castagna

Ohhhh, the M3 is 1,59867 km/h faster than the C63 around that corner, it's a pity that after some hard breaking it will be 100 km/h faster than the C63 into that tree.

castagna

You forgot about the power dome in the M3. So ricey

coolraoul

Well... The look of the hood is fabulous, the side vents cool the brakes, and I assure you, the frontbumper is highly eficient.

It avoid the other cars to bump directly the motor while parking, and also it make the car look prettier than if it was finished with a black ventilator and some naked mechanical pieces.

So the front bumper is highly efficient you see

Bruce

Hey guys, let's keep this under control.

Sunny

Except it is actually functional - it houses the engine intake manifold.

castagna

Do they really need that to fit a small 4.0l engine under the hood? Maybe in the next generation M3 we will see something like this

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Sunny

Haha sure - if you consider looking good as being functional.

By side vents I meant the ones you see in the pic below on the front bumper - they don't cool the brakes. Race cars have them cause they are so low, air pressure builds up behind the front bumper and vent stops that, but in car with normal ride height, they don't serve any purpose - except look like a race car.

coolraoul

Well, all this is a bit ridiculous.

All the "functionnal" stuff has no real meaning, BMW says it is efficient, does it mean they had no other way to make it? They make it because it is efficient and they think it looks good...

The C63 is an old-school AMG, brutal and raw, it is done to be beautiful, to make AMG fans happy. Functionnal or not, we are not technicians, we don't know. The air goes through these vents so it is efficient, from one or another way. God, even the rear lights of the Merc manages to be aerodynamic efficient!!!

And I don't really see the difference, if efficient or not. Looks good, go fast? Then it is perfect. You don't like it? Buy an M3; with its "efficient" but a bit strange-looking bulge...

BW needs a big bulge for a small 4.0l V8, whereas Merc puts its 6.3L V8 lower in the car so 1) no need for a big bulge, 2) lower Center of Gravity.
Tell me, which one is the more efficient when you say the things like that?

So all that efficience stuff from non-technicians...

Guibo

I think if BMW had a choice, they'd rather not have the bulge in the hood of the M3. Note that the M5 and M6 do without. So for the M3, it is functional. That is the answer to your question, so no need to dismiss the answer as ridiculous or having no real meaning when it is at odds with your intuition.
The larger picture here is that many have commented on the over-the-top styling of the C63 (this is the 2nd one I've seen that says it looks like an aftermarket/tuner job): it looks vicious as if it's the hardcore roadracer of the trio, but it's not the most responsive, most nimble, nor most involving. One could excuse this by considering the 300-400 lbs that the C63 weighs over the lightest car in the group. But this raises questions about other areas of efficiency (packaging, materials for low weight, etc).
Also, how do we know that BMW doesn't also put its V8 lower in the car? How much lower is the Merc's V8 compared to the V6 in the C-Class? Judging by the 335i's profile in Road & Track's data panel compared to the C350's, it looks like the BMW's hoodline is normally lower anyway, so the need for a hood bulge is not exactly surprising.

As for sound, yes these guys prefer the Merc V8 (sounds like a NASCAR racer, they say). If you prefer the high-rpm shriek of a Formula One car (or Ferrari V8, to which the new M3 V8 has often been compared), then you may very well prefer the BMW's sound.

Guibo

Not if you include the AutoZeitung test, which picked the C63.