New Review And C63 Finishes Last
 

I don't usually post in this forum but I saw this review on another site and thought you guys may be interested. I would tell you to enjoy but.........:mercy:



http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4763/65930012.jpg

1st place - BMW M3 DKG[*]Engine: V8, 420 hp, 400 Nm[*]Gearbox: 7-speed-DKG[*]Tyres: Michelin Pilot Sport[*]Weight: 1617 kg[*]Vmax.: 280 km/h[*]0-100 km/h in 4,5 s[*]0-200 km/h in 16,1 s[*]Braking (100-0 km/h): 35,3 m/34,1 m (cold/warm)[*]18 m slalom (ESP ON): 69,9 km/h[*]110 m evasive test (ESP ON): 140,4 km/h[*]Basic price: €79.350,- (inc. Competiton Package and 280 km/h-Vmax.)


2nd place - Alpina B3 Biturbo[*]Engine: Biturbo-i6, 400 hp, 540 Nm[*]Gearbox: 6-speed-automatic[*]Tyres: Michelin Pilot Sport[*]Weight: 1598 kg[*]Vmax.: 300 km/h[*]0-100 km/h in 4,8 s[*]0-200 km/h in 16,6 s[*]Braking (100-0 km/h): 35,8 m/37,7 m (cold/warm)[*]18 m slalom (ESP ON): 65,3 km/h[*]110 m evasive test (ESP ON): 136,1 km/h[*]Basic price: €66.450,- (inc. LSD, 19-inch-wheels)


3rd place - Audi RS5[*]Engine: V8, 450 hp, 430 Nm[*]Gearbox: 7-speed-S-tronic (DSG)[*]Tyres: Pirelli P Zero[*]Weight: 1785 kg[*]Vmax.: 280 km/h[*]0-100 km/h in 4,7 s[*]0-200 km/h in 16,9 s[*]Braking (100-0 km/h): 34,9/35,3 m (cold/warm)[*]18 m slalom (ESP ON): 66,9 km/h[*]110 m evasive test (ESP ON): 138,0 km/h[*]Basic price: €87.600,- (inc. sportseats, LSD, sport-suspension, Dynamic-steering, 20-inch-wheels, 280 km/h-Vmax.)


4th place - Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Performance Package Plus[*]Engine: V8, 487 hp, 600 Nm[*]Gearbox: 7-speed-automatic[*]Tyres: Yokohama Advan Sport[*]Weight: 1742 kg[*]Vmax.: 280 km/h[*]0-100 km/h in 4,5 s[*]0-200 km/h in 14,7 s[*]Braking (100-0 km/h): 36,4/36,1 m (cold/warm)[*]18 m slalom (ESP ON): 63,7 km/h[*]110 m evasive test (ESP ON): 135,6 km/h[*]Basic price: €83.425,- (inc. LSD, 19-inch-wheels, 280 km/h-Vmax.)


Hockenheimring-times (2,6 km)[*]1.14,0 min - BMW M3 Competition P.[*]1.15,4 min - Audi RS5[*]1.15,6 min - Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG PPP[*]1.16,5 min - Alpina B3 Biturbo


Verdict

The way the M3's suspension mixes comfort and agility is "sensational". It's highrevving V8 and 7-speed-double cluth gearbox is perfect. Handling in TOP. First place for the BMW.
Second place goes to the Alpina, the perfect Gran Turismo. The 3,0-litre, biturbo engine is very flexible, but the handling is not that sporty as the M3's.
The Audi RS5 is the most expensive out of this quartet and despite its good ranking on the 'Dynamic-rating' it finished in 3rd place.
Last place goes to the C63 AMG with 30-more-hp. It's kinda funny that Merc's suspension is the most uncomfortable out of this four... And despite it's so hard, the handling is not that good as it should be, the car is not well-balanced. The V8's power is brutal however. Best 0-200 km/h time.

Interesting. What I noticed is the tire selection. Yokohama Advan Sport for C63 and yet the others were on PS2 and P-zeros. Also noticed the option packages.

Not sure what is in BMW Competiton Package, but this may have some impact.

The Audi seems to have a fair amount of added hardware. Wonder how it would perform stock, which is what the C63 did albeit with LSD/19".

Also, i find the 0-100kmph results a bit fishy. In every comparison test I have seen, the C63 has always beaten the M3 on this benchmark.

I have always agreed that the M3 was better track car and this has been supported by countless tests. But at the end of the day, I am not sure that track performance is what the majority of C63 owners bought the C63 for.

Look at the 0-200km for c63 and other. Lmao.

I'd say 0-100kph, the C63 is severely traction limited, and hence the similar times. As mentioned earlier, you can see how the C63's grunt comes in by the 0-200kph times.

IMO, these are all very, very good cars and put up fantastic numbers. The way I see it, they are simply different tools for different preferences. The M3 is more dynamic, C63 is the brute force contender, the RS5 is an AWD alternative.

As far as options go, it seems that all of the cars recieved the most agressive performance related options, including the Mercedes. I don't see anything left off of the C63 that would alter this test, it had the Performance Package Plus w/ LSD.

The Competition Package has a revised suspension (meaning springs and slightly altered dampening profiles for the electronic dampers), revised DSC profiles, and cast wheels (ala ZCP from the E46 M3).

The 0-200 numbers are staggering on the C63 compared to the rest.

I agree, WTF is up with putting **** tires on that car?

But, all the cars are different strokes for different folks. This just showed what a true driver could do. Most people who buy the cars, can't even drive them close to how they were driven so I would say in the real world it's definitely a drivers race. The C63 is definitely, a lot harder to drive well on a track than an M3 or any of those cars.

So has the Yokohama now become OEM with PP on C63? I have seen Conti's here in Europe, but never Yokohama. IMHO they are inferior to the PS and maybe (I said maybe) to the P-zeros. IMHO when mags due reviews of this nature, they should try and put the same rubber on all the cars as this is such a critical factor in the way a car performs.

That's my question as well. I think it's fair IF the Yoko's are factory. It's a real representation of what to expect if you pulled these 4 cars off of the showroom floor. I do also think that they should test with the best tires used as OEM as well though. I wonder how the C63 would have done with PS2's or P-Zeros.

OMG...guess Yokohama are now OEM for C63. Run for the hills. See here
http://www2.yokohama-online.com/gb/t...ucts.php?g=404

C63 (W204)
235/35ZR19 XL Advan Sport (V103S MO) F
255/30ZR19 XL Advan Sport (V103S MO) R

Although I will still stick by my position M3 is better track car, IMHO the differences in tires makes a huge difference in tests like this, especially on a track like the Hockenheimring. I would love to see them all tested on PS2 with same size tires (we all agree 255s just don't cut it on C63) and then seen the results. What is MBZ doing here?

Wow, as much as I hated the P-zeros, I am glad I am on my last OEM pair before moving to PS2. Bet we will see a whole lot of new threads in the C63 board complaining about the Yokos they got OEM:eek:

The C63's main objective in my opinion is to crush the competition with its power and sacrifices some handling and agility for it . If you are looking for a car with surgeon like precision go for the M3, RS5. If you want a sledgehammer with bone crushing torque go for the C63. Just my opinion.

i love how all the other cars are coupe's and the C63 is a sedan! none the less great cars

I don't know what type of track this is, but the C63 is really at the top there on long tracks. From 100-200km/h it really crushes anything in its path (including most ferraris). On the handling side, well the stock suspension is not track worthy in my book. Mercedes should have charged 2000$ more and put a set of KW V3 in every car, just like the CLK63. It's as smooth as the stock one and the steering response is as good as it gets. This alone with a decent tire combo would put it in front of all the other cars.

Yea, what's up with comparing 4 door sedans to 2 doors? Seems like other choices would be more apples to apples comparison....

WOW. First, the tire widths are PUNY which would account for the less than great handling and they're also putting on Yoko's? Terrible.

the size differences aren't that far off, all of these cars are in the same "class". the M3 sedan has actually been shown to be slightly faster than the M3 coupe.

The car really need 265 or higher in the rear. I still think the 63 is a better beast for all around street performance.

Everything resumed in this sentence.

And thats why I have my C63. Never been to track , never will. But I will sure kill some M3 and RS5 on highway pulls and thats the fun.

Was the C63 the only 4 door? I'd probably be driving an RS5 if I didn't need a 4 door and they offered the RS5 here. Just a beautiful car.

Agreed!! It will be here next year.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...f626e413_b.jpg
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...3d9efd7e_o.jpg

I will think about this article this weekend while lapping at Sebring.

Can I haz? :naughty:

Sorry but I'm having a very hard time believing results from this review. There is no way that a C63 with performance package plus (nearly 70 hp more) than the M3 can go from 0-100 km/h in 4.5 seconds when the regular C63 have done it (numerous times) at 4.0 and in some instances even lower :nix:. And even though the car had bad tires mounted on it, a decent driver would've still bested that time. I've come to realize that magazine tests are increasingly unreliable and are almost entirely skewed one way or the other.

This is terrific news!

Great motivation for Mercedes-AMG to keep improving the C. :y

I have to admit, It looks BADASS!!

I like reading the comparison tests but it doesn't change how much I like my car. I could easily see getting an M3 or RS5 for my next car. All three are stellar.