The local MB dealer has this (already sold) on display today . . .




If you sit and look at it, it isn't as obnoxious as it seems, only minor bits on the exterior are red but it makes a big change.
Black mirrors and black spoiler probably would make it better.

I don't think the wide whitewalls were "stock" (at least I hope not . . . ) and those tires also look kinda large for the time and the car . . .
Jim G
Last edited by JimGnitecki; Jun 15, 2017 at 07:13 PM.


This is an 84 with stock wheels and covers with WW tires: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j...97670658569711
If you want to know Jim call Jon and ask him.
Last edited by Alex.currie44; Jun 15, 2017 at 11:39 PM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
In The U,S. it came with only one transmission choice: a 3-speed auto with no overdrive. The mechanically injected V8 made 160 to 200 hp depending upon model year, with the higher power ones being the EARLY ones. The power declined as emissions specs tightened. the gas mileage was apparently pretty awful with engine rpm at 60 mpg being about 2500.
Weight was over 3400 lb and 0 to 60 was 8 seconds with the strongest versions of the V8.
Apparently, these cars were built like a tank. One writer noted that he and his wife were in the convertible version when they had an accident that both rolled AND flipped the car. This was well before airbags. they both walked away from the crash with only minor injuries! Impressive.
A 2009 review I saw calculated that in 2009 U.S. dollars, these cars sold for the equivalent of just over $100k in the 1970s, so I guess C63s are a bargain in comparison.
The coupe version was longer than the convertible version to allow true 4-seater use, and the hardtop for the convertible looked similar to the coupe roof.
Jim G


In The U,S. it came with only one transmission choice: a 3-speed auto with no overdrive. The mechanically injected V8 made 160 to 200 hp depending upon model year, with the higher power ones being the EARLY ones. The power declined as emissions specs tightened. the gas mileage was apparently pretty awful with engine rpm at 60 mpg being about 2500.
Weight was over 3400 lb and 0 to 60 was 8 seconds with the strongest versions of the V8.
Apparently, these cars were built like a tank. One writer noted that he and his wife were in the convertible version when they had an accident that both rolled AND flipped the car. This was well before airbags. they both walked away from the crash with only minor injuries! Impressive.
A 2009 review I saw calculated that in 2009 U.S. dollars, these cars sold for the equivalent of just over $100k in the 1970s, so I guess C63s are a bargain in comparison.
The coupe version was longer than the convertible version to allow true 4-seater use, and the hardtop for the convertible looked similar to the coupe roof.
Jim G
Strong V8 but the car was hugely nose heavy and not all that nimble. Fast enough for the times but my 1987 300E with just 177 hp would beat it any day and of course the 1993 E300 with the 3.2 L DOHC I6 would just laugh at it.
They were rust buckets in this country where salt was used. Rocker, bumper reinforcement particularly in the rear bumper, bottoms of fenders and subframe part got pretty ugly after 10 yr or so. Ride as nice as I recall. Detactable top was much heavier than the W113 Pagoda it replace.




