First Impressions: C63 AMG Coupe vs E92 M3 vs RS5 by Autobild

[MonteCarloM3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

This seems pretty harsh, and perhaps ignorant as well. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I haven't seen an RS5 in person yet, but if it hasn't lost anything, stylewise, to the S5, then it's pretty damned handsome.

As to performance, perhaps you haven't seen the videos presented in this very forum showing the M3 struggling a bit against the RS5 in the twisties. In both videos, the RS5 was just slightly quicker than the M3, although closer together than half past six.

Again, a bit harsh, and perhaps ignorant. The C63 is an adept overall performer. Quicker than the M3 in a straight line, and slower in the twisties. Around town in everyday driving, it's flat better, with torque everywhere, steering that is more meaty, and an exhaust note that, for most, is to die for.

It's fine with me that it's your favorite (and frankly, it deserves high praise), but back off on the "REAL sports car" nonsense. It feels vey good in the twisties, but it's WAY too big and fat to be a real sports car.

Based on current results (and more to come as soon as the RS5 gets to the States), the RS5 rules the twisties by a narrow margin, the C63 owns the straights, and the M3 is the best all-arounder.

Fair?

Or maybe it's the CTS-V that's the best all-arounder.

Whatever. From my perspective, there's not a loser in the bunch. They're ALL terrific. Just in slightly differing ways.

You don't need to diss the other guys to prove that your car is a good one.

Pretty fair statements although i disagree with the RS5 besting the M3 in the twisties. It's a big 'ol piggie, bigger than the M, and handles as such for the most part (ive driven one). It's the electronic wizardry that keeps the RS5 from being an understeering cow.

I agree though, audi could do so much better but i don't think they are really trying to best bmw. I seriously doubt a company that can make the all-round sensational R8 can't do better with it's other models, it just doesn't want to because they are already doing so well and increasing market share with their current crop of FWD platforms. A company like audi who has almost dominated LeMans for the last handful of years certainly knows how to make fast cars. So where is the bmw response to the R8? That would be nice to see too.

[Capt Slow]

The CTS-V cannot compare in my book. Yes it is fast, I respect that, but as for build quality and refinement I think it is miles behind. It is just not a desirable car, it looks chintzy and cheap.

Personally I would take an ISF over the CTSV, and I put that well below the C63, RS5 and of course the yard stick, the M3.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by MonteCarloM3

Pretty fair statements although i disagree with the RS5 besting the M3 in the twisties. It's a big 'ol piggie, bigger than the M, and handles as such for the most part (ive driven one). It's the electronic wizardry that keeps the RS5 from being an understeering cow...

Point taken- but I have to say it gets complicated.

Those two videos from a few months back clearly showed the RS5 to be a little quicker than the M3 in the twisties. In each case, the drivers agreed that the Audi was quicker, but not by much.

The drivers were magazine types, I think. Competent, but not race types.

Is the M3 more fun in the twisties? I think that's probably correct, although I haven't driven the RS5.

However, it does in fact get complicated, as I mentioned.

In these cases, I believe with some confidence that the Audi drivers were having more fun, because the bimmer pilots were working very, very hard to keep up. Taken individually, the bimmer is almost certainly the better overall dance partner, but going head to head, not so much.

As to electronic wizardry taming the Audi, I personally don't care if it's steam-powered wizardry. Flat out and head to head, the Audi was quicker, and the bimmer pilots were even getting a tad sloppy from time to time in the effort to keep up. Go here for an example. Couldn't find the other video, but the results were the same. Flat out, the Audi was a bit quicker.

No biggie, from my point of view, but slamming the Audi doesn't make sense, even in this venue. It's a viable competitor.

For me, the bimmer would be the car of choice between these two, because I haven't yet internalized the fact that the automatic boxes are obviously better, so I continue with my outdated preferences for a clutch and snick-snick shift lever.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

The CTS-V cannot compare in my book. Yes it is fast, I respect that, but as for build quality and refinement I think it is miles behind. It is just not a desirable car, it looks chintzy and cheap.

Personally I would take an ISF over the CTSV, and I put that well below the C63, RS5 and of course the yard stick, the M3.

Not that anybody cares what each of us thinks about styling, but for me, the CTS is the better looking car, and far from chintzy or cheap. Big deal. Styling comes in at about sixth for me, after go-stop-handle, comfort and quality of noise.

Build quality and refinement? Personally, I think build quality is a tossup. Refinement? Not sure what aspects of refinement you're referring to, but in my book, there is no obvious winner.

[FVM3]

C63: win in the straight line
M3: win in the corners
RS5 loose in both

[Capt Slow]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Not that anybody cares what each of us thinks about styling, but for me, the CTS is the better looking car, and far from chintzy or cheap. Big deal. Styling comes in at about sixth for me, after go-stop-handle, comfort and quality of noise.

Build quality and refinement? Personally, I think build quality is a tossup. Refinement? Not sure what aspects of refinement you're referring to, but in my book, there is no obvious winner.

I still disagree in regards to the looks of the CTS-V. Personally i'm not a fan, looks more like a hatch than a coupe, too many sharp lines for me. Interior reminds me too much of a Holden (or Vauxhall). I respect your view and you are right in that looks are subjective. My point in relation to refinement was too do with the technology used in the drive trains of the cars. The CTS-V cannot compare to the others more modern DOHC technology.

Here is why:

The conventional auto units used in the Merc and CTS-V can't compare to the shift speed, economy and engagements that delivered in the M3 via M DCT and the Audi via S-Tronic. These dual clutch systems are far superior, however respect must go to the M3 and Cadillac for still allowing "archaic" manual transmissions. You have to remember that the BMW and the AMG both have multiple International Engine of the Year Award winners nestled under their bonnets. This is not pure coincidence or luck. If the M5 V10 and the 6.2 AMG V8 did not exist I am sure the Audi's 4.2 V8 would have knocked off the 4.0+ category given the huge amount of praise it also receives.

The CTS-V engine (GM "LSA") cannot hold a candle to any of these other cars in terms of both fuel economy and emissions, these are facts. The LSA engine also cannot match the Audi 4.2 and BMW 4.0 engines in terms of hp/liter either. It does pull ahead of the AMG 6.2 in this regard, however you have to remember that the LSA is supercharged, not naturally aspirated like the AMG is. Lets not forget that the AMG unit is a "diet" version of the power-plant used to move the SLS AMG, which is the most powerful N/A production car available.

The LSA engine features frankly Jurassic push-rod technology and architecture that dates back to 1997. there is nothing wrong with that, it is an immensely powerful engine. The LSA basic architecture is based on the GM LS3 6.2 V8 engine. This engine is used in the Corvette Z06 and the HSV GTS where I am from in a 436hp guise. That engine (LS3) albeit one supercharger, cannot match the AMG engine in terms of hp/liter, even without the AMG Performance Package power bump. The only real reason it produces such a large amount of power is due to the aforementioned supercharger. Adding a supercharger to an engine is obviously very effective, but you cannot ignore the level of engineering that has gone in to the other cars, in particular the M3 and Audi engines. They come very close to the C63 in terms of power, yet they are a third smaller and still rely on natural aspiration. Massive credit there.

The LSA like the LS3 also features 2 vales per cylinder, totaling 16 for the Caddy whereas the others all have 4 valves per cylinder, for a total of 32. Double. This sort of technology (Over Head Cams, Variable Valve Timing etc) is miles ahead of the GM engines and it has been around for decades. Many other Automotive manufacturers utilize this sort of technology in their engines too. You don't need a massive income or to have to go to Europe to see it either, companies like Ford, Honda, Toyota, all utilize it. Yet, GM still do not for their most desirable cars. On a purely technological standpoint, all power figures, penis measurements aside, the engine in a Toyota Camry is more technologically advanced. Don't get me wrong, I know which I would rather have under the bonnet, but my argument is based purely on technology and refinement.

In regard to the LS3 engine, I have driven a car with that engine, a HSV GTS. I have also driven an E92 M3, both had 6MT and both were great in their own way. I know without even needing to drive it that the CTS-V would be a blast to drive, I cannot ignore that. Personally, it does not appeal to me, I don't find it as desirable as the other trio. Based solely one refinement and technology, not outright power figures, the CTS-V's rivals are really just in a completely different league all together. Their technology just cannot be ignored.

Speaking of rivals, the CTS-V sedan tackles the M5 directly, so shouldn't the coupe variant, logically, tackle the M6?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

...My point in relation to refinement was too do with the technology used in the drive trains of the cars. The CTS-V cannot compare to the others more modern DOHC technology.

Two things:

First of all, you are somehow equating technology and refinement, which is silly. Rolls Royce and Bentley, for instance, have motored around for decades with antiquated technology, and they could not (and still cannot) be beaten for refinement.

Second, if you are a fan of high-tech, that's fine with me (and in fact I was more or less smitten for awhile by the five-valve technology Audi implemented awhile back), but for me it only matters when it actually matters - and it didn't really matter in the Audi, compared with the competition.

In point of fact, the CTS-V competes successfully on pretty much all fronts. It's faster in a straight line, apparently faster in the twisties, has a good ride/handling compromise, and makes good noises. As far as fuel efficiency goes, it's bigger and about 600 pounds heavier than the M3, and it does 14/19 in U.S. testing with the auto, and 12/18 with the stick. The Merc does 12/19 and the Audi pre-results are 15/20.

Nothing stands out here. The Cadillac is the biggest and heaviest car, and it gets the worst fuel mileage by a tiny amount. As you point out, it's 5-series big, but here in the States, it competes on price (and more than competes in performance) with the others mentioned.

For the high-tech junkie, the CTS-V is a non-starter, but for those of us who care a bunch more about results, it's absolutely competitive, and a winner in performance.

From my perspective, power per liter, rpm, etc. are all more suited to cocktail party bragging than to actual performance results. Dual-clutch autos are also pretty cool from my perspective, but again, it's results that count. What the torque-converter auto in the Cadillac lacks in responsiveness, it makes up for in creamy smoothness around town, where I have yet to find a dual clutch iteration that offers that same level of smoothness - especially from rest.

As to refinement, the CTS-V is quiet and composed in everyday driving, with that tidal wave of torque making for effortless, drama-free part-throttle acceleration. It gets more rowdy at full throttle, but still not in any way unrefined. In fact, there are those who feel it ought to sound and feel a little more dramatic when you're caning it - like the M and and C63 do.

Whatever. My central point is that each of these cars (along with the IS-F) is terrific in its own right. Not a loser in the bunch.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

C63: win in the straight line
M3: win in the corners
RS5 loose in both

Why would the RS5 be loose?

[Capt Slow]

Love a good debate lol
My point was about refinement of drive trains used, and the technology used in them to create the same. Not anything else.

You point in relation to Rolls Royce and Bentley, the reason they can't be matched for refinement, as you state, is because of the new technological advancements used in their cars.

Do you think they use the same suspension and the same chassis they did 40 decades ago? Or the same engines? Rolls have been powered by BMW since 2003. Just because the engine displacement in the current phantom V12 is "6.75" does not mean it is the same engine as the "6.75" engine in the Phantom from the 70's, which wasn't even a V12, but a V8. Same for Bentley, a VW group Twin turbo W12. I don't recall Bentley having such an engine 30 years ago. So your comment in relation to that is irrelevant.

As for the Audi remark, the technology does matter as it was the basis of my argument, again, not performance numbers.

"Cocktail party talk"? Haha I like that, will have to try cocktails one day lol.
The same argument springs to mind when you mention how fast and powerful the CTSV is in a discussion on refinement and tech, which I will remind you was and is NOT the basis of my point.

Yes, the CTS-V is heavier, I didn't design it, if Cadillac want to make a heavy car and compare it to lighter ones and it as a result is not as fuel efficient, then my point is not only valid, but fair game. The comparison on price is a good one, if your buying one. However the GTR could also be included under this rule, which would absolutely walk all of these cars.

The car fits the almost exact criteria for the M6, bar price, which based on specifications, not which you can afford, I would compare it to. However, the GTR is compared to the 911 turbo, R8 V10 etc despite the big price gap, purely because it is in the same ball park, it is a super car after all.

And finally, your point on that there are no losers...
I agree

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

This seems pretty harsh, and perhaps ignorant as well. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I haven't seen an RS5 in person yet, but if it hasn't lost anything, stylewise, to the S5, then it's pretty damned handsome.

As to performance, perhaps you haven't seen the videos presented in this very forum showing the M3 struggling a bit against the RS5 in the twisties. In both videos, the RS5 was just slightly quicker than the M3, although closer together than half past six.



Again, a bit harsh, and perhaps ignorant. The C63 is an adept overall performer. Quicker than the M3 in a straight line, and slower in the twisties. Around town in everyday driving, it's flat better, with torque everywhere, steering that is more meaty, and an exhaust note that, for most, is to die for.



It's fine with me that it's your favorite (and frankly, it deserves high praise), but back off on the "REAL sports car" nonsense. It feels vey good in the twisties, but it's WAY too big and fat to be a real sports car.

Based on current results (and more to come as soon as the RS5 gets to the States), the RS5 rules the twisties by a narrow margin, the C63 owns the straights, and the M3 is the best all-arounder.

Fair?

Or maybe it's the CTS-V that's the best all-arounder.

Whatever. From my perspective, there's not a loser in the bunch. They're ALL terrific. Just in slightly differing ways.

You don't need to diss the other guys to prove that your car is a good one.

What Bruce said. That new C63 AMG Coupe is currently being considered as my next car.

[assinizarM3]

Originally Posted by Tattedtwice

SUCH a dumb statement, although I do agree the nissan brand is inferior.
Still, BMW had the Lshaped taillights for how many years and how many models before the nissan came along? If anything it could be said nissan copied them.

The L shaped tail lamp is a bmw classic...we're talkin more than 20 years! First seen in the e32...that's before i was born anybody sayin that bmw is copying any brand just isn't a car guy that knows the history of brands...and i guess that's okay!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

Love a good debate lol
My point was about refinement of drive trains used, and the technology used in them to create the same. Not anything else.

You point in relation to Rolls Royce and Bentley, the reason they can't be matched for refinement, as you state, is because of the new technological advancements used in their cars.

Do you think they use the same suspension and the same chassis they did 40 decades ago? Or the same engines? Rolls have been powered by BMW since 2003. Just because the engine displacement in the current phantom V12 is "6.75" does not mean it is the same engine as the "6.75" engine in the Phantom from the 70's, which wasn't even a V12, but a V8. Same for Bentley, a VW group Twin turbo W12. I don't recall Bentley having such an engine 30 years ago. So your comment in relation to that is irrelevant.

I'll make one last effort to remove your confusion in regard to "refinement" being synonymous with "high tech". Then I'll give up. First of all, I used RR & Bentley without regard to any particular model year. The old V8 replaced, as you say, in the Rolls in 2003, and more recently in the Bentley, was in no way unrefined. It was big and heavy, and harder to tune for worldwide emissions, so it got replaced.

Let me use another example. The SMG abomination BMW implemented a few years back was an extremely good track choice, but on the street is was a serious contender for "World's Worst Automatic" with bronze filigree and oak leaf cluster. High tech? Yes. Refined? Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

As for the Audi remark, the technology does matter as it was the basis of my argument, again, not performance numbers.

My reference to the Audi was in regard to my assertion that high tech only matters when it matters (from my personal point of view). The five-valve design was arguably high tech, but offered no advantage over more plebian offerings, either in performance, mileage or emissions.

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

"Cocktail party talk"? Haha I like that, will have to try cocktails one day lol.
The same argument springs to mind when you mention how fast and powerful the CTSV is in a discussion on refinement and tech, which I will remind you was and is NOT the basis of my point.

Pardon me. You are taking the position that high tech matters in its own right, while I am taking the position that high tech only matters when it offers an advantage. In this regard, the Cadillac competes straight up with more high-tech offerings, so from my point of view, high tech doesn't seem to matter in this particular comparison.

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

Yes, the CTS-V is heavier, I didn't design it, if Cadillac want to make a heavy car and compare it to lighter ones and it as a result is not as fuel efficient, then my point is not only valid, but fair game. The comparison on price is a good one, if your buying one. However the GTR could also be included under this rule, which would absolutely walk all of these cars.

In fact, Cadillac positioned the car against the M5 at announcement, showing how it could pretty handily outperform that car. The marketplace decided that the CTS-V was also an M3 competitor, however. By the way, compared with the M5/M6, the Caddy does better on fuel economy, with both the bimmers at 11/17, city/highway.

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

The car fits the almost exact criteria for the M6, bar price, which based on specifications, not which you can afford, I would compare it to. However, the GTR is compared to the 911 turbo, R8 V10 etc despite the big price gap, purely because it is in the same ball park, it is a super car after all.

As an aside, the GT-R is another example of high tech and refinement being completely different things.

Originally Posted by Capt Slow

And finally, your point on that there are no losers...
I agree

Well, that's the main point after all, isn't it. Great cars all.

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Why would the RS5 be loose?

c63 is the fastest in the straight line and the m3 is the fastest on the track. RS5 will lose in straight line and track.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

c63 is the fastest in the straight line and the m3 is the fastest on the track. RS5 will loose in straight line and track.

First of all, it's "lose", not "loose".

More to the point, the RS5 seems to be a real competitor to the M3 in terms of its ability to get around a given track.

Bruce

PS - The CTS-V is the quickest in a straight line, and one could make a very good case that it's also quickest on track.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by christopherchenm

c63 is the fastest in the straight line and the m3 is the fastest on the track. RS5 will loose in straight line and track.

Oh I sea.

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all, it's "lose", not "loose".

More to the point, the RS5 seems to be a real competitor to the M3 in terms of its ability to get around a given track.

Bruce

PS - The CTS-V is the quickest in a straight line, and one could make a very good case that it's also quickest on track.

Im not really familiar with the cts-v so i cant comment on that. I think RS5 look good but i cant deal with its weight

[Capt Slow]

Hmm doesn't seem like either of us will budge Bruce, so agree to disagree, but nice "dueling" with you lol

[CAPSGOD]

Originally Posted by assinizarM3

The L shaped tail lamp is a bmw classic...we're talkin more than 20 years! First seen in the e32...that's before i was born anybody sayin that bmw is copying any brand just isn't a car guy that knows the history of brands...and i guess that's okay!

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

In just a few words ............ "there is nothing like an ///M"

[FVM3]

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

In just a few words ............ "there is nothing like an ///M"

+1 . Although the c63 is like a rocket in straight line, it doesnt have the raw feeling. Handling M is always the best

[Capt Slow]

I see what you mean with the above pictures. So long as it's looks nice, who cares?

[Jack28]

"As for emotions, the M3 is still king in its class"

Yes Sir....