Bardman

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...usive-pictures

Per my post over in W204:

Good news:

• Standard locking diff
• Performance exhaust an option

Disappointing news:

• 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

On the fence news:

• How it looks

Overall, not that exciting a prospect...

CerBErusM113

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.

Bardman

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.

CerBErusM113

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

frank69m

How about another big benefit: Much better gas mileage = no gas guzzler tax.

AlexZTuned

Too many assumptions being thrown around.

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.

Bardman

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:

• Base C63
• C63S
• "Edition 1" - just cosmetics
• Black Series

I think the black series will be faster, but apart from that we are already seeing peak performace for stock cars.

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.

adolzero

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.

AlexZTuned

MB already released W205 performance numbers that are better than the 507 (claimed 0-60 and HP/TQ). Not an assumption.

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.

Bardman

Was referring to the mid 3 second 0-60 for the C63S

Let's say I concede all that (I have never really focussed on 0-60 times, rather 0-100 times, and have seen none that better the quoted 4.2), and that we also concede that BMW have not equally underquoted their performance (on these two concessions, the MB is faster in a straight line).

Common knowledge...

The C63S replaces the performance package. If they are consistent with the strategy with the other models there will be:

- 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

I just cant get over the fact that they haven't really pushed the envelope here. They could have blown BMW out of the water, instead they come out about on par. Seems like a wasted opportunity.

Why didnt they listen to feedback?

AlexZTuned

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

myzmak

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)