Re: C 32 AMG???? NAAAAA

Discussion in '2001 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG' started by Al, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. just a shame the bmw is slower than the merc. if the bmw was faster the merc is still a better car.
     
  2. C 32 AMG???? NAAAAA

    C 32 AMG???? NAAAAA.
    BMW M3????? now ur talkin'




    BEAMER RULZ
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Emdec55</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300CE24_RULE</i>
    <b>4.4 ??? hahaha

    And why not 4.0 or 3.8 ???

    it's more like 4.8 to 5.0 .</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->what r u talkin about 4.0 or 3.8?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I mean there are stat for all these cars. OK the manufacturers stat are a little wrong but not wrong of one sec.
    When I hear someone who says this C32 can do 4.4 , why not 4.0 or 3.8 ???? no end <!-- Signature -->
     
  4. 4.4sec was only if it waz right for the car but the real time for the mbusa with 349hp is 4.9 but really the time for this car is 4.9 or 4.8 to 4.6sec
     
  5. 4.6 OK, maybe but not under.

    It's an auto. So it doesn't depend on the pilot .<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW 2002</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Al</i>
    <b>just a shame the bmw is slower than the merc. if the bmw was faster the merc is still a better car.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    i believe the test by MT or one other magazine came up as the M3 0-60 as 4.65s and the C32 as 5.1 therefore making the M3 faster ;)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Just cuz it can go to sixty doesnt make it a faster car...duh!
    Try the 1/4 mile, 0-100, top speed, or slamon test.
     
  7. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Gamer55</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BMW 2002</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Al</i>
    <b>just a shame the bmw is slower than the merc. if the bmw was faster the merc is still a better car.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    i believe the test by MT or one other magazine came up as the M3 0-60 as 4.65s and the C32 as 5.1 therefore making the M3 faster ;)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Just cuz it can go to sixty doesnt make it a faster car...duh!
    Try the 1/4 mile, 0-100, top speed, or slamon test.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'd be glad to give those figures

    M3:
    Acceleration:
    0-100mph: 11.6 seconds
    1/4mile: 13.3@106.8
    Braking:
    60-0mph: 112 feet

    C32 AMG
    Acceleration:
    0-100mph: 12.2 seconds
    1/4mile: 13.6@105.4
    Braking:
    60-0mph: 118 feet

    Sourced from Road & Track. They don't have handling stats for the M3, so I leave both out of the comparison. So there we have it, it seems the M3 is a faster car<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Sourced from Autocar
    Mercedes C32AMG
    0-60-4.6secs
    0-100-10.8secs

    BMW M3
    0-60-4.8SECS
    0-100-11.2SECS

    The Mercedes C-32 can do a 4.6sec 0-60 run.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from carreraRS</i>
    <b>Sourced from Autocar
    Mercedes C32AMG
    0-60-4.6secs
    0-100-10.8secs

    BMW M3
    0-60-4.8SECS
    0-100-11.2SECS

    The Mercedes C-32 can do a 4.6sec 0-60 run.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    so the official time is 5.2, and they managed to make it go 4.6 ??
    that's amazing :~

    the C32 is much better though, because,
    1)more luxurious
    2)more ocnfortable
    3)4 doors, so definitly more useful
    4)as fast or even faster then the M3<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from G1zm0</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from carreraRS</i>
    <b>Sourced from Autocar
    Mercedes C32AMG
    0-60-4.6secs
    0-100-10.8secs

    BMW M3
    0-60-4.8SECS
    0-100-11.2SECS

    The Mercedes C-32 can do a 4.6sec 0-60 run.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    so the official time is 5.2, and they managed to make it go 4.6 ??
    that's amazing :~

    the C32 is much better though, because,
    1)more luxurious
    2)more ocnfortable
    3)4 doors, so definitly more useful
    4)as fast or even faster then the M3</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Its a lot slower than the M3, much much much slower.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. There will always be controversy over those two cars. Not everyone will agree on which car is better. However, everyone will agree that it is a lot of fun trying to figure it out. The M3 and the C32 are both a blast to drive. It's remarkable that they're people haulers as well as sports cars.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. I think the M3 would be a better driver's car. The C32 is very good but it's more of a GT.
     
  13. uhhm
    they are both the vbest sports sedans ever...

    think about it...
    and this M3 VS AMG CXX (because there have been C36's, C43's and now the C32) is becoming a tradition...
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  14. It disturbs me that cars performing at this level are even offered with automatic transmissions, let alone come with them exclusively. If only the various AMG models came with manual trannies, I could really respect them, but I just can't see past the automatic, no matter how quick the car is.
     
  15. yes, thatŽs right, a supercar in which u can have a manual gear? come on, for me bmw motorsport does fast and racing cars, while amg just does fast cars, cars that even our grandma could drive.
    Another fact is that bmw created bmw m, while mercedes didnŽt create amg, mercedes absorbed amg, its like if today mercedes buys brabus, sorry but i donŽt like that.
    ¿ who is gonna compete with the smg2? it makes the gear changes even faster than the ferrari 360 modena f1, awwwwwwwwww! <!-- Signature -->
     
  16. this car chases down porsches
     
  17. this car is great, but the interior is pretty small
     
  18. C32 for me over the m3 anyday<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. my mom recently acquired a 2001 c240 and i must say it is a blast to drive. being a 240 it does lack a little in the power department but it is more than ample for daily driving. and it looks absolutely stunning in person. the only thing better than its looks is the gorgeous interior. MB has actually crammed more technology in the c-class then they have in the s-class. very impressive stuff here. and the handling...superb.
     
  20. I usually prefer Mercedes over BMW cause of better reliability and resale value, but I probably will pick the M3 cause I not a real fan of super or turbocharged engines. Plus the M3's engine can sure rev...I like that in an engine.
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Al</i>
    <b>just a shame the bmw is slower than the merc. if the bmw was faster the merc is still a better car.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    i believe the test by MT or one other magazine came up as the M3 0-60 as 4.65s and the C32 as 5.1 therefore making the M3 faster ;)
     
  22. The M3 is an awsome machine, but i reckon the Merc is still the better, its classier and better looking.
    Whats got to be laughed at is you guys in the States who class both these machines as super cars. Don't get me wrong, they are both incredibly fast machines. But in the land where the awsome and best cars are made (Europe) both cars are classed as budget performance cars. If you really want a super car you should try to think more about Mercedes' SL 55 AMG, Porsche 911 Turbo, Ferrari 360 Modena etc, all of which are european cars.
    If the automatic box on the Benz is such a dissappointment in terms of pace, then how is it that the SL 55 AMG which is automatic can, can leave behind The 911 turbo. A quotation from Top Gear magazine Febuary 2002 issue states "The Merc has so much power that, on the straight, the sl55 leaves the porsche behind"
     
  23. Regardless of what the SL55 can do in a straight line, it still isn't anymore than a extremely fast luxury cruiser. The Porsche is made for someone else. Someone who wants a dynamic driving experience. An automatic transmission isn't a horrible thing because it cannot keep pace with a manual; an automatic transimission is a horrible thing because it steals part of the driving experience from the driver. Automatics are perfect for somethings, but any performance car without a manual transmission is a sad sad thing indeed and will always be no better than second best in the hearts of actual driving enthusiasts.

    In regard to the SL55 leaving the Turbo behind, well, it is simply the fact that the SL55 has the power to do it. An automatic will transfer the power to the ground just like a manual, that isn't the problem with automatics. Reading the article on transmission in the issue of Evo from three or four months ago should help tremendously to explain the problems with automatic transmissions; or, if Top Gear is your thing, track down Mr. Needell and ask him about it.<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. I'd take the C32 over the M3. I saw one a few days ago. It was awesome.<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 300CE24_RULE</i>
    <b>I'd take the C32 over the M3. I saw one a few days ago. It was awesome.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Me too, the engine sounds nice, also the exhausts. I also saw the SLK32 =D<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page