dubai63

I was with one of my friend, who was driving a c63 amg ofcourse. Suddenly we spotted a cts-v, and chased him, we had a chat and decided to race. He told my friend what speed you want to race from, and my friend said from a dig. 3honks and off we went, trust me guys the cts-v beat the hell out of c63 amg.. i never knew that car is so so fast. we then had a look at the interior, it was fully loaded with recaros, its amazing from inside too. i used to hate american cars, but trust me after knowing the cts-v in personal, i just love it, and hopefully buy it in the future. thanks folks.

rockykhan

ofcourse it will beat the c63 easy....too much of a power differential...now a modded e55 or an s55 would be a better race for sure.

dubai63

but i thought its all talks, thought its fast on paper, but in real life this thing goes. well done GM.

taylorcoleman

tell your buddy time for a KLEEMANN K2, and don't race from a dig as the C63 does not have enough tire to the ground for that.

propain

Yup, its faster stock for stock for sure. The CTSV has 100HP more and bigger wider tires. The C63 stock is at the bottom of its engine potential. A K1 will put the C63 right next to a CTSV in the 1/4 mile. From a dig the CTSV will launch a little better due to weight and tires but the C63 will be even if not overtake the CTSV in the 1/4 with a K1 package.

Ill take the C63 over the CTSV any day for many reasons...

1. It might say caddy but its still a GM.
2. Quality. Trust me. I had a CTSV and MANY GM's. They all fall apart.
3. Status. Nothing says I’ve made it like a MB.
4. Old man car. A Caddy is an old mans car.
5. Recognition. You can hardly tell the difference between the lines. The 6 cylinder looks almost exactly like the V in every way. Not so with the C63.


All that aside, ill be damned if im paying 60K+ for a GM. The best price I got on a CTSV with 200 miles on it with an employee discount was 58K.
If you got beat THAT badly from a dig against the caddy the guy didn’t know how to launch the C63. Im sure he just hammered it. The C63 is only 1-2 10ths slower to 60. Thats only like 1/2 - 1 car length.

Quadcammer

Few things.

1. Regardless of whether you think the C63 is at the "bottom of its engine potential", you are comparing it to a blown engine of the same capacity. The blown engine will make more power, mod for mod, any day of the week. If you want to get into modding, it will get ugly for the C63, very quickly.

2. Gm build a damn fine vehicle, and I'm sure you've noticed that MB isn't all that high in quality ratings either.

3. Maybe it used to be the case that nothing said I made it like an MB. Now any schmuck with $400 a month can get into a C-Class. Since non-car people have no idea of the difference between a C300 and a C63, I doubt you are having that "i've made it" impact. A new S63? then I'd agree with your point.

4. Ok, its an old man's car that can put the hurt on a boyracer C63. Whats your point?

5. disagree.

Finally, its commonly recognized that 1/10th is 1 car length.

MB_Owner

Sad that you suggest we have to run a modified M-B against a stock American "family" sedan (same engine cubes) to make it a "better" race.

But in addition to monster amounts of power, the Caddy must handle quite well too...you don't turn sub-8 minute laps at the Nürburgring without having a totally integrated package...HP, torque, chassis, tires, tranny, brakes, suspension, driver.

propain

Oh yeah... its just a simple "family" sedan with the same engine cubes. Its a 65K supercharged monster!! Who are you kidding??

Ill take the MB C63 for 52K. Throw the 6K that I saved buying her and destroy that "Family" sedan.

Yes, she does run quite well on Nurburgring. Id like to see the side by side with the C63 AMG PP though.

All in all the CTSV is a great machine. Not trying to down play her. I was going to get one. Im glad I didnt in the end. Out with the old and in with the new. The CTSV doesnt have anywhere near the same amount of appeal.

Derspeed

It achieved the the fastest time aroung the ring for a production sedan. Yeah, it did quite well. If only GM would put that much effort into all of their cars. The good news for used car buyers is how fast Caddys depreciate.

azlane

I agree with you Propain. I sat in both during my pre-purchase research and was not thrilled with the CTS-V interior (or the fact that it was a GM product). It is a more a matter of personal taste for me. I was also turned off completely by how I was treated by the dealership that had the CTS-V. I got the C63 cheaper than I could the CTS-V (and I get the GM discount via a Hughes/GM tie) and I am very happy.

I know there are faster cars out there for maybe a few thousand more (CTS-V, Z06) but there is a stigma attached to them for me. I will take the nimble, torquey (is that a word) C63 every time.

propain

Never mind the exhaust note!! The CTSV has to much whine... From the moment I started the C63 I knew I wanted her. The cold start on this beast is something to write home about.

MB, Quad pipes, better looking, AMG, sounds like a wild animal and a couple of 10ths slower before the ECU tune.

gravedgr

That's the first time I've heard a 4000+ lb car be called "nimble". If you want nimble, hop in a 911 or Miata.

azlane

The C63 is anywhere from 3600 to 3900 lbs depending on who's figures you believe, and it does feel very nimble. I had a G35 that weighed less and it was not near as agile. I drove a G37 and found it to be even less agile than the G35 and it only weighted a couple hundred more pounds (about what the C63 is).

exdes

+1

propain

The SLK feels nimble to me and its 3200. The C63 is only 200lbs heavier. So yeah.. Still nimble.


The CTSV is 4200LB. It does quite well considering how heavy it is. I actually think it helps its performance around the track.

Quadcammer

woah, now a C63 weighs 3400lbs?

mthis

3600 to 3900 that's a big diff.
My car with me in it (I'm 180) and 1/4 tank of gas and no spear is 4080.

mthis

Bottom line stock to stock the ctsv will beat it with out a problem. No if or but or this or that. It has 100 hp more that's it. The only way the ctsv will lose is if it full of ppl in the car andthe c63 driver is by him self.

wankeldude

Not if you believe that Frank Stippler pulled a 7:58 in an RS4

FormulaZR

Ricer math...always has been, always will be. What's to stop the CTS-V guy from putting less than $2k into his car and showing you his tail lights all day long? Not too hard to get ~550-600rwhp out of those cars.


LOL...MB depreciation is sickening! I bought my 03 CL for about the same price as an 04 CTS-V with similiar miles. I know they are a year apart...but the CL was over double MSRP.

mthis

the ctsv is the fastest prodution 4door car in the states
490rw stock 6speed. 490/4200=8.57 rwh per lb.

The stock Dyno # were from hennessy
automatic # are 470rw

MikeG_C63_AMG

I strongly disagree with the C63 being classified as a "boy racer" car. You must been thinking about the E92/E90 M3 and its legion of fanboys that would die for the ///M Badge. A Boy racer car would be an EVO,STI,F/I older A4/S4.

sflgator

+1. The new s/c'd CTS-V vs. C63 AMG has been discussed in many threads before. In fact, many of us cross-shopped the CTS-V before getting an MB C63 AMG, and most had similar feelings about the CTS-V. True, stock for stock, the s/c'd CTS-V is slightly faster than the C63 AMG, but it's a big boat with a cramped interior made with "GM Quality." Oh, and I agree with someone else who said that many of the Caddy/GM dealers are crap, they treat you like crap, and a lot of what they sell are crap, imho.

c63crazy

i got beat by one and i got a stock c63 we kept doing pulls and he would always get me by a half a car to a car

but reasons why mb is better, it will hold its resale value better

mthis

I have also raced a auto one But I beat him by a 1/2 car to a car