Car and Driver: C63 AMG v '07 Audi RS 4 v '08 BMW M3
10-31-2007, 02:24 PM
#101
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
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
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
upgrade to 245/40/18's vs 235/40
and upgrade 265/35/18's vs 255/35
with a 9" rim.. you can even go to 275's if you wanted. But don't know if you have the space.
it will make a difference..
I rather have a stiff ride which I can make softer but using a better rubber and thicker rubber..
compared to having a soft ride that I need to install springs, shocks and bigger wheels.
11-01-2007, 03:24 AM
#102
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes C32 AMG
Its a beast ... YOu got too feed it. Do people think its going to go from 0-60 in 3.9 on water or air. You got to pay for power... Im sure it will be fine on highway driving. If you want economy, buy a Honda!!!!
11-02-2007, 09:31 AM
#104
Super Moderator Alumni
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w204/216624-c63-vs-m3-vs-rs4-motor-trend-scans.html
11-03-2007, 09:15 AM
#105
MBWorld Fanatic!
11-04-2007, 10:56 AM
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C32, 2011 VW GTI
0-60 in 3.9 seconds 
1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds @ 116 mph
10 mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...08-bmw-m3.html
1/4 mile at 12.3 seconds @ 116 mph
10 mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...08-bmw-m3.html
Had a '74 Electra 225 that beat that. They need to do better than that, with modern technology and all. Sheesh. And I though my C32 was a guzzler.
11-04-2007, 01:14 PM
#108
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
My C32, with a mix of spirited city and highway driving, averages around 20 mpg, which is TWICE the mpg of the C63. Keeps the math easy, as both cars require premium, which means the C63s annual fuel cost would be double my C32... ouch.
Love the car though... and I'm not one to ***** about mpg, but still... 10 mpg is terrible.
11-04-2007, 04:49 PM
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C32, 2011 VW GTI
+1
My C32, with a mix of spirited city and highway driving, averages around 20 mpg, which is TWICE the mpg of the C63. Keeps the math easy, as both cars require premium, which means the C63s annual fuel cost would be double my C32... ouch.
Love the car though... and I'm not one to ***** about mpg, but still... 10 mpg is terrible.
My C32, with a mix of spirited city and highway driving, averages around 20 mpg, which is TWICE the mpg of the C63. Keeps the math easy, as both cars require premium, which means the C63s annual fuel cost would be double my C32... ouch.
Love the car though... and I'm not one to ***** about mpg, but still... 10 mpg is terrible.
I'm holding out hope that the test car was faulty in some way.
11-04-2007, 08:13 PM
#110
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars
C&D has always had an unnatural love affair with BMW. For as many years as I can remember Bimmers win just about every comparison regardless of what makes they are pitted against in that magazine.
The mileage at 10 mpg is very distrurbing. Comparable V8s in cars of similar weight are getting much better than 10 mpg. It could be that C&D had their foot in it the whole time they tested the car.
The mileage at 10 mpg is very distrurbing. Comparable V8s in cars of similar weight are getting much better than 10 mpg. It could be that C&D had their foot in it the whole time they tested the car.
11-04-2007, 08:25 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
C&D has always had an unnatural love affair with BMW. For as many years as I can remember Bimmers win just about every comparison regardless of what makes they are pitted against in that magazine.
The mileage at 10 mpg is very distrurbing. Comparable V8s in cars of similar weight are getting much better than 10 mpg. It could be that C&D had their foot in it the whole time they tested the car.
The mileage at 10 mpg is very distrurbing. Comparable V8s in cars of similar weight are getting much better than 10 mpg. It could be that C&D had their foot in it the whole time they tested the car.
The C63 is great but its not just Car and Driver that picked the new M3 over it.
11-04-2007, 08:37 PM
#112
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dad - CL550, Me C350, Sista B8 A4
how many miles did the C class have? that mkes a difference. was the motor broken in? we all know it gets better as motors get more miles on it. also, werent they driving the car pretty hard? of course your not gonna get good mileage driving a V8 to redline...right?
11-06-2007, 12:51 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the stock values obtained by c/d are almost identical to Brabus Bullit's performance values.
0-60 both 3.9
1/4m both 12.3
only difference AMG has a limiter at 155 and Brabus can do 215+ mph
I am sure Brabus costs 3 times more with the 6.3L V12 TT in it.
either Bullits performance numbers are very conservative or its got too much power(730hp 811 tq) it cant get a good grip.
so i am guessing if the second one is right, detuned 6.3 engine is already optimal for the car. usuall speced 6.3 (518hp) may not be that much benefitial in terms of accelaration.
perhaps someone with more knowledge compare both cars and give a better analysis.
0-60 both 3.9
1/4m both 12.3
only difference AMG has a limiter at 155 and Brabus can do 215+ mph
I am sure Brabus costs 3 times more with the 6.3L V12 TT in it.
either Bullits performance numbers are very conservative or its got too much power(730hp 811 tq) it cant get a good grip.
so i am guessing if the second one is right, detuned 6.3 engine is already optimal for the car. usuall speced 6.3 (518hp) may not be that much benefitial in terms of accelaration.
perhaps someone with more knowledge compare both cars and give a better analysis.
11-07-2007, 02:21 PM
#114
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
996 Turbo, ML320
Sorry if this has been discussed already, I have not read the entire posting very carefully.
I thought the most impressive and convincing test from this article were the acceleration from 30-70 and 50-70. The MB was nearly three time faster from 30-70 and twice as fast from 50-70 compared to the other two cars. That is real world usefullness, accelerating on freeway on-ramps. Although the MB beats in the 0-100 and 0-150 test the other tests I thought were very impressive.
I was almost convinced to purchase an RS4 Wagon when it arrives, but now I think I may have to wait for the C63 wagon.
I thought the most impressive and convincing test from this article were the acceleration from 30-70 and 50-70. The MB was nearly three time faster from 30-70 and twice as fast from 50-70 compared to the other two cars. That is real world usefullness, accelerating on freeway on-ramps. Although the MB beats in the 0-100 and 0-150 test the other tests I thought were very impressive.
I was almost convinced to purchase an RS4 Wagon when it arrives, but now I think I may have to wait for the C63 wagon.
11-07-2007, 03:10 PM
#115
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa Bay Area, FL
Posts: 39
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 ML63, 13 GTR, 16 Tesla X
Sorry if this has been discussed already, I have not read the entire posting very carefully.
I thought the most impressive and convincing test from this article were the acceleration from 30-70 and 50-70. The MB was nearly three time faster from 30-70 and twice as fast from 50-70 compared to the other two cars. That is real world usefullness, accelerating on freeway on-ramps. Although the MB beats in the 0-100 and 0-150 test the other tests I thought were very impressive.
I was almost convinced to purchase an RS4 Wagon when it arrives, but now I think I may have to wait for the C63 wagon.
I thought the most impressive and convincing test from this article were the acceleration from 30-70 and 50-70. The MB was nearly three time faster from 30-70 and twice as fast from 50-70 compared to the other two cars. That is real world usefullness, accelerating on freeway on-ramps. Although the MB beats in the 0-100 and 0-150 test the other tests I thought were very impressive.
I was almost convinced to purchase an RS4 Wagon when it arrives, but now I think I may have to wait for the C63 wagon.
11-07-2007, 03:16 PM
#116
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slk32(gone), 08 c63.
wow..i just downloaded the test sheets now that u guys are talking about the acc. for 30-50 and 50-70. damn man, c63 is gonna blow the m3's door right off on free way lol
C63
30-50 = 2.3seconds
50-70 = 3 seconds
M3
30-50 = 6.8seconds
50-70 = 5.9seconds
can't wait to see those faces on those future m3 (or procedes 335i's) owners on freeway in vancouvermoahah
C63
30-50 = 2.3seconds
50-70 = 3 seconds
M3
30-50 = 6.8seconds
50-70 = 5.9seconds
can't wait to see those faces on those future m3 (or procedes 335i's) owners on freeway in vancouver
moahah
11-07-2007, 03:31 PM
#118
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
I thought the most impressive and convincing test from this article were the acceleration from 30-70 and 50-70. The MB was nearly three time faster from 30-70 and twice as fast from 50-70 compared to the other two cars. That is real world usefullness, accelerating on freeway on-ramps. Although the MB beats in the 0-100 and 0-150 test the other tests I thought were very impressive.
11-07-2007, 03:55 PM
#120
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E500, 3000GT and 3000GT VR-4, 335i
The RS6 is coming to America. One of the board members here even has a deposit on one.
To my understanding, the RS6 sedan is coming, the avant will not.
To my understanding, the RS6 sedan is coming, the avant will not.
11-07-2007, 06:34 PM
#121
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Your understanding is spot on.
Unfortunately though, we have to wait until next fall. Europe gets the Avant version in early spring. It's going to be along wait but I'm very hopeful it'll be worth it.
11-07-2007, 09:29 PM
#122
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C43, SLK32, CLK63 Black Series
11-07-2007, 11:45 PM
#123
MBWorld Fanatic!
wow..i just downloaded the test sheets now that u guys are talking about the acc. for 30-50 and 50-70. damn man, c63 is gonna blow the m3's door right off on free way lol
C63
30-50 = 2.3seconds
50-70 = 3 seconds
M3
30-50 = 6.8seconds
50-70 = 5.9seconds
can't wait to see those faces on those future m3 (or procedes 335i's) owners on freeway in vancouvermoahah
C63
30-50 = 2.3seconds
50-70 = 3 seconds
M3
30-50 = 6.8seconds
50-70 = 5.9seconds
can't wait to see those faces on those future m3 (or procedes 335i's) owners on freeway in vancouver
moahah
11-08-2007, 12:07 AM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
