PC Valkyrie

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/index.html

Sigh........, as many have said, the more things change, the more things stay the same (or worse) for the C-AMG car. Now we have multiple head to head comparisons showing the same thing. On a track the new M3 is quite a bit better than the C63 when it comes to laptimes. In this test, the M3 is 4-5 seconds faster on a 2.7 mile track. Using that as a measure of performance capability, the M3 is a clear winner. On the streets, the C63 is the faster one, but not by a big margin at all according to this test.

Maybe the facelifted C63 in a few years will come with chassis improvements to narrow the gap to the M3 (just like the C55 did compared with the C32). But it may be too late at that time, as people's impressions will be made now, with all these head to head tests proclaiming the M3 to be the better car. I hoped MB/AMG would come out with their best effort the first time around, as they have said they publicly wanted to compete with the new M3 head on for the first time. In a few years, the wet-clutch 7 speed transmission in the new SL63 will probably make it into the C63 at facelift time. Of course, BMW will remain ahead of the game with their M-DCT transmission which will be offerred NOW.

And MB/AMG better watch its back.....the IS-F is pretty close to the C63 in all performance categories.

I'm liking the M3 sedan more and more.......lighter, more agile, almost as fast as the C63 in acceleration, more fuel efficient, and a significantly better track car, yet more comfortable than the C63. Damn.....

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Put your flame suit on man.

I love the smell of napalm in the C63 section. Smells like....victory.

charl1exbr0wn

good post. although the m3 placed first, certain traits of the c63 that i like still outshine the m3. 186 mph nuff said

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

When and where are you gonna hit those speeds exactly? I'd love to set up a camera there.

Bilal

Time and time and time again....

FACT: M3 is faster around ANY track than the C63.

FACT: Different people buy different cars based on their different needs.

FACT: I personally prefer the C63 to the M3.

FACT: No one doubts that magazines prefer the M3 over the C63 any day of the week. (Psst...none of us care what they think, because its our money that buys these cars.)


Why is it so damn hard for people to comprehend that no-one cares whether the M3 is faster around a track than the C63. I swear, the complete mountain-out-of-a-molehill-type exaggerated differences in lap times based on seconds is somehow supposed to convince the average buyer to suddenly reconsider their purchasing decision. Why don't you buy the M3 instead of convincing an entire "MB" forum that one of the most praised AMG cars in history is such a bad buy?

Lexus ISF? Don't even get me started...

I hate to say it, but it's always the owners of the outgoing model that have to simply convince the rest of us that the new model of their car sucks - hmmm, I wonder why? It's the same thing over in the SL63 forum - SL55 owners trying to convince the rest of us how ugly the new SL looks or how inferior the new SL63 is - here's an idea - why don't you let the rest of us decide?

The newer model of any car is generally better than its predecessor.

Now, I'm not generally the argumentative and belligerent type of person, but enough is enough!

Good grief man!

HLG600

Interesting article. As always, it will come down to personal preference. Personally, taking into account my driving needs and style on an everyday basis, the C63 will be more than sufficient. That doesn't mean I find the C63 to be superior to the M3, just a different style of performance. Better handling, more precise feel, yet insufficient in torque compared to its rival AMG. Has this not always been the case when comparing AMG to M?

The one difference between the two is in the aftermarket world. Evosport coaxed an additional 80 RWHP out of the 6.2 Liter without much hassle, and bear in mind this is a naturally aspirated motor. Slap on some slicks, and hold on boys.

As for the IS-F, people really need to stop trashing it without basis or reason to. Something as minor as cosmetic exhaust tips (albeit ugly) is not sufficient reason to dismiss an otherwise well-rounded car as a potential candidate. Yes, I know what it looks like without the plastic engine cover, and it offers more than enough grunt for the everyday enthusiast with Lexus' reliability standard to match.

PC Valkyrie

Get a grip. I'm not trying to convince anybody to buy a M3. I'm just stating my point of view. I'm not saying the C63 is a bad car, but it did not succeed in "beating the M3 at its own game", as MB hyped it to be. Sure it is an improvement over the previous C55, just like the new M3 is an improvement over the previous E46 M3 from a performance point of view. No one disputes that. Some will definitely prefer the C63 over the M3 as a road car. I don't dispute that either.

Some of us actually like using objective data to gauge a car's performance, because everything else is subjective and up to the individual driver. Some ignore the numbers and just take in the driving impressions. To each his own. Either way, the M3 seems to outshine the C63 in all aspects, other than straight line acceleration. Most importantly, you can make that assessment yourself by driving the cars.

Some of us actually take our cars to a track (road circuit, not a drag strip), so that we MAKE USE OF THE PERFORMANCE of our cars in a safe environment on track, rather than just show off our straight line acceleration abilities unsafely on public roads. You probably don't understand this point, because you probably have never taken your car to the track, so you have no perspective about "performance" outside of blasting away in a straight line in your A-class. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.

transferred

Well said, sir.

transferred

Performance sedans are about the letters M, RS and AMG. Jaguar tried and failed with the letter R and Lexus will fail with the letter F. Just my opinion.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Congratulations on a fine smackdown. Topped off with the golden railroad spike mention of "Your A-class"

Bilal

I feel so small right now. I mean to stoop to a level where we start attacking another person's car just to get our point across....really classy...

With respect, don't ever talk to me in a condescending manner - learn a little respect.

Cylinder Head, man I used to respect you, great fan of your humour et al (the only M guy that was tolerable) - but I guess things change...


oh, and by the way...C63 RuLeZzz!!!

(he says whilst jumping into his A-class and workin' that diesel biatch)

charl1exbr0wn

on the track of course!

ProV1

Lexus IS is faster than C63 on the track...???

vixapphire

in a few months, however, Cadillac will succeed with the letter V.

just another opinion!

PC Valkyrie

Don't pretend to be so righteous. My response to you was because of this remark (posted below) made by you implying that I want to bash the C63 because I own a C55.....nothing could be further from the truth, as I like to look at objective measurements of performance to make comparisons. If you like to acuse like this, be prepared to take some heat. I'm done with you.

SolidGranite

Back to what this thread SHOULD be about...

I'm not sure if this information was available before the article but what I found most interesting was the weight distribution.

M3: 50/50 (of course)
ISF: 54/46
C63: 53/47

That big huge heavy *** V8 up front has got to hurt this car's ability to handle well.

I also found it interesting the way heavier C63 came out with shorter stopping distances than both competitors.

M3, ISF, C63 respectively:

Braking, 60-0 mph 105 ft 108 ft 103 ft
Braking, 100-0 mph 309 ft 309 ft 304 ft

transferred

Braking VERY dependent on weather (hot/cold/humid, dry/wet/damp), stopping surface and TIRES. All will stop superbly, as does the RS4 (though a bit wiggly).

Brakes have improved since E46 M3 and last gen AMG's. The E46 needed the brakes upgrade it got in 2005 as 2002-04 stateside units got hot too fast while the 030 pkg brakes on the SLK55 were also a huge improvement both visually and for retardation.

What I do find odd is that AMG make people pay out for 030 rather than including as std. LSD and big brakes should be standard on the highpo model. Yes the ride may suffer but if that bothers you buy a plenty powerful C350 or E550

HLG600

Only time will tell. Although this is a first effort, Lexus has the technology and engineering, so I wouldn't underestimate the IS-F. Frankly, I was getting annoying at hearing complaints on the grounds because the car "is a Lexus" or because cosmetic exhaust tips somehow diluted the performance of a car.

WolfAMG

This article gets into good details and provides some good head-to-head number comparisons. But basically comes to the same conclusions as all the other articles I've seen about these three cars.

M3- Still the best of the 3 if you want to take your car to a road track. Improves in the perfomance categories the E46 was known for. Requires lots of driver effort to get it to perform (stick and high RPMs).

C63- Still not better than the M3 on the track, but closing the gap as a result of better handling/steering than previous versions. Still faster in a straight-line than the M3, but not by much. Big displacement leaves lots of upside potential.

ISF- Good first try at competing with the other 2 who have a big head start in this category. But still has a way to go. Could be the most reliable because of Lexus' history. But will be difficult with a new/perfomance model.

I think all 3 of these cars can be better then the other 2. It just depends on what's most important to YOU. I'm just glad cause this competition provides options for people like me who want daily drivers with reasonable comfort and this kind of performance.

HLG600

This is MB's new approach at things...squeeze every dollar out of its customer it can. Imagine, picking up an SL65 at sticker and yet still having to pay for services while under warranty. BMW could really teach them a few things about having a stellar service program.

WolfAMG

I believe that for the C63 in the US, that leaving standard features out (and making them options) that are typically included in the base price of an AMG has a lot to do with the M3 pricing. Why else would the base MSRP be EXACTLY the same price ($53,800) for the M3 Sedan as it is for the C63?

Dr. C36

I have one simple question for you:

What percentage of the time does your car spend at the track in its lifetime?....

....

....

C63>M3

Thread can now be closed

transferred

I'm assuming you're joking. That > < >>>> nonsense is ridiculous. Some roads do have corners, some people do like to row their own gears etc etc

wasya152

i keep hearing this "how often you going to track your car" bs. i guess what these people don't understand is that it does not only show the handling abilities, but it shows the OVERALL DRIVING DYNAMICS of the car. With that said, how often do you "drive" your car should be the question.

TopGun32

any car that does over .95G on the skid pad.. handles pretty well.

now its really choosing the car that best suits your needs.

The M3 is the clear athletic car.. with DSG the trap speeds will match the C63.

I still like the look of the C63 better (i'm 31) and will be easier to squeeze power from the 6.2L

Lexus will have some tuner support, but not as much as M or AMG.

two things I take away..

The Lexus traps as much as the C63 :

either Lexus provided a stronger car for the test or the 8spds is really a hell of a transmission.

people should pay attention of the IS-F.. it might be the ultimate reliable sports machine.