How come mercedes-benz is so far ahead of bmw?

Xens · 11-27-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by visor

Lotus Elise 0-60 in 4.8 sec!
It's like a bike on 4 wheels!

However, it does cost close to the E46 M3...

M3, mmmmmmm ....................................

lux.sh · 11-27-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by visor

Hmmm... I think you need... the Lotus Elise!

whoa. you got me there. Right after I read that, i was like DAMN IT!

what if I want torque on top of that. now thats a tough one.
I believe Lotus Elise in US comes with celica 180hp engine tuned to 190hp. And I know celica engine has no power below VVTi crossover point.

M3 would be nice, but I don't think it'll out-handle lotus in long run.
Lightweight is a huge advantage.

viperssd · 11-28-2005, 01:50 AM

I always thought BMW didn't use forced induction in non-diesel engines due toe the flatter torque curve of a naturally aspirated engine. With FI, you lose a lot of low end power while a good NA engine has power throughout the whole powerband.

xsb00st · 11-28-2005, 01:54 AM

Hey hey...don't hate on MBZs. Both BMW and MB have their strengths and weaknesses. So why doesn't everyone be like me and buy from both brands!

Oz · 11-28-2005, 02:47 AM

Both of the cars are great in their own perspective

My first car was a MB 1988 300E and I enjoyed driving that car. It was slow off the line but great car to drive on the highway.

shimshimhada · 11-28-2005, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by visor

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=6
Lotus Elise 0-60 in 4.4 sec!
Skidpad 1.06 g!
It's like a bike on 4 wheels!

However, it does cost close to the E46 M3...

I'd rather have a Caterham Seven Superlight R

Xens · 11-28-2005, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oz

Both of the cars are great in their own perspective

My first car was a MB 1988 300E and I enjoyed driving that car. It was slow off the line but great car to drive on the highway.

Those were the good times when MB was about absolute quality and incredible customer care.

lux.sh · 11-28-2005, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xs*****

Hey hey...don't hate on MBZs. Both BMW and MB have their strengths and weaknesses. So why doesn't everyone be like me and buy from both brands!

omg. that car on the right is my girl's favorite car. and my favorite.
After we saw one on the road... they are just plain beautiful.

Xens · 11-28-2005, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lux.sh

omg. that car on the right is my girl's favorite car. and my favorite.
After we saw one on the road... they are just plain beautiful.

Grats on 1000 posts!

Robert · 11-28-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitfire6000

Point is...how come BMW doesnt analyze their competition and take tricks they use and incorporate them into their own cars? I think if bmw utilized the best things from all of their competitors, they would be completely untouchable in this business.

I can't disagree more. I give props to BMW for sticking to their philosophy and brand marque. Sure BMW could be more profitable making a car that suits the general masses and that's what they did with the 3 series. A little something for everyone but not completely diluted to not be a bmw anymore.

Toyota on the other end of the spectrum is untouchable and they make millions more than BMW per year but do you want a BMW to start making Camries?

lux.sh · 11-28-2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xens

Grats on 1000 posts!

holy dear post whore.

to myself.

why, thank you!!!!

carnuts3 · 11-28-2005, 09:57 AM

Blah, Blah, Blah... The bottom line is that it generally costs more to buy a MB, and the profile of the typical MB customer is older and more affluent than the typical BMW customer. These older customers generally have more traditional preferences like comfort over sports-car-like handling. - yes, like what Lexus sells only at price point or two, or three higher. And for those mostly older customers who want the cache and luxury of a MB but with the excess speed, they will pay the price for it - in many instances 50-60% more than the equivalent non-amg model. For that kind of an upcharge, they better get 700 hp (??) and 1000 ft lbs (??) of torque. But in general, these customers are attracted to the status of the name plate, not the overall driving experience. Having said all that, I am one of those older customers. But I buy for the driving experience first, then the name plate. That's why I own a BMW!

Robin_NL · 11-28-2005, 10:05 AM

Merc is OK.Haven't read the whole thread though

BMW builds with a rwd 50/50 weight balance philosophy. Even RWD on a small hatchback like the 1 series. Straight 6 engines etc. BMW's middle name is M(otoren), engineering.

Drive around a track in a BMW and a Benz and you know why there are so many BMWs on the Nuerburgring-Nordschleife and not so many Benzes

Look at the McLaren F1 and what engine Gordon Murray chose for that supercar.

MCS · 11-28-2005, 10:07 AM

Interesting if somewhat inane thread. This argument is similar comparing chevy vs ford, camaro vs mustang, pushrod vs overhead cam, etc.

Fact - The McLaren F1 used a natural aspirated BMW engine for speed. IMO its still one of the best exotics ever made and kicks the new SLRs ass.

Merc makes some great engines. My boss has an E55 and it really hauls ass on the highway. The torque is amazing. Having sad that, the handling feel is much better on my e90. Not that its speed is faster (it probably is not), but the dynamics are very different.

BMW has always been very committed to naturally aspirated engined and AMG has a great deal of experience and expertise with supercharging/turbos. My guess with BMW's involvement in Formula 1, they transfered some of the technology to the M division. I think the M5/M6 V10 is built in the same shop as the F1 engines. Mercedes has a completely different shop for their Mclaren team engines, I doubt that there is as much transfer of technology to the V8 compressor engine.

Horsepower wars - we all win in the end.

poldim · 11-28-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zdognaylor

Why has Mercedes sales fallen so much?

Quality of the C class is shit.

This is a strange decision for MB to act this way. This is their most "available/affordable" car in the US. Most people dont buy it because its a great cars, they buy it because they have seen the commercials, seen the movies, and know the opinions formed about them from owning an MB.

With that in mind, these people are probably not going to be reading magazines to figure out what car to buy and if the C320 is really worth its weight in ash.

The larger sedans still have amazing quality and little problems.

Now the MB minivan.....massive revenue for MB.

to them for being the first to jump on it.

poldim · 11-28-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xs*****

Hey hey...don't hate on MBZs. Both BMW and MB have their strengths and weaknesses. So why doesn't everyone be like me and buy from both brands!

CLS is a very, very, very sexy car.
I have yet to drive one. I wonder if it feels anything like that Maybach...

poldim · 11-28-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Merc is OK.Haven't read the whole thread though

BMW builds with a rwd 50/50 weight balance philosophy. Even RWD on a small hatchback like the 1 series. Straight 6 engines etc. BMW's middle name is M(otoren), engineering.

Drive around a track in a BMW and a Benz and you know why there are so many BMWs on the Nuerburgring-Nordschleife and not so many Benzes

Look at the McLaren F1 and what engine Gordon Murray chose for that supercar.

There are more BMW's because as dicussed in the thread the BMW is the drivers car. Most MB's are driven by professionals who have no interest in the track. Different type of car and market.

xsb00st · 11-28-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poldim

CLS is a very, very, very sexy car.
I have yet to drive one. I wonder if it feels anything like that Maybach...

Actually it feels more like a sportier E-class since it's built on the E chassis, but has a tuned (very slightly) suspension.

However, when comparing BMW to MB, it's like apple's and oranges. I love the V8 roar and horses from the CLS, but I love the quick and gravity defying cornering of the E90. Like I said in my earlier post, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

voltron1011 · 11-28-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitfire6000

This is one thing that i never really understood.

Benz easily mass produces silky smooth cars like the CL55 and 65 which have over 500 horses and over 520 torque and over 700 torque on the 65 model and all of that coming from supercharged V8s.

With bmw, the best they can do with a V10 is a little over 500hp and torque numbers in the 300s.

Not only that, but despite the benzes weighing tons more than any bmws in production, they accelerate FAR FAR quicker than anything bmw can throw out...and all of that from what are called the best standard 7 speed automatic trannys in the world.

I agree that AMG makes some monsterous cars, however, you might want to check your references better before posting.... Yes the CL55 does have a supercharge V8 that make almost 500hp. However, the CL65 is a twin-turbo V12. You mention the best 7-speed automatic on the market, but the problem is that AMG doesn't put this tranny on any of their +400hp motors. The sheer power would rip that poor tranny to shreds!! In fact, I think the SLK55 is the only one that does have that tranny, but it is not a supercharged V8, just NA V8. The AMG C55, E55, CLS55, S55, S65, CL55, CL65, etc all have a 5-speed automatic that is exlclusivly produced by AMG.

cosmosblau · 11-28-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa13

hahaha sorry but...

MB = Chrysler

There you go.. this pointless thread summed up in a couple words...

Oh, how the mighty have fallen....

Mercedes are just for show. But then again- they were always just for show. Compare a 1970's 450 slc to a BMW 2002 or a 320i: The Benz has that Wonder Bread suspension and is all over the road!

F32Fleet · 11-28-2005, 01:44 PM

Just want to make a price point comparasion.
MB has a vast range between models in the same class. A 2004 CLK320 (hardtop) retailed for $50k but their C Class sedan can be had for much less.
BMW on the other hand had only a $2k difference between the 3'er coupe/sedan, and you'd have to REALLY load up on the options to get the price near $50k.

Costa · 11-29-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poldim

CLS is a very, very, very sexy car.
I have yet to drive one. I wonder if it feels anything like that Maybach...

I agree - currently one of my favourite cars (still like the SL the best). I dropped off my daughter at school today, and when I came back to my car there was a black CLS500 parked in front of me

Being an engineer, I love and appreciate bimmers for their engineering excellence (that's why I am buyinh one) but you just can't beat the mercs for sex appeal ... or price tag

Agree about people buying mercs more for looks and status - I think that is why you generally see more women driving mercs than men, aspecially the lower end models like the C class.

11-28-2005, 01:50 AM	#69
viperssd Private First Class 20 Rep 193 Posts Drives: 2023 X7 Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: California, USA iTrader: (2)	I always thought BMW didn't use forced induction in non-diesel engines due toe the flatter torque curve of a naturally aspirated engine. With FI, you lose a lot of low end power while a good NA engine has power throughout the whole powerband.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 01:54 AM	#70
xsb00st Lieutenant Colonel 187 Rep 1,638 Posts Drives: Slow Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Earth iTrader: (21)	Hey hey...don't hate on MBZs. Both BMW and MB have their strengths and weaknesses. So why doesn't everyone be like me and buy from both brands! Attached Images
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 02:47 AM	#71
Oz Lieutenant Colonel 33 Rep 1,770 Posts Drives: 2006 330i, 2004 X5 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wayne, NJ iTrader: (1) Garage List 2006 330i [0.00]	Both of the cars are great in their own perspective My first car was a MB 1988 300E and I enjoyed driving that car. It was slow off the line but great car to drive on the highway. __________________ 2006 330i Steptronic/Alpine White/Black Leather/Burl Walnut Trim/Premium Package/iDrive/Heated Seats/Winter: STYLE 159 Blizzak LM-22 RFT/Summer: TBD 2004 X5 Steptronic/Alpine White/Grey Leather/Poplar Trim/Premium Package/Heated Seats/iPod Adapter
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 09:57 AM	#78
carnuts3 Lieutenant 14 Rep 407 Posts Drives: 2008 535i Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Connecticut iTrader: (0)	Blah, Blah, Blah... The bottom line is that it generally costs more to buy a MB, and the profile of the typical MB customer is older and more affluent than the typical BMW customer. These older customers generally have more traditional preferences like comfort over sports-car-like handling. - yes, like what Lexus sells only at price point or two, or three higher. And for those mostly older customers who want the cache and luxury of a MB but with the excess speed, they will pay the price for it - in many instances 50-60% more than the equivalent non-amg model. For that kind of an upcharge, they better get 700 hp (??) and 1000 ft lbs (??) of torque. But in general, these customers are attracted to the status of the name plate, not the overall driving experience. Having said all that, I am one of those older customers. But I buy for the driving experience first, then the name plate. That's why I own a BMW!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 10:05 AM	#79
Robin_NL S0THPAW 8970 Rep 7,863 Posts Drives: HS M2 Competition Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The Netherlands iTrader: (0)	Merc is OK.Haven't read the whole thread though BMW builds with a rwd 50/50 weight balance philosophy. Even RWD on a small hatchback like the 1 series. Straight 6 engines etc. BMW's middle name is M(otoren), engineering. Drive around a track in a BMW and a Benz and you know why there are so many BMWs on the Nuerburgring-Nordschleife and not so many Benzes Look at the McLaren F1 and what engine Gordon Murray chose for that supercar.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 10:07 AM	#80
MCS e90 newbie 38 Rep 448 Posts Drives: 2012 M3 E93 Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Northern NJ iTrader: (2) Garage List 2006 330i [0.00]	Interesting if somewhat inane thread. This argument is similar comparing chevy vs ford, camaro vs mustang, pushrod vs overhead cam, etc. Fact - The McLaren F1 used a natural aspirated BMW engine for speed. IMO its still one of the best exotics ever made and kicks the new SLRs ass. Merc makes some great engines. My boss has an E55 and it really hauls ass on the highway. The torque is amazing. Having sad that, the handling feel is much better on my e90. Not that its speed is faster (it probably is not), but the dynamics are very different. BMW has always been very committed to naturally aspirated engined and AMG has a great deal of experience and expertise with supercharging/turbos. My guess with BMW's involvement in Formula 1, they transfered some of the technology to the M division. I think the M5/M6 V10 is built in the same shop as the F1 engines. Mercedes has a completely different shop for their Mclaren team engines, I doubt that there is as much transfer of technology to the V8 compressor engine. Horsepower wars - we all win in the end. __________________ E93 IL Blue M3 ZPP, ZCW
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-28-2005, 01:44 PM	#87
F32Fleet Lieutenant General 3910 Rep 10,609 Posts Drives: 2015 435i Join Date: May 2005 Location: Southeastern US iTrader: (0)	Just want to make a price point comparasion. MB has a vast range between models in the same class. A 2004 CLK320 (hardtop) retailed for $50k but their C Class sedan can be had for much less. BMW on the other hand had only a $2k difference between the 3'er coupe/sedan, and you'd have to REALLY load up on the options to get the price near $50k.
	Appreciate 0 Quote