Don't you love that poetic title? Haha, ok people. The question is simple. Which is the better in-house tuner... AMG by Mercedes-Benz or M by BMW? Give some good reasons, and if you're feeling adventurous, give us a favorite AMG or M.

__________________
2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
4.6L DOHC V8 - 6 speed manual
520rwhp - 525rwtq at 16psi on stock blower
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual

that's a tough one...I say AMG because their vehicles look better and have better performance in my view than M ((and that just reminded me of James Bond 007...))

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

I personally prefer M-division over AMG. Mercedes cars are too relient on electronic nannies like traction control. You can't even turn the traction control off all the way, if you did you'd just spin out. M cars and BMWs in general are more of a driver's car

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

Tough one, but I'll have to give the nod to AMG for their larger variety.

only thing I do like about M and BMW is the aftermarket parts that are available through distributors like Bavarian Autosport.

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

I agree with Johnnyboy. It's a very tough call, but I think of it this way... if I was buying a new Mercedes, the AMG sport-package would be a 'must have', compared to if I was buying a new BMW, I'd take it either way. Not to mention BMW doesn't even call their ordinary sport packages "M" anymore.

As for my favorite... Mercedes-Benz CL65AMG

I'm gonna give the nod here to the M-Tune by BMW. If you were to buy either an AMG or an M car, it's because you want something sporty and fast, otherwise you'd just save your money and buy a regular car in either company's lineup. As performance cars BMWs are generally better cars across the board than Mercedes cars. BMW's products tend to be sport-oriented anyhow, so the M-tuning is just icing on the cake. A CLS55 AMG is slightly out-gunned by the M5, on the basis of handling (which is BMW's biggest strength), and these are equivalent cars. The SL cars aren't really much of sports cars so much as they are luxury cars. Even the big SL65 AMG, which would kill anything that ever came out of Japan, most of the US performance cars, and utterly embarrass most Euro-sports in a straight line - it handles kinda heavy and sluggish, and unstable. However, an M-tuned car of equal stature to the SL65 would ALREADY handle better before it was tuned, and then become a whole lot faster.

In terms of what AMG and M set out to do in the first place, you have to look at the cars they are working with, and the principle the manufacturers use in building their cars. Mercedes is luxury first, sports second. BMW is the other way around. So, in terms of making a car faster and handle sportier BMW is already ahead of the game. M cars handle more like their track counterparts, with a bunch more horsepower than they had before. AMGs have to make their cars not handle so sluggishly, which is hard to do with a heavy car.

Here's another way to look at it: AMG has to pull magic out of its hat to make their cars acceptable as performance cars (which they do quite well). As a company measured on what they actually DO, AMG appears better than M because of the techno-wizardry they can, and do, perform. M cars are better performance cars, but AMG is the more advanced company.

On a closed track, a properly tuned M3 will destroy the best AMG has to offer. This can't really be disputed, seeing as how the M3 has been doing just that to EVERYBODY in class for the past 25 years in the Grand Touring series. It will even give the SLR McLaren (which ISN'T AMG tuned at all, but built by McLaren [hence the name], which is of course, owned by BMW) a run for its money.

I find your statement regarding the SL65 AMG to be false, what about the R35 Skyline GT-R (including the V-Spec and Nismo tune (the Nissan GT-R)) and the NSX? What about Japanese prototype and race spec cars?

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

That's the only exception. The SL65s have been known to clock 3.7s. As for me, I like the fact that AMG really builds muscle cars... you know, high torque and high horsepower. With that said, I think I'd have to go with M. Although I like AMGs styling better, and overall engines, Ms are a little more hardcore, with a simple fact that they ride harder and still come equipped with manual gearboxes (optional). I really like AMGs, don't get me wrong, but to me they're a little too high on price and luxury, whereas BMW focuses in on the performance aspect.

Haha, in order to completely contradict myself, my favorite out of all of these is the MB C63 AMG. That car is just really classy... not to mention acceleration like a first gen viper...

__________________
2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
4.6L DOHC V8 - 6 speed manual
520rwhp - 525rwtq at 16psi on stock blower
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual

someone show do like a comparision post,comparing prices and output

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

2009 BMW M3 (rsportscars.com)

Specifications
Brakes & Tires
Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/vented disc
Driveline: Rear Wheel Drive
Tires F-R: 245/40 ZR18 - 265/40 ZR18
Engine
Displacement cu in (cc): 244 (3999)
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 414(308) / 8300
Redline at RPM: 8400
Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 295(400) / 3900
Type: V8
Exterior Dimensions & Weight
Length × Width × Height in: 181.7 × 71.6 × 55.8
Weight lb (kg): 3648 (1655)
Performance
Acceleration 0-60 mph s: 4.6
Fuel Economy EPA city/highway mpg (l/100 km): n.a. (12.4)
Top Speed mph (km/h): 155 (250) - electronically limited

2009 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG

Specifications
Brakes & Tires
Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/vented disc
Driveline: Rear Wheel Drive
Tires F-R: 235/40 ZR18 - 255/35 ZR18
Engine
Displacement cu in (cc): 379 (6208)
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 457(336) / 6800
Redline at RPM: n.a.
Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 443(600) / 5000
Type: V8
Exterior Dimensions & Weight
Length × Width × Height in: 186.1 × 70.7 × 56.6
Weight lb (kg): 3813 (1730)
Performance
Acceleration 0-60 mph s: 4.3
Fuel Economy EPA city/highway mpg (l/100 km): n.a.
Top Speed mph (km/h): 155 (250) - electronically limited



I know for a fact that Car and Driver has clocked a 4.2 on the new M3, and a 3.9 on the C63, but there are some rough stats for you.

__________________
2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
4.6L DOHC V8 - 6 speed manual
520rwhp - 525rwtq at 16psi on stock blower
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual

I would take the C63 AMG, isn't there a Black Edition one also?

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

No there's a CLK63 Black.. but no C63 Black... yet.

__________________
2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
4.6L DOHC V8 - 6 speed manual
520rwhp - 525rwtq at 16psi on stock blower
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual

what is the difference between the C63 and CLK63?

__________________
Keep feeding me your denial and hate, from that I will create

Well, aside from the obvious, the C is a 4-door sedan, maybe the size of a 3 series sedan, whereas the CLK is a coupe, similar to the M6.

__________________
2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
4.6L DOHC V8 - 6 speed manual
520rwhp - 525rwtq at 16psi on stock blower
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual