C63 507 Edition

[DiavelM3]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Car weighs 4000 pounds. They are probably thinking 'f**K it'.

[adc]

Originally Posted by DiavelM3

Why haven't Mercedes (or Audi for that matter), gone with a Carbon Fiber roof like BMW has? Patent?

The main radon BMW did it, and never mind the press releases, is because they are experimenting with the best way to include composites into the regular manufacturing process. Not because they take 5 lbs off the roof of a 3700 lbs car.

They're just perfecting techniques for cheap and rapid CF manufacturing in preparation for the I3 which will be the first mass produced CF car. Mercedes doesn't care about that, they will just slap some turbos on a V8 and call it a day.

[crabman]

I'm still kind of curious about the omission of a dual clutch. In 14 you can get one in the four door E but the C63 uhuh, makes no sense to me.

[Gunzaro]

This C63 507 craps on the M3 in terms of looks and engine sounds alone. Now it is just a couple of HP shy of a BLACK SERIES - using the same part# lightweight internals - and even has the option of some decent race metrics on the idrive. In terms of handling if you replace the skinny 255's with some wider Michelin PSS the coupe will keep up with a M3 with light power mods around a track.

What's more there is rumour that is 507 series will simply replace the P31 package in terms of price - it's what Benz do - option the heck out of the outgoing model so they eat some of the depreciation for you.

This is a proper and deserving finish to a mighty fine German muscle car.

[M3takesNYC]

I don't agree re: why bmw used a CF roof. They used one on the CSL e46 and the previous M6. Plus its more like 20 pounds vs a steel roof and 45 compared to a moonroof but location of weight is everything. For example replacing the seats to lighter weight have virtually no real performance effect from a handling perspective given they are at the center of rotation of motion and really have negligble effect.

The lighter roof is still 20-45 pounds lighter and every 40 pounds counts no doubt. More important is it really is the highest aspect of the car and using the CF effectively lowers the car and although those small increases in performance may not be something obvious alone, when you take the 10-15 little things they did such as use plastic for front a rear bumpers/body work, aluminum pieces, aluminum brake hubs and floating rotors etc, all of that adds up to some real performance value.

In 2001 when the CF was being tested on the old M6, they were not even thinking about the I3/8 series and the e90 m3 was simply already going to take the CF given the M6 had it so it was a decision effectively made in 2001 with the M6.

Plus it looks great which is key!

[adc]

Originally Posted by M3takesNYC

I don't agree re: why bmw used a CF roof. They used one on the CSL e46 and the previous M6. Plus its more like 20 pounds vs a steel roof and 45 compared to a moonroof but location of weight is everything. For example replacing the seats to lighter weight have virtually no real performance effect from a handling perspective given they are at the center of rotation of motion and really have negligble effect.

That is incorrect. You are accounting only for mass that gets rotated as the car leans, but ignoring acceleration, braking and direction changes - in other words, inertia. Removing any weight from the car affects the performance. The question is how much weight, in relation to the weight of the car. A 20lbs roof difference is simply too small to yield measurable performance increases. Replacing the power seats with lightweight racing versions can reduce the weight by as much as 60lbs per seat, and that 120lbs becomes measurable, albeit still small.

The lighter roof is still 20-45 pounds lighter and every 40 pounds counts no doubt.

The entire roof sheet metal weighs less than 30lbs so the difference is perhaps in the neighborhood of 20lbs, not 40.

More important is it really is the highest aspect of the car and using the CF effectively lowers the car and although those small increases in performance may not be something obvious alone, when you take the 10-15 little things they did such as use plastic for front a rear bumpers/body work, aluminum pieces, aluminum brake hubs and floating rotors etc, all of that adds up to some real performance value.

First of all, the other small changes are applied to both the cars with CF roof and the ones without. Second of all, there is more weight difference between an option loaded car vs. a bare model than between a CF cr and a steel roof car.

What you are saying sounds entirely reasonable and by the book. However it is countered by the fact that there is absolutely no measurable performance difference between the cars with CF roof, and the ones without. Absolutely none.

In 2001 when the CF was being tested on the old M6, they were not even thinking about the I3/8 series and the e90 m3 was simply already going to take the CF given the M6 had it so it was a decision effectively made in 2001 with the M6.

When they did the CF roof on the CSL, it made absolutely perfect sense in that type of car, because they went absolutely everywhere and took as much weight off as they possibly could, baring nothing. That car was some 400lbs lighter than the regular M3, which is very significant (12% weight savings). They literally left no stone unturned.

But 20lbs? that's just marketing, and good marketing at that because obviously you are buying it.

In 2001 BMW may have not known specifically about the i8 or i3, but they knew that in the future cars would become increasingly heavier due to the constant addition of comfort, convenience and safety features. The trend was as unmistakeable then as it is now. So they took a page out of the racing book, decided CF has definite advantages over steel, and went ahead to experiment and see how the two can be combined. And now they are almost to the point where they can make it commercially viable to make almost the whole body out of it, which was completely unthinkable in 2001.

Plus it looks great which is key!

There is no doubt about that. BMW apparently prices the CF about the same as a moonroof, but had it been an option in the sedan, I don't think I would have paid for it.

I can guarantee you that if you drive a CF roofed model vs. the steel model back to back, you will not feel absolutely any difference, and your lap times will be more influenced by a headwind than the CF weight savings.

[edu09]

[QUOTE=Soorena;13414116]Fanboyish comments.

What makes you think it's going to be priced more than the BS? This seats below the BS.

Exactly right, the 507 edition stands below the BS so it should be obviously cheaper

[DiscoZ]

Since too many want to get their $0.02 in defending their own car, and do not bother to read, I have attempted to correct some popular misconceptions. I USED to have a E92 M3 and was a bit of a fan boy like you. However, I educated myself and now drive a C63 AMG PP.

1. You CAN get a LSD for a C63, mine was part of a package with more HP, SLS internals, different brakes, carbon fibre bits, etc.

2. Many C63's are tracked, I see less on tracks and there are also less C63s around than M3s.

3. The revised 2012+ C63 AMG with the performance package is ACTUALLY FASTER than the E92 M3 on the 'ring and a few other tracks. It is slower on some tracks. So this M3 = always win BS is very tiresome, annoying and quite illiterate to be honest.

4. My C63 feels just as planted as my M3 at higher speeds, I've taken it to 250km/h on the back straight at Mosport.

5. The stock tire sizes on the C63 ARE a joke, but can be upsized and are more manageable then. My track tires are 245/275 NT01s.

6. Yes, the C63 can overheat on a track where there is not good airflow (they are fixing this) as it runs hot due to poor air flow through the motor, evidently.

7. The 2012+ C63 PP lost to the M3 in C&D mostly on price - go read the review again. Guess what, it's actually cheaper than a M3 in Canada when fully equipped; what does that mean then?

8. The M156 was not designed for HP/litre competitions. C63's routinely hit 500+ whp with basic mods, the motor is very undertuned. As you know, the SLS AMG BS makes 622hp. The motor was designed to be free and high revving (is oversquare) and have readily available torque.

9. The 507 edition is apparently a replacement for the performance / development package (PP in Canada includes the LSD), so it will likely be around the same price as a performance package equipped C63.

My anecdotal, personal experience is the C63 (2012+) with the performance package is a better overall driver than the M3 and can easily hold its own on the track, especially a longer HP track. The M3 on the track with all M goodies on is more connected and a tad more nimble. I find the C63 PP's brakes to be superior to the M3's and I find it has more steering feel.

I have no qualifiers such as experience selling cars or owning certain cars etc. to back my opinion, as they are irrelevant.

[aussiem3]

There are always people who think the grass is greener on the other side.

Like I've said before, I bought an ///3 to please myself and enjoy driving one. Do I care what AMG and Quattro Sports are doing? No. Yes, I read out of curiosity when there is a comparison or head-to-head. That's where it starts and stop. Enjoy what you have.

All those who think AMG make great cars, I challenge you to go out and buy one at the sticker price. You bought the ///3 because that what you want and that's what you can afford. If not you will not be on this board.

I love my ///3. Thank you very much.

[CSanto]

When does official pricing come out?

If it really does replace the PP, I honestly may be getting one. Anyone have any contacts at MB dealers on Long Island? I need to test drive a C63 PP!

[e92_m3]

Mercedes really wants to end up with this c63 507 edtion with a bang! Their special edition has the upgrades we BMW owners are definitely looking for, not limited frozen colors...

[adc]

Originally Posted by e92_m3

Their special edition has the upgrades we BMW owners are definitely looking for, not limited frozen colors...

Actually, I'm looking for a more aggressive suspension option, better brakes and much less weight. Not power.

If BMW offered something like this as the last gasp for the E92 M3, I would literally be running to the dealer to place an order. In orange, or frozen blue.

[NikB316]

When will Benz have a DCT? Until then I wouldn't buy one even if it had 1000hp and was $70k. Huge dissapointment that the rumors of the new E63 having a DCT were false. Rear biased AWD + ton of power + DCT = ultimate daily IMO. They are sooooo boring to drive. I don't know how anyone who actually likes to drive would take one over an M or even an RS audi for that matter. I know obviously a factory car is a factory car but slap on an entry level blower for $10k on an M3 and you will destroy a 507 C63 and have a hell lot more fun driving it.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by CptSlow

This is why this is my last BMW. They're now copying Audi with model designations, and far trailing MB in technical development. BMW is the fat, lazy, arrogant, slob of the German car companies.

Actually the merc drives like the fat arrogant slob.

So you pay more for a special edition and end up slower because you get less traction?
Its not all about hp and torque. Im confused at the number of ppl who just dont get it.

But i wouldnt buy lime rock neither.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Actually the merc drives like the fat arrogant slob.

So you pay more for a special edition and end up slower because you get less traction?
Its not all about hp and torque. Im confused at the number of ppl who just dont get it.

But i wouldnt buy lime rock neither.

He isn't saying that the M3 is a fat and lazy. He was talking about BMW. And he's right.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Actually the merc drives like the fat arrogant slob.

Really now... thank you for the informed and unbiased opinion!!

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by gthal

Really now... thank you for the informed and unbiased opinion!!

lol...I also said that i wouldn't dare buy that lime rock not so special edition.

but the rest of the merc lineup - aren't they fat and slobbish too? I mean they are boats with super powerful engines. just a german muscle car.

but seriously...more power in a car that already thrashes the tires? maybe instead of power they should focus on suspension.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

lol...I also said that i wouldn't dare buy that lime rock not so special edition.

but the rest of the merc lineup - aren't they fat and slobbish too? I mean they are boats with super powerful engines. just a german muscle car.

but seriously...more power in a car that already thrashes the tires? maybe instead of power they should focus on suspension.

You should get educated on the cars before commenting. You are repeating rhetoric and not facts. Yes, the larger AMGs (E63, etc) are big powerful sedans... so is the M5. The C63 is not. The suspension in the C63 coupe is as capable as the M3's suspension. What you are saying is simply not true any longer. You are so 2008!!

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by gthal

You should get educated on the cars before commenting. You are repeating rhetoric and not facts. Yes, the larger AMGs (E63, etc) are big powerful sedans... so is the M5. The C63 is not. The suspension in the C63 coupe is as capable as the M3's suspension. What you are saying is simply not true any longer. You are so 2008!! :thumbsup:

Lets not go that far. It's close, but it's still not as balanced.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by ShutUpandDrive

Lets not go that far. It's close, but it's still not as balanced.

Fair enough... but it is very close.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

...but seriously...more power in a car that already thrashes the tires? maybe instead of power they should focus on suspension.

Power climbs from 451 to 507, but torque barely moves (from 443 to 450). You should educate yourself on the difference before making comments on tire thrashing.

Bruce

[Iplayedmyself]

If it's so special edition why would they up the hp output but do nothing to suspension on a car that in my opinion does not compare handling wise to an M