Manual vs. auto can have a strong bias on people, I am not implying performance difference based on that. To many "driver's car" means you have a stick and clutch, therefore full control over what happens and when. In that case, they will still like the M even if the C63 could make a circle around it in the straights.

 

Really? And why optimistic when the clk63 conv. which weighs 4113 does it in 4.2 and 12.5? Which still beats the M3 that one isn't a conv. and two is much lighter.

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...cabriolet.html

 

Same here, funny they name the article "hell-raising sedans"...funny but the two door M3 doesn't strike me as being a "sedan".

 

Indeed. They should also add Lexus S-F to the comparison, otherwise they should name it as "hell-raising European sedans and coupe".

 

Hmmm a 335i Coupe weighs 1615kg whereas a 335i sedan weighs 1600kg, a coupe does not have the weight advantage you think it should, maybe the M3 sedan will weigh less than the M3 coupe.

 

My friend, you are comparing a 6 cylinder car with a V8 powered semi-race car. Apple to Oranges.

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

 

You missed his (valid) point. He was responding to the earlier assertion that the M3 sedan would be more comparable weight-wise to the C63, the "logic" being that sedans are always heavier than coupes.

The poster to whom you replied simply stated, accurately, that the difference in weight between the 335i coupe and sedan is miniscule, the implication being that the weights of the M3 sedan and M3 coupe will most likely be quite close.

And from published figures, he's right. Edmunds gives the new M3 sedan's weight as 3538 pounds, which is actually a bit less than the M3 coupe Car & Driver tested.

However, I've seen other sources listing its weight a bit higher than the sedan's, from 20-30kg, still not enough to handicap it much compared to the coupe!

But in any case, KiwiRobbie was right: the weight of the M3 sedan and the M3 coupe are virtually identical.

 

I agree. It seems C&D cannot help but to raise BMW on an alter. When a vehicle actually outshines it C&D makes excuses and tells you all will be well with next years model. pffft

I agree. The M3 was good but did not put the smackdown on the C63 that everyone thought it would. That alone should get respect for the C vbut then the C was faster in a straightline. The brakes and skidpad were down but lets face it you can fix that with new shoes, a brembo brake upgrade or upgraded pads.


Dollar for dollar I'd go with the C63. For $65k-70k enjoyment should be effortless.

 

Just curious...what was the bad experience you had with the 6er.

 

In comparisons Guys why not wait and see how a M3 sedans fair up against the C63 sedan so that the people who feel the M3 coupe/sedan is superior will have to wait and see instead of reading those magazines. Last I seen they both sell quite well so why we even bother to argue. Every class has a speedster and a course carver so for speed the C63 and course M3 but for both the RS4. The time of the manual tranny is at its end eventually with dual clutch automatics. Every exotic car is going the Auto-manual route also top cars have both auto-manual and manual as choices when buying. Even the baddest and fastest car in the world uses autoshift paddles Bugatti Veyron 16.1. 6MT is nice but the to the many filthy millionaires they careless. They just want the latest and greatest be it stick or paddle shifters.

 

Actually, the C63 had a shorter stopping distance than the M3. From the article:

M3 70-0: 156 ft
C63 70-0: 155 ft

This is particularly impressive when you consider the weight difference, and that the M3 has larger tires, front and rear. And the M3 only got 0.03 g more on the skidpad, 0.91 to 0.88.

Put equal-sized tires on the C63 and it's a whole new ballgame.

I just hope this weight for the C63 was a fluke; it would seem to be given that the car's published weight figures are far lower.

 

Motor tanked. Lost compression in one cylinder. In the shop for a month.
Gave me a stinking 328xi as a loaner.

 

That review is totally bogus, there is soo many holes in their arguments it's a joke.

For one, they said the RS4 was too pricey. Funny that they think everyones a complete idiot that reads their magazine. The RS4 they tested was the Euro model with the optional carbon brakes which sent the sticker way above the competitors. So that argument is invalid due to the fact it was a maxed out Euro model with non US optional equipment.


The M3. When I think of M3 and BMW I would expect everything I use to drive the vehicle would be perfect in feel and execution. The steering, the seats, the shift lever, the pedals. Well according to Car and Drive nearly all components mentioned above fail in their duty to provide that magical perfect execution. Why bother with a great chassis and drivetrain if the components that directly control them are inferior compared to the rest of the vehicle.

Conclusion. The only real fault the C63 suffers from so far is a stiff ride, that seems common among all tests. Its a damn SPORTS sedan... come on testers, this isn't a buick. Also Benz and AMG take the correct route when developing a high output V8. Audi and BMW both make great V8's for their new hotrods but they refined them too much, leave the astronimical redlines for the exotics and small displacement engines, who really wants to wind out a V8 to get all the use out of it unless it shreeks like a Ferrari. Also the torque figures are nearly comical for the weight of these cars. 300ftlb is good, but not in todays playing field where the cars weight 3500+lbs and its competitor the c63 is making nearly 100+ more pounds of torque at nearly any rpm. If I'm buying a V8 in todays sports car world I want big torque rather than a useless 8000+rpm redline. I want that instant push from any rpm rather than trying to find that sweet spot.

Car and Driver

 

I'm fairly sure that I will be getting a C63. I completely agree with you about the nature of the V8. I don't want to have to flog the M3 to get the performance out of it. I don't care for the looks of the M3 so it makes the decision even easier.

 

Yea the M3 is a bit fugly in my eyes.

 

You should learn how to read, the point I made wasn't difficult to grasp. btw I drive to work and buy lunch in the canteen.

The M3 is not a semi race car, it hasn't been one of those since the E30 M3 which was designed and built for racing, just like the C63's great grandad the 190e 2.3 16v.

 

Good points regarding tires and brakes. I understand that car mags have to review cars with the tires, wheels and brakes that come on the test car. But we all know that those things are very easily changeable, and they make a HUGE difference in handling, ride and braking. Just for kicks, I'd like to see them do tests with truly equal equipment. Put them all on the same size and model tire, with the same brake pads, and then see how they fare. Of course, in the end, they'll still give the BMW the win by referencing some intangible "feel" that the others do not have.

 

will bigger tyres affect acceleration??? 275s R and 255s F would make C63 handle like a dream!

 

Stickier tires will aid acceleration. Wider tires might help. In an extreme case (lower HP car), wider tires will slow the car down.

 

Even in a higher horsepower car, they'll hurt it a bit, as wider tires increase the rolling resistance and increase drag as well. But the added traction off the line will make a big difference at the start, which will probably more than offset the other two.

Main thing is weight. Adding more rotational mass via heavier wheels/tires can have a very negative effect upon acceleration, as anyone who's switched from 17's to 20's can attest.

 

is the c63 amg reall that heavy?

 

Motortrend just tested the 4DOOR M3 vs C63 vs IS-F...