M3 vs C63

Hope this is not a repost

http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255455

Walked hard from a roll. Probably a closer matchup with an E90 M3, the 'vert is quite heavy.

Saw a c63 for the first time in person yesterday, never thought I would see one in this neck of the woods. Found it very blah to look at and really did not like the interior but those are some sweet seats and it has one hell of a rumble to it. Still happy with my choice of the M over the C63 AMG. I still needed the three peddles, maybe when I cave to these "not real automatic" cars I will drive with the rest of the push the peddle and hold on to the steering wheel crowd. Till then 6MT FTW! (sorry for the MT push, I am sure I will grow out of it as I get older, haha)

I'm guessing that in the rolling start part of the race the M3 hit the limiter in that first shift because of the way the C63 seemed to jump ahead at that point. Here's this issue of lag or misjudgement coming into play once more.

You notice when the driver is taken out of the loop (LC requires no shifting from the driver) that this much heavier M3 got very close to matching the C63. Now I want to see a re-match against a E92 to see who is the victor.

footie wrote

I'm guessing that in the rolling start part of the race the M3 hit the limiter in that first shift because of the way the C63 seemed to jump ahead at that point. Here's this issue of lag or misjudgement coming into play once more.

You notice when the driver is taken out of the loop (LC requires no shifting from the driver) that this much heavier M3 got very close to matching the C63. Now I want to see a re-match against a E92 to see who is the victor.

He mentioned on the MBboard that he lost against an M3 coupe, which was modified.

George

straight line performance = c63
on the track = m3

Test drove both,
Put a deposit on the C63.
IMO Looks way better inside and out, and so much more powerful around the city. Alot more fun to drive. Torque is unreal.
If I wanted a track car I would buy a Porsche GT.
C63 is a superior car IMO

I beg to differ, aside from some chrome bits and a quad exhaust it looks just like a C300. Same interior too, crappy ride, no LSD (although coming for 2009 with an even harsher ride). MBs style doesn't provoke emotions of "omg I want to drive it". And I seriously thought about buying this car because it was a bit more powerful than the M. But at the end of the day the C63 doesn't stack up to the M in all categories.

ihyln wrote

I beg to differ, aside from some chrome bits and a quad exhaust it looks just like a C300. Same interior too, crappy ride, no LSD (although coming for 2009 with an even harsher ride). MBs style doesn't provoke emotions of "omg I want to drive it". And I seriously thought about buying this car because it was a bit more powerful than the M. But at the end of the day the C63 doesn't stack up to the M in all categories.

+1, you

ihyln wrote

I beg to differ, aside from some chrome bits and a quad exhaust it looks just like a C300. Same interior too, crappy ride, no LSD (although coming for 2009 with an even harsher ride). MBs style doesn't provoke emotions of "omg I want to drive it". And I seriously thought about buying this car because it was a bit more powerful than the M. But at the end of the day the C63 doesn't stack up to the M in all categories.

Compare the M3 sedan to the C63. There is no comparison, Merc is a way better looking car.

Have you test driven the C63? Like I said, M3 engineers messed up by not giving it enough torque.

stockwizard wrote

Like I said, M3 engineers messed up...

Stopped reading right there.

Hey.. The m3 is still a great car.

I just prefer what the C63 brings to the table after having driven both.

It also suits my style more. More blingy.

I hate how benz just stuff the same engine in every single AMG car....

hkwallace328 wrote

I hate how benz just stuff the same engine in every single AMG car....

That's another reason why this car is so great.

You can tune it very easily to over 500 hp if you so desire.

You basically get the same engine that is in cars that cost around 200k.

Very attractive indeed.

http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/showDetails.html?id=69030005&__lp=8&scopeId=C&sortOption.sortBy=price.consumerGrossEuro&sortOption.sortOrder=ASCENDING&makeModelVariant1.makeId=17200&makeModelVariant1.modelId=198&makeModelVariant1.searchInFreetext=false&makeModelVariant2.searchInFreetext=false&makeModelVariant3.searchInFreetext=false&vehicleCategory=Car&segment=Car&minFirstRegistrationDate=2008-01-01&siteId=GERMANY&negativeFeatures=EXPORT&damageUnrepaired=NO_DAMAGE_UNREPAIRED&customerIdsAsString=&lang=en&pageNumber=1

stockwizard wrote

Compare the M3 sedan to the C63. There is no comparison, Merc is a way better looking car.

Subjective. I'm not an M3 fanboy, and there are better looking cars than the M3, but the C63 is not one of them. The C63 looks like MB was trying way too hard, which makes the people who drive them look like they're trying way too hard. I did not want to be one of those people. Again, however, very subjective.

stockwizard wrote  

Have you test driven the C63? Like I said, M3 engineers messed up by not giving it enough torque.

The M3 has plenty of torque, and even better, it's very manageable power, both around town and on the track. MB messed up by putting that much torque in a RWD car with no LSD and trying to compensate for this mistake by giving it an overly intrusive ESC. This just wouldn't work on the frequently wet roads where I live.

Funny how we always try to convince other of our choice.

Both are arguably remarkable cars. C63 isn't available with MT, so it's no option for some and hence not for me.


Best regards, south

TLud wrote

Subjective. I'm not an M3 fanboy, and there are better looking cars than the M3, but the C63 is not one of them. The C63 looks like MB was trying way too hard, which makes the people who drive them look like they're trying way too hard. I did not want to be one of those people. Again, however, very subjective.



The M3 has plenty of torque, and even better, it's very manageable power, both around town and on the track. MB messed up by putting that much torque in a RWD car with no LSD and trying to compensate for this mistake by giving it an overly intrusive ESC. This just wouldn't work on the frequently wet roads where I live.

Merc comes with LSD as an Option with the Performance Package.

I have heard the c63 looks like it is trying too hard, and others say it looks just like a c300? Fact of the matter is IMO it looks much nice than the M3 sedan. The interiors aren't even comparable.

stockwizard wrote

Merc comes with LSD as an Option with the Performance Package.

I have heard the c63 looks like it is trying too hard, and others say it looks just like a c300? Fact of the matter is IMO it looks much nice than the M3 sedan. The interiors aren't even comparable.

I don't believe that you said you've driven both and still give the nod to MB. Ms leather is nicer than the base 3 and nicer than the MB. It's soft and grippy without being lumpy or hard.

If you have really driven both you'd know that the M has a more comfortable ride with EDC than the MB. If you think you can live with the MB's ride now just wait till you see how much worse it will get with the LSD.

You are deluding yourself if you think that the C63 doesn't look like a C300. There are very few exterior cues to say "I'm a C63". Aside from the AMG badge and quad exhausts, anyone looking at it from the front or the side won't know the difference. Good if you want a sleeper, I did actually but it didn't set itself apart from the C300 enough to warrant my money. That includes interior and exterior.

Final nail in the coffin is MBs reliability, it's gotten better, but not $70k better.

I have driven both! C63 stands out way more than the M3 Sedan!!!

Now I have people on here saying the M3 interior is nicer? lol
The seats in the C63 are totally different that the c300 and way better than the m. Everyone knows this.

As far as the ride being stiff, it depends what you are used to. To me it didn't feel that harsh really.

The engine sound is better as well. The only thing the M is better at is if you are tracking it consistently and it is a little smoother ride.

Some of you are way too biased. If you guys took the time to drive the car, most would agree with me.

A 335 EVEN HAS MORE TORQUE THAN A M3!!!!. EMBARRASSING. CAN"T IMAGINE A C300 HAVING MORE TORQUE THAN C63!!!!!!!!

stockwizard wrote

I have driven both! C63 stands out way more than the M3 Sedan!!!

Now I have people on here saying the M3 interior is nicer? lol
The seats in the C63 are totally different that the c300 and way better than the m. Everyone knows this.

As far as the ride being stiff, it depends what you are used to. To me it didn't feel that harsh really.

The engine sound is better as well. The only thing the M is better at is if you are tracking it consistently and it is a little smoother ride.

Some of you are way too biased. If you guys took the time to drive the car, most would agree with me.

A 335 EVEN HAS MORE TORQUE THAN A M3!!!!. EMBARRASSING. CAN"T IMAGINE A C300 HAVING MORE TORQUE THAN C63!!!!!!!!

I do like the C63, but...

C63 sound= Mustang+Corvette, etc.

M3 sound= F1

This is an argument that will never be won by either side. You are on an M3 forum, and thus will be met with overwhelming support from the M3 fans. Head over to the C63 forums and it will be just the opposite.

C63 or M3, it's really up to your preference. Like South said, they are both AMAZING cars. If you don't like the C63, its because you like the M3 so much, not because there is anything wrong with the Merc.

the new m3 is piece of sh**T i test drove the m3 sedan mdct and was not impress... i love the C63 amg. btw m3 compare to my e92 335i coupe was not that much different on the road...