I did a non-scientific comparison test and recorded some dialog (me talking) in a car (Volvo 850).
One file is while parking with no engine running, the other file is while driving (50kmh and 100kmh).
I have tested:
All mics were mounted on the drivers sun-visor but the CUB01 which was mounted between the sun visors on a hard surface.
All mics were transmitted with Zaxcom ZMTs.
Both Schoeps with a ZMT4 (on 45V).
DPA4097, 4098 and Sanken CUB01 on a ZMT3 (3V)
DPA4063 on a ZMT3phantomV2 (3V)
The Schoeps microphones are my first choice on every dialog scene - why should it be any different when recording dialog in a car?
With no engine running the lower noise floor on the Schoeps mics is quite obvious and for me one of the reasons to go with these mics whenever I can.
In the past that sometimes was a bit of a problem, because the CCM needs a cable, which needs to be hidden from camera.
Ever done a low-rider day depending on day light? Every minutes count.
Here comes the new CMC1SO preamp on a gooseneck-arm. Again it needs 48V but with Zaxcom´s new ZMT4 (or ZMT3phantom) it’s a perfect match.
No cables needed. Just tape the transmitter on top of the sun visor and sound is ready to roll.
I noticed the CMC1SO produces a bit more low frequency rumbling while driving than the CCM. But with a bit of roll-off in post (or on your mixer) this won’t be a problem. In fact you can use the Schoeps low cut (CUT60) with the CMC1SO and get rid of the rumbling before it hits the preamp avoiding any overload or hitting the limiter.
Both the DPA4097 and 4098 are very handy microphones. The higher noisefloor is covered from the engine / street noise.
Again: in situations without the engine running I would prefer the Schoeps microphones.
If you need a small mic that covers a wider area the CUB01 is an „OK“ tool. It needs a hard surface to be mounted on because its a PZM-mic.
With Schoeps you can also vary the polar pattern by using a different capsule on the CMC1SO and go with a cardioid (MK4) instead or even wider.
All the best, Matthias