All the initial impressions of the C63s look very good. However, for me, performance with a reasonable degree of comfort is paramount. I had a GT-R and it had performance in spades, but ultimately failed on comfort. I loved driving it for 20 minutes, but after an hour, the droning exhaust and general high level of noise was just too much. I have no doubts that the C63s will be more than sufficiently comfortable. Thus, performance is the question.


I currently have an M4, but if the C63s can post superior numbers, I will almost certainly trade given the superior interior of the C. Thus, I am eagerly awaiting instrumented testing.


Meanwhile, I thought it might be fun to make predictions. Here are the data points I am using to start.


M4 Performance
Ring time = 7:52 [see this link among others http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/b...ime-2014-06-20]
1/4 mile time = 12.4 @ 117 [manual transmission, http://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/m4]
1/4 mile time = 12.0 @ 119 [DCT, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review]


W204 Performance
Ring time = 7:46 [Black series (not really a fair comparison) http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/20/m...ap-on-the-rin/]
Ring time = 8:01 [https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/]
1/4 mile time = 12.1 @ 120 [I believe this is the best mainstream test result recorded, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...trumented-test]


E63s Performance
Ring time = 7:55 [http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes..._s-model.html]
1/4 mile time = 11.6 @ 121.8 [http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...on/specs.html]


Note, for the 1/4 mile times, I used Car and Driver / Motor Trend data for consistency.


My hope is that the C63s can out perform the M4 and the W204 C63, but I am concerned that AMG will not want a C class to out perform an E class, at least not in straight line metrics. There is little worry on 1/4 mile time as the E63s has that huge AWD traction advantage. I don't believe an M4 or a C63s could come close to an 11.6 without slicks or at least drag radials. On the other hand, a trap speed of 121.8 for the E, does not leave much room for the C. With the M4 running 119, if AMG has limited the C63s to lower trap speeds than the E63s, then the C63s could at best be 2.7 MPH faster in the 1/4 mile. This seems like a thin margin.


On the ring, AMG has a challenge as the W204 is 9 seconds behind the M4. The Black Series clearly improved on this substantially, but that involved revised suspension, lots more horse power, lower weight and much better rubber. The W205 has about the same horse power as the W204, more torque, a bit more rubber and hopefully several hundred pounds less weight. Here, I don't think AMG would limit the performance of the C63s to be below that of the E63s as no one expects a much larger and heavier car to have better ring times even with AWD and more horse power.


So, based on all of the above, here are my hopes and predictions for the C63s (and also the minimum requirements for me to trade my M4 ;-).


1/4 mile time = 11.8 @ 121 (hopefully well designed launch control will allow for relatively good launch and short 60' times)
Ring time = 7:51


Anyone have any other thoughts?

 

Well written and some good research

I believe you are spot on with the Q-mile time and speed but I think it will be a bit quicker on the Ring. The reason for this is the rear diff a lil more torque and the reduction in weight. I'm thinking something close to the C63 Black series. I don't think it will be quicker but it could get close maybe just under 7:50

 

Question will also be what this car dyno's

Some believe it's a myth that amg underrated their power stats while others strongly believe they do... Including some major car magazines like motortrend

I think the c63S will match the e63s 1/4 mile

 

have you seen the E63S vs M5 video? the E63S is so underrated

 

Dyno tests are mostly useful for before and after testing of modifications or back to back testing of two different cars. No two dynos read the same and thus, stand alone readings don't really tell much. It would be interesting to run a stock M4 and a stock C63s on the same dyno back to back. That would at least tell us the relative difference in horse power and torque.


Regardless, on the road, performance is all about power to weight ratio and ability to put power to the pavement. That is why I am focused on 1/4 mile time.

 

Yes I've seen it... 620....650hp depending on how u calculate drivetrain losses...

However disbelievers claim the dyno accentuates the power and that these drivetrains really are 90%+ efficient ... Only 10% loss to the wheels...

 

I think the C63 S will run 11.8-11.9 @ 122-123 MPH, 0-60 3.7-3.8 seconds

 

My good friend has a f80. We have already been planning our race. As soon as I take delivery and as lomy as their is no snow on the roads, I will post a head to head video.

Then I'll get both cars on the Dyno and we can see how they compare...

 

I believe based on 0-100km/h runs done so far and the power curve of the new m177 engine the new C63s will run a high 11sec 1/4 mile stock, (ie.11.9/11.8) with better rear tyres it should do close to mid 11's.


Down the track tuning should see 10's easily but will definitely have to employ stickier rubber

 

To the OP, that's a lot of analysis.

So to trade cars the new C63 has to beat the M4 on the 1/4mile and be 7:51 or faster on the Ring. I understand the logic, but it is pointless.

These cars will perform really closely. The M has more track focus than the C in stock form. The C is much more entertaining to drive and this is in part, the reason why it is not as fast on a track.

In my opinion, the C will be quicker in the 1/4mile. Slower on a track. But it will not sound like a vaccum cleaner. That god awful sound the M4 makes is reason enough to stay away from that car. The fake sound through the stereo is a joke.

I've raced (F2000) and tracked (lots of performance cars for 15years) and instructed for BMWCCA (for the last 9 years) and the only reason to buy a M4 is the manual transmission. Who cares if it is .1sec quicker (or slower) in the 1/4mile and 1sec faster on the track. Do you make a living from tracking the car? If you're like me, it's just a (costly) hobby. Buy the car that is the most fun to drive for you. Not the one that is .1sec in the 1/4, that is insane. And don't worry being 1sec slower on the track, that can your excuse if you get beat by your friend.

I think I've never owned a more fun to drive road car than the C63 and I did drive a lot of crazy machines. If only it had a manual box. But I prefer the C63 with the MCT than a manual M3. According to the reviews, the W205 C63 will as exciting to drive as the W204. To me the choice would be easy between the new M4 and C63.

My guess 1/4 is gonna be 11,9 @ 121mph.

 

If the m3/4 had a real nice exhaust note... It would be tougher clearly for most to decide

 

We all have our own individual value measures. For me, I would not trade my M4 for a less capable car (straight line or road course). However, if there is an equally or more practical and comfortable vehicle available at a comparable price that exceeds the M4's performance, then I would find it very appealing and worthwhile.


Unlike many others, I don't care about the exhaust sounds (except I would like to disable the annoying fake exhaust sound in the M4). Thus, that aspect does not factor into my decision. It really comes down to fun to drive, comfort and convenience. For me, fun to drive is based on handling and acceleration.


We shall see.

 

Yep I do understand. Performance is important to me too. But what I mean is on a certain track on a certain day, the M4 could do 12,0 while the same driver on the same track on a different day can bring a best of 12,3. Heck same day, same track same driver you could see more than .5sec difference. Knowing this, it's hard for me to imagine changing cars based on a .1sec difference on some test done in a magazine.

The real metric of performance is trap speed. These are much more consistent and a better measure of a car acceleration. And even then, I wouldn't change a car based on a 1mph better trap speed.

So unless the C63 is significantly faster (which I highly doubt will happen), maybe you should just spend the money on upgrades for your M4. Because you will likely lose a lot more $$$ to get that 0.1sec by swaping cars.

 

According to C/D, the old C63 was pretty much even with the M4. The new C63S will certainly be faster.

M4 DCT
Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.0 sec @ 119 mph

C63 PP
Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.6 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.0 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.1 sec @ 120 mph

 

I guess I will have to wait and see the $ delta and the performance delta and feed that data into my personal value calculator to see which way to go ;-)

 

I believe the C63 figures you cited are from the C&D review of the 2012 coupe. These are better performance numbers than even those measured for the 2014 507s. Thus, this coupe might have been a factory freak. Ultimately, I hope you are correct and that the W205 (at least the s version) will surpass even this amazing 2012 coupe.

 

Maybe a freak, maybe a more broken in engine, maybe just better conditions or fresher tires. That car that day ran those numbers. Ultimately, there is very little difference between the PP and the 507. The extra 26hp is just peak hp and probably available for a fraction of time at close to max rpm. Area under the curve is probably really close between the two. Anyhow, a V5 tune will get all 3 version (450hp/481hp/507hp) about equal at around 520hp or so.

The new car will be faster, I have no doubt. Plus being turbo, reflashes are probably gonna bring the power closer to 600hp. Can't wait to see how those flashed C63 S perform.

 

I wouldn't be so sure that MB will limit the C63 to make sure it posts slower acceleration figures than the E63. Back when the W204 C63 was released, it was faster than the E63. It wasn't until the E63's M156 was replaced with the biturbo M157 that the E63 was able to out accelerate the C63.

I wouldn't be surprised if MB does this again, and the W205 C63 ends up being faster in a straight line than the E63. After all, the W205 C63 will share an engine with the new AMG GT, and you can be sure that AMG wants this new "100% AMG designed" engine to be the star of the show the way the M159/M156 combo was back when they were first released.

 

We can only wait and hope.