the choice is really only between the S4 or the M3 (only ones available in stick)...

I'll take the M3

I'd probably go with the M3, although the V8 power and all-wheel-drive of the S4 is very tempting. The Benzes may be fast, but they're not sporty; they don't even offer a conventional manual transmission.

http://www.rs4-video.com/

not an S4 but some cool vids of the RS4 against other cars including a modified M3.

Why are you comparing a C32, with a C55. The C32 is old stock! And the C55 is cheeper and slower than an E55, as its smaller, and lacks the supercharger. The Kleeman C55 on the list would devour all of the competition, but at a considerable premium.

As for benzes not being sporty because they don't offer a manual transmission, the same can be said for the Vanquish, or Mercedes McLaren SLR. So I dont think that that argument really holds any ground. After all, formula 1 cars don't use manual transmisions...

Why are you comparing a C32, with a C55. The C32 is old stock! And the C55 is cheeper and slower than an E55, as its smaller, and lacks the supercharger. The Kleeman C55 on the list would devour all of the competition, but at a considerable premium.

As for benzes not being sporty because they don't offer a manual transmission, the same can be said for the Vanquish, or Mercedes McLaren SLR. So I dont think that that argument really holds any ground. After all, formula 1 cars don't use manual transmisions...
They don't use Automatic transmissions either.....

They don't use Automatic transmissions either.....
:lol:

Ahh.. the monthly M3 vs S4 vs AMG debate...


Anyway, Benz's aren't sporty simply because of transmission. Theyre not sporty because they just aren't. All you need to do is drive one, and it will be plainly obvious within seconds. The possible exception is the new SLK, which ive yet to drive. Although the TC is said to be too nannying on that as well...

While the C32/55 isn't viper/corvette/m3 sporty, it certainly hold's it's own............. AMG cars are nothing like regular MB's..... the one that should really be left out is the M3, since it's not 4 door.... should have put the CTS-V in there instead..... too bad BMW can't compete this market with an M3 sedan....

"too bad BMW can't compete this market with an M3 sedan"

but's kinda the point.
a lot of people do want a nice four door but still go and buy the M3.
y'know, they don't need to make a 4 door just to satisfy the market.
people are willing to compromise their needs for the 'better' car.

The CTS-V should be in this comparo anyways.

The CTS-V should be in this comparo anyways.

Not really...b/c then you'd have to include the M5 (has 500HP)...which is the competition for the CTS-V (has 400HP).

The M3, S4 both have around 333-340hp.

Well, the CTS-V is priced similarly to the rest of these cars, but the M5 sure as hell isn't.

actually, it's all about the market..... their not making cars that don't have a market, eh?

this is the 45-60k range, not the 80-140k range.... otherwise we can include the E55, M5, RS-6, S55, S600, 760iL....

we all know which car's kick a** in that group... :)

here is an S600 running mid 11's..... where are the bimmer's now? ;)

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-S600-Timeslip-3051.html


.

They're too busy smoking the big ol' Benzs down at the track. :)

When you're comparing German touring cars, quarter mile times are the last thing you should be looking at.

How can you liken the M3 to a 'vett or Viper?!? They are sports cars through and through. Absolute thourghbreads. The M3 is a brethed on 3 series coupe! The same can be said for the C55 and S4. They all have simple routs.

This is why I hate the M3. Its desperatly trying to be something that it will never be. At least with the Audi and the AMG's, you know what your buying. A fast saloon/estate car.

I can only liken it to training a shetland pony to run the grand national! Sure, you mite make it fast, and possibly good looking... But it will never be arab race horse!

If I want a notchy gate gear box, great driver involvement, good handeling, and solid uncompromising suspension, I would buy a sports car eg. Elise or Boxter. But the point of these saloon cars is speed, functionality, and comfort.

This is why I hate the M3. Its desperatly trying to be something that it will never be.

Yes and I'm sure everybody agrees with you there. Including all the trophies won by M3's.

Trying to be something it's not indeed. Do you actually know how quick it is aroung the N'ring?

You just totaly missed the point of everything I said in my post.

Thanks...

The M3 isn't "trying to be" anything; it's just a luxury coupe with an amazing engine, gearbox, and suspension. Nothin' wrong with that in my book.

The M3 runs off a similar idea to the Aston DB9 and Ferrari 612. 2 door car that can hold 4 people, combining the luxury you get with every BMW with the speed of the M division. Its not an all out sports car like the Elise, Corvette, Viper, etc. but its alot nicer then any of them. At the same time, its much sportier then the E-Class, 5-Series, A6, etc. IMO, the M3 is the perfect blend, to some people the S4 and the C55 are. Its all a matter of what you want in a car. I get everything I want out of the M3.

hah... BMW makes some great cars.... but they can't compare to MB....

where is BMW's competition for the following:

SLR
SL65
SL55
SL600
CL65
CL600
CL55
S600
S55
SLK55
C55

nada..... no comparisons at all for any of those cars...

they have the M5 to take on the E55, and the M3 to take on the CLK55.... that's it....





They're too busy smoking the big ol' Benzs down at the track. :)

When you're comparing German touring cars, quarter mile times are the last thing you should be looking at.

hah... BMW makes some great cars.... but they can't compare to MB....

where is BMW's competition for the following:

SLR
SL65
SL55
SL600
CL65
CL600
CL55
S600
S55
SLK55
C55

nada..... no comparisons at all for any of those cars...

they have the M5 to take on the E55, and the M3 to take on the CLK55.... that's it....
Well....... To take on the S600, there's the 760Li, but BMW don't need big brawny motors in every car they make, why? Because all thier cars are sports cars in the first place, I mean, a C180 isn't nearly as much fun as a 318i or 320i, or an E320 has nothing on the 530i's sporting nature.


The only reason Merc puts a big engine into all of thier cars is because the ones that don't read AMG are by no means sporty (Except maybe the new SLK) and Benz feels the need to compensate for that.

Just because BMW doesnt make cars in every segment Benz does doesnt make Benz a better company. BMW makes cars that their good at making, and stick to that.

And I did see some flaws to that list you compiled...
S600 and S55 both compete with the 760, and the C55 and M3 are considered by many to be in the same segment, even though the M has 2 doors. The CL class competes with the 645Ci and whats soon to be the M6.

This leaves only the SLK55, the SL class, and the SLR. Theres been numerous reports that BMW is planning on making a M Roadster on the Z4 platform, so that would compete with the SLK55, I've also read an interview with a BMW exec that hinted at a replacement for the Z8, which competed with the last generation SL Class, which leaves BMW only without a supercar... well, I still consider the McLaren F1 to be close enough to a BMW, and thats a 1993 car thats already better then the Carrera GT according to EVO, and a few different mags have called the CGT better then the SLR. So F1 > CGT > SLR

Finally, to call a company better then another because they have more models is foolish. You could use that logic to prove that Chevy and Ford are better then Ferrari and Porsche, because wheres their competition for the Malibu and Focus? BMW doesn't try to make cars for everybody, they make cars for people who want sporty sedans (3-series, 5-series, M5, and 7-series) and coupes (3-series "Ci", M3, and 6-Series) all for the most part under $100,000.

hah... BMW makes some great cars.... but they can't compare to MB....

Mercedes-Benz..... hmmm... do you mean the car company which used to have an illustrious reputation for quality and that is now scoring sub-standardly in reliability / satisfaction surveys? :rolleyes:

Basically, Jimster and Dinan have said it all.

BMW has or is making a competitor for each of those MB models. And for those that it isn't, so what? MB is only shooting itself in the foot by making so many models that are cannibalising eachothers' sales.

Oh, and McLaren F1 > SLR. I mean seriously...

good points, I think what I was trying to say didn't come across the right way, I didn't mean MB was a better company, I was trying to say that performancewise, BMW isn't making anything to compare...

the 760 can't compare to the S55,S600, none are sports cars... as for making too many models, I'm sure the S430,S500,S55,S600 collectively outsell the 745i, 745iL, 760iL by a VERY large margin....

I'm being stubborn because my C32 lease is up in a few months and I want a M3 sedan.... :)

You also can't directly relate a better company to automotive sales... theres a lot of factors other than quality and sportiness that makes up sales...by your logic GM makes the best vehicles hands down and a Pontiac Sunfire is better then every car you named because it outsells them collectively...

as for the comparison I would personally take an S4 because it mixes performance and practicality the best

Ok, ok. Firstly, I will admit that Mercedes isn't anything like it used to be. I've been with the company for 40 years, and have seen many highs and lows. Its not so much a quality issue now, more of a service issue. The dealerships arn't up to scratch.

Older mercs like the ML, A, and pre facelift C and E classes were lacking in quality, but the newer models, particulaly, the SLK and E classes are topping most consumer polls. With the CLS, R, A, S, B, G and ML classes all due in the next 18 months, I'm confident that quality issues will become a thing of the past.

The CL can't be compared to a 645Ci. Theres a price difference of over £20'000 and the CL is not availabe in a cabrio version. The 6 series offers a 3 litre and 4.4 litre, while the CL offers a 5 litre, 5.5 litre V8 supercharged, 5.6 V12, and a 5.6 V12 Twin Turbo. No comparison.

Lastly, I resent he M3 because I can't see a real purpose for it. The seats are too hard, as is the suspension. The manual gearbox is stiff and notchy, with a heavy clutch so I don't really class it as remotly luxurious, and its not as honed and driver focused as an Elise or a Boxter.
I stand by my convictions. As a driver, I want a comfortable swift luxury car thats user friendly, and a Sports car for when I want self indulgant fun. This applies to any budget, as there are cars of all ages and prices that fit thoes requirments. With this philosophy I find I have a better driving experiance regardless of what mood I am in and would never consider buying a car that is trying to be two things at once.

The C55 and S4 are both luxury cars with high power. But are by no means a sports car. This leaves the M3 looking as if it is suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis to me.

Older mercs like the ML, A, and pre facelift C and E classes were lacking in quality,
Are we talking about the W210 E-class here? Cos if so, all i can say is that that model was one of the last properly engineered MB's. Ours is built like a tank, inside and out. Completely indestructible.

As for your comments regarding the M3... Well, to each his own and all that, but there's a reason the car is widely regarded as the performance benchmark in its segment... It's that good.

Lastly, I resent he M3 because I can't see a real purpose for it. The seats are too hard, as is the suspension. The manual gearbox is stiff and notchy, with a heavy clutch so I don't really class it as remotly luxurious, and its not as honed and driver focused as an Elise or a Boxter.
I stand by my convictions. As a driver, I want a comfortable swift luxury car thats user friendly, and a Sports car for when I want self indulgant fun. This applies to any budget, as there are cars of all ages and prices that fit thoes requirments. With this philosophy I find I have a better driving experiance regardless of what mood I am in and would never consider buying a car that is trying to be two things at once.

The C55 and S4 are both luxury cars with high power. But are by no means a sports car. This leaves the M3 looking as if it is suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis to me.

That's fine from your point of view. But we're not all rich 69 year olds with our careers behind us and enough money to own and enjoy a fleet of cars.

That's the point of the M3. Can't you understand that? I'm 26 and my money is needed for investments and furthering my career. I'd love to have a 760Li to drive to work and a Ferrari 430 for the weekend. Unfortunately, at my point in life, my money can't be thrown around like that. So the M3 provides enough comfort to use everyday. And enough fun for a weekend bash on the track?

And it's crazy to suggest that for the price of an M3 you can get two cars where one would be more comfortable and the other better performance. And you're not even considering parking space, insurance, maintenance and a dozen other things that makes it more difficult to care for two cars as opposed to one when you're not a multimillionaire.

You're free to say the M3 makes no sense to you. Just don't try and tell me I don't have a good car for my needs.

am i the only one who finds it a bit odd to compare a small saloon that sits four comfortably,
to a two seating mid engined out and out sports car?

M3 has an identity crisis?
i would say it is MB who has an identity crisis,
who seem to be competing with itself to see how much horse power they can't use because of tyres that can't cope?

do they want to be a performance brand
or
a luxury brand?
or a performance luxury?
executive preformance luxury?
more than BMW,
MB doesn't know what to do, so it tries to do them all.
whtever you need, four door, two door, convertible, any combination of the above?
there's bound to be a model for you.
hell, they even make vans....

no purpose for the M3?
what's the purpose of the CLS when you have the CL?
extra doors?
then what's the S class for?

Option A:
New BMW M3 coupe: £41'150 (basic spec.)

Option B:
2000 BMW M roadster 28'000 miles Imola Red: £14'995
New BMW 325i SE saloon: £25'125
Total: £40'120


Option A:
2002 BMW M3 coupe 30'000 miles Lagunasecca Blue: £25'450

Option B:
2001 Lexus GS300 Sport 24'000 miles silver: £9'995
2000 Lotus Elise 160 SuperSport Edt. 26'000 miles Black: £15'000
Total: £24'995

I can go on and on...


As far as the point of Mercedes model line up, Mercedes is marketing the CLS as a four door coupe. Its no S class, but more of an E class. It has the stlye of a CL or CLK, but the practicality of an E.
As far as performance goes, I would class my SL65 prodominantly as a sports car rahter than a luxury car. It can compete easily with a Ferrari or Aston Martin, and devours 911's. Its got hard suspension, supportive seats, wonderful handeling, mindblowing power delivery, stlye and road presance... Its an AMG! Then I have an S600 as a daily car. It too has power, but thats not what I brought It for. I like the heated and air conditioned seats. The soft nappa leather, electric blinds, addaptive cruse controll, silky smoothe auto box, the TV's are good for my passangers, and everything is relaxed smoothe and quiet.

Its vast array of models appeals to a vast array of people. Which in turn, earns then a vast profit. Quite simple really.

(PS: Sorry Jay, Typo! Meant to say C and S classes. Totally agree with you on the E classes quality.)

I don't buy second hand!

For god sake, use your imagination! There are 1000's of cars on the market!

so let's see, you've just dropped the kids off at school at you feel like a quick blast, you'd first go home, pick up the sporty little number before having your fun?

let's see, pay once for insurance?
pay twice for insurance..... services..... mot......

why, blow me away with a really big fan.
there's the purpose right there.
to have both a fast, capable car that seats 4, that can be used gently when needed and like a devil on speed when you feel like it.

here's a little question.
if the Audi S4 isn't trying to be a 'sports' car
(well, the brand in general)
then why are they spending millions of pounds trying to improve chassis/steering to be more BMW like?

if the M3 is purposeless, why do so many cars try to imitate it?
why is the M3 lost when the CLK55 AMG isn't?
oh yeah, the CLK55 isn't trying to be a sports car....
wait a minute, isn't AMG a performance brand?

what's that about 'lost' again?

"Its vast array of models appeals to a vast array of people. Which in turn, earns then a vast profit. Quite simple really"

and this is why i'm not a big fan of them.
even you admit that the quality of the past has been less than good and this was mostly to do with profit.

all of a sudden, instead of enginnering a car then seeing how much it costs,
they started to make cars to a budget.
yes, they've been trying to remedy this but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

"compete easily with a Ferrari or Aston Martin, and devours 911's"
and once upon a time they could also compare image/brand wise.
to me, it's a shame that MB felt the need to pamper to the masses.
what used to be on a par with ferrari, porsche, aston martin et al is now instead compared to Volkswagon and Audi.

AMG is a tuning firm. And I wouldn't buy a CLK. VW and Mercedes are worlds apart. And BMW aren't exactly up there with Astons and Lambo's.

I don't have anything against BMW. I love the old M5, and cant wait for the new one. I'm sure that I would consider an M3 if it were a little more like a 330i Saloon.

You don't need to MOT a car for the first 3 years of its life, and servicing dosn't break the bank.

I understand what you are saying when you drop the kids off, and want to blast home, but my S600 can still shift, and will put a smile on my face if I wan it too. A 325i is no slug, nor is a Lexus GS300.

The CL can't be compared to a 645Ci. Theres a price difference of over £20'000 and the CL is not availabe in a cabrio version. The 6 series offers a 3 litre and 4.4 litre, while the CL offers a 5 litre, 5.5 litre V8 supercharged, 5.6 V12, and a 5.6 V12 Twin Turbo. No comparison.

Well... that Benz 5.0L in the CL500 (which costs much more) just so happens to have less power then the BMW 4.4L in the 645Ci. 302hp v. 325hp. As for the CL55 and CL600, the BMW M6 is due in the next year or two, and will come with the same 500bhp V10 and 7 speed SMG from the M5. So the only CL class car I dont see as competition for the 6 is the CL65, which costs over $170,000.

As for your comment on "why not get two different cars," not everyone wants two different cars that when combined can do the same thing as one car. You can't drive two cars at once... Watch me do the same thing to your car...

SL65 AMG: $180,000
Used Ferrari 360 Spyder F1: $111,000
Used BMW M5: $60,000?
Theres your luxury+sports all for less then your SL65... But it doesnt make much sense, does it?

The way I see it, the AMG and S brands only exist because of M. M was the first of the German in house tuners that took existing cars and made them sportier. When Benz and Audi saw how successful the M cars were, they wanted a piece of the action.

If the M3 has an identity crisis, then AMG and S must be the dumbest things in the world for attempting to copy an identity crisis, however my theory is that the M3 is a car that created a whole new idea of car design, and started what I see as an awesome segment, which gave birth to cars like the S4, C55, CTS-V, etc...

"And BMW aren't exactly up there with Astons and Lambo's."

but they never really were in the first place.
at least not in the way that MB were in the past.

And BMW aren't exactly up there with Astons and Lambo's.

No! Not when it comes to losing money and being unsustainable economically.

Don't get me wrong. I love Astons. But what does it say about a company when the car noted for saving it (DB7) is widely regarded as a "Jag in Drag"? I'd say you could even accuse it of losing it's soul.

Lamborghini!?! Don't get me started. It's and Audi. I don't care how they try to dress it up, it's an Audi! There's no continuity of cars or philosophy.

BMW on the other hand have stuck to their guns (Chris Bangle not withstanding). And they have one of the most recognisable symbols that has amazing credibility and customer loyalty.

Regardless of what you say, BMW epitomises automotive success. And if you disagree, they have 1.9 billion reason every year to say you're wrong.

Well... that Benz 5.0L in the CL500 (which costs much more) just so happens to have less power then the BMW 4.4L in the 645Ci. 302hp v. 325hp. As for the CL55 and CL600, the BMW M6 is due in the next year or two, and will come with the same 500bhp V10 and 7 speed SMG from the M5. So the only CL class car I dont see as competition for the 6 is the CL65, which costs over $170,000.

CL500. Base model in the CL range.
645Ci. Flagship 6 series.

500bhp M6 Flagship
600bhp CL65 Flagship

There are big diferances. You can't deny that. The CL is a much bigger car than the 6 series too. An 8 series would be competition, but the 6 is more of a CLK competitor.

The way I see it, the AMG and S brands only exist because of M. M was the first of the German in house tuners that took existing cars and made them sportier.

Mercedes had the 560SE/SEC/SL Before M existed. They don't need AMG to make fast cars, but the brand image hepls sales. And this too is not my point. I don't have a problem with M, just the M3. By making the M3 exclusively a coupe and cabrio, they have cut off thier noses to spite their own face.


SL65 AMG: $180,000
Used Ferrari 360 Spyder F1: $111,000
Used BMW M5: $60,000?
Theres your luxury+sports all for less then your SL65... But it doesnt make much sense, does it?

Thats pathetic. And totaly irelavant.
The modern cars that I drive:
SL65: £144'995
S600: £97'050
BMW X5: £60'120

Total: £302'165

With that, I could buy a Maybach and have change. Or a Carrara GT... but I don't want either of them. If you throw in the £35'000 for a 230SL Pagoda, and £250'000 for a mint condition 300SL Gullwing, it totals £587'165. So what. I buy cars because I want them, not for the price.

What I'm saying is, that if I were on that sort of budget, that is how I would spend it. I would not buy an M3. Simple as that. I wouldn't buy one because It dosn't suit my needs and you should respect that.


V8slayer. This is not the point either. Mercedes and BMW are very closely matched. If Mercedes were up there with Lambo, Bugatti, Jensen, and DeTomaso in the past, they may be in the same financial position as thoes companies now. Truth is, Mercedes and BMW will always be close rivals. As will Audi. They are world wide volume car manufacturers with multi billion £ turnovers and products in most sectors of the market. That is a fact that you cannot argue with.

all this talk about the "future" BMW's like the M5 and M6.... let's talk about what's available NOW....

I saw two magazine front covers lately with the M5 on the front.... zero performance figures.... why is this? then they say it won't be over here until the end of 2005??

by then the current E55 will have been out for 3+ years....

I think the E55 will still beat it in a straight line.... of couse now we'll hear all the Bimmer fan's cry about how much better the handling on the M5 will be.... I'm sure it will be, but if you're tracking 4000+ pound sedans around courses, you've got issues and the wrong car anyways...

in all reality, the M5 and E55 in a normal person's hand's will handle just fine on the streets, all the way up to the limited speed of 155MPH.... one will just be a few tics behind the other..... :)

and stop raggin on my C32, Ben... I know it's old... :)

is it a previous generation C32?

I didn't realize there was a previous generation C32.

I thought it was a C43 and a C36 before that.

Your rite, It was 36. Was getting confused.

FikseGTS... What are you on about your C32 being old then?

Mercedes C43 with an HPS supercharger owns all but the C55. :bigthumb:

It also voids the warenty.

I haven't read all, but it sounds like the vast majority of our opinions seem to be more focused towards what you prefer, than what is reality. All three cars have taken the sports car approach in their own special definition. It is obvious that the M3 is the drivers car simply because it communicates to the driver every single curve and bump in the road. The Audi and Merc don't quite so much. But if that's your definition of sports car than you should all be looking at the McClaren F1, and forget about Lamborghini's and Bugatti's. The Merc posts numbers either even with or better than an M3 in certain areas. The S4 hangs in very well especially with it's awd advantage. All three are incredibly capable and in either one you can run around the Nurburgring in equal times. But in the M3 one will get out either with the biggest smile on his face or with a not in his back. In the Merc you'll either be thrilled that you went ballz fast, or you'll be disapointed cause you were getting a massage while doing so. In the S4, well... you get the point. Just for raw numbers comparison... The fastest clocked time of a BMW M3 CSL is 4.8 secs 0-60. The fastest official time of a C32 AMG is 4.6. Just depends on what you want.

Welcome to AF :)

Please read this (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=162405) and do not revive any old threads.