Originally Posted by gthal
The character of the cars are closer than many who have not driven both would realize... there are clear differences, no doubt, but they are very comparable cars performance wise. Which someone chooses will be less based on performance (as you can see from the review, they are similar overall but each has its strengths) and more based on preference.
I have said it already and I believe it to be true based on my actual seat time... if you track often, the M3 is still the better car. If you don't track often (<10 days a year) or not at all, the C63 is the better choice for the street as the performance is easier to extract and the immediate torque would a ton of fun. Beyond that, emotion, preference, fanboyism (on both sides) and perceived image will determine what someone chooses. You really can't go wrong with either car.
Right on the money. Both cars are fantastic with the difference being how AMG/MB and M/BMW each execute their version of "performance coupes/sedans." Each car has its particular feel and that's where an owner's choice comes in. I had a C63 sedan and just picked up my M3 sedan. While I obviously don't have as much seat time in the M3, I prefer its feel over that of the C63. But that does not mean one is better than the other.
The preceived difference may be that the M cars are generally easier to push towards their limits because of the lower torque whereas the AMG cars, with their 6.2's (or 5.5 TT's), need to be driven with some restraint - especially when accelerating through turns.
I did find two things really annoying about the C63. One was the the slowness of the tranny and the second was the rate at which it consumed rear tires (~5k miles per set). The new MCT may have resolved the laggy tranny issue (have not test driven a new C63) and the tire wear rate is just a trade off for the crazy torque. But it got old having to go to the shop every six months to get new tires.