Car and Driver 2012 M3 ZCP vs. 2012 C63 AMG coupe

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

If you will track the car the I think the M3 is the better option. While AMG has gotten better with steering feel, braking and so forth is still a bit like a luxury musclecar. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Just curious how much seat time you have in a 2012 C63 to make this comment or if it is based on older models or what you have read? I ask because I own an M3 and have spent time with a 2012 C63 coupe on the track and the difference in feel is not significant. True, the M3 is still the more precise car but to call the C63 a "luxury musclecar" is uniformed and I suspect you have no real seat time to back this up. The 2012 cars are VERY new to the market and many who "speculate" do so based on what they hear on internet forums, a preconceived bias or what they read relative to older model reviews.

The C63 does have more of a musclecar feel because of the power/torque but it is also a very refined and balanced car with great steering feel (more feedback than the M3 in my opinion) and is a capable track car. M3 is still a tick better for sure but it is damn close.

[SROC5]

Article says, C63 "Lows:
Unpredictable breakaway behavior, lots of mass, looks like a Honda Accord coupe but costs three times as much."

All factors that I agree are solid remarks, and are major points why I wouldn't go with the C63. The engine is definitely amazing for Merc, but I wish they skinned it better and attached it to a chassis that didn't have that "unpredictable" nature to it. What a waste.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by SROC5

Article says, C63 "Lows:
Unpredictable breakaway behavior, lots of mass, looks like a Honda Accord coupe but costs three times as much."

All factors that I agree are solid remarks, and are major points why I wouldn't go with the C63. The engine is definitely amazing for Merc, but I wish they skinned it better and attached it to a chassis that didn't have that "unpredictable" nature to it. What a waste.

The "unpredictability" comment is a relative thing, let's not overstate this based on what you read. The C63 has a higher propensity to oversteer due to the huge torque but it is only marginally more "unpredictable" than the M3. Also, the C63 comes standard with anemic Continental tires... replace these (as most would anyway) with wider and grippier tires and the unpredictability issue becomes irrelevant. It is already irrelevant on the street.

[soberin]

Originally Posted by gthal

Just curious how much seat time you have in a 2012 C63 to make this comment or if it is based on older models or what you have read? I ask because I own an M3 and have spent time with a 2012 C63 coupe on the track and the difference in feel is not significant. True, the M3 is still the more precise car but to call the C63 a "luxury musclecar" is uniformed and I suspect you have no real seat time to back this up. The 2012 cars are VERY new to the market and many who "speculate" do so based on what they hear on internet forums, a preconceived bias or what they read relative to older model reviews.

The C63 does have more of a musclecar feel because of the power/torque but it is also a very refined and balanced car with great steering feel (more feedback than the M3 in my opinion) and is a capable track car. M3 is still a tick better for sure but it is damn close.

A very astute post. I drive a 2009 E90 with a Dinan stage III suspension, plus rear toe links, intake and exhaust. I have posted many times here my problems with the lack of steering feedback and feel in the E90, due to a design flaw in the steering system, including, but not limited to, much too much overboost. This has been widely confirmed by many motoring journals.

I have not driven the newest C63, only the 2009, which had zero steering feel--totally numb. How much better do you really think the C63 is now compared to the M3?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by soberin

How much better do you really think the C63 is now compared to the M3?

I would probably not say "better" but very comparable with, what I perceived to be, slightly better road feedback through the steering wheel. However, steering feel is, IMO, somewhat subjective so others may have a different view.

[DocJohn]

Not to enter the debate,
but did you guys look online and download the "test sheets" that are hand written??

I always like to see the raw data, as well as hand-written comments from the test driver.

You can download nearly every car they have tested for a few years. Sometimes there is more to see on that form than the actual article.

On one of them, the driver was testing top speed (can't remember the car), and he said something like, "car jumped 5 feet sideways with strong wind. I'll trust that it can do 180 mph"

Priceless!!!

[manari06]

Just got stationed in germany and can't wait to sell my E92 335I and order an E92 M3!!!!!

[Ateam]

Wonder where Hot is who chimes in on every c63 thread with wrong info. This time when the info is proven and visible he is not around. 444 pounds heavier that porker c63

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Ateam

444 pounds heavier that porker c63

... and over 1 second faster to 100 mph
... and 4 seconds faster to 150mph ... that`s like a football field
... and trapping 6mph faster in the quarter mile

Just saying...

On this point... I think C&D have it wrong. Specs for the M3 per BMW is 3,704lbs (confirmed by Wikipedia too). Specs for the C63 per MB is 3,935lbs. So, 231lbs in the difference and not 444. Not sure where C&D came up with their numbers but they don`t jive with posted specs for the cars based on what I can see (and there is no way they actually weigh each car). Still, it is too bad MB couldnt have shaved a couple of hundred pounds (i.e. lose the glass panaramic roof). Had they, the C63 would be an even beastier beast.

[NavM3]

It seems like C63 should have been won the comparison. They deducted one point for its looks, looking too much like an accord. C63 is clearly the better performer on the street unless you go to track. But then again, what percentage of M owners or AMG owners go to the track to race each other.

[AMPowerJ]

No they are 19s but I am pretty sure they would clear your Brembos.

[Ateam]

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=1#post2864774

Again I will post this. Swamp weighed his m3 and WITHOUT a driver it came in at 3600 or so. (his is weighed with a driver and notes he is about 180 pounds so subtract that from the weight.

Same scales same day show the c63 at 4000 pounds without the driver. It had a full tank of gas however and the m3 had a quarter tank so for comparison lets make c63 about 3950 since half tank of gas is about 50 pounds.

So 3600 v. 3950? That is 350. No way to argue that.

Then if you look on the merc website, they list BOTH the c63 coupe and sedan weighing nearly identical at 3930's so you cannot say the coupe weighs so much less than sedan like some says. So its probably a good 300 pounds difference.

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/?lang=usa#/c63-coupe-specs

[clar]

Originally Posted by Ateam

Wonder where Hot is who chimes in on every c63 thread with wrong info. This time when the info is proven and visible he is not around. 444 pounds heavier that porker c63

I think she is prob banned again. It's quite uncharacteristic of her to be so silent for so long. That shift red character seems to be banished as well. Good riddance.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Ateam

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=1#post2864774

Again I will post this. Swamp weighed his m3 and WITHOUT a driver it came in at 3600 or so. (his is weighed with a driver and notes he is about 180 pounds so subtract that from the weight.

Same scales same day show the c63 at 4000 pounds without the driver. It had a full tank of gas however and the m3 had a quarter tank so for comparison lets make c63 about 3950 since half tank of gas is about 50 pounds.

So 3600 v. 3950? That is 350. No way to argue that.

Then if you look on the merc website, they list BOTH the c63 coupe and sedan weighing nearly identical at 3930's so you cannot say the coupe weighs so much less than sedan like some says. So its probably a good 300 pounds difference.

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/?lang=usa#/c63-coupe-specs

My point was that the difference is not as large based on BMW's own specs which show a higher weight. Anyway, I don't want to debate this because it doesn't really matter as the results are the results but wanted to point out the discrepancy.

From experience, the C63 does not feel notably heavier... maybe slightly heavier... than the M3. On the street, the difference would be very, very slight. I drove my M3 to the airport last Monday, drove a C63 on the track the next day (and have many track days in my M3) and could not perceive a meaningful weight difference. Maybe if I drove them back to back on the track I could have. What this tells me is that for 95% of us arm chair race experts, the difference in "perceived" weight, especially on the street, would not be a huge factor.

But it really comes down to preference. A lighter M3 that has a handling advantage on the track (but less than pre-2012 cars) or the C63 with lots of power and still very strong handling. Looks are subjective. 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.

[rantarM3]

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.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

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.

Completely agree except change M3 sedan to M3 coupe.

[Ateam]

Typically with today's technology you are not going to "feel" 400 pounds of weight if well masked with cool suspension and electronics however it nonetheless effects the cars performance and ability to handle, brake and accelerate even if you do not feel it. If the c63 weighed 400 pounds less it would completely obliterate the m3 and since this is not the case the m3 which has much less power has been able to largely hang due to this difference. So its a big difference but of course you will not "feel" the weight, rather you feel it in the measures of handling etc.

My point was Hot said they required a lighter car to come back to the m3-m3 was too heavy. Then gets a c63 that weighs 400 pounds more. Just stupid and makes no sense.

Id love a c63 no doubt. Might be a better car as I have not had enough time in one. Personally there will be many low-end torque monsters for years to come from every brand-all future m's, mercs etc. However will likely never be another NA v8 with 8400 rpms and a dct. To me it was about experiencing that before its gone. Not better but definetly unique and worth experiencing IMO

[BMRLVR]

One key reason I wouldn't be able to own the C63 as a sports coupe/sedan is the fact that there is no manual transmission option.

As far as looks, interior and engine go I think the C63 is a very nice car and given it had a manual I wouldn't mind owning one.

One thing is for sure, every car magazine article and television show published/produced since 2008 can't be wrong on the fact that the M3 is the more engaging/better drivers car. If anyone can find me a magazine article or television show where the C63 (or IS-F or RS4 for that matter) has been declared the better car I would love to have see it!

[klammer]

would have to agree with some previous assessments about the differences and think gthal has hit it right on the money. Have only seen 1 amg on track, same c63 at 2 different events, and think that for most the c63 might be what the Dr. ordered, however, for me, I love my M and wouldn't trade it for ANYTHING right now. They're both awesome cars

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Ateam

Typically with today's technology you are not going to "feel" 400 pounds of weight if well masked with cool suspension and electronics however it nonetheless effects the cars performance and ability to handle, brake and accelerate even if you do not feel it. If the c63 weighed 400 pounds less it would completely obliterate the m3 and since this is not the case the m3 which has much less power has been able to largely hang due to this difference. So its a big difference but of course you will not "feel" the weight, rather you feel it in the measures of handling etc.

My point was Hot said they required a lighter car to come back to the m3-m3 was too heavy. Then gets a c63 that weighs 400 pounds more. Just stupid and makes no sense.

Id love a c63 no doubt. Might be a better car as I have not had enough time in one. Personally there will be many low-end torque monsters for years to come from every brand-all future m's, mercs etc. However will likely never be another NA v8 with 8400 rpms and a dct. To me it was about experiencing that before its gone. Not better but definetly unique and worth experiencing IMO

Ateam... Got to say I agree here.

Don't ever get me wrong, the M3 is a stunning car and I love mine completely. It is a particularly great car when paired with the DCT (IMO only). I believe it is still the better car in many ways.

[KTM505SX]

No surprises here,M3's been wining shootouts since the first one left the factory back in 2007.The fact that it's still widely preferred by journalists,speaks volumes on the design and engineering behind it,4 years after the fact! And nothing will change next year when they do another shootout with the same old M3 and the ''new and revised'' AMG!

[BMoney]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

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.

I would definitely agree with the tranny. I have a 2010 C63 and the tranny blows compared to the DCT. I hear the MCT is better but it's still not a true dual clutch. I hope AMG drops one in the next gen C63...if not I'll probably go back to an M3. My tires are wearing fast but not too bad really. My rears have 12K currently and can probably make it to 15K before they have to go!