Improviz

Doesn't look like C63 has anything to worry about in the speed department, unless this was a slow example; good trap, but probably about 3-4 mph off of the C63 (or what I'd think the C63 should do!):

Full article:

Test numbers:
0-30 1.8 sec
0-40 2.7
0-50 3.6
0-60 4.7
0-70 5.9
0-80 7.2
0-90 8.6
0-100 10.5
Passing, 45-65 mph 2.2
Quarter mile 13.0 sec @ 111.7 mph

ItalianStallion

It would have been great competition if it came out about 2 years ago...but the C63 and M3 will blow it out of the water. Then again, the 10k price difference could justify this.

spr

Seems like the same numbers all around a c55 would put down with 19's. I find it funny they would actually compare it to the new M3. Notice how the c63 was never mentioned-

AWDman

it was-towards the end of the article. "There, it took about, oh, two or three turns to realize the Nrburgring-tuned IS F is going to make serious trouble for the likes of the new BMW M3, the Audi RS4, and the Mercedes C63 AMG".

spr

Ah. Again I agree it is seriously outclassed depending on what the c63 and M3 are putting down for skidpad #'s. I would think they would be around .94+ esp since the 63 shares the clk63black front end, however it does run less rubber and not R compounds or coilovers. If the c63 doesn't put up at least .91 I think many AMG enthusiasts will be pissed. This is THE area where AMG has always been lacking.

ultraseven

Pretty disappointing straight line numbers, but this is probably why Lexus has been tight lipped about what kind of power numbers the engine will put down. 2 years ago this car would have been great, but as it stands the C63 should definitely outrun it. I'm not sure about the M3 though ...

NewR

From C&D

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 114 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 172 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

Full Article here
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-f.html?al=164

Improviz

I actually ran the hypothetical trap speed with this weight and horsepower, and it came out at 110.5, so this example seems to be putting out more like 430 horsepower.

I'm surprised that it didn't break into the 12's, particularly with an 8-speed transmission, with this power-weight number. My guess would be traction issues from the skinny 255's on the back (which would also hurt it on the skidpad).

Don't think it will give the C63 any problems in a straight line or in twisties, but it will definitely give the new M3 owners fits in straightline runs. M3s I've seen tested have been trapping at about this same speed, and given that this thing's doing it with an auto, few M3 drivers will be able to beat it, especially consistently. There is a reason most bracket racers use autos!

Improviz

Wow, impressive! If this is a representative example of a production car, they're underrating that thing a bit....with 3805 pounds curb weight and 114 mph, assuming 150 pound driver that example would have about 457 crank horsepower!

Hmm, all this with Lexus reliability & service, 6Y/70K powertrain warranty, and 25 mpg highway? Hmm.....it will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out sales-wise.

ultraseven

:O Those are great numbers. However, I believe CD has always tested with better straight line numbers on a consistent basis than Motortrend. i don't believe C/D has published their test results on a C63 yet.

spr

.5 sec is a HUGE difference especially on a car that is not manual....hmm

Improviz

If it doesn't have a limited slip, that could explain it somewhat....the CLK55 (especially the lighter 208) had similar variations in ETs thanks to the pain of getting it out of the hole on 245's with 390 or so lb-ft of torque. This IS is close to that, with only 255s on the rear....if C&D has a stickier track, that'd explain their faster times.

Wouldn't explain a 2mph difference in trap, though....we'll have to see what other publications get.

TopGun32

Edmunds trapped 109

MT trapped 111

and C&D 114....

sounds one mag test was going downhill a bit and had cool temps, and got a pre-production vehicle from Lexus.

same thing with the IS350... it ranged from 5.1 to 5.7

110 to 111 should be the norm.

Not bad for a 60k car and Lexus quality.

I expect the C63 to equal the 0-60 times, but have 114 average traps and as high as 115.

Let's wait on Road and Track and see if the average continues at around 110.

Very good job Lexus!

SeattleBum

I hope you're correct on those traps for the C63 but 457 crank hp and a projected hefty curb weight close to 4000lb might not us there. I trap 116mph in the 1/4 with 430hp/400tq to the wheels. That's over 500 crank. The Caddy also weighs 3850lbs. A typical M5/M6 traps 116mph in the 1/4 w/ 500 crank hp and about 4100lbs. Then again, the M5/M6/C63/IS-F also have 7+ gears.

TopGun32

I hear you..

but 450/454/457 is a marketing number.. don't expect to be tuned that low.

weight is around 3800+ just like the IS-F.

There was a euro mag test.. which mentioned close to 4000lbs but we don't know if that was with driver and full tank of gas.. it did not provide details.

we will know soon once we have the official north american specs.

I'm sticking to 114....

I don't understand how C&D was able to pull such a high trap speed on that car.

MB Fanatic

Anybody else think that the C63 is really putting down the same power as an E63? The whole 450hp thing is purely marketing.

The same could have been said for the E55 and SL55 tests.

chiphomme

How else would you explain C&Ds 3.9 second/12.3@116mph result on the C63?

Improviz

Exactly. E55 and SL55 were putting out same dyno #s, so it was clearly marketing to rate the E55 lower.

Seems to be the same with the C63 as well. With a curb weight of 4034 and allowing 150 pounds for driver, a 116 trap calculates out to 510 crank horsepower.

So it would certainly seem that the derated horsepower is more marketing than reality.

1qikctr

nice.

TopGun32

I called it.

C&D is trapping a bit too high..

you will see around 114 on average..

I'm official IN!!! bye bye 335 with piggyback, DP, exhaust and FMIC.

I rather mod the C63

IdriveFast

lol...Lexus and audi...always a year behind

edit: ok nevermind...i just saw the pricetag....

59K starting sounds way cheaper than the C63, M3, and the ridiculously overpriced RS4.

looks like lexus does it again...undercut the bigboys....and audi

TopGun32

way cheaper?

59k for IS-F

63k for C63 (target price)


4k? that a good price difference, but it won't sway any potential buyers.

A fully loaded IS-F or barebones C63.. I'll take the AMG.

ultraseven

59K for a base price of fully loaded? To make the ISF succesful Lexus is going to have to market it at least 10% below the Merc and Bimmer. Afterall, it's about 1/2 step behind in performance.

TopGun32

59k base..

expect mid 60's fully loaded

C63.. around 63k and high 60's fully loaded.

I would never own a Merc with a Navi.. we all know the MB Navi is not in par with Lexus.

I would not order the Pano roof (more weight)

dsb

I agree, MB nav does suck. Any $150 aftermarket nav is better. However, not getting the nav probably doesn't help resale value. I'd get it (got it) just because I believe a $50K+ car should always have Nav, Bi-xenon, and leather. In fact, that stuff should be standard at that price.