On the contrary... I do in fact believe a sedan is a car. It's not a truck, SUV, nor is it a van - I would firmly put it in the "car" category.

Where we disagree, perhaps, is that to me "sports car" is more descriptive than simply just "any car that happens to be sporty" - which appears to be your definition. To me, sports-sedans and sports-cars are different.

C, E, S Class AMGs; Audi's S4, 6, 8, BMW's M3 and M5... those are all sports sedans.

Corvette, Nissan GT-R, Porsche 911, almost every Ferrari and Lambo, Lotus Elise and Exige, Black Series AMGs, etc... those are sports cars.

It's not just about 'ring times, or HP/TQ. The Panamera TT managed a sub-8 minute ring time - call me crazy, but I don't think it's a sports car either.

 

Exactly. And I likewise don't consider the Panamera TT (which I've driven quite a bit) to be a sports car.

 

I tend to agree. I've always considered sports cars to be exotics and vettes. I think I've always viewed sports cars to be a certain physical shape. Even the SLS doesn't really fit into my idea of what a sports car's shape is supposed to be, although I believe it to be one.

Price has also been one of the top factors that I automatically use to judge whether a car is a sports car.

It's hard for me to call a new Camaro or Mustang a sports car, when all of my life I've viewed 911's and Ferrari's to be sports cars.

Is a Nissan 350/370 Z a sports car? Is it a sport coupe? My natural reaction is to refer to them as the latter.

The C63 meets my price level criterion for the definition of sports car. But, it's not shaped like a sports car.

Fortunately, the C63 can perform better than some sports cars and it allows me enough room to schlep a lot of stuff around when I go to see family.

I don't intend to fan flames, this just seemed like the natural conclusion, given my rational above: The C63 is a great compromise.

 

Yep. Someone needed to post this warning a LOOOONG time ago in this thread...

 

Good heavens, it's 2008 all over again.

Side note: I really don't think Oliverk is a troll. He just has a different opinion on things and defends them resolutely. In fact, he makes some good points. The C63 is still a great bargain though, if you ask me.

 

I agree on all counts. It's often hard for car enthusiasts to hear criticism of their car. The C63 rocks, but no car can be all things to all people.

 

+1 Any car (really anything) has it's shortcomings, advantages and disadvantages.

For example, I would probably never buy a C63, but I would a get a CLS63. That is my preference, but some would disagree with my preference. That's OK.

Again, on the $70K bit, that is based on one's perception.

 

well said

 

Wow, I didn't expect this post to get quite this nuts! So last Tues while in Dallas on business I finally got my hands on a C63...

Definitely a beast. The ride was a bit harsher trhan I expected. For example the 335i has great handling while doing a great job of insulating you from all the high frequency bumps, expansions etc. While I'm definitely ok with an aggressive ride in Viper, GTR, Lotus, etc; I suppose I have a lower tolerance for a sedan toy that is not so purely focused.

This was probably my main pet peeve. For $60-$70k 4 door beast I want my wife and passengers to be able to lay their heads back on the seat without it getting bucked all over the place. I'm sure a nice set of coil-overs would cure it but am wondering why Mercedes didn't find a way to acheive that sort of balance that BMW has done. Does the E63 feel as choppy? I doubt it considering the longer wheelbase and it being heavier (unless the shock/spring rates are also proportionately higher).

Otherise, it seems like a very cool car. Great sound, great looks, awesome seats and steering wheel. The same dealer had an M3 Sedan AND a new S4. The C63 had the best seats followed by S4 then M3. So lots of cool elements about the car. Plus I just think a big-ole 500hp german V8 stuffed into a tidy sedan is just cool. I didn't have time to drive the others although I wish I would have done them back to back.

So the verdict is that there will always be lots of respect and some curriosity about owning a C63. But I think I'm leaning toward a more focused toy/sportscar like a Viper Coupe, Vantage, 996/997TT, GTR. Then get an E350 or E550, 335 or XF as the daily/family car. The XF is the real used bargain right now!

 

+1

When you put your name on it, there's a lot on the line.

 

The C63's ride is harsh enough that I wouldn't own it if driving routinely on bad roads. But on average or better roads, the ride is perfectly fine, and my family hasn't complained.

 

Raron - you'd be hard pressed to find a brand new C-Class with any options whatsoever for that kind of money. I pre-ordered a 2008 AMG C63 1 year before they were released, and I have had mine since April 2008 (I am sure one of the first 50 sold in the USA). I still have it. It is awesome and has never given me a problem. Mine was with every option at the time (no performance package offered then - even so, the 19" wheels are maybe too much).

I have a loaner car today, as my car is in for th B0 service (I have 37,000 miles). The car is a new C-300. It seems like a totally different and very cheap car vs. the C63 - which it is. Get a C63 with all of the options, but keep the 18" wheels (the performance pack is a total gimmick). Ditch the Pirelli Pzeros (they are crap and I got 6,000 miles off of the first 2 rear set I had - everyone speaks of the performance, they aren't that good) - and go with Yokohama Advan S4's or Continental Extreme Contact DWS All Seasons. They last 15,000 to 16,000 miles - are quieter, handle as well, have better traction (dry is superb and wet is no comparison). The Pirelli's are for the track, not the Street. Get the Leather, the Nav Pack, the anthracite wood. The car is great. It is Palladium Silver with Black interior and anthracite wood. My mileage is 16.7 overall, but I do a lot of local driving. On the highway it will do 20. My Brother has the identical car (ordered and delivered 1 month after mine), but he did the full aftermarket cpu, header, exhaust and other stuff to get horsepower up to around 550 (Kleeman, I think). To be honest, it makes the car quicker, but really only above 60 mph. Below that, he just burns through tires quicker. Plus, at high RPM's it is too much, rather than the standard loud. I like his car and think it is better than mine, but it REALLY is not worth the extra money (about 10-11K).

Lastly, the cars you list -
1)A vantage is crap. My friend has one. It looks good, but is a jag engine and a 2 seater and performs poorly - why? You will pay dearly for service, you will pay dearly for any items related to the car, and apart from OK looks (which won't age well) - You will regreat that purchase in every way (including resale).
2) Viper. Do you plan on modifying it and use it for track use? It will be great - but expensive. If no track use - do you wear gold chains and live with the Jersey Shore cast? The car is pure cheese. Please!
3) GTR - this may be the only argument that holds water. But used? I would seriously question this purchase used. That car will be beat on so badly, you'll never know what type of nightmare's you are buying. 90% of all GTR's are bought by wealthy Fast and Furious'. If you can get a Nissan warranty from the dealer, and they will warranty the Transmission - seriously consider this.
4) The C63 is durable as hell. Every part is made for performance. AMG really did this thing right. I know. My brother is pretty hard on his and it is perfect. It is not a great snow car if you plan on it as an everyday driver - but it was my only driver for 2 years (My wife has a Range Rover, but that is her car (even though I bought it! We just bought a 2012 Wrangler Unlimited Sahara with the Pentastar. That is also an awesome car - but a totally different type!). It will drive in the snow with all seasons like what I recommended - and it won't be horrible (it won't be great, but a standard C300 or C350 won't either).

The C63 is the best out of all that you listed becasue it performs as almost as well as or better than all of those you listed and is one of the best all around cars that perfroms at these levels.

The stock C Class of any type is very, very different in every way it drives from the C63. Trust me, I am doing it today. They are different cars. If you want a soft luxury ride, light steering, slightly more rear seat legroom (AMG seats are big and infringe on rear seating), better mpg's (by about 5 mpg), and a way cheaper drive - go for a c300 or 4matic. It will cost you 55K+ (similarly optioned). If you want a car that can seat 4, is very comfortable, and is able to perfrom like a true sports car - go with the C63 at around 72k. The C63 is, by far, the best (not the fastest, but the most integrated performance package) AMG - and it is the cheapest! When I was looking, I was deciding between a 2008 911 C4s, an e63 (the 2008 was crap) or the C63. I test drove the 911 and thought it was great, but a lot of money and virtually a 2 seater (duh, but sometimes a dream car does not fit with reality - and this was my case). The E63 of that year was an e-Class with a big motor (so soft and fast). I read in articles about the newly develped C63 - and how AMG was virtually rebuilding the C to be their first full package, and I ordered it without ever driving one, since mine was the first lot of C63's to the US for sale. The first time I drove it was the day I picked it up. The first year I thought it was really Good. Now, I have driven the new M3 (Coupe), newer 911C4s' (with pdk and manual), a new E63, a CTS-V (not even close, even though it is pretty fast), all the S4's (my other brother and brother in law has those - now those are not that great) and a variety of other cars. Guess what? I like my car more than any of them!

Lastly, service will be more for the C63 than a standard C-Class. Expect every 10,000 miles to be between $550 and $750.

Really, when you option them similarly - I'd say the C63 is 15K more than a C. Service will be about 200 more/visit. But the cars are totally different. Just look at any car lover who sees you in the C63 (get a lighter color - the darker colors do look more like a stock C Class) - they always let you know that the car is awesome. I still think it is awesome now every time I drive my car. Over 3 years later. It is truly one of the best cars on the market if you want a performance car you will use as an everyday car. I was a total BMW guy before this car and owned a few. I hated Mercedes. Now, I am pretty much the opposite of current models (although the upcoming M5 is really interesting to me - but 100K).

 

I decided NOT to go for the BS, instead I go with 6 months old CL63AMG (2011 model), the car has about 5000 miles, and full option, PP included. Normally I will take delivery next week.
I do like the C63BS, but for use as a DD, I think I made the right choise with the CL.

 

I got mine for $53000 OTD. My MSRP was like $65000. Add tax and it would be like $70,000 but like I said, I paid $53000 OTD and it was brand new with $5000 in options.

 

See and that's my biggest issue with MB, AMG's TANK in value like no other. It's great for people like you that can do this, but it sucks for people that are buying them when they're new and hot (like the 2012's are) and it sucks for people with older ones.

A full loaded 2012 C63 coupe is about $84k last I checked on the configurator. I think it's worth it and if I didn't have a GT-R, I think I would get one. But, the fact that the car will tank in value, just bugs me.

Even MB acknowledges the poor residuals in their lease rates for AMG's. A CL65 AMG has a 30% or so residual after 3 years! WTF?

 

Read my post below. The ride is not bad if you have the 18's and switch out the tires to a really good set of Yokohamas (Advan S4 4 Seasons - believe me - they perform) or Continentals. I had two sets of Pzeros and went through each in 6,000 miles (first set to the metal!) - so I can tell you I use the perfromance (not peeling out). I went to the Yokohamas and got 12,000 from the rears on 2 sets, 24,000 for the fronts. I just switched out to Continentals and have 1,500 miles. These tires actually perfrom just as well as the Pirellis in real world, non-track driving and treadlife more than doubles. Plus, they are quieter, more comfortable, way better in inclement weather (a daily driver consideration). I have one of the first C63's sent to the USA for sale and I can tell you the ride is stiffer than standard, but is no worse than my 2000 BMW 540 Sport (which was nothing in performance compared to the C63).

If you don't do the C63 - get a 996/997 - and get an XF with a certified warranty. Believe me - I have a 2010 Range Rover (so a Jaguar electrics, motor and transmission in a BMW-designed chassis) and I only bought it if they threw in a 6 year/100,000 land rover warranty!!! The brits build a "kind of" great car - they would be great if they had the japanese do the electronics. The more complex the electrics, the more sure you will be of big failures! I doubt TATA will do much to resolve that!

As for some of the comments about real sports cars - I agree. The C63 is exactly what I wanted for performance and needed in reality - A Sports Sedan that will outperform the majority of "real" sports cars out there. Talking about the Panamera TT Performance - OK, but that is $150,000. And Ugly as sin. The Comment about the CLS - that is just funny. The E-Class is soft, even as an AMG - and the CLS is an E-class. The C63 is the highest performance vehicle out of all of the AMG's (as an overall package - with the exception of the SLS) - and now with the MCT - the transmission might be improved (I have no complaints about the standard one - it is fast (in S or M), smooth (in "C"), durable).

Now that I have a 3rd car I can use every day - I am looking at the New 911 (the Only real Porsche, although the Cayman/Boxster is shaping up to be a great high performance girls car!). We'll see. I also like the M5.

 

^^ I know what you mean. You drive a GTR, back in 08' I had money in hand(cash) to buy a GTR at MSRP and I had to endure the insulting local dealer of $25,000 mark up.

Don't throw the towel. My disccounts came from being at the right place at the right time:

$7500 off from Mercedes Benz headquarters(summer of 2009)
$4500 off from Mercedes dealer and USAA (I am in the military)
$1000 off from Mercedes dealer from questioning my SSN authenticity due to recent identity theft issues.

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

Worth it or not, it's really depense if you like it or not. It's hard to judge the value of a car when there are some many areas ones might like or dislike. To me, it does worth $70k, you get nearly supercar performance, can seat 5 people and a trunk.

 

No not at all....not worth more than 25k...

 

I wonder...what is the cost to Mercedes to produce a C63? I mean the real cost to actually produce one. Anyway have this info or a real idea?

 

Only the guys on the inside know this for sure.
I'm curious too.

 

I can tell you that based on my own experienced of being very attached to the automotive industry and watching documentaries like how is made and being on car forums for many many many years I can certainly say that there is not much margin of profit.

Think about this:

1) The technicians at AMG probably get paid very well per hour
2) Shipping a Mercedes Benz from Germany cost some good money too(Truck to Ship to truck to dealer)
3) Tires are expensive any were in the world
4) The sizes of the brakes and the quality makes them very expensive. A similar Brembo set up cost $7500 front and rear
5) Rims are expensive
6) Raw materials for paint are very very expensive, paints, primers, clear coats
7) Assembly of seats might take many hours
8) Leathers are expensive

I can go on an on but like I said before, everything is expensive to build expect minor little things like hoses or clips. I watch the History channel how is made and they took many hours to build just a little silly steering wheel for a Honda Fit.

It is not just the cost of materials, it is the cost of materials plus the paying for everyone, plus Mercedes pays for gas to test cars, tires, rent of acres of property, salary of enginers to test a car for thousand of hours on the roads and on the bench/dyno.

Then no one thinks about the countless hours of the air tunnel for aerodynamics, or the countless hours of making the car in clay prior to building the actual car or the countless hours of designing the interior, exterior or building the parts.

Then it comes the marketing, the TV commercials, the phamplets, the warranty, etc, etc, etc. You are paying for many people that maintain the factory working, people that has to clean the factory each day while the car is being built, people in the sales department, people in the admin office tracking your car, people supervising that your order is being done the way you order it No one wants to talk about that?

No one thinks this way, everyone thinks of what is the cost of making the car but who pays the rest of the bills? did the C63 just gets built in one day? You need to pay ahead of time for all the years of testing, the blue prints, the plane tickets for the crew that took your C class to the Nurburgring, the dead desert in Cali or the testing in Norway.

Like I said, the "profit" is not that big considering all the other expenses. For the most part, most of the people would have(no ofense) the narrow vision of how much something actually cost to build.

 

Taken from the F1 (Formula 1) website..."The gearboxes of modern Formula One cars are now highly automated with drivers selecting gears via paddles fitted behind the steering wheel." Oliverk go back to your s500. F******g nerd....

 

LOL