Car and Driver: C63 AMG v '07 Audi RS 4 v '08 BMW M3
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32 AMG - in Pewter
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.
#152
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55, Mustang 480hp, CBR600rr
I'm thinking these numbers may be fairly optimistic. 3.9/12.2 would make that one fricking hell-of-a-beast on the road. At these posted times you can almost go Z06 hunting. One of the other magazines had the 0-60 and quarter mile times a little higher and more along the lines of what I thougt the car would be -- 4.2 - 4.3 ish in the 0-60 category. If these numbers ring true, the 450 HP avertised is just marketing (closer to 500) to keep the C in check with the E and S class. God forbid the C have more ponies than the E!
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...cabriolet.html
#153
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55, Mustang 480hp, CBR600rr
#155
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Molde, Norway
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C200TCDI Sports Edition
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.
#156
Super Moderator Alumni
Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
#157
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.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-20-2007 at 12:35 AM.
#158
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 ML320 Sport, 04 350z,06 E350 4matic
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
Dollar for dollar I'd go with the C63. For $65k-70k enjoyment should be effortless.
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
#159
#160
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.
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
#161
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.
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.
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
#163
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
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
![slap](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/slap.gif)
#164
MBWorld Fanatic!
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![slap](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/slap.gif)
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
![slap](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/slap.gif)
#165
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#166
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Molde, Norway
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C200TCDI Sports Edition
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.
#167
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.
#169
#170
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.
#172
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hainesport, NJ
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 CTS-V (6spd, phantom grey), 2010 Cadillac Escalade ESV (black raven)
I really hate the fact that these freakin comparisons never take into account that the M3 always cheats indirectly because IT'S A TWO DOOR CAR vs TWO FOUR DOOR CARS. WAIT TILL THE 4door M3 comes out and whach who wins. The M3 is going to get it's **** handed to it. Could you imagine a two door C63.....and no not the heavy **** clk63, but a real two door C63. It will kill the M3 even more.