|
|
12-11-2011, 10:21 AM | #89 |
*_*
806
Rep 3,160
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 10:36 AM | #90 | |
Major General
1901
Rep 5,678
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery 2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT 2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT 2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 10:39 AM | #91 | |
Second Lieutenant
30
Rep 242
Posts |
Quote:
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? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 10:47 AM | #92 |
Major General
1901
Rep 5,678
Posts |
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.
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery 2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT 2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT 2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 11:48 AM | #93 |
First Lieutenant
139
Rep 309
Posts |
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!!! |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 03:05 PM | #94 |
Major
133
Rep 1,128
Posts
Drives: 2013 E92 M3, 2016 X5 50i
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pueblo West, CO
|
Just got stationed in germany and can't wait to sell my E92 335I and order an E92 M3!!!!!
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 03:14 PM | #96 |
Major General
1901
Rep 5,678
Posts |
... 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. Last edited by gthal; 12-11-2011 at 06:41 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 08:44 PM | #97 |
M-Sport
22
Rep 174
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 09:26 PM | #98 |
One mod leads to another ...
415
Rep 2,900
Posts |
No they are 19s but I am pretty sure they would clear your Brembos.
__________________
Current: 2014 F10 M5 Previous: 2015 F80 M3, 2013 E92 M3, 2013 F10 M5, 2009 E90 M3, 1998 E36 M3 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-11-2011, 10:14 PM | #99 |
Banned
88
Rep 1,105
Posts |
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 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 02:42 AM | #100 |
Major
142
Rep 1,440
Posts |
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.
__________________
- Frozen Grey F10 M5 DCT
- Rosso Corsa 458 Speciale Sold - Frozen Grey E92 M3 Sold |
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 04:28 AM | #101 | |
Major General
1901
Rep 5,678
Posts |
Quote:
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. Last edited by gthal; 12-12-2011 at 04:52 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 11:51 AM | #102 | |
Captain
205
Rep 729
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 11:57 AM | #103 | |
Brigadier General
1913
Rep 4,171
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 01:00 PM | #104 |
Banned
88
Rep 1,105
Posts |
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 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 01:12 PM | #105 |
Grease Monkey
292
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
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! |
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 01:12 PM | #106 |
Brigadier General
97
Rep 3,246
Posts |
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
__________________
mods: track ready stuff
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 01:43 PM | #107 | |
Major General
1901
Rep 5,678
Posts |
Quote:
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.
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery 2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT 2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT 2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 02:41 PM | #108 |
Lieutenant
25
Rep 596
Posts |
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!
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 03:02 PM | #109 | |
Second Lieutenant
47
Rep 297
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-12-2011, 05:00 PM | #110 | |
First Lieutenant
139
Rep 309
Posts |
Quote:
Dig deeper, and you can tell if there are certain options on the car, just by weight. (Their weights match Grassroots motorsports corner weights too.) The manufacturer can spec the car however they want and claim a weight. My 911 was supposed to be 3100 LBS, but when I had it weighed, it was 200 lbs heavier. I think that BMW has every fluid filled and a typical load of luggage added. (or 75 Kg driver weight). Either way, download those test sheets from C&D, they are the only ones who weight every car. (and now they do center of gravity tests too) I don't care much for their writing or conclusions, but some of the data is good. Also, R&T does not correct their accel times for track conditions, but C&D does. From a scientific standpoint, this matters. R&T reports temp, humidity and atmospheric pressure. C&D does not provide their formula for correction...... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|