Bloodstar57

Check out this video; 3:08.


Not sure how true this is but that's pretty quick.

gabe.m

Stock? Gotta try mine see what it does.

juse

stage1 c43 goes 0-100 in exactly 4.2
(367 -> 420 hp)

Bueller178

He claims in the video it's stock and if the time is accurate, that's pretty stout indeed.

Bloodstar57

I know. Mercedes states that the normal C63 is at 4.1 for 0-60. So 4.2 from 0-62 on a c43 is crazy

5ilver-5urfer

I would take this YouTube video with a huge grain of salt. I'm constantly on the lookout for C43 reviews to see how it pegs against upcoming releases like the new S5. I noticed that the Web had been flooded with reviews coming out of India over the past few weeks. Mercedes recently launched the C43 in India and hosted a huge event for local automotive journalists to come try the car on the Buddh circuit in India. The result is honestly some of the poorest automotive journalism I have ever seen - flooded with subjective statements and apparently blatantly false claims. Even autobytel who are well known for 0 to 60 times have been showing strange numbers on their YouTube videos. Mainly that a 340i xDrive will do 0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds, as opposed to the 4.4 to 4.6 that 1000 other sources have tested. I wonder if at this point automotive journalism is relying on clickbait like most vloggers do.

juse

c63 coupe goes 0-100 for 4.4
mercedes can tell anything they want but sorry it never goes for 4.0

Bloodstar57

Is that 100KPH?

koifysh

4.4-4.3 is the 0-60 time for the c63s coupe/sedan without using launch control. 3.8-3.9 0 to 60 MPH is the time you get when you use sport plus or race mode with launch control

sean1.8t

It has been reported from magazines such as Road&Track and Car&Driver that it'll do it in 4.4-4.5 seconds. Keep in mind they do a 5 foot roll out on all of their 0-60mph tests.

Real world absolute 0 to 60mph would probably be 4.7 seconds in perfect conditions. The lack of launch control really kills it. Probably be 4.4ish if we had it.

I wish I could give a good go myself and report my findings but being at 4500' of elevation I'm probably at about 5.0 seconds or a bit slower even. Elevation sucks.

RDOCA

A C43 pure stock will not do 0-62(0-100KPH) in 4.2 no matter the conditions.
Out here in CA we also suffer with 91 octane gas to make matters worse.

gabe.m

...aaaaa coupe?

Bloodstar57

Every other source I've checked thus far says 4.6 0-60 Mph. How they came up with 4.2 0-62 Mph is beyond me.

vaelin

Maybe it's pointed downhill. With a tailwind. Below sea level. With a C63S towing.

alexasa

iTrader: (1)

Definitely seems unrealistic.

There was a camaro SS vs Audi S5 vs C43 and it performed as expected.

Bloodstar57

Okay did I miss something 0-62mph(100kph) 4.5? Mercedes calms 4.6 0-60mph. Something's not adding up.

Bueller178

Everybody gets numbers all over the map. Best way to know is line them up like in the video and all that's left is the crying.

Bloodstar57

Yup seems like it is car and driver dependent. We know within the same model some cars perform better.
Or they could be tuning the press cars differently.

RDOCA

Driver/weather/track/brand of tires and condition and pressure/how much weight in car as in fuel load/elevation/fuel octane/proper timing of run/from stop or roll-out/and more variables.
MB is usually close to right number as apposed to someone like Audi that is conservative and can always be beat.

alexasa

iTrader: (1)

They usually state conservative numbers so that the numbers they are marketing cannot be taken as false advertisement.

Take the 3-5 most reputable magazines numbers and average them out and you have your 0-60 number.

You are far too concerned with it - a few tenths is not even recognizable.

Conditions and fuel quality will have a greater impact. And automatics are usually fairly replicable in terms of getting consistent numbers - so I wouldn't say the driver has much to do with how a AWD automatic gets of the line.

And they usually do it enough times to get accurate representation of the best case scenario.

GEARS5

Look, all I know is my C43 winds up to that redline so fast in 1st and 2nd, that I almost can't shift fast enough... I don't think any more power would be practical with the closely spaced 9G-Tronic.... and I refuse to let it shift itself.

0-60 times?.... we are better off labeling a car by half second increments... the C43 is a 4.5 second car, the C63 is a 4.0 second car.... etc... the variables are too many... besides, it is how fast a car "feels" in the real world that matters.... and the great thing about the 4-Matic, is the C43 feels fast in most conditions.

sean1.8t

THIS x 11'ty billion^

piredon11

I find the shift paddles don't respond fast enough at WOT. Usually end up short-shifting slightly or hitting the limiter. I also shift manually most of the time, but find I have better results letting it shift itself in a ***** out run to 60.

Regardless, agree with your conclusion. It's a 4.5 second car, vs a 4 second car in the c63. Not much of a difference. The c63 really pulls away at higher speeds, when traction is no longer an issue. So it feels much faster than the c43 when you hammer the accelerator at 60 mph.

GEARS5

Yes!!... slow response on the up-shifts, yet instantaneous on the downshifts (I wonder if it is a programming thing or limitations on the Transmission itself)

I'd definitely let it do the shifting in a drag race.

"The c63 really pulls away at higher speeds, when traction is no longer an issue. So it feels much faster than the c43 when you hammer the accelerator at 60 mph.".... I have nowhere that I could even do this, damn city congestion... and cops... the C63 would be wasted on me.

ShazV6

Interesting topic for sure. Sucks that the video only shows the camaro quarter mile time. Does anyone have any times for the c43 amg coupe? Or even the sedan?