ravendog

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

ROCafella_M6

I just read it too. The C63 is one fast car. I feel bad for the other 63 amg cars.

smjc_99

The ride quality is concerning , some U.k magazines have also complained about harsh ride and lexus Is-f seems to suffer from that also , possible because M3 has better ride due to adaptive suspension

Funny thing is in first drives all mags rave about the cars

so looks like the big negatives on C63 are harsh ride and 10 MPG

But I am almost certain, the C63 has the best seats along with IS-f seats

ROCafella_M6

What a gas guzzler! My M6 gets more to the gallon than that! But not by much.

MB Fanatic

Bloody hell. I want to sell my E63 now and get the C63. 3.9 seconds for 0-60. Bloody hell that's quick.

GO AMG

C63AMG2B

Lol After reading that review I am in LOVE

Everything they criticize is EVERYTHING I love. It's brash, fast, and muscle-carish. This is the only car I would trade my Mustang GT for

PC Valkyrie

How things come around......

With the C55, it was always considered the most comfortable and easiest to live with as a daily driver on everyday roads. When compared to the previous E46 M3 and B7 RS4, what it lost out on was handling at the limit, inability to defeat the ESP completely for skilled drivers on a track, and the 5 speed automatic transmission which dulled the experience, even in manual mode.

Now, the C63's focus has really shifted to providing a more raw driving experience and to really make a noticeable shift to sharper handling at the limits, which means super stiff, non-adjustable suspension. Now it has become the most uncomfortable car in its class. Maybe a little too extreme, because I still think that people who track their cars will still prefer the M3.

What is really hard to ignore is the seriously fast straightline acceleration the C63 has. We all know C&D tends to get the fastest times, but it's still impressive compared to other AMG cars tested by C&D.

PC Valkyrie

Here are the most important numbers, IMO. I've added the same numbers from the previous C&D tests of the E46 M3, W203 C55, to give some perspective.

E46 M3/E92 M3
curb weight: 3394 lbs/3571lbs
0-60mph: 4.8s/4.3s
0-100mph: 12.3s/9.8s
1/4 mile: 13.6s@105mph/12.8@113mph
rolling 5-60mph: 5.3s/5.0s
70-0mph: 161ft/156ft
skidpad: 0.87g/0.91g
lane change: 61.1mph/65.9mph

W203 C55/W204 C63
curb weight: 3588lbs/4034lbs
0-60mph: 4.7s/3.9s
0-100mph: 11.3s/9,2s
1/4 mile: 13.3s@108mph/12.3s@116mph
rolling 5-60mph: 4.9s/4.2s
70-0mph: 165ft/155ft
skidpad: 0.85g/0.88g
lane change: 66.4mph/64.0mph

B7 RS4
curb weight: 3814lbs
0-60mph: 4.5s
0-100mph: 11.3s
1/4 mile: 13.1s@108mph
rolling 5-60mph: 5.1s
70-0mph: 157ft
skidpad: 0.87g
lane change: 61.4mph

sdsilverm3

There is only one big negative and that is the 10MPG IMO.

Harsh ride, whatever, you either like it or you don't. You're going to give something up when it comes to better handling and ride comfort is usually the first to go.

Looks like an 11 second 1/4 mile is on the horizon with some DR's and minor mods.

MB Fanatic

I mean even with my E63 when I mash the pedal, I get about 12mpg, otherwise with casual mashing of the pedal I get about 18 to 20mpg, which IMO is not bad at all, and is inline with my old E55. However, with a properly broken in engine and without mashing the pedal you will get better than 10mpg and thats for damn sure.

I still can't get over the 3.9 second time for 0-60mph. IMO this is the perfect car, its raw, brash, cruel and screams get the **** out of my way *****.

user 76208202

Do you guys think the #'s are correct? I mean honestly....if it's got a 3.9 0-60 i much rather get this over the GT-R (i konw the GT-R is faster) but with this you get the best of both worlds....sick *** ride, and a Benz

caliboy

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.

Improviz

With a curb weight of 4034 and adding 150 pounds for driver, a 116 trap calculates out to 510 crank horsepower. Does look like the new, poorer aerodynamics are hurting it above 100 as one would expect, although 0-150 in 22.8 seconds is nothing to sneeze at!!

This explains how it outran the M3 which using *rated* horsepower has a better weight to horsepower ratio....of course, the E55 had a poorer *rated* horsepower ratio than lots of cars it crushed as well, but the dyno results quickly showed us all to take the "469 horsepower" rating with a bucket of salt!

But boy, this thing is a true beast! Wish it was lighter, that is one area that you've got to tip the hat to BMW...oh, well, can't have everything it seems!

caliboy

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY IS EVERYBODY FORGETTING THAT THE BIMMER IS A TWO DOOR AND THE BENZ IS A FOUR DOOR. OF COURSE IT IS GOING TO BE LESS WEIGHT. COMPARE THE 4 DOOR M3 TO THE C63 WHEN IT COMES OUT. Imagine a two DOOR C63

user 76208202

The C63 is a HEAVY PIG!!! Whats the curb weight of the E63? Anyone konw?

sdsilverm3

Why are you even arguing that point? Have you forgotten that the last M3 sedan (e36) had almost identical performance numbers to the coupe?

I owned a M3 Coupe only because I couldn't find a sedan to my liking and from my research there wasn't much of a dropoff between the two.

M&M

Geez, dude. Don't get so worked up. The 335i sedan was tested faster than the Coupe by C&D. A few other mags around the world have also got the 4-door faster than the coupe. The record fastest time by a chipped 335 is also a sedan.

We have had E36 Evo M3's here in both Coupe & sedan. The time difference was negligible. Some argue the sedan has better weight distribution & hence better traction. But that's just theories.

Anyway, the C63 is smoking. Really spectacular times. Isn't is faster than the CLK63 Black Edition C&D tested?

GermanCarFan

One can only hope the mpg will subside after you put 3k+ miles on it. As for the harsh ride, couldn't bother me one bit.

Improviz

The E36 M3 sedan weighed within 100 pounds of the E36 M3 coupe. And in the comparison we're discussing, the Audi RS4, which has AWD (adds weight, probably a few hundred pounds) weighed 220 pounds less than the AMG.

I love Mercedes, but the fact is that they used to do a better job of paring weight off of their cars. Example: W210 E55 weighed 250 pounds less than E39 M5; with W211/E60, it weighed 250 pounds more.

Imagine this thing at 3750 pounds, not an unrealistic weight target....it'd be a 12.0 @ 118 car, would handle and stop better, and get better mileage on top of that!

Constructive criticism is not a bad thing.

F_Porsche

i have to doubt some of these numbers! first of all even a more heavy e63 needs that much gas. why should a c63 need more?

Plus, the last AMS states 4.7s to 100km/h or 62miles/H!!!!

that is almost a second more!!

Improviz

Yeah, by 0.1 to 60 and the 1/4. But both weigh about the same (C63 is about 100 pounds heavier), traps were the same as well.

chiphomme

C and D noted that the CLK63 BS would have been faster but they were getting too much wheel spin (which seems weird considering the tires). Nevertheless, the C63 is a freakin rocket. It has to be underrated.

caliboy

That was the e36 m3. This new M3 4 door will be at least >200 pounds greater than the coupe. This M3 is a bordeline pig as well. Remember they had to use a carbon fiber roof to lighten the weight on the coupe. I believe I read the sedan will not have the carbon fiber roof. These factors alone plus the two extra doors will definitely add close to about three hundred pounds. Now considering that the C63 is noticeably faster than this two door M3, imagine what it will do to the 4 door M3. All that driver involvement crap will not compensate for the fact that it will get it's doors blown off.

And why are you guys so against an apples to apples comparison, now that the new M3 is going to be in sedan form. Like I said imagine a two door C63, different from a clk.

nwamg

If you guys are like me, we drive our cars in the real world; commutes, high speed highway runs and maybe to go get groceries and food for the dog. The most excitement I get is accelerating on the on-ramp, getting the rear end loose on freeway loops, the occasional back road excursion and having some fun keeping up with 911s on the freeway. I don't have the availibilty of a race track, a personal dragstrip or someone shutting down a secondary road so I can do "testing". I wish I had all these things. What I got is traffic congestion, lot's of cops and idiots in SUVs going below the speed limit in the fast lane.

I work a lot, I'm married and I LOVE cars, especially Mercedes-Benz. Why do I love Mercedes cars? Cache, the feel of quality, great reliability (except the electronics), comfort, the sense that the cars feel substantial and solid, they age quite well, and the roar and performance of the V8s.

Over the last few months the car magazines (Car and Driver, Motor Trend, EVO, Automobile, Road and Track, Auto Week et al) have been reviewing the new M3 and C63 AMG; M3 in red and the silver C63. Each review has tested the same M3 and the same C63, literally. That's all the manufactures let them get their hands on. Could you imagine the abuse the cars have taken? This speaks volumes for both vehicles in my opinion.

Mercedes has finally played their trump card. Nothing is this segment can even come close to what this new gen AMG C-class can do in the real world. Not even close. The most telling performance figures aren't the 0-60 or 1/4 mile times it's the rolling 5-60, and the top gear 30-50 and 50-70 times. The other cars aren't even in the ballpark much less playing in the same sport. That's performance I can actually use everyday and keep my drivers license.

When it comes to ride quality I think the testers either failed to mention or simply neglected to use the adjustable suspension settings on the C63. The ones that used this feature found the C63 to be very comfortable and well damped on the more forgiving settings and the ones that didn't left the car in it's firmest setting to give them something to fault the C63 about and a reason to praise the M3.

For me personally, if I'm spending 70k on a C-class I want people to notice how special the car is and when I walk up to it I want the exterior of the car to mimic it's performace potential. This is one reason so many people bought (and a lot of them bought solely for the looks) the last gen M3. It looked special, handsome and fast compared to the normal 3 series. The RS 4 is no doubt a sweet ride and the C55 was stealth but both lacked any visual impact.

In summary, this is the first Mercedes AMG that my diehard BMW fanatic friends are leaving their M3s and M5s for. To me more than anything this tells me how badass this C63 is.

I got my deposit down and the second build slot at my local dealer. Should I get the white or silver? What about the exterior carbon fiber package?

chiphomme

Is straight line speed is the only relevant measurement for you?