Press data (from post in W204 forum)
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 538
Likes: 1
From: Melbourne
C63 AMG 507 Edition
Press data (from post in W204 forum)
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...usive-pictures
Per my post over in W204:
Good news:
Per my post over in W204:
Good news:
- Standard locking diff
- Performance exhaust an option
- No real weight loss
- Still only 265 rear tyres
- No rear wheel arch flare
- Not faster than M3/M4 in straight line (will definitely be slower on the track)
- MCT retained
- "An additional manual mode can be accessed via the shift paddles, although the gearbox is programmed to revert back to full automatic operation for improved fuel economy savings"
- No 4WD option
- How it looks
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 320
Likes: 40
From: Northern VA
2015 CLS63 S AMG
Been following the information and I will say that I doubt it will be slower in a straight line than the M3/4. Historically AMG has been conservative in giving 0-60 times for all of it's vehicles.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 538
Likes: 1
From: Melbourne
C63 AMG 507 Edition
I'm very surprised how little they have advanced from the W204 to the W205.
Customers have been screaming for wider rears and flared arches, it seems no-one was really listening.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 320
Likes: 40
From: Northern VA
2015 CLS63 S AMG
I think that's a matter of opinion then. I mean overall its a better car, far more luxurious from what has been shown and the M177 platform surely has potential to go much further.
But from what I've seen real world figures are what AMG generally states. I honestly don't remember what the M4 tested against the 507 Ed. Think it was close to 4.0s to 60. I've seen many W204 C63s break the 4 second mark with more weight (than claimed) and less power.
Regardless, not arguing with you just don't agree with what they stated on straight line speed. I'm gonna be an optimist until the vehicle is tested.
Still love the looks regardless
But from what I've seen real world figures are what AMG generally states. I honestly don't remember what the M4 tested against the 507 Ed. Think it was close to 4.0s to 60. I've seen many W204 C63s break the 4 second mark with more weight (than claimed) and less power.
Regardless, not arguing with you just don't agree with what they stated on straight line speed. I'm gonna be an optimist until the vehicle is tested.
Still love the looks regardless
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 372
From: Austin, TX
2017 Porsche 911 C4
People often say this (and the same for power figures), but real world 0-62 times and dyno tests never back this up. The base C63 will be the same as a M3/M4 and the C63S will be .1 second faster.
I'm very surprised how little they have advanced from the W204 to the W205.
Customers have been screaming for wider rears and flared arches, it seems no-one was really listening.
I'm very surprised how little they have advanced from the W204 to the W205.
Customers have been screaming for wider rears and flared arches, it seems no-one was really listening.
The W204 507 C63 regularly tested at 3.7-3.9 seconds to 60 mph despite being listed at 4.1 seconds by MB.
Even if the W205 C63 ends up at the same weight as the W204 507, the W205 still has a 66 ft-lbs torque advantage over the "last hurrah" 507. I think the C63 S will be very close to a mid three second 0-60.
And in terms of power/torque figures, MB is aware that BMW has grossly underrated the S55 - the general consensus seems to be around 480 HP stock. We'll find out once a few W205's hit the dyno, but I'd be surprised if MB hasn't underrated the M177 as they have with pretty much every modern turbocharged AMG engine.
Just like the F80 M3, the W205 will end up being a bit lighter than its predecessor while making substantially more torque and power with turbochargers.
The fact is that these first year W205 models are already faster than the 507 - once competition heats up with the M3 and performance packs are introduced by BMW and MB, what kind of performance do you think we'll be seeing with the W205?
Once the aftermarket gets a hold of this car, they'll sneeze on the M177 and it'll make 600 HP.
Last edited by AlexZTuned; Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11 AM.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 538
Likes: 1
From: Melbourne
C63 AMG 507 Edition
And in terms of power/torque figures, MB is aware that BMW has grossly underrated the S55 - the general consensus seems to be around 480 HP stock. We'll find out once a few W205's hit the dyno, but I'd be surprised if MB hasn't underrated the M177 as they have with pretty much every modern turbocharged AMG engine.
- Base C63
- C63S
- "Edition 1" - just cosmetics
- Black Series
In any case, my point is, the details of this car are somewhat dissappointing. They had an opportunity to blow the competition out of the water with this release, but it looks like they have made some minor incremental changes and been satisfied with that.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
2012 C63 Sedan
my biggest concern is the weight. 1800kg (not sure if it is curb weight) is really heavy and affect maneuver a lot compared with new f80 m3. not to mention they keep MCT on w205...btw it is really disappointed that i found no wider fender flare is added on amg ver.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 372
From: Austin, TX
2017 Porsche 911 C4
I have a 507 and have read all the press reports I could on it. I was looking for confirmation that it was faster than stated, apart from some isolated reports, the consensus view seems to be it was rated correctly.
This is an assumption.
This is an assumption / guess.
Whilst we are assuming things here, I would be suprised if we saw any more models than we already expect:
And I can enhance my 507 with supercharger and headers and make more than that, but who cares. A soon as you mod the car, comparisons are pretty much worthless.
In any case, my point is, the details of this car are somewhat dissappointing. They had an opportunity to blow the competition out of the water with this release, but it looks like they have made some minor incremental changes and been satisfied with that.
This is an assumption.
This is an assumption / guess.
Whilst we are assuming things here, I would be suprised if we saw any more models than we already expect:
- Base C63
- C63S
- "Edition 1" - just cosmetics
- Black Series
And I can enhance my 507 with supercharger and headers and make more than that, but who cares. A soon as you mod the car, comparisons are pretty much worthless.
In any case, my point is, the details of this car are somewhat dissappointing. They had an opportunity to blow the competition out of the water with this release, but it looks like they have made some minor incremental changes and been satisfied with that.
Car and Driver, 2/14
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
"With that technique, 60 mph arrived in 3.9 seconds. We also tested a C63 507 sedan, which is lighter than the coupe by 45 pounds and managed a 3.8-second time. The take-away from all of this test talk: Every C63 we’ve ever run hit 60 mph in less than four seconds. They’re all quick, with or without the optional power."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...07-test-review
Motortrend, 4/14
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html
Motortrend, 10/11
2012 C63 Dev. Package (481 HP / 443 TQ) 0-60: 3.7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...pe_first_test/
As for underrating engine power, it's common knowledge that turbocharged AMG engines are almost always underrated (especially the M157) - it's more than likely that Mercedes will do the same with the M177 especially with the M3 closer to 480 HP which is already more power than the base C63.
Yes, we know there will be multiple variants W205/C205 and LCI models a few years after their release, which is why it's a pretty safe guess that Mercedes will be tweaking and bumping the power up with each model year / refresh or at least offering performance packages as they did with the previous C63.
And there is a significant difference between installing a supercharger on a M156 (the kit alone costing over $15k) versus pressing a button to flash an ECU tune ($2k on the high end) and make 100+ HP. You don't even have to open the hood to flash modern ECU's - I think that was one of the best parts of the original C63, we all knew it was intentionally detuned and with a simple flash you instantly had gobs more power.
Last edited by AlexZTuned; Sep 24, 2014 at 02:16 AM.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 538
Likes: 1
From: Melbourne
C63 AMG 507 Edition
Car and Driver, 2/14
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
"With that technique, 60 mph arrived in 3.9 seconds. We also tested a C63 507 sedan, which is lighter than the coupe by 45 pounds and managed a 3.8-second time. The take-away from all of this test talk: Every C63 we’ve ever run hit 60 mph in less than four seconds. They’re all quick, with or without the optional power."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...07-test-review
Motortrend, 4/14
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html
Motortrend, 10/11
2012 C63 Dev. Package (481 HP / 443 TQ) 0-60: 3.7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...pe_first_test/
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
"With that technique, 60 mph arrived in 3.9 seconds. We also tested a C63 507 sedan, which is lighter than the coupe by 45 pounds and managed a 3.8-second time. The take-away from all of this test talk: Every C63 we’ve ever run hit 60 mph in less than four seconds. They’re all quick, with or without the optional power."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...07-test-review
Motortrend, 4/14
C63 507 0-60: 3.8
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html
Motortrend, 10/11
2012 C63 Dev. Package (481 HP / 443 TQ) 0-60: 3.7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...pe_first_test/
As for underrating engine power, it's common knowledge that turbocharged AMG engines are almost always underrated (especially the M157) - it's more than likely that Mercedes will do the same with the M177 especially with the M3 closer to 480 HP which is already more power than the base C63.
Yes, we know there will be multiple variants W205/C205 and LCI models a few years after their release, which is why it's a pretty safe guess that Mercedes will be tweaking and bumping the power up with each model year / refresh or at least offering performance packages as they did with the previous C63.
- Base C63
- C63S
- "Edition 1" - just cosmetics
- Black Series
So, lets go ahead with the 2 concessions (MB have understated their performance, and BMW haven't). The new C63 is a few tenths quicker than the M3/M4.
Are you not concerned at all with:
- No real weight loss
- Still only 265 rear tyres
- No rear wheel arch flare
- Likely slower than M3/M4 on the track <- My speculation here!
- MCT retained
- "An additional manual mode can be accessed via the shift paddles, although the gearbox is programmed to revert back to full automatic operation for improved fuel economy savings"
- No 4WD option
Why didnt they listen to feedback?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 372
From: Austin, TX
2017 Porsche 911 C4
You may have spoken too soon 
Official release here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...cs-videos.html
- Real weight loss (C63: 3615 lbs, C63 S: 3649 lbs)
- Electronic and mechanical differential + added camber claims to have added traction and stability
- No rear wheel flares (I'm disappointed too)
- Curb weight and improved power to weight ratio will make it very competitive on track
- MCT retained, however, the press release details hardware and software improvements - specifically mentioning improved responsiveness in manual mode
- The "additional mode" just enables a temporary manual mode that reverts back to auto. There is a dedicated "M" mode for manual that will not revert back as long as it's set.
- No AWD, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet
Official release here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...cs-videos.html
- Real weight loss (C63: 3615 lbs, C63 S: 3649 lbs)
- Electronic and mechanical differential + added camber claims to have added traction and stability
- No rear wheel flares (I'm disappointed too)
- Curb weight and improved power to weight ratio will make it very competitive on track
- MCT retained, however, the press release details hardware and software improvements - specifically mentioning improved responsiveness in manual mode
- The "additional mode" just enables a temporary manual mode that reverts back to auto. There is a dedicated "M" mode for manual that will not revert back as long as it's set.
- No AWD, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
2013 E350 Wagon; 2009 328 xi
You may have spoken too soon
Official release here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...cs-videos.html
- Real weight loss (C63: 3615 lbs, C63 S: 3649 lbs)
- Electronic and mechanical differential + added camber claims to have added traction and stability
- No rear wheel flares (I'm disappointed too)
- Curb weight and improved power to weight ratio will make it very competitive on track
- MCT retained, however, the press release details hardware and software improvements - specifically mentioning improved responsiveness in manual mode
- The "additional mode" just enables a temporary manual mode that reverts back to auto. There is a dedicated "M" mode for manual that will not revert back as long as it's set.
- No AWD, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet
Official release here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...cs-videos.html
- Real weight loss (C63: 3615 lbs, C63 S: 3649 lbs)
- Electronic and mechanical differential + added camber claims to have added traction and stability
- No rear wheel flares (I'm disappointed too)
- Curb weight and improved power to weight ratio will make it very competitive on track
- MCT retained, however, the press release details hardware and software improvements - specifically mentioning improved responsiveness in manual mode
- The "additional mode" just enables a temporary manual mode that reverts back to auto. There is a dedicated "M" mode for manual that will not revert back as long as it's set.
- No AWD, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet
Be careful on the weight claims. The official EU Kerb Weight is 1785 kg (which is about 3900 lbs) for the regular (which, if memory serves, is 90% fuel, full fluids, 75 kg driver). I *think* the previous model was about 1730 kg, so this one might be a bit porkier.
(and, as anyone who follows the M3 saga knows, manufacturers claims of weight have to be treated with some skepticism. Best is to find an official gov't stat (ie: from a website) and compare that as opposed to comparing one from a gov't source and another from a (much less official) press release)
