Beast... super fast c63 vs m3 vs Carrera S vs R8

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG

Obviously this thread has a bunch of inconsistent posts. Some say a stock C63 will beat a stock M3 DCT in a straight line, while M3 owners with the DCT tranny claim to run neck and neck with a stock C63. I have shared my scenario and I just want to add this important fact. I previously owned and SMG equipped E46 M3, while I fully understand the technical difference between the SMG and DCT trannys the techniques in running these cars are the same. Paddle shift down to where the car is in the power band and hit the throttle.

Unfortunately when driving the C63 equipped with the 7GA it's not the same. If you are simply "rolling" at 50mph even in sport mode the car is in gear 7 (over drive) and upon "mashing the throttle" the car will only go into 3rd gear. This doesn't factor in the time wasted for the tranny to mechanically read the input from the throttle and downshift to 3rd gear. Again, the negatives of an automatic transmission. However, from a 50 mph roll you can place the C63 tranny in sport mode and manually downshift to 2nd gear. That way you will be able to launch the car close to 6K RPM and in the power band which would then shift at red-line into 3rd gear. This makes a significant difference when these cars runs and I believe it will explain the "inconsistency" in the stories from different owners.

Please take a look at this video below. You can hear the C63 is in low gear (let's be honest guys the M156 is much louder the S65) and clearly wins these runs.

Well said. I loved the C63 during my two test drives... it would've been a very hard call for me if MB would offer it with 6 speed. I love the engine, and the sound is simply epic. If they release a "black series" version I'll take another look.

Having said that... leave the racing on public roads to the Honda Civic crowd. Track it like a man.

[Kyoshi71]

Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG

Obviously this thread has a bunch of inconsistent posts. Some say a stock C63 will beat a stock M3 DCT in a straight line, while M3 owners with the DCT tranny claim to run neck and neck with a stock C63. I have shared my scenario and I just want to add this important fact. I previously owned and SMG equipped E46 M3, while I fully understand the technical difference between the SMG and DCT trannys the techniques in running these cars are the same. Paddle shift down to where the car is in the power band and hit the throttle.

Unfortunately when driving the C63 equipped with the 7GA it's not the same. If you are simply "rolling" at 50mph even in sport mode the car is in gear 7 (over drive) and upon "mashing the throttle" the car will only go into 3rd gear. This doesn't factor in the time wasted for the tranny to mechanically read the input from the throttle and downshift to 3rd gear. Again, the negatives of an automatic transmission. However, from a 50 mph roll you can place the C63 tranny in sport mode and manually downshift to 2nd gear. That way you will be able to launch the car close to 6K RPM and in the power band which would then shift at red-line into 3rd gear. This makes a significant difference when these cars runs and I believe it will explain the "inconsistency" in the stories from different owners.

Please take a look at this video below. You can hear the C63 is in low gear (let's be honest guys the M156 is much louder the S65) and clearly wins these runs.

I hear what you're saying but would like to clarify some things. 1st, are you blaming any deficiencies the car has in racing on the transmission? If so, that's almost as silly as blaming the engine. The tranny practically IS the car. 2nd, are you telling me that a new C63 has a mechanical detent? If it does, man, Mercedes just sold you a dinosaur. Hopefully you meant an electronic detent and the delay is in the downshift. 3rd, in the video, the Merc jumps twice.

Here is a video (definitely a repost) with the M3 DCT vs C63 where your transmision downshift is irrelevant.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by Kyoshi71

I hear what you're saying but would like to clarify some things. 1st, are you blaming any deficiencies the car has in racing on the transmission? If so, that's almost as silly as blaming the engine. The tranny practically IS the car. 2nd, are you telling me that a new C63 has a mechanical detent? If it does, man, Mercedes just sold you a dinosaur. Hopefully you meant an electronic detent and the delay is in the downshift. 3rd, in the video, the Merc jumps twice.

Here is a video (definitely a repost) with the M3 DCT vs C63 where your transmision downshift is irrelevant.

Kyoshi,

There is a tremendous amount of flaws in your last post. Hopefully we can keep this classy as gentleman.

The 7GA in the C63 is clearly this cars weakest link. Obviously you are informed about each transmission. There is simply no comparison between the M-DCT tranny and the 7GA in the 63 series cars. The M-DCT is clearly superior in all aspects which I’m sure we can agree. However, this isn’t a “silly argument” as you stated above. These transmissions are so far apart in performance it isn’t even worth debating on this forum. Also to blame anything on the engine is ridiculous. Your talking about a 500Bhp close to 500 lb-ft torque engine that revs to 7200RPM. Versus a 414Bhp 295 lb-ft engine revving to 8400RPM. Simply no comparison the M156 is far superior in output when only sacrificing 1200 rpm in redline ( obviously area under the curve in the M156 is greater on a dyno).

Sorry but you are wrong to say in an AMG car that the tranny “is the car”. Everyone knows AMG’s pride and joy is the engine.

Not sure what your saying about a mechanical “detent” with the 7GA. Do you mean defect. If that is the question the answer is a sharp no. Clearly the complaints are issues with the M-DCT clearly out weigh the 7GA tranny if you spend sometime on each forum. Again how many M-DCT problem/complaint threads can we reference on this forum? I know the software is much more updated in the C63 then it is in the other 63 cars considering the rev matching at downshifts.

My argument is completely REVELAT and anyone owning a M-DCT car will agree. If you were to have a run in your M3 M-DCT around 50MPH and start in 3rd gear you would be out of the power band of the car and surely would fall behind. Again, this goes back to my argument. Any person traveling at 50MPH in a C63 even in sport mode who mashes the throttle will only kick down to 3rd gear (not factoring in time to change gears by the auto). However around 50MPH you can manually downshift to 2nd gear in sport mode and mash the gas being in the power band unlike 3rd gear.

The video you reference with your comments is clearly not what you say. Anyone who is watching this video with an un-bias view can see the guy in the M3 rolling ahead first. This video is also from a dig. If your know anything about racing you will know this is the most difficult situation to be in. For the most part, a rolling start eliminates driver error. Again with an automatic the likely hood of holding the lowest gear to redline is not always the case. Also while driving One of the obvious negatives about the C63 in stock form is the small and dysfunctional 255 Pirelli PZERO tires as compared to the larger and superior stock Michelin PS2 tires.

[technik330]

^

The c63 has a 50% + larger motor; I'm confident it'll be faster in a straight line, without question.

The c63's transmission is most likely the same transmission that's used in all the other 63 series; why would it be a "weak point" in the c63?

IMO comparing a power band of a, much, larger v8 to that of a smaller v8 is worthless, at best.

I would expect the c63 to be faster, more horsepower and torque, coupled to a somewhat comparable vehicle weight; again what is it you're striving to prove about the c63, superiority?

IMO the c63 does one thing well; demonstrate that throwing horsepower at a car doesn't ensure a first place finish.

[bimmerj]

Originally Posted by jprooney

The C63 AMG isnt that "scary" beast you all seem to think guys, a DCT M3, ca perfectly hang with the C63 AMG , there are plenty of vids proving that in youtube, im talking stock c63 AMG vs. stock DCT M3, and thats only in straight line, because in any corner scenario the AMG would be watching the M3 rear plate all the time.

NOPE!

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Haven't driven the current M3 in the wet, but I'd bet it won't be a ton of fun.

Definitely a bunch better than the C63, though.

Personally, I don't tend to be exuberant in the rain while on the street, but just love it on track. In that venue, the M3 would simply walk away from the C63, I'd bet - but also bet that the C63 would be tremendous fun, as well. Just not quick.

Bruce

PS - Now that I think of it, is the bimmer a pig in the rain with the Contis?

Bruce - calling you out on this one...

M3 and C63 - both very capable and very fun cars to drive.

C63>M3 straight line acceleration - but not by a lot

M3>c63 on track (objectively - but not by a lot)

So far - you and I (and I think most forum members) see eye-to-eye...

HOWEVER... I'm not by any means the only forum member who thinks you go out of your way to discredit the M3 every chance you get. By way of just a few examples...

1. You would often agree with a lot of footie's comments that the rs5 would completely own the M3 once it finally came out... And lo and behold - every magazine that tested them head to head almost 2 years ago picked the m3 over the rs5 (objectively and subjectively) and since then neither you nor Footie have had anything to say about those two by way o comparison (btw - love how footie literally dropped off the face of the earth after those comparisons came out - lol)

2. Several months ago you posted several times about how a 2011 mustang GT and Boss 302 "soundly whipped" the M3 on the track... However, once I pointed out several track times from fastestlaps.com which placed the E9x M3 as faster than the GT and Boss 302 LS... There was no response from you...

3. You give lip service to the M3 in terms of its track and handling capabilities (as if to bolster your apparent objectivity) and then you immediately take it away by including a dig about how "the M3 is fast BUT "you have to wring its neck" or "PS - isn't the M3 a pig in the rain on Contis???"";

4. You claim to have several hours of time in the M3 (6MT and DCT) and say that you're not impressed with the DCT in everyday driving - yet every magazine that has reviewed the DCT has heaped tons of praise on it in terms of its every-day smoothness and drivability (including my own 40k+ miles on it - which is a heck of a lot more than your 4-5 hours)...

Bottom line - if you or anyone else likes the C63 better than the M3 that's fine... Also - there is no doubt that from a purely objective point of view - the c63 can outdo the M3 in certain areas (straight line acceleration, not having to use as high of rpm's to reach a given rate of acceleration, etc. etc.). What I'm tired I hearing (and I'm confident I speak on behalf of many other members of this forum) is you calling people out all the time as fanboys for the M3 (which admittedly there are many in this forum) when you're just as much of, let's say, an "anti-fanboy" for the M3, and where your obvious dislikes of the M3 cloud your own objectivity...

You're free, of course, to have your own opinions as to the strengths of the C63 over the M3, and even your reasons as to why you subjectively like the C63 over the M3 - but you constantly calling people out as "fanboys" for the M3 is a little ironic (and in my opinion, a tad bit hypocritical on your part).

[DiscoZ]

LOL... revived a 2 year old thread. If the M3 is so much better at handling, how is a PP C63 tested by a magazine 4 seconds faster on the almighty 'ring? That is with its inadequate 255 section rear tires?

Hint: I'vw owned both. Both have strengths and weaknesses, however to call the C63 only a straight line machine --especially after MB has addressed the tranny (kinda) and handling-- is a discredit to whoever says it. I was in that camp until I drove a 2012 C63 with the AMG PP.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

LOL... revived a 2 year old thread. If the M3 is so much better at handling, how is a PP C63 tested by a magazine 4 seconds faster on the almighty 'ring? That is with its inadequate 255 section rear tires?

Hint: I'vw owned both. Both have strengths and weaknesses, however to call the C63 only a straight line machine --especially after MB has addressed the tranny (kinda) and handling-- is a discredit to whoever says it. I was in that camp until I drove a 2012 C63 with the AMG PP.

C63 is a stellar car. I've had one as well. I could not find a Nurburgring time for a DCT M3. Just keep seeing that one from 2007 with a MT M3. It would be cool to see if there is a difference.

8:01 on the ring is pretty great. I agree about switching over to at least 265 tires in the rear.

[DiscoZ]

Agree, comp. package and DCT could make a big difference.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Just noticed this post. Sorry for the delay...

Originally Posted by Powerslide

...HOWEVER... I'm not by any means the only forum member who thinks you go out of your way to discredit the M3 every chance you get.

Speak for yourself about what you think - and let others speak for themselves, please.

That said, I do in fact go out of my way to discredit the M3 - but only when I think it's being unfairly credited. In point of fact, I believe that I have written more flowery praises about the M3 than you have (or almost everyone else in this venue, for that matter).

Originally Posted by Powerslide

...1. You would often agree with a lot of footie's comments that the rs5 would completely own the M3 once it finally came out... And lo and behold - every magazine that tested them head to head almost 2 years ago picked the m3 over the rs5 (objectively and subjectively) and since then neither you nor Footie have had anything to say about those two by way o comparison (btw - love how footie literally dropped off the face of the earth after those comparisons came out - lol)

This appears to be solid BS on your part. I did in fact take a position that the RS5 would likely outperform the M3, and near as I can tell, it does - on track at least. You have perhaps missed my subsequent comments, and footie was permanently banned from this venue not long after the RS5 was released in Europe.

Since the RS5 was released, I've watched (and referred to) a couple of extended videos in this forum wherein the RS5 was slightly quicker than the M3 on track - perhaps you have as well.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

2. Several months ago you posted several times about how a 2011 mustang GT and Boss 302 "soundly whipped" the M3 on the track... However, once I pointed out several track times from fastestlaps.com which placed the E9x M3 as faster than the GT and Boss 302 LS... There was no response from you...

First, I've not read your post for whatever reason, so I apologize. Second, I have never said that any Mustang GT "soundly whipped" an M3, and challenge you to show where I have. Third, I just now looked up Boss 302 LS vs M3 on fastestlaps.com per your reference, and the Ford was quicker than the bimmer on the five tracks mentioned, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Apparently, you don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

3. You give lip service to the M3 in terms of its track and handling capabilities (as if to bolster your apparent objectivity) and then you immediately take it away by including a dig about how "the M3 is fast BUT "you have to wring its neck" or "PS - isn't the M3 a pig in the rain on Contis???"";

My belief is that I am in fact more objective about the M3 than most - obviously including you of course. "Lip service", "apparent objectivity" and "a dig" are all your interpretations in regard to my comments - which by the way are pretty damned accurate as to the car's performance. As for your very own quote of my note, I am actually asking if the M3 is a pig in the rain on Contis - not making an assumption. Read your own damned quote.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

4. You claim to have several hours of time in the M3 (6MT and DCT) and say that you're not impressed with the DCT in everyday driving - yet every magazine that has reviewed the DCT has heaped tons of praise on it in terms of its every-day smoothness and drivability (including my own 40k+ miles on it - which is a heck of a lot more than your 4-5 hours)...

My impressions of the M3 auto I drove were accurate - both the good and the bad. Note that Car & Driver also had some interesting observations about the DCT in their long term test, worsening as the miles piled up.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Bottom line - if you or anyone else likes the C63 better than the M3 that's fine... Also - there is no doubt that from a purely objective point of view - the c63 can outdo the M3 in certain areas (straight line acceleration, not having to use as high of rpm's to reach a given rate of acceleration, etc. etc.). What I'm tired I hearing (and I'm confident I speak on behalf of many other members of this forum) is you calling people out all the time as fanboys for the M3 (which admittedly there are many in this forum) when you're just as much of, let's say, an "anti-fanboy" for the M3, and where your obvious dislikes of the M3 cloud your own objectivity...

First (and again), speak for yourself, and let others speak for themselves.

Second, I am in fact an "anti-fanboy" on this and other forums specializing in various makes and models. Don't like it? Tough.

Third, what are my "obvious dislikes" of the M3? The only two that I am aware of are the gas mileage, and the general fact that BMW keeps making them bigger and heavier, thus making them less fun to drive. Our E36 was more fun to drive than our E46, and the only reason the E9X isn't less fun than the E46 is the terrific engine. One can feel the size and heft on any back road, but the engine is terrific compared to the E46.

Want to argue? Fine. Go ahead. Tell me that the fuel mileage is actually good for a car of this weight and power, and that bigger and heavier makes for more fun to drive.

Originally Posted by Powerslide

You're free, of course, to have your own opinions as to the strengths of the C63 over the M3, and even your reasons as to why you subjectively like the C63 over the M3 - but you constantly calling people out as "fanboys" for the M3 is a little ironic (and in my opinion, a tad bit hypocritical on your part).

I personally think the C63 is a better daily driver than the M3, but in my fairly complete and detailed analysis of these cars (see "The Snake, The Mongoose, and The Zookeeper"), I said they were pretty much even overall, but that I'd take a six-speed M3, given the choice.

Have to say I have admiration for both the M3 and C63 - but don't feel lust for either, however.

In short, you appear to be full of crap - and pretty damned sensitive about the love of your life, apparently.

Bruce

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

- and pretty damned sensitive about the love of your life, apparently.

Bruce

... I see this on this and every other car forum.

Having had 5 BMW's, I can say that in my experience I see more fanboyism (sic) on BMW forums vs. others (ex. Civic SI forum in the past).

Funny enough, I've found the VW / Audi crowd to be the most open minded.

Again, all based on my own experience.

[kotik]

I like C63, it sounds nice... If they made it with a manual, I would have gotten one, for me 6mt is a must! I know plenty of other people that turned away from merc cause of that.

MB, if you are reading this: To be Great, you have to have manual cars!!!! Even Lambo's made Balboni!

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by kotik

I like C63, it sounds nice... If they made it with a manual, I would have gotten one, for me 6mt is a must! I know plenty of other people that turned away from merc cause of that.

MB, if you are reading this: To be Great, you have to have manual cars!!!! Even Lambo's made Balboni!

I agree in principle... I used to think like that. I never had an auto (wife's car doesn't count) until the 63. DCT / DKG, PDK or the Benz MCT makes shifting on a track much easier for me... I am generally in the right gear.

At times I would run the circult in 3rd gear for the M3 as I hated shifting in and out of gears.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I personally think the C63 is a better daily driver than the M3, but in my fairly complete and detailed analysis of these cars

Have to say I have admiration for both the M3 and C63 - but don't feel lust for either, however.

Bruce

Bruce,
I never understood the comment that the c63 is a 'better' daily driver. For me it is hard to fathom that a car that needs tires every 5,000-7,000miles is a 'good' daily driver, OR a vehicle that CHUGS gas. Factory rated 12mpg, how can you even hint at the fact that a C63 is a better DD than M3...I won't even add the free service into the equation. From an cost benefit perspective, you will have less expenses with an M3 vs. a c63amg.

[HotIce]

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce,
I never understood the comment that the c63 is a 'better' daily driver. For me it is hard to fathom that a car that needs tires every 5,000-7,000miles is a 'good' daily driver, OR a vehicle that CHUGS gas. Factory rated 12mpg, how can you even hint at the fact that a C63 is a better DD than M3...I won't even add the free service into the equation. From an cost benefit perspective, you will have less expenses with an M3 vs. a c63amg.

It's just easier to drive day to day because you don't have to ring he neck out of the 6.3l engine. When you're paying for these cars, maintenance and gas really shouldn't be an issue for you. If they are, you shouldn't be driving either a C63 nor an M3. Both these vehicles are performance oriented cruisers with very high upkeep. Also, BMW rolls the price of the 'free maintenance' into the price of the car so it's not really 'free'. You gatta pay to play.

P.S. I have friends with 63's that have gotten 10-15k out of their stock tires. It just depends on how hard you drive.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce, I never understood the comment that the c63 is a 'better' daily driver. For me it is hard to fathom that a car that needs tires every 5,000-7,000miles is a 'good' daily driver

OK, your note made me chuckle a bit, but you deserve an honest answer.

First of all, what you're saying is that a Chevy Cruze is a better daily driver than either an M3 or a C63, because it's cheaper to run - and even better, also cheaper to buy. Neither the Bimmer or Merc are cheap to buy or run, so they're not good daily drivers?

Perhaps you now see where I'm coming from. For me a better daily driver gives the driver more smiles in that venue, regardless of running costs.

As for running through rear tires, I expect you've heard the expression "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

My theory as to why C63s run through rear tires is the amazing responsiveness of the package, plus a wondrous exhaust note that is terrific even at idle but gets better and better with more throttle. These two characteristics combine to play a siren's song in the driver's brain. Driving this car makes you do lunging and pouncing in traffic and all day long, just to feel the torque and listen to the glorious noise. In other words, it isn't a technical issue at all. I believe one could get 20k out of the C63 rear sneakers - but not if you're a human being.

Near as I can tell, the M3 does nearly twice as well in terms of rear tire life, and that's due in large part because the magic happens way up there on the tach. Not routinely reachable in traffic and everyday driving. Of course, the M3 eats rear tires as well - just not as heavily as the C63 does.

Originally Posted by Nine

OR a vehicle that CHUGS gas. Factory rated 12mpg, how can you even hint at the fact that a C63 is a better DD than M3.

OK, this was the part that got me chuckling. You're actually beating up on the Merc because it gets a combined 15 mpg vs the Bimmer's 16?

C'mon now, you have to admit that's pretty funny. Both cars are bad on gas, and the C63 is even worse than the M3, but only marginally.

Originally Posted by Nine

From an cost benefit perspective, you will have less expenses with an M3 vs. a c63amg.

And that's the issue, isn't it. I'm talking fun, you're talking money.

Bruce

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce,
I never understood the comment that the c63 is a 'better' daily driver. For me it is hard to fathom that a car that needs tires every 5,000-7,000miles is a 'good' daily driver, OR a vehicle that CHUGS gas. Factory rated 12mpg, how can you even hint at the fact that a C63 is a better DD than M3...I won't even add the free service into the equation. From an cost benefit perspective, you will have less expenses with an M3 vs. a c63amg.

When people claim it is a better DD (which is subjective) it is not because it is more economical. It isn't. It is because of the sound and instant power/torque that make driving it so entertaining day to day. That makes it better for some people and not so much for others. All of this is somewhat subjective and based on personal preference.

[DiscoZ]

Doesn't take a math genius to figure out that a 3,9xx lb car with 443ft/lbs and 255 section rear rubber rated 180 will have the rears wear out quickly. There are people who have had the rears last longer.

My C63 returns roughly 10 - 14 mpg while my M3 gave me 12 - 15ish, average 13. Not a huge difference and I do stomp on the C63 a lot as it is new and the instant torque and motor sound are intoxicating. The M3 is what I got in its total life.

As a FYI - The rear tires on my Z4M wore out in ~8K miles as I drove it hard all the time (like the 63) and tracked it.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by Rated ///M

It's just easier to drive day to day because you don't have to ring he neck out of the 6.3l engine. When you're paying for these cars, maintenance and gas really shouldn't be an issue for you.
P.S. I have friends with 63's that have gotten 10-15k out of their stock tires. It just depends on how hard you drive.

"ring the neck out of a 6.3l"

"10k" for tires...

I think you hit the nail on the head, you don't buy or consider a c63 a better "DD", the idea is foolish. Especially when comparing it to an M3.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

OK, your note made me chuckle a bit, but you deserve an honest answer.

First of all, what you're saying is that a Chevy Cruze is a better daily driver than either an M3 or a C63, because it's cheaper to run - and even better, also cheaper to buy. Neither the Bimmer or Merc are cheap to buy or run, so they're not good daily drivers?

Perhaps you now see where I'm coming from. For me a better daily driver gives the driver more smiles in that venue, regardless of running costs.

As for running through rear tires, I expect you've heard the expression "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

My theory as to why C63s run through rear tires is the amazing responsiveness of the package, plus a wondrous exhaust note that is terrific even at idle but gets better and better with more throttle. These two characteristics combine to play a siren's song in the driver's brain. Driving this car makes you do lunging and pouncing in traffic and all day long, just to feel the torque and listen to the glorious noise. In other words, it isn't a technical issue at all. I believe one could get 20k out of the C63 rear sneakers - but not if you're a human being.

Near as I can tell, the M3 does nearly twice as well in terms of rear tire life, and that's due in large part because the magic happens way up there on the tach. Not routinely reachable in traffic and everyday driving. Of course, the M3 eats rear tires as well - just not as heavily as the C63 does.



OK, this was the part that got me chuckling. You're actually beating up on the Merc because it gets a combined 15 mpg vs the Bimmer's 16?

C'mon now, you have to admit that's pretty funny. Both cars are bad on gas, and the C63 is even worse than the M3, but only marginally.



And that's the issue, isn't it. I'm talking fun, you're talking money.

Bruce

This post is just so "Bruce". I'm glad you understand me, I just don't like the broad generalizations...

"Beating up on the Merc" - Don't mistake facts with a beating. You can't go around dropping statements like a C63 is a better daily driver than an M3. It's just a one sided statement that fails to yield to the whole backbone of a "daily driver" title which is purely economical.

Obviously, nobody buys a c63 or an M3 to be economical, as such, nobody should argue the point as it is subjective; but if you were, from a purely numbers perspective, an M3 would be cheaper to own.

[HotIce]

Originally Posted by Nine

"ring the neck out of a 6.3l"

"10k" for tires...

I think you hit the nail on the head, you don't buy or consider a c63 a better "DD", the idea is foolish. Especially when comparing it to an M3.





This post is just so "Bruce". I'm glad you understand me, I just don't like the broad generalizations...

"Beating up on the Merc" - Don't mistake facts with a beating. You can't go around dropping statements like a C63 is a better daily driver than an M3. It's just a one sided statement that fails to yield to the whole backbone of a "daily driver" title which is purely economical.

Obviously, nobody buys a c63 or an M3 to be economical, as such, nobody should argue the point as it is subjective; but if you were, from a purely numbers perspective, an M3 would be cheaper to own.

It's just better around town. I'd say they're fairly equal as far as DD capabilities go.

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by Nine

"Beating up on the Merc" - Don't mistake facts with a beating. You can't go around dropping statements like a C63 is a better daily driver than an M3. It's just a one sided statement that fails to yield to the whole backbone of a "daily driver" title which is purely economical.

Obviously, nobody buys a c63 or an M3 to be economical, as such, nobody should argue the point as it is subjective; but if you were, from a purely numbers perspective, an M3 would be cheaper to own.

a) I switched my M3 for the C63 with PP as it is a better "daily driver". I have a crap load more fun driving it everyday than I did my M3. Can I not make that statement even though that is what I did? Must the definition of a "daily driver" conform to your strict standards? Perhaps you should let Oxford and Merriam-Webster know.

b) The EPA observed 1 MPG difference in the cars' fuel consumption would take a while to earn back given the price difference (in Canada) or ~$4-5K fully loaded + taxes. Not to mention my insurance (I am in early to mid 30s) is ~$50 month cheaper with the C63 and I live in one of the lowest insurance areas in Toronto. Tires are a function of how hard you drive, I do not consider that a differentiating expense. Yes, you lose traction based on my earlier post and you will destroy tires. As I said, my Z4MC tires did not last long either.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

a) I switched my M3 for the C63 with PP as it is a better "daily driver". I have a crap load more fun driving it everyday than I did my M3. Can I not make that statement even though that is what I did? Must the definition of a "daily driver" conform to your strict standards? Perhaps you should let Oxford and Merriam-Webster know.

b) The EPA observed 1 MPG difference in the cars' fuel consumption would take a while to earn back given the price difference (in Canada) or ~$4-5K fully loaded + taxes. Not to mention my insurance (I am in early to mid 30s) is ~$50 month cheaper with the C63 and I live in one of the lowest insurance areas in Toronto. Tires are a function of how hard you drive, I do not consider that a differentiating expense. Yes, you lose traction based on my earlier post and you will destroy tires. As I said, my Z4MC tires did not last long either.

I love when people post what they think is smart, but is really dumb. In all things measurable, the M3 is more economical. There is no point to argue subjective aspects. Jump on the Elise forums and somebody will argue that the would rather DD a lotus Elise...the point is, you can't make broad sweeping generalizations about a subjective topic.

Green is a more effective color than Blue...NO.

Originally Posted by Rated ///M

It's just better around town. I'd say they're fairly equal as far as DD capabilities go.

Thank you. Somebody gets it!