PDA

View Full Version : BMW 545i vs. C55 AMG


lil2lionel04
01-28-2005, 10:48 PM
Price:
545i: 55,800
C55 AMG: 54,620
Engine:
545i: 4.4L V-8 352hp & 330 lb-ft.
C55 AMG: 5.5L V-8 362hp & 376 lb-ft.
Curb Weight:
545i: 3737
C55 AMG: 3583
Transmission:
545i: 6-Speed Automatic w/ Steptronic, 6-Speed Manual, SMG Transmission
C55 AMG: 5-Speed Auto Touchshift w/ Speedshift w/ OD
0-60 Times:
545i: 5.4 sec.
C55 AMG: 4.9 sec.
1/4 Mile Times:
545i: 13.7 @ 102.1
C55 AMG: 13.2 @ 107.3
Braking 60-0:
545i: 121ft.
C55 AMG: 116ft.
600ft. Slalom:
545i: 66.0 mph
C55 AMG: 67.5 mph
Skidpad:
545i: 0.87g.
C55 AMG: 0.84g.

Which car is the best and which should I get? I'm leaning toward the 545i cause of the styling.

dankykev04
01-28-2005, 10:53 PM
nothing that you write down will compare to driving both. on paper, the cedes, but after a drive, i guarantee the bmw would most definitely suit me better. you pay more for a reason...

bim530mer
01-29-2005, 05:54 AM
i guarantee the bmw would most definitely suit me better. you pay more for a reason...
Get yourself an MB... nothing is worth it when it comes to BMW
maintenance headache... especially that it is one of the first models... meaning more troubles to fix...

But one thing that gets the plus in BMW... size :)

alpinewhite325i
01-29-2005, 08:33 AM
I drove the AMG about a month ago. Was not impressed. Although it was VERY powerful, the driving dynamics left something to be desired. Currently, I only have a 325i non sport, and it feels more balanced than the AMG. The MB felt like a tank; it had a very heavy feeling to it. I'm sure some people will equate "safety" to this feel, but it just wasn't my thing.

I think the AMG looks awesome, MUCH better than the 5. The interior is very nice, with the exception of the slushie.

Also, keep in mind, MB discontinued the free maintenance.

Can't comment on the driving dynamics of the 5, haven't driven one yet.

Go drive and it will be obvious which one is right for you.

Chagahan
01-29-2005, 09:15 AM
I have a 330ci and my dealer gave me a c240 as a loaner. I find mb more comfortable than mine , less noise inside , feels heavy and secure. I also think 5 series and C series compare is not fair because 5 series is way bigger than c series. SInce they cost same I definitly go with 5 series... It looks better to me...

Centurion
01-29-2005, 11:06 AM
I was in a very similar situation myself.
Except I was debating between a CLK 500 and a 545i.
I drove both with some agression, but I'll admit, nothing like I really wanted to.

Ultimately, I chose the e60 for the SOLID feel it has around corners, the manual shifter, the larger and wider stance appearance from the outside, the sporty/evil look from the front end, and call me crazy but I like what BMW has done with the interior and newer version i-Drive. Oh yeah, and as it turns out, the 4-door configuration better suits my lifestyle right now.

The CLK has a luxurious interior for sure. However, the driving experience wasn't as enjoyable for me due in most part to the auto transmission and "loose" feel of the ride. From a straight-shot look of the back and front, the CLK appears somewhat narrow and gave me that doubtful feeling. You know what I mean? If I bought the car, it will forever bother me and everytime I approach it I will gaze at it and convince myself that it's not narrow before getting inside.

Goodluck and let us know if you chose Bavarian or Chrysler. ;)

jpindc52
01-29-2005, 11:09 AM
Buy the 545i... I doesn't look like anything else on the road... and maintenance is free for the first 50K. You have to pay out the nose for the Mercedes....

Centurion
01-29-2005, 11:18 AM
What is MB's current warranty?
3yrs/36,000miles?

Alex Baumann
01-29-2005, 11:21 AM
Compare the E55 not the C55.

SBIRS
01-29-2005, 11:33 AM
Compare E500, not E55AMG
or
Compare M5, not 545i

Alex Baumann
01-29-2005, 11:37 AM
Compare E500, not E55AMG
or
Compare M5, not 545i

That is true, as well. Since he wanted to compare an AMG model, I thought it would be fair to compare a car with similar size.

Centurion
01-29-2005, 11:42 AM
Compare the E55 not the C55....and be sure to put about $24K more in your checking account.

545i = $55K MSRP
E55 = $79K MSRP

FireWalker
01-30-2005, 01:23 AM
Which car is the best and which should I get? I'm leaning toward the 545i cause of the styling.

For me the 545 is in a different class, size-wise and otherwise. :)
But forget the numbers, drive both cars and you will have your answer!
Let us know what you end up with.
fw

heezyo2o
02-01-2005, 02:00 AM
Price:
545i: 55,800
C55 AMG: 54,620
Engine:
545i: 4.4L V-8 352hp & 330 lb-ft.
C55 AMG: 5.5L V-8 362hp & 376 lb-ft.
.

The 545i just has 333hp. And comfortably optioned, the 545i goes for around 63K while the C55 should go about 58K. Really an apple to oranges comparison, but if you want to do so, then compare the 545i with an Audi S4 instead.

A test drive should answer your questions.

530iii
07-25-2005, 05:54 PM
Yeah some pr*ck with an S4 was toying with me on Bell Blvd near Bay Terrace last weekend. Must have been the "i've got 340hp" swelling his head.

This guy probably lost too many battles with M3's so he wanted to take it out on a 545i.

Better yet let ME pull up with the upcoming New S4.

If you're reading this how about we face off when i don't have passengers in my car and you're with your mommy and daddy who bought you the car or wiped your ass during college so you could afford an S4 j*ckoff! :violent: :flipoff: :bang:

///MLover
08-06-2005, 06:11 PM
First of all the mb is turbocharged right? that means 30% of the lifes engine is gone.. Second of all you are comparing two different things. C-class competes V.S. the 3 Series not the 5 Series. Of course the c55 will be faster because of its AMG tunning. Also the 545i's might be changing to 550i because of the new 4.8 V8

Centurion
08-06-2005, 07:32 PM
I always thought that the BMW's 5-series was in the same category as MBZ's E-class (i.e. 545i vs. E-500).

///MLover
08-07-2005, 12:54 AM
Centurion you are right but i think that maybe he wanted a bigger engine to compare a bigger engine to the C55.

tommaey
08-08-2005, 04:30 AM
First of all the mb is turbocharged right? that means 30% of the lifes engine is gone.. Second of all you are comparing two different things. C-class competes V.S. the 3 Series not the 5 Series. Of course the c55 will be faster because of its AMG tunning. Also the 545i's might be changing to 550i because of the new 4.8 V8


No - it's not turbocharged. Maybe confusing it with the E55 etc which are supercharged. Only the 65 series cars are turbocharged.

And 30% of the engine life gone? How long would one keep this car? This engine, turbocharged or not will last through the next 3 owners.

MarcusSDCA
08-08-2005, 09:48 AM
I saw one of these C-class AMGs the other day and all I thought was: Wow, that guy just spent a small fortune for an ugly C-class with a big motor.

LA X3
08-08-2005, 12:11 PM
I find the current C-class interior to be decidedly downmarket. I'd hate to pay $55k for a car and get the interior that looks cheap in the $28k version of the same car. Of course that has nothing to do with the driving dynamics, but for me the C55 has a serious value-for-money problem.

Krochelli
08-08-2005, 11:54 PM
I find the current C-class interior to be decidedly downmarket. I'd hate to pay $55k for a car and get the interior that looks cheap in the $28k version of the same car. Of course that has nothing to do with the driving dynamics, but for me the C55 has a serious value-for-money problem.

You can say the same thing about an M3 :)

Kypho-car
09-03-2005, 09:51 AM
Personally, I've always thought that MB should be ashamed of themselves for putting a motor with a 3-valve head on the market. Even supercharged, those motors put out about 10 hp per liter LESS than the 545i or 550i. Essentially they're using a big motor that can't breathe well, even if you force air into it. It should also be noted that the MB motors even have a higher compression ratio than the Bimmers.

In short: I'd either buy the BMW (and put a blower on it - yeeehaaa!), or wait until MB comes out of the stone ages and springs for 4 valves per cylinder. FWIW, I've driven both the CLK500 and the 545i fairly aggressively. They both handle just fine, but I was unimpressed wih the lack of personality of the MB drive. There was really not that much road or brake feel, and the motor was powerful, but the automatic tranny really doesn't give you the ability to control exactly where you want to be in the powerband. My personal preference is for 6 speed manual or SMG.

By comparison, the Bimmer brakes took some getting used to for me, as they have the tendency to detach your retinas if you're not careful. Unfortunately, the car I drove was a steptronic, so I was constantly annoyed by the lag time between the command and the actual shift - impossible to run ten-tenths with it. You'd end up in the weeds. Between the wheel and my butt there was more than enough feedback for me to understand exactly what the car was doing, and I was happy to find that the car did allow you a little bit of drift before the traction control kicked in and ruined all the fun.

In short, the MB drove like a really powerful Chrysler. Buy a Bimmer.

Suraj
09-11-2006, 06:11 PM
I wonder why BMW does not produce such torque monsters, atleast in the M cars. Shouldn't it be possible to have such mighty engines along with the other fine attributes of a Bimmer like handling, cornering etc.

von_zoom
09-11-2006, 08:03 PM
I've got about 500 miles on the track in a 545i, and I enjoyed every mile. Admittedly, I have not had the same opportunity in a C55 AMG, but I cannot think that it would be as good as the Bimmer. For outright driving and handling, the BMW is hard to match. Compare weight to power and ajility, and I don't know about the street, but on the track, the BMW will win every time. I agree, buy a Bimmer.
vz

quackbury
09-12-2006, 05:37 AM
Whatever you decide, don't own the AMG once it goes out of warranty. The cost of AMG-specific parts will KILL you. Been there, done that, and never again!

Suraj
09-12-2006, 09:45 AM
I have already decided in favor of a 530i :)

However, I am just pondering why BMW does not make AMG like HP/torque monsters in their M cars? For instance, is there any M car with more than 500 ft-lb of torque whereas some of the AMG vehicles do provide such a choice.

In summary, the question boils down to "Why doesn't BMW take the good things (HP/torque) from AMG in their M vechiles and still provide all the good stuff like handling, nimbleness, reliability etc"? What could be the reaons for not doing so?

SteVTEC
09-12-2006, 11:20 AM
Personally, I've always thought that MB should be ashamed of themselves for putting a motor with a 3-valve head on the market. Even supercharged, those motors put out about 10 hp per liter LESS than the 545i or 550i. Essentially they're using a big motor that can't breathe well, even if you force air into it. It should also be noted that the MB motors even have a higher compression ratio than the Bimmers.

In short: I'd either buy the BMW (and put a blower on it - yeeehaaa!), or wait until MB comes out of the stone ages and springs for 4 valves per cylinder.
A 4-valve engine is not superior to a 3-valve engine which is not superior to a 2-valve engine. Just as DOHC is not superior to SOHC which is not superior to OHV. And a high HP/L engine is not necessarily superior to one with lower HP/L either. All things in engineering involve compromise. All of those configurations have various advantages and disadvantages, so one or the other may work better for you depending on what you're trying to accomplish.

Even a C32 AMG (3.2L SOHC 3v V6, supercharged) makes 109 hp/L (349hp) so 3v engines can breathe just fine. You must have been thinking that the C55 AMG is supercharged when you said what you did about them having lower HP/L than a 545/550i when in fact the C55 is naturally aspirated. The E55 AMG is the one with the blower. HP/L is a really bad way to compare engines anyways, though. It grossly oversimplifies things and as a result leads people to a lot of very very wrong conclusions about engine design.

SteVTEC
09-12-2006, 12:18 PM
I have already decided in favor of a 530i :)

However, I am just pondering why BMW does not make AMG like HP/torque monsters in their M cars? For instance, is there any M car with more than 500 ft-lb of torque whereas some of the AMG vehicles do provide such a choice.

In summary, the question boils down to "Why doesn't BMW take the good things (HP/torque) from AMG in their M vechiles and still provide all the good stuff like handling, nimbleness, reliability etc"? What could be the reaons for not doing so?
Probably because it goes against BMW's design philosophy of "Efficient Dynamics".

Massively overpowered drivetrains end up adding significant amounts of weight, which degrade the agility that BMWs are known for. In the case of the E55 AMG, the top mounted supercharger adds weight in the worst areas, up high. It increases the center of gravity and increases roll tendencies which take away from handling. And the more torque you have, the more difficult it is to build a drivetrain and chassis around that that won't blow up, and won't creak and flex like a mofo under power.

revlis240
09-12-2006, 01:07 PM
talk about digging into the past! the orig post was a year ago!!

:)

ctchrinthry
09-13-2006, 03:47 PM
I wonder why BMW does not produce such torque monsters, atleast in the M cars. Shouldn't it be possible to have such mighty engines along with the other fine attributes of a Bimmer like handling, cornering etc.

Well, it's hard to make such torque without turbo/supercharging, which is still not in the M motiff.

It also lets them use a lighter drivetrain, saving weight.

It is also worth noting that MB now moves away from forced induction with their new 6.3L AMG motor. The goal was to make the torque LOW enough for them to use their newer transmission, etc.

TD
09-13-2006, 03:51 PM
No stick = no sale

CVT Benhogan
09-14-2006, 01:20 PM
Doesn't the 5.5L AMG engine pump out a massive 460 ft lb of torque? I guess C55 isn't supercharged? Take the E55 AMG, it clears 0 -60 in the mid 4s? That 5.5L engine might be dated, but its a torque monster enabling an E55 to smoke the unsuspecting M5. Ouch. I read some horror posts on this. This engine has received rave reviews from the auto press, and its in the tuner's hall of fame. Higher compression is good by the way.

That said, I'd take a BMW over a Merc 99 of 100 times. Like the McLaren over the ?? MBs inside and out look like s&%t, save the CLS and the new S barge. BTW, the comparison in this post is somewhat pointless and overly fixated on price points. This same mistake gets repeated over and over again. IMHO, compare the C55 to an S4, or even to the upcoming M3 coupe (just pretend you have two extra doors).

Just my two cents.


CVT Benhogan