ultraseven

I've read somewhere that the 4 door doesn't offer SMG or the still WIP DSG tranny. I ain't gonna shift for myself in rush hour traffic.

SolidGranite

Are you serious about this? Mercedes recently made a significant jump in all around vehicle quality ratings and is higher than BMW.

Mercedes: #7 overall
BMW: #12 overall

http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/...r=1&orderDir=1

TopGun32

4000+ with driver.. and gas

TopGun32

+1

the 204 is the beggining of quality being a top priority with MB.

BMW won't win this argument.

TopGun32

+1

maybe the M3 can have the magazine on his rear window as a C63 blast through.. as a sign of superiority.

TopGun32

My c32 can average 13mph if I drive it like I stole it...

if you drive around town, stop light to stop light like a missle.. you will average really poor.

I don't see why the C63 would average worst MPG than a E.. same engine. and its lighter..

SEXYBEEST

does anybody else live here in santa barbara? i have seen the un-bagged all blacked out M3 driving around with dealer plates, it sounds nice with the double duel exhaust but it's looks are just OK, the cowl hood is kinda outa place on the bonnet, i tried taking a pic but it was just too dark, the cool thing was when i saw it there was a unbagged X5 right behind it with dealer plates that sounded awesome!

dsb

I'm sorry if someone else already addressed this comment. Honestly, I sometimes skip through the posts when there's a bunch of argumentative posts.

Anyways, I believe the stats above are bogus. Not that the information is incorrect, it's just poor information. IIRC, the test is performed in top gear. Now, in a manual, they would shift into 6th and time the run. However, in Auto's, they usually allow the car to downshift. So, an auto will always perform better here. Instead, I think the test should allow the driver to downshift into optimal gear like the auto tranny. Instead, they don't and it leaves the readers misinformed.

If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. Like I said... IIRC.

CynCarvin32

I have been seeing these cars around in various states of disguise for about a year or more. They do emissions testing in so-cal so they are out putting 150k miles on the cars making sure the cars hold up as planned for California and US EPA standards.

I bet the car you saw said DST not DLR as no dealerships have cars at their disposal at this point in time.

They guys tend to rip around in them and it does sound really nice.

Back when the M6 was not out for sale, a friend got into a car accident with a Prototype M5 and and Prototype M6. I went to help out and it was quite a site to see the test vehicles there with really angry drivers. The drivers are just normal people making 10 bucks an hour to drive the car for 8 hr shifts. They had to call back to the headquarters about the crash and the phone calls did not sound to positive even though it was not their faults. Some fool in a Camry rear ended a car at 60 and caused a big accordion effect crash.

Right now you can see the new X6 out testing and I have heard the revised 7 series just showed up as well.

E552006

Did they weigh the C63 with a trunk full of bricks? Per MB specs this car weighs in at 1730 KG with a 63 KG driver, 30% gas tank filled and a bit of luggage. Conversion ='s 3806 LBS. With Driver......... Something is very wrong with CD's weight claims.

SolidGranite

I agree. I just don't understand how it could be over 4k lbs and still get these kind of straight line performance numbers. This means w/ the pano roof the car would weigh in over 4200lbs! Just doesn't seem right...

dsb

So is there any stock E63 or CLS63's that have gotten better times on street tires?

dsb

Interesting. I did a little searching and everyone is claiming around 3750-3800lbs. I agree. Something is not right. What happened? How did the tested weight jump a couple hundred pounds?

TopGun32

I agree..

I'll wait for official North American specs before jumping to any conclusions.

I still believe weight is around 3800, like the Lexus.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Good point, those numbers didn't wash with me at all either.

erol/frost

Chiphomme wins.

Hope your keyboard has run out of words now Improviz.

Improviz

Yawn....one of gustav's butt buddies doesn't like me. What a surprise!!

DarkXerox

Yeah I agree on this too. Can't match the variation this track has and it is still the standard for manufacturers. I'm waiting for the sedan to sedan comparo also. I'll bet that without the CF roof, and given a sunroof(likely going to be common, don't see many sedans without one), 2 extra doors (dont forget the 200lb man supporting door hinges of the W204 lol) the weights will be a little more realistic (add ~50lbs+ to the sedan). The e36 is a much different beast than the e92/90, ie no rear side airbags, head curtain bags, etc. There is just so much more equipment that goes into modern cars than just 10-15 years ago. But we can speculate all we want until someone does real testing sedan vs sedan.

As for the MPG problem, I get around 13-17 on my commute through town (lots of hills, no freeway), my friends e36 coupe gets around this too. If you want fuel economy, buy a hybrid. I'll take a ~5 mpg hit for 510hp.

ItalianStallion

I think you guys are taking this mpg thing way too seriously. It can't get any worse than an E63 does, so don't sweat it.

On my CLK500 (not even an AMG!) I average my mpg every day to work anywhere from 9-15mpg and there are times where I'll even hit 8 and 7.. It just depends on how you drive it and obviously the car and driver guys were heavy footed. On my dad's SL55 it was consistantly under 10mpg too, I don't think I ever saw over 11 on that thing. So I don't see the big deal, I'm sure if you let the car cruise you'll see normal results.

W219CLS55

How much is the C63?
and when is there release date?


Consider it done

Bilal

Guys, some clarification on certain matters I picked up in this thread:

*The European standard of vehicle weight is with driver (90kg) + luggage (7kg) + fuel tank 90% full. This would take a STANDARD (meaning no extra options) C63 car to weigh 1730kg. BMW/ Audi are also bound by these European guidelines, as is Porsche and basically any other car manufacturer from 'European Union' countries.

*The C63 does not have adjustable suspension. Its front rack is heavily borrowed from the CLK 63 Black Series. Why we couldn't have simple, adjustable systems like everyone is sporting from the M3 to the 997 GT3 to the Ferrari F430 Scuderia is incomprehensible. I realise weight and cost are the key issues, but nonetheless, daily 'driveability' is compromised by AMG pursuing M3 drivers and N'ring lap times, whilst compromising the key attributes preferred by AMG's core customers (ride comfort being one of them, at the very minimum for all its saloons and GT's.)

*The ride, as per the 4car review below, states that curiously, the ride is smoother on cars equipped with the 19inch wheel and stiffer suspension (performance package) than the standard 18inch wheels

"The downside to all this is the hard, unforgiving ride. While body roll is beautifully contained, and the C63 AMG handles with an agility that belies its 1,730kg kerb weight, it shudders and jolts over poor road surfaces at low speeds. Strangely, the 19" wheels seem to give a better ride than the standard 18-inchers, but it's a fairly uncompromising experience either way, which may not translate well to British roads and day-to-day commuting or business travel. It's only for those firmly committed to the AMG ideals."

http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/merc...-class/11754/3

*The 30-50mph times are fantastically fast on this car because the car was in full automatic mode and the car must/will have downshifted from 7th gear, hence the quick time.

*What beggars belief however, is that Manual mode in all AMG's for the past 4 or so years will never downshift or upshift no matter what gear the car is in. Why oh why, C&D could not have used the C63's Manual mode and manually shifted to 7th Gear before performing this test will remain a mystery. Mind you, with the 7G Tronic's weird ratios to save fuel consumption (6th/7th gear are basically overdrive), in full manual mode, the C63's in-gear times would probably be a full 4-5 seconds, behind the M3's times !

*Fuel Consumption? 10mpg is notoriously low and with the same gearing as the E63 and slightly lesser weight, the C63 if anything, should match the E63. C&D sure must have lead feet....

Bilal

dsb

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nice input. I agree about the 30-50 time. C&D might not fully understand the various transmission modes.

Here's my remedy. Instead of testing 30-50/50-70 in top gear, simply test it in optimal/fastest gear available. It will eliminate all the issues with auto vs manuals. It will also eliminate bad data associated with 6,7,8th gear which are almost purely overdrives.

So, auto or manual, they should test the run in optimal gear whether that be 2nd, 3rd, or a necessary shift in between. Besides, I believe the idea behind that test is so readers can gauge how fast the car can perform a passing manuever.

smjc_99

Bilal,
I too wonder how Stiff the C63 ride will be. My guess is it will be no stiffer than porsche cayman/911 but stiffer than the 2008 m3 on soft setting

My guess is when car guys review sport sedans like c63 they have high expectations for its ride quality compared to a porsche since c63 is a 4 door sedan . I used to have an E46 m3 and it was criticised for its ride quality but i found it comfortable for long distances in the U.S. The C63 rides probably comparable to E46 M3 and this could be considered stiffer especially with lots of cars having adjustable suspenions in their sport models

Auto car's review mentions that c63 has a complaint ride but mentions that the new bmw m3 rides slightly better on german auto bahn and back roads and my guess is that this gap would widen on very poor roads

mpg: I think better than 10 MPG is easily attainable but looks like the C63 and Bmw m3 have a lot of thirst for fuel compared to E46 m3 and c55 amg since they provide far more HP and torque

Bilal

The ride seems to be a major issue troubling nearly all journalists. The funny thing is, ride quality was never acknowledged as a positive on the C55 against the E46 M3. Now, it seems that since the C63 is very close to the E92 M3 in handling terms, ride quality seems to be the only factor to separate the two cars - with journalists this time around, oddly, welcoming the M3's more compliant ride!

I always take motoring journalists with a handful of salt (yes, not a grain!) because of the vast subjective differences in their opinion. Does everyone remember the sheer positive press the C63 got when it was first driven compared to the lashing the M3 got? Now, two month later, the M3 wins all the comparison tests?

I can appreciate that ultimate handling requires sacrifices in ride quality, but I wonder if this time around, AMG have sacrificed too much to chase M3 drivers. US drivers need not worry because your quality of roads are far superior to British roads.

In any event, with fast rising fuel prices, environmental propaganda and crappy roads - a hard-riding, 6.3 litre monster may not sell so well in the UK. A great shame considering the development and effort AMG are putting into their cars.

Bilal

smjc_99

I wonder what Motor trend has to say about C63 ( handling, ride, gearbox, MPG etc ) in their dec comparo between M3 , Rs4 and M3. The dec edition is not yet out but the rumor is they have a comparo of the cars on their magazine front page along with a first look at Nissan Gt-R