oakmossy

I wish I new how many c43 owners raced c63's and won. I assume that the c43 g9 trans/4 matics are faster in everyday driving than c63 rwd drive.

SoCalC43

I think stoplight to stoplight everyday driving would be close due to the AWD traction in the C43 but any long distance, high speed or rolling start race the C63 would easily win. From a dig on the street it would be interesting but the 43 is lacking power to really compete in any other way.

cenzo86

This was out a few weeks ago. I'm thinking it's only an 1/8 mile though. The c63 should be able make up the difference by the quarter mile trapping at 120+MPH.

dforman15

its definitely wet outside and looks like it could have just rained. HAHA. Maybe try it in the dry.

MrMeth90

Might be the worst race I’ve ever witnessed. It was almost a joke...

bna43AMG

^Agreed

GordonGEICO

Just stop. The C43 is not faster.

C43 Coupe

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 19.2 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.8 sec @ 109 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph

C63S Coupe

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.0 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 19.6 sec
Zero to 170 mph: 29.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.0 sec @ 121 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 180 mph

The C63S is faster 0-60, rolling start, 30-50, 50-70, and every other meaningful measure. By the time the C43 is doing 130, the C63S is doing 150. If you want to be technical/literal, and talk about the C63 rather than C63S, add a couple tenths to the C63S times. Sorry man. You have a fabulous car, but trying to rationalize it by ASSUMING it's faster than the C63 is just silly. It's not and it won't be. AWD can't overcome the 100-140 hp disadvantage, and the 9G is not any faster than the MCT in the C63.

threefirs

All of this is great, but have you ever actually taken the C63s to the strip?

The M4 does comparable numbers and I've seen them have trouble breaking 13's because it takes a lot more skill to drive a RWD at those times than it does a AWD C43. I'd bet on 95%+ of C63s drivers not being able to hit even close to 3.8 0-60.

oldman&theC

Are we comparing cars or drivers? There is no comparison between the C63s & the C43.The c63s totally dominates all performance numbers.If you are comparing drivers,the comparison should be done in the same car.Don't blame the car for the poor skills of the driver.

threefirs

I think comparing against what a pro driver can run in this car vs what average people are running are two very different things. If you want to believe your car is a 12.0 flat car because a pro driver did it, then so be it. But average drivers are taking the C43 into 12.7-12.8 - I would guess an average driver is running low-mid 13's in a C63s.

Star4life

we haven't even begun to discuss a tuned c43.

i think a stock c43 to even attempt to compare to the c63s is wishful thinking and disrespecful to the cars. we have a 43 and others have a 63. respect the 63 and its v8 glory. its a bigger more powerful engine period. if it has traction it will walk us. now daily driving on street tires i think it will still have us in dry conditions. but, tune our car and i think we will take them even tuned in most daily driving except highway rolls.

now a tuned c43 will have much more to say but get proper tires/hookup on a 63 and its a quicker car. but tuned we are comparable and in their ballpark. you can always say oh the 63 could be tuned. but figure there are maybe 50 c63 owners active on this forum? maybe im way under. But lets say every single active member was tuned. thats averaging 1 per state if my numbers are correct. that means a majority of c63s or c63 (c43/450s as well) are NOT tuned. that means if you are tuned in either car, you have a good chance that the same car next to you is not tuned so you could walk/stick with them.

just something i was thinking about the other day. i am sure the tuned car numbers are higher but just to give an idea. i rarely see c63/c43 on the road. in fact i have never seen a new c63 on the road in michigan. only the w204. i have seen 3 c43 in michigan and 1 c450 in Boston ever.

GordonGEICO

0% of C43 drivers can hit 3.8 0-60.

Star4life

stock probably not. tuned yes. i believe there was a vbox of one doing it.

munis

That is not true. I have done 3.9 to a 4 before in my stock car. Repeatedly.

GordonGEICO

The thing is, any tuned car has the potential to be faster than any other car, so it's kind of a pointless exercise to bring that up. You said it best with "i think a stock c43 to even attempt to compare to the c63s is wishful thinking and disrespecful to the cars."

The OP said everyday driving - this means moving around in traffic, passing people, merging onto highways, etc. The C63 is going to be faster in all those instances, and despite what M4 drivers are doing at the track, it doesn't take a pro driver to realize it. If by "everyday driving" the OP meant exclusively racing from a dead stop to 40 mph and then shutting it down immediately, I'll give that to him just so he can feel better about his car, which by the way, is a great car in its own right and doesn't need to have made up/phony reasons to rationalize/justify it.

GordonGEICO

So? 3.9 to 4 isn't 3.8.

Star4life

true any car can be tuned.


hope you are enjoying the c63s

threefirs

Do you have any track slips? Anything? Or are you basing everything on car and driver? I get it, it makes less power, but don't underestimate AWD and how hard it is to launch a RWD 500HP car. I'm positive there are stock cars here that will run better times than you. So maybe C43 is not faster than all C63's, but there are plenty faster than yours!

Lazz83

You are incorrect sir, a member here hit 3.8 seconds documented on a tracking computer in his AMR tuned C43 with his wife in the passengers seat. The person estimated that with only a driver in the car they could hit 0-60 in 3.6 seconds.

I agree you cant really compare the two cars, but I have heard many complaints about traction in the C63's, it would be better to compare a C43 to a C63 4 matic if they made one and that would not match up well for a C43-

18bora

I did roll racing last month, we had about 150' to get up to-&-maintain 40mph, then floor it. Basically, this was a 40mph roll race. One of my runs was vs. a tuned C63s (middle run), I was on map2 which traps around 113mph. You can call this tuned vs. tuned. Until the 330', we were right next to each other. At the 1/8th mile, he was about 1/2 car ahead of me, after that, lights-out.

On the street, the driver with a better reaction time will most likely win. If a soccer-mom in a minivan puts 2 cars on you before you wake up at the light, it's very hard to recover!

oakmossy

I purchased a c43. On the street, a g9 4 matic package has a chance of beating the higher powered c63 generally speaking, re: vids on youtube. Now let's take a tuned ( amr) c43, would it be faster all around, maybe. Where would your place your $1000 bet on two 'jaboney' street racers, fun right?.

I like both cars for different reasons.

The motor trend c43 road test published recently, repeatedly ran 4.2's with a stock car ( all the stars were aligned, just like the numbers published for the c63's). When ( if ) the mercedes company makes a c63 available with g9 and 4 matic, then the c63 will be faster in real life driving situations, IMO.
cheers

cenzo86

LOVE IT.
We should take this discussion over to the C63 board and see what they say. Those guys take their ONE MAN creedo very seriously.