Why I went from M3 to C63 to M3, then the C63 again. What about you? Why?

[assuck]

sweet ride. im seriously jealous

[spearfisher]

nice, very nice, make sure you post when you unleash more HP with a software tweak, remember you have the same engine that comes in the E63 and CLS63, to get the engine over 500 HP, all is required is a flash of the ECU

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by ///M-Turismo

Of course I can use it. I can use it when I am at a stop light, and is able to gas it till 80-100mph in such a short time while feeling the amazing hp and torque. I can use it when I go 140-150+, and maybe even 175 on the freeway. I know some may think it's dangerous, but a man has got to go wild sometimes! Don't tell me you never went 120-130+ with your BMW on the freeway. I went 135 (top speed) with my 335i, and I am pretty sure a M3 or C63 can go even higher and with less effort. BTW, the track is where you can't really feel the power of the car, because you have to slow down and turn before you get to high speed. Drag race is a different story. Freeway is actually where the power can be unleashed. Without getting caught by the cops of course. I love both cars, just saying why I will pick the C63. It's interior is better than the M3's, it's more fun because of the hp and torque, and it's actually a better performer unless you are a track guy. Just my opinions of course.

The freeway in LA and a stop light downtown or in Santa Monica??? Even further out on the PCH...excessive speeds are dangerous...

I would much more prefer the M in the canyons...or say on Mulholland...much safer and more fun...

Actually, the track is exactly where you can feel the power, especially coming out of a turn...

Looks and fun factor, are subjective...

In the end, to each their own...

[ihyln]

I took a stroll through mbworld last night. Their forums seem.. I don't know, quite calm. I can totally sense a lack of enthusiasm over there.

[Keto]

Originally Posted by ihyln

I took a stroll through mbworld last night. Their forums seem.. I don't know, quite calm. I can totally sense a lack of enthusiasm over there.

I always thought various BMW-hating trolls and the like stuck around M3 forums because of various personality disorders, but maybe they are just attracted to a bunch of car enthusiasts with an active forum. I'd think you'd get the same from Porsche, but I don't hang out at their forums...

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by ihyln

I took a stroll through mbworld last night. Their forums seem.. I don't know, quite calm. I can totally sense a lack of enthusiasm over there.

it's an older crowd, a silver Mercedes sedan is the last car you get before you get a hearse.

[tabolau]

Congrats, you can't really go wrong with either a M3 or C63, my friend got his White C63 last week and it is pretty loud. I really like the seats in the C63, very good looking and comfortable.

[bmwprince4life]

disgrace man i cant believe this lol jk man
hey congrats man
hope u enjoy it

[bmwprince4life]

plz post vids everyone is lazy at doin that lol
congrats

[JEllis]

As far as the C63 goes, its a great performer. Looks wise, it looks like a C class with a crazy front bumper. I have no idea why Merc didnt widen the rear and only the front.

Anyways, looks nice!

Jason

[BMW3R]

I like the car. Congrats! I am still sitting here waiting for allocation for a M3 DCT sedan which makes me want to look seriously at the C63. I did call the MB dealership and they don't have C63s on the lot and it would still be a couple of months to get the car, so I will keep sitting around waiting for BMW to make the DCT sedan available in my area.

[M3NTAL]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis

congrats, like a ferrari or louder? hmmm

This is what I thought too. I test drove one over two days. I wouldn't ever put it in the same category as a Ferrari, ever. Maybe a Corvette, Mustang, or some other American muscle car,but definitely not a Ferrari. I have driven most modern Ferraris back to the GTO(1984), so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass.

Have fun with the C63 man, I really thought about buying one, but it wasn't for me, it could be for you though!

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by JEllis

As far as the C63 goes, its a great performer. Looks wise, it looks like a C class with a crazy front bumper. I have no idea why Merc didnt widen the rear and only the front.

Anyways, looks nice!

Jason

The "looks" topic is an interesting one.

The same people who don't notice the differences between a C63 and a C350 are the same people who don't notice the difference between an E92 M3 and a E92 335i.

335i: No hood bulge, dual exhaust, non-flared fenders, less aggressive front fascia, etc.

M3: Hood buldge, aggressive front fascia, quad exhaust, flared fenders, etc.

C350: No hood buldge, dual exhaust, non-flared fenders, less aggressive front fascia, etc.

C63: Twin bulges running the length of the hood, quad exhaust, flared fenders, more aggressive front fascia, etc.

Those who sort of know their cars will both notice the ///M Badge and the AMG badge.

To enthusiasts like us, it is easy to spot the differences between all of the cars.

Personally, I think BOTH cars look OUTSTANDING! I have seen both of them in person. The M3 has a sleek but intimidating presence. The C63 is a little meaner looking. Both look like they mean business though, bottom line.

[bmwprince4life]

thats not true you cant tell at alll between a regular C and amg C.but m3 its totally different then 335.
My gf can tell diff from 335 and m3 but not in C class amg and regular and obviously shes a girl and most girls dont know jack about cars.

[Robert]

I'd pick the C63 as DD as well and make the 135i as a track car.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by bmwprince4life

thats not true you cant tell at alll between a regular C and amg C.but m3 its totally different then 335.
My gf can tell diff from 335 and m3 but not in C class amg and regular and obviously shes a girl and most girls dont know jack about cars.

You seriously can't tell the difference between a C63 AMG and a regular C yourself?

LMAO at your example. According to your logic: My girlfriend can't tell the difference between a C63 and a C350, but she can tell the difference between a 335i and an M3 so that must hold true for EVERYONE.

That is one of the silliest things I have read in a while.

[SHADY1]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

The "looks" topic is an interesting one.

The same people who don't notice the differences between a C63 and a C350 are the same people who don't notice the difference between an E92 M3 and a E92 335i.

335i: No hood bulge, dual exhaust, non-flared fenders, less aggressive front fascia, etc.

M3: Hood buldge, aggressive front fascia, quad exhaust, flared fenders, etc.

C350: No hood buldge, dual exhaust, non-flared fenders, less aggressive front fascia, etc.

C63: Twin bulges running the length of the hood, quad exhaust, flared fenders, more aggressive front fascia, etc.

Those who sort of know their cars will both notice the ///M Badge and the AMG badge.

To enthusiasts like us, it is easy to spot the differences between all of the cars.

Personally, I think BOTH cars look OUTSTANDING! I have seen both of them in person. The M3 has a sleek but intimidating presence. The C63 is a little meaner looking. Both look like they mean business though, bottom line.

+1 good call guy good call

[eNCore]

Originally Posted by rai

you won't be the first person to pick the AMG over the M3. Clearly all people value things different. I owned a S2000 for nearly 6 years. when most people would not consider living with one as a DD.

It's truly great you (we) have such great cars to pick from and in this price range $60K I think we are blessed to live in a country and at a certain place in time where these cars are quite affordable to many.

I hope people don't think the M3 is the best or only car that's in the universe. We do happen to love the M3 here but I for one do not feel it so much better than the ISF, Z06, GTR, C63 etc. the list goes on.

I prefer the low-TQ high-RPM characteristics of the M3 (if you want to call 300-lb 'low TQ', I don't)

I am from the school of thought where TQ is just a factor related to HP meaning even if you have low-ish TQ but you are turning 8000+ RPMs you are going to move. I recall driving the GT3 and F430 both not far off the TQ in the M3. You could not put me into a 500-TQ car over one of those 290-340 TQ cars.

For me speed/power/TQ are not my main reason to buy the M3, in the type of driving I do on public roads. I do not wish for massivly powerful cars to drive when my speed limit is 65 (really 95) and my side roads (real world) speed is probably not any more than 65 MPH. I do not wish to get a big speeding ticket.

I am just pointing out that big-TQ numbers are not the end all and be all of performance cars, when F1 cars have less TQ than your C63 you can realize there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I agree, nice comments. M3 is very nice, but it is not the best car or only choice out there. I mean I might end up getting a M3 instead of C63. I am still deciding, and will make my choice in Dec. I got a question though; I understand what torque does, but what exactly does high rpm do?

[bmwprince4life]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

You seriously can't tell the difference between a C63 AMG and a regular C yourself?

LMAO at your example. According to your logic: My girlfriend can't tell the difference between a C63 and a C350, but she can tell the difference between a 335i and an M3 so that must hold true for EVERYONE.

That is one of the silliest things I have read in a while.

I am using that as an example because she is a girl and most girls are clueless about cars, and I never said that I am holding it true for everyone,as you just assumed that. Second I CAN tell the difference between the two but I wouldnt want ppl mistaken me for driving a c350 when indeed its a C AMG. I notice differences in all performance vs. regular cars thank you.
Currently many times ppl tell me that I drive an M6 when I drive a 645ci, I do tell them after that its just a 6 series and not an m6 but I would not want that the other way around if I was in a C class. Same thing on the road, I would want people to know I am driving a fast car so they can challenge me to race. I wouldnt want people to think I am driving a $30000 car vs. a $60000 AMG which is a big difference. Thats like saying people see me with a Gucci wallet and cant tell if its fake as it looks almost the same as original. Also, in cali there are so many cars with AMG badge and dont have shit on it but the badge. That adds another group of ppl to think its another fake AMG, unless they spot the exhaust and know how a real one looks.As you can tell my image in front of ppl is important to me and that is my opinion. If you dont think that then so be it

[jm1234]

Originally Posted by ///M-Turismo

I got a question though; I understand what torque does, but what exactly does high rpm do?

If your engine can rev to 8400 rpm then you can apply a higher rear diff ratio and get more wheel torque for less wheel revolutions per engine rotation. But, since the engine will rev higher you wind up shifting at the same speed with higher torque.

Here's an Example:
Imagine an engine with a redline at 6,000 rpm that produces 200 ft-lb of torque across the entire range. Imagine two drivetrain configurations, neither with any transmission, only a rear diff. One has a rear diff ratio of 2 and the other 3. The car with the rear diff ratio of 2 would produce 400 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque and the rear wheels would spin at a max rate of 3,000 rpm. The car with the rear diff ratio of 3 would produce 600 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque and the rear wheels would spin at a max rate of 2,000 rpm. Now take the engine in the car with the rear diff ratio of 3 and make it have a 9,000 rpm redline. Take the car with the rear diff ratio of 2 and make it have 300 ft-lbs of torque. Now both cars produce the exact same rear wheel torque and max speed but with completely different engines and rear diff ratios.

Car 1
200 ft-lbs and 9,000 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 3

Car 2
300 ft-lbs and 6,000 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 2

Same rear wheel performance dynamics.

M3
300 ft-lbs and 8400 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 3.846
1,153.8 ft-lbs peak rear wheel torque (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear) and 2,184 rear wheel rpm (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear)

C63
443 ft-lbs and 7200 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 2.83
1,253.9 ft-lbs peak rear wheel torque (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear) and 2,544 rear wheel rpm (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear)

The C63 transmission is geared a little higher in gears 1-4 (compared to the M3) and a little lower in 6 (compared to the M3). Which puts even more torque to the rear wheels in lower gears but moves the per gear redline speeds (in mph) much closer to those in the M3. Sixth gear has much closer torque to the M3 in exchange for greater wheel speed. Not sure that makes sense from a performance standpoint, but that is what they did (or I have the wrong numbers).

I have yet to see the C63 torque curve but from the performance I imagine that the C63 has a much more peaky torque curve which mitigates some of the perceived shift/torque advantage it might seem to have from this simple comparison. Also the M3 has a very flat torque curve which works in it's favor.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I f'd this up.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by bmwprince4life

I am using that as an example because she is a girl and most girls are clueless about cars, and I never said that I am holding it true for everyone,as you just assumed that. Second I CAN tell the difference between the two but I wouldnt want ppl mistaken me for driving a c350 when indeed its a C AMG. I notice differences in all performance vs. regular cars thank you.
Currently many times ppl tell me that I drive an M6 when I drive a 645ci, I do tell them after that its just a 6 series and not an m6 but I would not want that the other way around if I was in a C class. Same thing on the road, I would want people to know I am driving a fast car so they can challenge me to race. I wouldnt want people to think I am driving a $30000 car vs. a $60000 AMG which is a big difference. Thats like saying people see me with a Gucci wallet and cant tell if its fake as it looks almost the same as original. Also, in cali there are so many cars with AMG badge and dont have shit on it but the badge. That adds another group of ppl to think its another fake AMG, unless they spot the exhaust and know how a real one looks.As you can tell my image in front of ppl is important to me and that is my opinion. If you dont think that then so be it

I like this post better than your initial one.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by SHADY1

+1 good call guy good call

Thank you sir!

Originally Posted by jm1234

If your engine can rev to 8400 rpm then you can apply a higher rear diff ratio and get more wheel torque for less wheel revolutions per engine rotation. But, since the engine will rev higher you wind up shifting at the same speed with higher torque.

Here's an Example:
Imagine an engine with a redline at 6,000 rpm that produces 200 ft-lb of torque across the entire range. Imagine two drivetrain configurations, neither with any transmission, only a rear diff. One has a rear diff ratio of 2 and the other 3. The car with the rear diff ratio of 2 would produce 400 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque and the rear wheels would spin at a max rate of 3,000 rpm. The car with the rear diff ratio of 3 would produce 600 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque and the rear wheels would spin at a max rate of 2,000 rpm. Now take the engine in the car with the rear diff ratio of 3 and make it have a 9,000 rpm redline. Take the car with the rear diff ratio of 2 and make it have 300 ft-lbs of torque. Now both cars produce the exact same rear wheel torque and max speed but with completely different engines and rear diff ratios.

Car 1
200 ft-lbs and 9,000 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 3

Car 2
300 ft-lbs and 6,000 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 2

Same rear wheel performance dynamics.

M3
300 ft-lbs and 8400 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 3.846
1,153.8 ft-lbs peak rear wheel torque (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear) and 2,184 rear wheel rpm (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear)

C63
443 ft-lbs and 7200 rpm redline with rear diff ratio of 2.83
1,253.9 ft-lbs peak rear wheel torque (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear) and 2,544 rear wheel rpm (sans transmission gearing or 5th gear)

The C63 transmission is geared a little higher in gears 1-4 (compared to the M3) and a little lower in 6 (compared to the M3). Which puts even more torque to the rear wheels in lower gears but moves the per gear redline speeds (in mph) much closer to those in the M3. Sixth gear has much closer torque to the M3 in exchange for greater wheel speed. Not sure that makes sense from a performance standpoint, but that is what they did (or I have the wrong numbers).

I have yet to see the C63 torque curve but from the performance I imagine that the C63 has a much more peaky torque curve which mitigates some of the perceived shift/torque advantage it might seem to have from this simple comparison. Also the M3 has a very flat torque curve which works in it's favor.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I f'd this up.

Dang man thank you for taking the time to write that up!