nsupra

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=154242

This was a great review in my opinion. Check it out few pages long.

hhughes1

3 great cars for sure but I love the fact that the C63 has so much additional potential(purposely held back by MB) just waiting to be set free. I'd love to see Andy's MHP warrior in this same comparison!

Timeless

True...but the same can be done to the CTS-V also.

Ape

I must be seeing something different then what the editors used to make their decision. Looking at the rankings for each category in the Editors Evaluation section it appears to me that the C63 was number 1 or 2 more then either of the other cars. It ran away from them in the “drive” category, did fair in the comfort category, fair in design, and good in the function category. My quick back of napkin shows that the C63 finished #1 14X, #2 12X and #3 6X vs. the Caddy being #1 5X, #2 15X and #3 12X. Am I missing something here?

1st amg

seems like they came close to a tie marginal victory for caddy.

gsmps

Notice how they didn't use the C63 with a LSD. That would have brought it closer to the CTS-V's lap time or even exceeded it

kickR

Including the M5, which in size and price specs is more comparable to the E class, somewhat puts the survey off. Especially because they give top ratings to the M5 for space ratings in which the other two lose, but put it way behind for pricing which accounts for an incredible 20% in the overall ranking.

In addition:
In the characteristics for a true sports car, "beast", the C63 won almost all:

Overall Dynamics
Engine Performance
Transmission Performance
Steering Performance
Handling
Fun to Drive

I could care less for road noise, considering that this usually is just a few db's which are barely noticeable without a direct comparison. I find it funny that they probably gave Cupholders and Interior Storage the same percentage in the overall evaluation score as the first six major aspects listed above.

And last but not least:
How the hell can a car that is least favored, by a huge margin to the C63, in the Personal Rating category still win???

SebringSilver

I'm so glad I don't make my buying decisions based on things I read in the press.

FishtailnZ

The vid is now up on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMnRMTfnuYA

dremorg

The thing is though that you're not really modifying the C63's engine...you are only tuning it back to the power it is originally supposed to have.

hhughes1

My point was that the manufacturers of these 2 cars had different objectives. Cadillac built the CTS-V to dethrone the M5 as the premier sport sedan in the world. Mercedes primary goal with the C63 was not to **** off their existing customer base of 63 series car owners who shelled out much more than what I payed for a C63. Bottom line is without that concern, MB would be putting out a stock C63 that would best the CTS-V in every performance criteria. But since they didn't at least we have the option to buy extra HP for pennies on the dollar compared to what the Caddie or BMW owners have to pay to find 70-90 extra ponies.

Timeless

That is subjective at best. The power it is supposed to have is what the manufacturer delivers the product with.

A basic ECU tune goes a long way with the CTS-V also.

essarai

the c63 shouldnt be compared to the cts-v nor the m5. however at least to me its by far better than the caddilac and and bmw

SeattleBum

MB has always tried to detrone the M3 with their C-series AMGs but has always come up a bit short in the handling department. You are trying to tell us all here that MB is so awesome and superior that they could build a mass produced car that could perform better than anything BMW or Cadillac builds...if only they were trying. You sound like the guy who always comes in 2nd place 'on purpose' because taking 1st place would just be too easy.

norb

They're all great cars regardless. We all pick our cars for different reasons, that doesn't make the other cars less. Just different strokes.

dremorg

Subjective indeed. The power that the 6.3 motor makes is above 500hp @ the flywheel. Everyone knows that this engine was DETUNED because of marketing purposes. So my point is that bringing this engine back up to it's original power is not neccessarily modding it. That's all I'm saying Timeless.

AMGC60-3

your statement sounds pretty arrogant and aggresive.

Timeless

It is also widely rumored the CTS-V is a detuned ZR-1.

renesis83

Lets see what mods show up in the next year or so for the V
Generally what I have experienced is that factory FI cars are cheaper to mod

1st amg

All I know is that you will get more "curb appeal" with a tri-star Benz symbol on a car than a cadillac, sorry caddy, but you dont have the same stigma that Benz carries....period, did I choose a C63 because of this, no, but I didnt want an american car, nor would I have ever considered the caddy simply because I wanted something german, only considered the M3 and RS4, so, dont really car how much horsepower this caddy makes, it was never in the running for me, again, that is me. I am not knocking the caddy, as it has achieved extremeley impressive horsepower etc, but just not for me, i feel more class oozes from the germans.

hhughes1

You can't argue the fact that MB held back apx 60 hp with a simple programing change and a 1/4" smaller exhaust. The motivation for doing so is obvious. Despite that most of the C63 buyers place more emphasis on the car's strength which is lots of torque and straight line acceleration over the dancing prowess that we know BMW builds into their cars. Different driving experiences for different folks. The CTS-V seems to have the best of both worlds if you like the styling but for us MB fans we would like to see how the C63 would fare if the factory 510 hp were stock.

MRAMG1

I agree totaly with you my friend.

Their track results showed EXACTLY why I no longer own a BMW, LACK of torque that is. Sure it has the ponies, but ALL BMW's, minus the 35 series twin turbos, lack that much needed LOW end grunt to really make you feel great from ANY stop sign/red light. Way to go caddy, but I will still keep my German baby in my garage.

See yeah

dremorg

That's all I'm saying.

SeattleBum

My statement was not arrogant nor aggresive after hhughes1 posted: "Bottom line is without that concern, MB would be putting out a stock C63 that would best the CTS-V in every performance criteria". The guy was trying to say that the only reason the C63 isn't king is b/c they hold back their cars on purpose. He is saying that the CTSV performs better than the C63 only b/c MB allowed it to happen on purpose...cuz if they actually tried it would easily beat it.

I love cars - all cars. Just don't like it when people bash a good car by saying stuff like this.

SeattleBum

I'm not arguing this fact at all. This fact is the one reason why I've been coming to this site since the C63 was announced. If I didn't have a baby I wouldn't have bought the Cayenne and would probably be sitting in a nice white C63.

I was just saying to hhughes1 that a simple retune isn't going to make the C63 unbeatable...especially since the CTSV will undoubtedly have another 30-50hp of untapped potential as well for little money.