Dr_jitsu

I have never driven or even been in a C63, but just based upon my research I can get a low mileage 2009 for low 50's and flash her and have a great DD with lots of pep and comfort.

Is there a catch...please discuss. I have a 700 whp Porsche GT2 and a 600 whp Supercharged M3 but those cars run in the 5 figures just to maintain every year (not counting the small fortune to acquire/build) in the first place. My E350 just requires basic maintenance but of course is not a performance car.

I am thinking of picking up a C63 in the future (will probably trade my Porsche cayenne TT in and give my E350 to my wife)

Thanks.

SebringSilver

There is no catch. The C63 is one of those rare examples of having your cake and eating it too.

It's difficult to find another car currently for sale that blends the same combination of stellar performance, 4-door practicality, recognized luxury branding, and everyday comfort, into a package costing as little as the C63.

Yes, there are other cars that come close: the M3 sedan and Lexus IS F immediately come to mind. But with the M3, you'll give up a significant amount of low-end torque which is one factor that really makes the C63 a stand out as a daily driver. With the IS F, you sacrifice a little bit of clout and a whole lot of pedigree.

The other cars you can consider would be the RS4, which arguably is even more practical with its Torsen differential awd, but its back seats are very short on legroom and it's no longer in production so it's all moot, and the CTS-V, which has even better performance potential than the C63 but challenges would-be purchasers with the leap of faith that must accompany any decision to buy GM at this time.

Is the C63 perfect? Not even close.

Fuel consumption could certainly be better, but most owners go into this marriage knowing what's in store. Rear seat spaciousness, while better than its direct rivals, is hardly generous. You could move up to an E63 to get more luxury and room to stretch out, but that's tens of thousands of hard-earned dollars more for essentially the same performance quotients.

This is an interesting topic, and even though it hasn't been openly posted before, I'm sure it's on the minds of most C63 owners.

bhamg

In one word - IMHO - yes!

Dr_jitsu

The M3 is more of a pure sports car (although w/ a chip the C63 puts down more power) and is quite a bit more expensive.

W/ the cars I have the C63 is definitely more in line with what I would want to compliment my stable. How long will the W204 style run?

mako

Literally, it might just be. I had done exhaustive research on what to buy after my 2002 M5. I had previously been a diehard BMW fan but this car intrigued me. After test driving multiple cars (including the e60M5 and the CTSV), I was sold on the c63. The torque on this car is intoxicating and makes for a great DD imho.

As others have stated, it is far from perfect.......but it is damn fun and a great value. I picked up mine in the low 50's CPO'ed. Could not be happier with purchase.

SebringSilver

If MB keeps with recent practice, the W204 will probably run a 7-to-8-year life cycle, with a facelift in the 4th/5th.

As for the M3 being a pure sportscar, I'm not sure if I'm with you on that one. A "pure sportscar" would be something like a Lotus Exige, or a 911 GT3. And just as a clarification, the C63 does not need to be chipped to put down more power than an M3.

Happy shopping.

Dr_jitsu

I said "more of a sportscar," not pure sportscar. The GT2 is a pure sportscar.

Since I like the looks of this iteration C63, I will probably pick one up just before they change the bodystyle.

6.3AMG

I think the CTS-V is the best luxury/performance car bargain.

Dr_jitsu

Sorry, the performance is good, but I have not seen an interior on an American car that I would consider to be remotely luxurious.

c32AMG-DTM

They're not changing it much, according to AMG. Probably just some LED driving lights and a few other odds and ends. Also, you should consider (or at least be aware of) the "Performance Package Plus" option coming for 2010 models - a nice bump in power and some higher-end AMG parts-bin goodies like SLS pistons, lightened crank, etc. Absolutely necessary for a DD? No... but nice to have (and should carry a resale premium).

Best of luck in your search - your GT2 is quite a vehicle (have seen your avatar on 6speed).

Dr_jitsu

Thanks c32...the GT2 is getting a full Protomotive intake with 5 inch IC's right now.

Hopefully she will run a 5.4 second 60-130.

As far as the Merc is considered, I am looking at picking up a 2011 model in about 2 years or so. The C63 will likely be my next car. I got my E350 3 months ago because I was trying to be practical. I need to drive her for a couple more years before giving her to the wife, and then I can justify/afford the C63.

MikeS54

since the OP owns a 700whp GT2 and 600whp M3, the E92 M3 gonna feel bibilically slow to him...

C63 might only have 400whp but it has similiar torque as a supercharged or turbo car.

Personally though If I were op i would opt for a E63 amg just because its nice to drive and very very practical.

propain

With the money spent on your 3 other cars money seems to not be a factor for you. The C63 is an amazing car. Get the 2010. Its got a few more bells on it.

Other cars to consider in the C63 price range. 2009 CTSV and the M3.

ericpd

To quickly answer thread title's question: NO!

rage2

I drive a HPF 750hp M3 in the summers, and the C63 feels "good" for me. Not slow and not fast, feels good. You have to remember, in the city, or hell even on the highways, you don't always use all that power. When you do, it's only in very short bursts. In the city, I'd always be driving 50% of the car, which is a lot like how the C63 feels at 100%. And I haven't even chipped it yet.

I've driven the IS-F, it has decent torque but it didn't feel terribly sporty for me. And it was quiet, which probably had something to do with it. Downshifts were just downshifts. The E92 M3 doesn't feel fast (lack of torque) so it got boring quick. The C63, with the sport package, was exactly what I was looking for. Combination of feeling in the corners, the seats, the interior, the sounds it makes and of course the feeling during acceleration was exactly what I was looking for without having to make a single modification to the vehicle. The noise is just awesome. I find myself downshifting all the time and just wasting gas coming to every stop light.

Boost Gomez

Hahaha, I couldn't agree more. Since the trip odometer last reset I'm getting a little 9 MPG.

Dads C63

Dr. Jitzu,
To answer your original question. Dollar for dollar you won't find a better deal. Yes, the CTS-V is a challenger but its heavier and it IS a GM product. You can take a stock C63 with very few mods and make it into a very good performance car. It gets a lot of looks and like already has been mentioned, the sound is incredible. I've had mine over a year and I have to say it still get stares and comments. The looks are aggressive and it IS very fast. When you get a full interior four door sedan to run in the 8's 60-130 thats moving. The tranny is geared correctly and moves at any speed. We have friends with Lambo's, Porsche's, and other exotics and they love the practicality of the little "C" as its been nick named. You can't go wrong.

rage2

Sounds like we're in the same boat. I'm getting about 220km to a tank of gas. That's 137.5 miles. Haven't looked at the odo numbers yet to see the fuel consumption numbers, but really, I dunno how to convert L/100km to mpg anyways haha.

benyl

http://www.eforecourt.com/l_100km_mpg_convert.htm

My average since I got the car is 12 mpg or about 19.6 L / 100km (it is in one of the trip menus)

The funny thing is that my 335i uses about 12 L/100 km which is about 19.6 mpg.

eagle_lex

the only "catch" i see is bad gas mileage and tire cost. both of which you should be use to considering what is in your stable. i for one could not afford porsche, maserati, or F car maintence and that is why i got the C. plus i wanted four doors for when i had three others with me for dinner or whatever. i looked at the CTS-V, and drove it. but for one loaded up with recaros it was WAY more money than my 09 for 53 out the door. i just didnt see anything else on the market that could touch this bad boy for the price.

i just guess gas/oil changes and the occassional tire replacement should be most of the cost of ownership.

AFR AMG

I got my 09 brand spanking new for 52 im sure u should be able to find a used one for much cheaper

ericpd

And it was just the opposite back in April when I got mine. Back then, the CTS-V's were the bargain steal. But you have to consider, the second gen V was only about 2 months old then, and on top of that, it looked as though GM was spinning clockwise down the toilet. MB and BMW were at each others throats and weren't budging at all off of those stickers,... their behavior at the time was if they were immune to what was going on in the economy. I was able to get a V with every option available except the engine block heater for 10 grand+ off the sticker. It's kinda amusing to hear that now the C's are popping off of the discount shelf,... although there are some steep '09 discounts still out there if you can find them. Maybe the answer to this thread's leading question IS "yes"!!! If I could have landed on a C63 equipped like my V for 53 out the door,... there's little question, my story might have been much different. But that would have meant the C would have had to have the P030 package and a few more 'not-so-inexpensive' options along with it to be as nicely equipped.

ericpd

[QUOTE=AFR AMG;3811786]I got my 09 brand spanking new for 52 im sure u should be able to find a used one for much cheaper[/QUOTE

WOW! Man,... have these numbers changed. You couldn't get close enough to even smell a C63 for less than 64 when I was in the market. Damn! I guess the 10's are now where the 09's were then though. Didn't bother looking at any discounting on the 08's back then. Guess it was the same though.

Cartman

part of me agrees with you. i have also done research as well and looked into the ctsv. the only thing i do not like about it is its looks. to me it looks like an old mans car. no offense to anyone here who drives one. it isnt just with the ctsv, to me all cadillacs are for people 35+

SebringSilver

ROFL