C63 coupe Review

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

A fully loaded C63 AMG Coupe in the US costs $83,xxx.

and a fully loaded M-3 cost $86,337 plus tax plus registration= mid 90's

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...LmJ6UxOauWNw==

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

0-60 in 3.7 seconds? I'm sorry but that's a first.

It is what it is. Take it or leave it but don't lie to yourself, it is there tested and proved. 3.7 sec 0-60, 12.1@117mph. Can you do it better? exactly!!

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Um, the sound of that exhaust is terrible...


...and you guys complain about the exhaust note on current BMW's???? Uhhhhh!

Is not terrible, it is just diferent. From factory you can only rev it to 4000 rpm in park or neutral, it is done to prevent some engine damage.
The exhaust and engine note is deep, just very different to having a high pitch or having to wait until 5500 rpms to get any torque.

No need to rev that high, it puts real torque and real power much sooner...

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by Ateam

The shifts sound super quick thought

Because it is quick!

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

Well, if I'm honest, I love the C63. If it had a manual I might have bought one over my M3. However, it's still nowhere near as balanced, but the AMG is a true hoon-mobile as an every day car. I love it. Hat's off to Mercedes for doing a proper job.

Just remember, order yours with a limited-slip diff. Otherwise, you'll just spin and spin and spin whenever you're playing around.

The transmission actually locks the torque converter in all 7 gears. You can actually take off burning both rear tires. I agree though that it should come with rear LSD rom actory though but look at what brakes BMW puts on the M-3, they look chinese cheap built even though the car actually stops well.


This whole thing about BMW and C63 is a back and forth personal opinions. Some people purchased a M-3 because of slightly better handling. Some people purchase C63 for better seats, some people purchased M-3 for being able to have a 6 speed manual transmission, others prefer the 7 Speedshit plus transmission from the benz.

Like I said, there is a compromise between the two. I walked away with a well loaded C63 for $53000(with $5000 in options). I had a great deal from USAA, Mercedes headquarters offers thousands in disccounts for USAA members.

BMW offers free maintenance. We can keep going on an on. One brand offers something that the other don't.

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by flitcroft

Interesting. I drove the C63 before buying the M3 and absolutely hated it. There's so much body roll and that plasticky, cheap interior with the pop-up navigation killed it for me.

The M-3 is very spartan to me interior wise, I still like it. I think that you are exagerating. I meet many M-3 owners that told me that love my C-63 and that they were 50-50 about a C63 and a M-3.

All cars in the world have body roll. There is a compromise between comfort, body roll, performance. It is OK to have some boddy roll.

What is wrong with the navigation pop up? many many cars have it that way.
99% of the cars in the market use plastics for their interiors unless you drive a Roll Royce or Maybach or some Lambo with Suede dash.

Be more realistic my friend, don't just be a hater without a good solid reason. I have seen much worst interiors like my 2008 C6 Z06 with much more shitier seats and dash.

[Evo8MRto335I]

Originally Posted by karussell

i configured one online and it came out to over $80K. along with weighing 2 tons and driving with a few on the autobahn here I don't think its worth it.

2 tons? wow!! Have you attended school ever? 2 tons is 4400lbs.. really? where did you get the 2 tons? The article says 3804lbs which is 1,729 kilos. From 1729 to 2 tons there is a 281 kilos gap (618lbs). You see what I mean? why would someone want to believe you with your inacurate statements?


The M-3 that I configurated here cost $86,337. Add tax+registration= mid $90s

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...LmJ6UxOauWNw==

Be more realistic and don't lie to yourself...

[VegasEgg]

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

2 tons? wow!! Have you attended school ever? 2 tons is 4400lbs.. really? where did you get the 2 tons? The article says 3804lbs which is 1,729 kilos. From 1729 to 2 tons there is a 281 kilos gap (618lbs). You see what I mean? why would someone want to believe you with your inacurate statements?


The M-3 that I configurated here cost $86,337. Add tax+registration= mid $90s

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...LmJ6UxOauWNw==

Be more realistic and don't lie to yourself...

Isn't 2 tons 4000 lbs? 2000 kilos is 4400 lbs

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

and a fully loaded M-3 cost $86,337 plus tax plus registration= mid 90's

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...LmJ6UxOauWNw==

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

It is what it is. Take it or leave it but don't lie to yourself, it is there tested and proved. 3.7 sec 0-60, 12.1@117mph. Can you do it better? exactly!!

Woah, calm down there buddy. No need to go on the offensive and get your panties in a bunch. Nobody is dissing your precious C63 AMG. Many here actually like me praise it. Get rid of the attitude. I never said anything about it not being able to do it. I simply stated it was a first. Instead of being an ass, why don't you go learn how to use the multi-quote feature? What are you loading the M3 up with?

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Both cars are EQUALLY LOADED







Looks to me the AMG is about 4k more expensive. No extended leather on either car. No extra accessories. I have no idea where you got your numbers from.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

Is not terrible, it is just diferent. From factory you can only rev it to 4000 rpm in park or neutral, it is done to prevent some engine damage.
The exhaust and engine note is deep, just very different to having a high pitch or having to wait until 5500 rpms to get any torque.

No need to rev that high, it puts real torque and real power much sooner...

It's terrible in MY opinion. It sounds like a Borla with a straight pipe on the chassis of an old Z28. I listened to the C63 race away; my opinion remains the same. All of the other information that you provided is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

The M-3 is very spartan to me interior wise, I still like it. I think that you are exagerating. I meet many M-3 owners that told me that love my C-63 and that they were 50-50 about a C63 and a M-3.

His opinion is HIS opinion. Other members opinions are THEIR opinions. You are in no place to state whether or not he is exaggerating.

Originally Posted by Evo8MRto335I

Be more realistic my friend, don't just be a hater without a good solid reason. I have seen much worst interiors like my 2008 C6 Z06 with much more shitier seats and dash.

The difference is that we EXPECT a Corvette to have less-than-appealing interior.

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

Both cars are EQUALLY LOADED


Looks to me the AMG is about 4k more expensive. No extended leather on either car. No extra accessories. I have no idea where you got your numbers from.

His ASS!

[jqsmooth]

Hot Ice, the MB looks pretty sweet from the buildup. I never thought that I'd like the MB. I think the number is plausible if it was a M3 convertible. I've seen high numbers like that on E93s, not coupes or sedans. Anyhoo, I never considered the C63 AMG but it looks nice and sounds like it goes fast.

[Ccarson]

To all you haters out there - you haven't driven one. I owned a 2009 and it was an awesome car. Just crack the throttle without traction control on and you had an awesome burnout. I weighed both at the time. M3 handles much better, but the sound and the usable torque is simply amazing.
That being said I am waiting for my 2011 m3 sedan - but I would never say anything bad about the c63 exept rear tire life was at best 5000 miles

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

Thanks, I know, his post is somewhat confusing. Here in Canada the price would be slightly over $90K (regardless if our dollar is higher then yours or not).

$90k?? No way. I have one quoted around $81,000 fully loaded, all in. That is $8,000 less than a fully loaded M3 and almost the same price as a fully loaded car in the US. Seems to me that Mercedes has a smaller price gap US to Canada than BMW does Makes buying a C63 in Canada to be a real bargain compared to the M3.

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Originally Posted by gthal

$90k?? No way. I have one quoted around $81,000 fully loaded, all in. That is $8,000 less than a fully loaded M3 and almost the same price as a fully loaded car in the US. Seems to me that Mercedes has a smaller price gap US to Canada than BMW does Makes buying a C63 in Canada to be a real bargain compared to the M3.

I must have been misinformed - thanks for the heads up I will check into that when I test drive one

BTW. I saw some photos of the 2012 dash on one the Navigation popped up like in my DD and on another it seams it is build in permanent as in the M3.

Have you driven one? and how is the Navigation Set up? as in the first or second photo?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

I must have been misinformed - thanks for the heads up I will check into that when I test drive one

BTW. I saw some photos of the 2012 dash on one the Navigation popped up like in my DD and on another it seams it is build in permanent as in the M3.

Have you driven one? and how is the Navigation Set up? as in the first or second photo?

The bottom picture is the 2012. The pop up nav is pre-2012. The 2012 interior is really, really nice. IMO, even nicer than the shots of the interior of the next generation 3 series (which the M will be very similar to). The 2012 C63 is ahead of both the current and next generation 3 series from the perspective of the interior IMO.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by Ccarson

To all you haters out there - you haven't driven one. I owned a 2009 and it was an awesome car. Just crack the throttle without traction control on and you had an awesome burnout. I weighed both at the time. M3 handles much better, but the sound and the usable torque is simply amazing.
That being said I am waiting for my 2011 m3 sedan - but I would never say anything bad about the c63 exept rear tire life was at best 5000 miles

- You really can't say much bad about the C63 or the C63amg, it's a great beast. I think the M3 just makes the driver feel more, and feel better, not to say the C63 doesn't feel good or a great track car...plenty of c63's at the track


I also, agree with Hot=Ice, the c63coupe is slated to be more expensive than the M3, but I think dealers might be more willing to 'deal'...we'll see though.

[tampabayboy]

I just got back from test driving the new C63 AMG Coupe about an hour ago. It's a nice car but I still think that the M3 is better. (You can see my M3 in the background) I have the dual clutch on my M3 and it is so smooth, especially when down shifting. When I was driving the C63, you could literally *feel* it downshift with a large thud. Also, this model does not have the LSD or the leather. I am not a real fan of the mb tex upholstery.

Here are a couple of pics. Enjoy!

[e90m3_6MT]

I read somewhere that the new MB tranny shifts in 100 milliseconds, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the the shifts speed of a ferrari 599 (not saying the MB tranny is as good as a ferrari tranny, only talking about pure numbers here)

"At its most aggressive, the 599 GTB's F1-SuperFast transmission is able to shift gears in 100 milliseconds (0.1 second), compared to the 575M's 250 ms, or even the F430's 150 ms. To put this in perspective, current Formula 1 racecars shift in about 50 ms. "
taken from: http://www.insideline.com/ferrari/59...iorano-f1.html

that would make the shifts speed faster than the outgoing 430!

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by tampabayboy

I just got back from test driving the new C63 AMG Coupe about an hour ago. It's a nice car but I still think that the M3 is better. (You can see my M3 in the background) I have the dual clutch on my M3 and it is so smooth, especially when down shifting. When I was driving the C63, you could literally *feel* it downshift with a large thud. Also, this model does not have the LSD or the leather. I am not a real fan of the mb tex upholstery.

Here are a couple of pics. Enjoy!

God that car looks good. One problem...front lights are hideous.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by jqsmooth

Hot Ice, the MB looks pretty sweet from the buildup. I never thought that I'd like the MB. I think the number is plausible if it was a M3 convertible. I've seen high numbers like that on E93s, not coupes or sedans. Anyhoo, I never considered the C63 AMG but it looks nice and sounds like it goes fast.

The C63 AMG is a very sweet piece of machinery. The car is a maniac. You want to know some MAJOR MAJOR downfalls of that car?

1. SKINNY rear tires. You've got 444 ft lbs of torque going to the rear wheels and MB decides to fit 255's!?!?!? Really?

2. The new Speedshift 7 speed is clunky on downshifts. I wrote a brief review on it recently.

3. The damn traction control turns on EVERY SINGLE TIME you go ANYWHERE NEAR the throttle. After about 10 minutes you get fed up with the power being cut so often.

In my eyes, these are very significant cons that would steer me away from a C63 AMG Coupe.

Originally Posted by Ccarson

To all you haters out there - you haven't driven one. I owned a 2009 and it was an awesome car. Just crack the throttle without traction control on and you had an awesome burnout. I weighed both at the time. M3 handles much better, but the sound and the usable torque is simply amazing.
That being said I am waiting for my 2011 m3 sedan - but I would never say anything bad about the c63 exept rear tire life was at best 5000 miles

The C63 AMG is very nice machine. Nobody here is 'hating'. I'm sure you'll find the M3 to be a bit more civil instead of a maniac like the C63 was. It comes down to what you want from the car. You want precision, and control, then you don't have to look any further then the M3. If you want fast, straight line speed, then the new C63 AMG coupe that seems to go from 0-60(I can't comment on this, yet. Although, I do think it's exaggerated.) in 3.7 seconds, then the AMG is your type of car. Personally, I'd much rather not have the computer keep cutting off my power as I'm trying to drive. What I can appreciate is When MB freshens up a car, boy do they freshen it up. This car makes the M3 look like it's stone age. I wish BMW's M cars would go through LCI's like AMG's do.

[Cdnrockies]

Originally Posted by gthal

$90k?? No way. I have one quoted around $81,000 fully loaded, all in. That is $8,000 less than a fully loaded M3 and almost the same price as a fully loaded car in the US. Seems to me that Mercedes has a smaller price gap US to Canada than BMW does Makes buying a C63 in Canada to be a real bargain compared to the M3.

This is correct.

New C63 coupe bases at $66 900 with the M3 coupe at $71 900.

Full load is "only" $82 140 for the Merc while the M3 climbs all the way to $92 100 with DCT. This gap was still the same when I looked at comparable '08's.