2012 BMW M3 vs. 2012 C63 AMG Coupe

[graider]

Originally Posted by PhillyNate

Guys and gals, just face it, this car is simply worthy of legend status at this point. Just in time for the end of this generation. I've had a subscription to C&D for about 13 years and is probably one of the biggest aids in getting a feel for BMW's before I'd ever driven or could afford one. THEY ARE BIASED but what about the countless comparos this car has won in other publications. I own an M3, I'M BIASED but honestly there must be a reason this car is mentioned in the same breath of the only car it can't beat amongst enthusiasts. PORSCHE 911. The M3 only trumps that car in practicality. Also you must ask yourself is a 911 $20k to $25k better. I plan on asking myself this very question in a few years.
This M3 is something special folks and not because I say so but because everybody else says so too. At this price point and class in the words of Tina Turner it's "Simply the Best." If it isn't why do so many manufacturers aspire to beat it? Just my observations. My flamesuit is full on.

totally agree here. this is fact. i can't believe some of you still calling the bias stuff when pretty much all mag reviewers have declared the m3 winner repeatedly.

i mean it is impossible for all of them to be bias or wrong can't they?

[jqsmooth]

Originally Posted by PhillyNate

Guys and gals, just face it, this car is simply worthy of legend status at this point. Just in time for the end of this generation. I've had a subscription to C&D for about 13 years and is probably one of the biggest aids in getting a feel for BMW's before I'd ever driven or could afford one. THEY ARE BIASED but what about the countless comparos this car has won in other publications. I own an M3, I'M BIASED but honestly there must be a reason this car is mentioned in the same breath of the only car it can't beat amongst enthusiasts. PORSCHE 911. The M3 only trumps that car in practicality. Also you must ask yourself is a 911 $20k to $25k better. I plan on asking myself this very question in a few years.
This M3 is something special folks and not because I say so but because everybody else says so too. At this price point and class in the words of Tina Turner it's "Simply the Best." If it isn't why do so many manufacturers aspire to beat it? Just my observations. My flamesuit is full on.

That reminds me of Vince Vaughn movie.

For what it is, I love this car. I didn't dream about getting a new car for the past 8 years about an S5 or C63(they didn't even exist). Sure, newer and better(relatively speaking) cars are coming out every year. The M3 is a beast and an icon. It's a gold standard in my book. I can also put 2 golf bags in the trunk!

I also did read every article ever written by C&D on the M3. I'm probably brainwashed, just a little... hahaha

[Nine]

The 2012 c63Amg coupe is an M3 wannabe, not an alternative. blacked out roof and some of the photo angles make it look like an M3 cousin especially comparing the white M3 to white C63coupe.

MB loves to turn people into suckers by selling them poorly developed products, hence the stock tires, and half ass transmission attempts. No doubt a good car to look at, but certainly a bit more effort on their part would have been greatly appreciated for those of us who actually drive these cars.

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by Nine

The 2012 c63Amg coupe is an M3 wannabe, not an alternative. blacked out roof and some of the photo angles make it look like an M3 cousin especially comparing the white M3 to white C63coupe.

MB loves to turn people into suckers by selling them poorly developed products, hence the stock tires, and half ass transmission attempts. No doubt a good car to look at, but certainly a bit more effort on their part would have been greatly appreciated for those of us who actually drive these cars.

+1

I bought a C-class for my wife once...... Read "Once". I grew up in the back of MB's. A 1974 MB220 saved my life as a kid. However, MB isn't what it used to be. V6, Autos, they are the old mans car in Germany.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by ChrisK

... they are the old mans car in Germany.

They might beg to differ

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Nine

The 2012 c63Amg coupe is an M3 wannabe, not an alternative. blacked out roof and some of the photo angles make it look like an M3 cousin especially comparing the white M3 to white C63coupe.

MB loves to turn people into suckers by selling them poorly developed products, hence the stock tires, and half ass transmission attempts. No doubt a good car to look at, but certainly a bit more effort on their part would have been greatly appreciated for those of us who actually drive these cars.

Fanboy much?

To any unbiased performance driver, the C63 is terrific. The M3 is a better back-road bandit, and the C63 is quicker and faster in a straight line, and better around town or in traffic.

Bottom line: They're closer together than half-past six, and individual preferences make either one the car of choice. They are both top-notch cars.

For me, the bimmer is the car of choice, but in my case only because you can still get a stick, and I haven't matured enough to get one of today's clearly superior automatics.

Bruce

[Nine]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Fanboy much?

To any unbiased performance driver, the C63 is terrific. The M3 is a better back-road bandit, and the C63 is quicker and faster in a straight line, and better around town or in traffic.

Bottom line: They're closer together than half-past six, and individual preferences make either one the car of choice. They are both top-notch cars.

For me, the bimmer is the car of choice, but in my case only because you can still get a stick, and I haven't matured enough to get one of today's clearly superior automatics.

Bruce

Bruce, unfortunately, your opinion is naive and close minded - it is you who are the fan boy in this case.

Please read out loud the rear tire size of a c63amg coupe, and tell me with a straight face that it is acceptable on a 2 ton car with 450+hp. I hope you have matured enough to understand that MB can and should do better with their transmissions especially their 'automatics'. If BMW puts a getrag DCT in a 2008 M3, MB should (if it was a top notch car) have done equal or better in a 2012 c63amg coupe.

The c63amg coupe is just a base c63 with added power, when the power was never an issue for the car. To me saying that the M3 and the c63amg coupe are closer and closer is a very naive statement. That would be like saying that the Mustang GT is getting closer and closer to the c63amg.

When companies build performance cars, there is a different level of effort put forth. That level of effort becomes very obvious to performance minded drivers who are not just stomping on the gas on the local highway, rather turning lap times at the local track. The former is all that AMG seems to care about.

[bimmerj]

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce, unfortunately, your opinion is naive and close minded - it is you who are the fan boy in this case.

Please read out loud the rear tire size of a c63amg coupe, and tell me with a straight face that it is acceptable on a 2 ton car with 450+hp. I hope you have matured enough to understand that MB can and should do better with their transmissions especially their 'automatics'. If BMW puts a getrag DCT in a 2008 M3, MB should (if it was a top notch car) have done equal or better in a 2012 c63amg coupe.

The c63amg coupe is just a base c63 with added power, when the power was never an issue for the car. To me saying that the M3 and the c63amg coupe are closer and closer is a very naive statement. That would be like saying that the Mustang GT is getting closer and closer to the c63amg.

When companies build performance cars, there is a different level of effort put forth. That level of effort becomes very obvious to performance minded drivers who are not just stomping on the gas on the local highway, rather turning lap times at the local track. The former is all that AMG seems to care about.

I will sum up this for you in two lines.

MB was docked 4 points for the price in this comparo. In Canada, BMW will be docked 10 points for charging us an incredible premium. Put the C63 in that comparo way ahead. The morale of the story is, do not take C&D comparo, when it involves a BMW, into consideration.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by Nine

The 2012 c63Amg coupe is an M3 wannabe, not an alternative. blacked out roof and some of the photo angles make it look like an M3 cousin especially comparing the white M3 to white C63coupe.

MB loves to turn people into suckers by selling them poorly developed products, hence the stock tires, and half ass transmission attempts. No doubt a good car to look at, but certainly a bit more effort on their part would have been greatly appreciated for those of us who actually drive these cars.

Wannabe M3? The C63 AMG and the M3 are two completely different animals and I will inform you that the C63 AMG is FAR from being poorly developed. Have you actually driven one? The 'half assed transmission' can double clutch downshift and changes gears in 100ms. Please educate yourself before stating your opinion.

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/m...iturbo-engine/

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce, unfortunately, your opinion is naive and close minded - it is you who are the fan boy in this case.

Please read out loud the rear tire size of a c63amg coupe, and tell me with a straight face that it is acceptable on a 2 ton car with 450+hp. I hope you have matured enough to understand that MB can and should do better with their transmissions especially their 'automatics'. If BMW puts a getrag DCT in a 2008 M3, MB should (if it was a top notch car) have done equal or better in a 2012 c63amg coupe.

The c63amg coupe is just a base c63 with added power, when the power was never an issue for the car. To me saying that the M3 and the c63amg coupe are closer and closer is a very naive statement. That would be like saying that the Mustang GT is getting closer and closer to the c63amg.

When companies build performance cars, there is a different level of effort put forth. That level of effort becomes very obvious to performance minded drivers who are not just stomping on the gas on the local highway, rather turning lap times at the local track. The former is all that AMG seems to care about.

The C63's rear tires are 255's and they are fine for what 99.9% of the owners will be doing with them...driving them day to day. The reason the M3 has fatter tires is because people actually track them. MB knows the demographic of it's buyers as does BMW. The AMG doesn't come with a LSD standard either. Then again why would it need it? It's there for that .1% that will track the car(Yeah BMW's M-Diff blows MB's LSD away) but it's there.

Effort? Oh Please. The new interior blows the M3's away. The 6.2L engine is HAND BUILT. That's effort.

The C63 dynamically has come a long way. It's no M3 in the balance department but it has almost there. AMG's have always been about drifting hooliganism. That's what they do. Big engine in the front with lots of power to the rear wheels. Never has an AMG(Other then the black series) ever been about fast lap times.

In reference to your Mustang GT comment, it too has come a long way and is breathing down the neck of the M3. The reason I say this is because it takes the twisty stuff in stride while in the C63, you have to hang on for dear life. Not many cars other then American muscle(Camero, Charger, Vett(Which blows the doors off a C63)) really compete with the AMG. The reason that standing on the gas on your local highway is all AMG cares about is because that's what AMG does. AMG's go fast and make slide through corners. That's what makes it so much fun. It's effortless to drive day to day.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

As for the C&D comparo goes, we'll have to wait and see what the other mags have to say. Yes, C&D has favored BMW in the past but they've bashed them as well placing them last in the group comparo's with the 7 and the 5.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Fanboy much?

To any unbiased performance driver, the C63 is terrific. The M3 is a better back-road bandit, and the C63 is quicker and faster in a straight line, and better around town or in traffic.

Bottom line: They're closer together than half-past six, and individual preferences make either one the car of choice. They are both top-notch cars.

For me, the bimmer is the car of choice, but in my case only because you can still get a stick, and I haven't matured enough to get one of today's clearly superior automatics.

Bruce

Agreed Bruce, well said. I didn't buy the c63 only bc it was an auto and I wanted 6mt.

I do love my m3, but the amg was a very fun drive and had a lot to offer. And the engine was incredible.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by bimmerj

I will sum up this for you in two lines.

MB was docked 4 points for the price in this comparo. In Canada, BMW will be docked 10 points for charging us an incredible premium. Put the C63 in that comparo way ahead. The morale of the story is, do not take C&D comparo, when it involves a BMW, into consideration.

Uh, your basis is the comparo, not actual specification?? You must be kidding, this is the same comparo that placed the mustang in lock step with an M3, so by that token, I again return the challenge and say, if being close is a Mustang GT, that doesn't say much for the c63AMGcoupe.

Again, people jump to defend the c63AMG coupe, but rarely are they MB owners, or MB people. the C63amg coupe, is not 4 years of advanced technology over a 2008 c63amg coupe. That is my point, you aren't getting much more than visual changes after 4 years.

If I were an MB exec, I wouldn't build a AMG c coupe, portions and sizes are just off, I would focus on an E63AMG coupe, lines and size are perfect.

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

Wannabe M3? The C63 AMG and the M3 are two completely different animals

The 'half assed transmission' can double clutch downshift and changes gears in 100ms. Please educate yourself before stating your opinion.



The C63's rear tires are 255's and they are fine for what 99.9% of the owners will be doing with them...driving them day to day. The reason the M3 has fatter tires is because people actually track them. MB knows the demographic of it's buyers as does BMW. The AMG doesn't come with a LSD standard either. Then again why would it need it?

Please educate myself? I have, and as it stands MB's transmission is still 'behind' the DCT technology in the M3, to me that is failure, you can throw shift speeds out but, how much slower is it than the DCT? Hell, SMG was 80ms, how can you boast about 100ms, to me it is you that needs the education.

The tires are a SORE spot for ALL c63AMG owners, you really need to spend more time on MB world. Why would they NOT put LSD in an AMG car.. 255s are a joke, anyone who defends 255s on a 2 ton car with 450+hp, is lost. It will be all of 5,000 miles before you will be getting new tires...don't forget to PM me

In the end, these glory laps or time trials are great for selling magazines, but those who have owned or been around MB know that ownership extends further than the few miles that a tester spends in the car and writing the article. People wonder why MBs and AMG cars lose their value so quickly....to me it's obvious, they are building cars to keep up, rather than building cars to break through.

[BMoney]

I've got 12K on my tires and still have some life left so new tires every 5K doesn't apply to everyone. I don't think either of these cars hold much value though...I sold my M3 after 18 months and only got 45k for it(MSRP was 64). Not so hot! I agree the tranny is definitely not as good and is what I miss most about the M3.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by Nine

Uh, your basis is the comparo, not actual specification?? You must be kidding, this is the same comparo that placed the mustang in lock step with an M3, so by that token, I again return the challenge and say, if being close is a Mustang GT, that doesn't say much for the c63AMGcoupe.

Again, people jump to defend the c63AMG coupe, but rarely are they MB owners, or MB people. the C63amg coupe, is not 4 years of advanced technology over a 2008 c63amg coupe. That is my point, you aren't getting much more than visual changes after 4 years.

If I were an MB exec, I wouldn't build a AMG c coupe, portions and sizes are just off, I would focus on an E63AMG coupe, lines and size are perfect.




Please educate myself? I have, and as it stands MB's transmission is still 'behind' the DCT technology in the M3, to me that is failure, you can throw shift speeds out but, how much slower is it than the DCT? Hell, SMG was 80ms, how can you boast about 100ms, to me it is you that needs the education.

The tires are a SORE spot for ALL c63AMG owners, you really need to spend more time on MB world. Why would they NOT put LSD in an AMG car.. 255s are a joke, anyone who defends 255s on a 2 ton car with 450+hp, is lost. It will be all of 5,000 miles before you will be getting new tires...don't forget to PM me

In the end, these glory laps or time trials are great for selling magazines, but those who have owned or been around MB know that ownership extends further than the few miles that a tester spends in the car and writing the article. People wonder why MBs and AMG cars lose their value so quickly....to me it's obvious, they are building cars to keep up, rather than building cars to break through.

Yes, the tires are a sore spot. 255's are anemic for the monster engine that is up front. The thing I said aboug educating yourself before stating your opinion still stands. The refreshed C63 has over 2,000 new parts and changes so it's not just 'visual changes'. Again, AMG's and M's are two completely different machines. The M tends towards the backroad warrior while the AMG is for someone that wants to hang the rear end out going around corners each and every time. Does MB offer any of the services that BMW does? Nope. Would I love an M3? Of course, but as someone who has actually driven the C63 I can say the car is more fun to drive more of the time. I had a sport bike and I had to rev the thing to the thing to the moon before I got 'go' out of it. It gets tiring after awhile.


I'll also have to do some research on the shift times, but honestly it's not like it really makes any difference. I'm not on a race track. The point I was trying to make was that MBZ's auto's are known to be one of the best in the world.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Nine

Bruce, unfortunately, your opinion is naive and close minded - it is you who are the fan boy in this case.

I admit to being a fanboy, but a promiscuous one. I really like both these cars - and dozens more.

Originally Posted by Nine

Please read out loud the rear tire size of a c63amg coupe, and tell me with a straight face that it is acceptable on a 2 ton car with 450+hp. I hope you have matured enough to understand that MB can and should do better with their transmissions especially their 'automatics'. If BMW puts a getrag DCT in a 2008 M3, MB should (if it was a top notch car) have done equal or better in a 2012 c63amg coupe.

OK. I've read the tire size again - not out loud, but since my lips move when I read, close enough.

Now you'll have to take my word for it, but I have a straight face as I tell you that the tire size is acceptable on this car. In fact, since I have about eight months experience in an '09 C63, I'd say more than acceptable.

Both cars are traction limited in first gear, the C63 more so than the M3, but it's a matter of degree.

By the way, I've recently driven a wet-clutch-equipped C63, and although I think the previous torque-converter box was a good one, this new one is definitely even better.

Originally Posted by Nine

The c63amg coupe is just a base c63 with added power, when the power was never an issue for the car. To me saying that the M3 and the c63amg coupe are closer and closer is a very naive statement. That would be like saying that the Mustang GT is getting closer and closer to the c63amg.

Never mentioned "closer and closer", but said that they're closer together than half past six, for what it's worth. Apparently, Car & Driver agrees, wouldn't you say? Of course, they may be naive and close-minded as well.

By the way, both coupe and sedan are available with either engine.

And yes, the Mustang GT has made a giant stride toward performance competitiveness with both the Merc and the Bimmer.

Originally Posted by Nine

When companies build performance cars, there is a different level of effort put forth. That level of effort becomes very obvious to performance minded drivers who are not just stomping on the gas on the local highway, rather turning lap times at the local track. The former is all that AMG seems to care about.

The C63 is a very good handler when measured on an overall sporty-car scale. Just not as good as the M3. Of course, in my opinion the C63 is better than the M3 when just driving around.

I think it's time for you to give us an idea in regard to your credentials on this issue. Have you spent a lot of time in these two cars? If so, how can you be so one-sided in your analysis when the world pretty much agrees that these two cars are terrific, but with the great deal of weight given to back-road and track driving by most "sporty car" magazines, the M3 is better.

Face it. You are spouting an opinion as if it were a fact, and a not-very-well informed opinion at that.

Go here for another even-handed analysis of the two cars.

[K-M3]

Originally Posted by SamS

If you look at the test sheets, C&D actually drove a MY2011. Not that it's much difference, but still...

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...-m3-jan-12.pdf

Also, they matched the 6MT M3 to the Merc. Should have used DCT

+1 to this. would have been a more equivalent comparison........

[Nine]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Face it. You are spouting an opinion as if it were a fact, and a not-very-well informed opinion at that.

Opinion? I don't want to go tit for tat, I was actually a benz guy. But my two main points were the tires and the transmission, both of which I have factual data on...and yet you call it opinion?

I don't care who wins the magazine wars, but the C63amg sedan was close and or won the comparisons over 2-3 years ago. Now the Coupe comes with more power, updated this and that, but yet still not blowing the M3 out of the water and considered close or behind the M3? There are some relatively small adjustments that the AMG could have made to the c63amg that would punish the M3, and it SHOULD. can you imagine an m3 with 451hp, or better yet the 481hp? are you kidding me?

The deck is so far stacked against the M3, the AMG should have be MUCH more fun to drive, MUCH faster, to the point that all the M3 guys would have is their M badge to hold at night.

But it didn't, doesn't and that I guess is what I'm talking about.

[captainaudio]

A "Blink of an Eye" is 300-400ms so when we are talking about shift times of 200ms vs 50ms although it is technically 4 times faster we are talking about getting to a point where increases in shift time become moot.

CA

[WRXXX]

Originally Posted by Nine

Opinion? I don't want to go tit for tat, I was actually a benz guy. But my two main points were the tires and the transmission, both of which I have factual data on...and yet you call it opinion?

I don't care who wins the magazine wars, but the C63amg sedan was close and or won the comparisons over 2-3 years ago. Now the Coupe comes with more power, updated this and that, but yet still not blowing the M3 out of the water and considered close or behind the M3? There are some relatively small adjustments that the AMG could have made to the c63amg that would punish the M3, and it SHOULD. can you imagine an m3 with 451hp, or better yet the 481hp? are you kidding me?

The deck is so far stacked against the M3, the AMG should have be MUCH more fun to drive, MUCH faster, to the point that all the M3 guys would have is their M badge to hold at night.

But it didn't, doesn't and that I guess is what I'm talking about.

Dude, have u even driven a C63 like seriously? U are bashing something that u have no idea of. AMG's are geared towards burnouts and hooligan fun. Its basically a german muscle car. M's are about balance and handling hence why the lower tq figures. Just because it does not use a triple clutch system or have 325 wide tires it automatically sucks? Really? Its about catering to different audiences. People that buy AMG's will not track their cars much hence why there's really no need for wider tires or lsd. That's why its an option. In return you get a bigger engine (more tq), and a better DD experience. Therefore the simple fact that it is now pretty close to the M3 in terms of handling/driving dynamics is quite a feat itself for a car that's all about shear power in the first place. Also, the new Aventador doesn't have a DCT system so I guess it too sucks? Its about matching the transmission with the car's character.

I'll explain to u in simpler terms: Bento knife for cutting sushi and a cleaver for chopping meat. Different knives all together.

Its makes me wonder how someone with so little knowledge and a huge pile of ignorance manages to drive a M3. Oh right, daddy did most of the heavy lifting.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by WRXXX

Dude, have u even driven a C63 like seriously? U are bashing something that u have no idea of. AMG's are geared towards burnouts and hooligan fun. Its basically a german muscle car. M's are about balance and handling hence why the lower tq figures. Just because it does not use a triple clutch system or have 325 wide tires it automatically sucks? Really? Its about catering to different audiences. People that buy AMG's will not track their cars much hence why there's really no need for wider tires or lsd. That's why its an option. In return you get a bigger engine (more tq), and a better DD experience. Therefore the simple fact that it is now pretty close to the M3 in terms of handling/driving dynamics is quite a feat itself for a car that's all about shear power in the first place. Also, the new Aventador doesn't have a DCT system so I guess it too sucks? Its about matching the transmission with the car's character.

I'll explain to u in simpler terms: Bento knife for cutting sushi and a cleaver for chopping meat. Different knives all together.

Its makes me wonder how someone with so little knowledge and a huge pile of ignorance manages to drive a M3. Oh right, daddy did most of the heavy lifting.

let me just work backwards here with your post?
Daddy did the heavy lifting, what does that even mean? This screams insecurity on your part, don't spend too much time being concerned with my financial situation or anyones for that matter, focus on the point. (sidenote try to avoid jealousy) - my dad wouldn't buy me a BMW, he hates them.

Moving on, the incessant desire to compare the M3 to a knife, are you saying that I have little knowledge, Wait a minute....you just cliche'd the balls out of your post, and you are saying I have little knowledge? Are you telling me more about a car that has been around since 2008, with little to no performance impacting changes? Gee thanks for regurgitated information...

Ex. 2 of how naive you are:
This notion that AMG owners don't track their cars, are you kidding me? PLENTY of AMG owners track their cars, it's not a minority or a small group...probably one of the most naive comments I've ever read, you must not spend any time at the track. MB puts on many AMG events, plenty of members do private rentals, events and so on...you again show yourself naive.

Let's stick to the facts here;
Returning to the point of the thread, the article. Prices as tested 66k for the M3, 80k for the c63coupe. My problem is that MB could have done much better, another fact I offer at the people directing their comments at me, instead of MB/AMG:

2012 c63 coupe: 3996
2011 c63 Sedan: 3932

further looking at the details, for 80k, you are not getting much more than what was already available in a c63amg sedan (including p31 pack), you are getting non-performance upgrades in the c63coupe. Going back to my point, certainly a little more effort could have made the c63amg coupe a true M3 killer. They introduced a coupe, they knew it was going head to head with an m3, to me 4000lb pounds, glass roof, no lightweight options, not a great attempt, especially considering it is a coupe.

As a MB guy, I can't help but be a underwhelmed by this interation of the c63, it's more visual than performance product. Hopefully after the M156 is retired and the chassis is revised, MB will look at seriously de-throning the M3.


btw, that better not be a WRX screen name, noob.

[1º]

Originally Posted by Nine

btw, that better not be a WRX screen name, noob.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Nine

let me just work backwards here with your post?
Daddy did the heavy lifting, what does that even mean? This screams insecurity on your part, don't spend too much time being concerned with my financial situation or anyones for that matter, focus on the point. (sidenote try to avoid jealousy) - my dad wouldn't buy me a BMW, he hates them.

Moving on, the incessant desire to compare the M3 to a knife, are you saying that I have little knowledge, Wait a minute....you just cliche'd the balls out of your post, and you are saying I have little knowledge? Are you telling me more about a car that has been around since 2008, with little to no performance impacting changes? Gee thanks for regurgitated information...

Ex. 2 of how naive you are:
This notion that AMG owners don't track their cars, are you kidding me? PLENTY of AMG owners track their cars, it's not a minority or a small group...probably one of the most naive comments I've ever read, you must not spend any time at the track. MB puts on many AMG events, plenty of members do private rentals, events and so on...you again show yourself naive.

Let's stick to the facts here;
Returning to the point of the thread, the article. Prices as tested 66k for the M3, 80k for the c63coupe. My problem is that MB could have done much better, another fact I offer at the people directing their comments at me, instead of MB/AMG:

2012 c63 coupe: 3996
2011 c63 Sedan: 3932

further looking at the details, for 80k, you are not getting much more than what was already available in a c63amg sedan (including p31 pack), you are getting non-performance upgrades in the c63coupe. Going back to my point, certainly a little more effort could have made the c63amg coupe a true M3 killer. They introduced a coupe, they knew it was going head to head with an m3, to me 4000lb pounds, glass roof, no lightweight options, not a great attempt, especially considering it is a coupe.

As a MB guy, I can't help but be a underwhelmed by this interation of the c63, it's more visual than performance product. Hopefully after the M156 is retired and the chassis is revised, MB will look at seriously de-throning the M3.


btw, that better not be a WRX screen name, noob.

Since you have avoided the question multiple times, I am assuming you havent actually driven a c63 amg.

Its a great car, just like an m3 is. I personally like the fact that AMG and Merc put their own spin on their high performance line, just like BMW does with the M3. It would suck if the cars were identical.

Also, the m3 has made zero performance impacting changes since its introduction either so not sure why you are faulting the AMG here? The Merc actually has made some performance impacting changes, despite your inability to appreciate a car that can accelerate better.

Its always important to remember that 10 different people can drive a car and find different things that they like or dislike in it. Thats why all cars arent the same. The merc has a lot to offer, more power to AMG for building it.

BMW can learn something from Merc in terms of how to build a more flexible engine and Merc can learn from BMW on handling.

FYI, your condescending attitude is uncalled for and annoying.