squid23

The rules about giving a car's weight are different. In the US is has to be "typically equipped". The question is, which options are the Germans omitting to save substantial weight? I don't think this explains everything.

rustycruiser

Details here. Ignore the section on halogens, that is only available on the lower C class without the premium package

http://www.al-lighting.com/press/sin...0738c80087a183

zibby43

Some of the MBUSA weight figures take into account a driver, a passenger, and a certain amount of luggage in the car. And of course a certain fuel level as well.

Same goes for some of the Euro. weight specifications.

irablumberg

The best evidence we have currently is MBUSA data listed for w204 versus w205. According to mbusa.com, w205 C63s weighs 100 lbs. more than w204 coupe. I assume MB uses the same metric for both figures.

Will617

In a bunch of articles I've read prior to the release MB stated the car would be bigger, stronger and lighter by supposedly 200 lbs to be about the same weight as a M3. This is due to the use of lighter materials like aluminum in the design of the body.
With all the mistakes and build errors on MBUSA I will remain confident about it being lighter than the w204 until somebody puts one on a scale and proves otherwise.

rentzington

so i didnt see an exhaust option on the c63S which may indicate what i'd read that the exhaust upgrade was included on the S but i hadn't really seen that confirmed.

87k usd the way i wanted it....be better off getting an edition one for 88

amanuuh

That 200 pounds was mainly based on the regular C class. Sadly I think the 3924 is correct. I wonder what options that car had. Pano roof can add tons of weight. The M3 was supposed to be lighter than it actually is. The Ford Mustang was supposed to lose a ton of weight and it ended up being more. I do think the w205 C63S sedan is is lighter than the W204 C63 but I can't find official numbers on that.

Iceman II

I think you're right -- the numbers are what they are. I think we have these discussions because the initial reviewers get false numbers from the manufacturers and they run with them. I think Chris Harris and others should fact check the makers and call them on it. In all fairness, we did have several reviewers call the real numbers. But we also had several others push forward the MB marketing line that the car is ~200 lbs lighter -- and its not.

Either way, I'm happy with the car.

zibby43

I wouldn't rely on MBUSA's numbers for either platform.

Motor Trend tested the W204 C63 507 Coupe and it weighed in at 3,952 lbs.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

+1

Prior to the F8X launch, there were rumors that the platform was going to weigh in the 3,300-lb range.

I think the standard W205 C63 will weigh somewhere between 3,750 and 3,850 lbs. It will continue to be a guessing game until an owner puts one on the scales.

I've weighed my LCI W204 C63 before and it came in at approximately 3,820 lbs.

FWIW, I predicted the F80 M3 to weigh in at around 3,600 lbs. We've seen F8Xs around/slightly under that mark (e.g., a CCB-equipped M4 @ 3579 lbs; a CCB-equipped M3 @ 3562 lbs).

One important thing to remember in this discussion is that while weight alone is important, so is power-to-weight ratio. While the F8X platform will likely retain a 150-200 lb weight advantage (at least), both C63 variants are cranking out more hp/tq.

K-A

I like it but even at how I spec'd a C63 with what I think are essentials for it, at almost 72K, maybe $71K if I'm a bit more "stingy". That's a bit too expensive for a C Class, imo. Same issue with the M3. Maybe it's just being "old school" but it doesn't seem like long ago these cars started in the mid $50's. 2008 C63 started at mid $54K based on an Edmunds test I found.

It's also unfortunate that it doesn't use a real DCT, and based on Chris Harris's review (and knowing the MCT) it isn't quite as snappy as the DCT found in the M3. DCT's are really the only way to get anything nearly visceral from a transmission now that manuals are pretty much going extinct. I don't see suspension options so I'm assuming it's one standard suspension designed with several different active settings.

I also wish automakers wouldn't con you with their irrelevant hard drive navigation systems by "forcing" you to pay the exuberant prices just to get the better screens. Though I think the massive tacked on faux "iPad" on the C dash is a practically comedic fad of a design flaw (unfortunately trending across many cars currently), architecturally speaking, it's of a better resolution, etc. than the standard "whateverAndroid" style screen with the big borders, etc. So you've gotta pay up for things like Navigation, XM, hard drive, etc. which you can get via alternatives by streaming your Smartphone into your system and using a thumb drive. Using Google/Waze/Apple Maps are all superior and instantly updated alternatives to an OEM nav, and can be streamed via BT. Yet car manufacturers still hold some small bait to dangle in front of your face to coax you to pay $3K for a so called "tech package".

TTA850

I feel the same but guess times are just changing and a lot more is being offered in the C class now, my off lot '13 C63 P31 coupe was only missing CF interior and multimedia yet stickered for $80k. Building a new C63 S the way I would order and it came to $95,160 (and could be pushed to a tick over $100k if you try). I do fairly heavily option cars I order, my E63 S was $120k, so I know it's not the average but I will say at $90k+ it's quite an amazing list of available options. Nice to finally see some things that were previously reserved for higher end models.

rentzington

And when you get into this 85-100k territory you can go get a slightly used 1yr old e63s

K-A

Yeah, changing of the times and repositioning a bit, indeed. Also, back then, MB and BMW didn't discount as massively as they do today. I think they've fallen in a habit where they artificially boost MSRP's, yet discount heavily and artificially raise residuals in their growing lease propensity. Personally, I much prefer when they just gave you a more honest MSRP to begin with and didn't tie so much up in the dealer games via these huge discount and lease number trickery buffer zones, lol.

My pet peeve with car ordering nowadays is in paying $3 G's for Nav packages for about $100 in hardware I need from it. In the Merc's case, it'd be the higher res screen. I didn't order Nav in my current car and couldn't be happier (fortunately I get the same screen and interface anyway, which isn't important to me on this car, but makes it an easy decision anyways). Streaming Apple Maps or Waze through my BT with Siri Voice Control beats the Nav and connectivity experience I had with my Merc's or recent iDrive. And I just had to save $3K to get it.

unagi1

^^^^ As expected from AMG

jakc

I configured a C63 to $79,xxx and C63S to $82,xxx with similar features. The $3000 difference isn't bad at all. Though I remembered the same thing happening when I configured a C300 fully load was near same price as a fully loaded C400. I wonder if this is some new upselling strategy MB is using to get you to upgrade to the next up model if you usually go for a lot of features.

Now the question is, do I really need an AWD C400/450 or go with another 63. Hmmm........

amanuuh

You don't need the AWD lol just get the C63

PeterUbers

Pano is about 100lbs extra that some would argue translates to 10-15bhp loss ... Most people won't feel this on the butt dyno

A tank of gas is 100lbs too...

jakc

Easy for you to say, you live in California. I guess the next logical thing to do is for me to move to California

dave-t

Your information is correct the w205 is 200 lighter than the w204. The weight savings is due to HSLA for frame and sub frame and all aluminum panels except I believe the rear bumper for safety. The w205 also gives 3.7inches of rear passenger space. Now these stats are for the C300 not sure if the info applies to the C63(s).

Iceman II

Yep, its called behavioral economics. Its possible they did it on purpose and possible it was purely accidental.....but you're right -- its there. Dan Ariely is the author of a book call "Predictably Irrational" and explains how hidden forces shape our decisions. I'm sure all of the big corps (including MB and BMW) clearly understand how to influence your decision making by presenting you with what you think are options when really they are nudging you to the decision they want you to make.

I also believe someone has already predicted the S model will out sell the non-S model. We shall see if this works. It certainly has worked on me.

Here is Dan's video

amanuuh

Mercedes has been doing that for ever. They always do that on their top models in each class. My dad bought a GL 550 because it had all the options standard that werent standard on the GL 450. At the end of the day it was like a 5k difference but its worth it.

amanuuh

Thats a lot of weight. If that weight isn't included on the 3924 thats going to tip it to 4k. Ouch. Im glad i didn't opt for it. The performance seats probably save a little bit of weight.

Its kinda surprising that the car is so heavy. Not one reviewer complained about the weight Everyone complained about the RC-F.

OC6.3AMG

That's because C63 was reviewed in a press day event controlled by Mercedes. I'm sure once the car hits the shelves and reviewers get their hands on them in their own turf, then we'll hear things that were left "unsaid" in the controlled event.

I wanna see a Motortrend head2head between the M3 and C63 S, both with fresh tires and brakes, 0-60, 1/4 mile drag, and lap the circuit in the hands of Randy Pobst.

zibby43

I'm looking forward to that comparison test as well (plus Car & Driver's Instrumented Test). However, we have had a head-to-head outside that controlled environment.

It was a comparison between the standard (non-S) C63 and the M3.

The C63 won. Link:

https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-c...m3-vs-c63.html

And we have had a review by Henry Catchpole of Evo Magazine as well. Link:

https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-c...catchpole.html

Evo Verdict:

"AMG has got much of the C63 absolutely spot on. There is still the sense that it isn’t quite as tight, focused and involving as an M division car, but it was [n]ever thus and if you’ve experienced the latest M3 on a slippery surface you’d probably argue that slightly more approachable and less spiky car isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The C63 obviously still has to pass the wet bumpy B-road test to see if its 516lb ft can remain friendly, and we’ll bring you the verdict just as soon as we can.

The fact it has monstrous pace, a soundtrack to match and the ability to oversteer with ease, means it has arguably done enough to make it the default choice in the class."

zibby43

I definitely understand where you're coming from. 2008 was 7 years ago though (hard to believe).

My '13 LCI W204 C63 sedan came to about $72k. It has the Multimedia Package, Iridium Silver paint, the Lane Tracking Package, the Lighting Package, Keyless-Go, AMG Illuminated Door Sills, Wheel Locking bolts, Chrome Door Handle Inserts, etc.

When I built an identically equipped standard W205, the price came out to $72k again.

I selected: Iridium Silver Metallic; Red-painted brake calipers; Multimedia Package; Open-pore Black Ash wood trim and AMG Performance front seats.

I love the way the 18-inch AMG twin 5-spoke wheels look. They look lightweight and strong (plus they show off the brake hardware).

I feel like you get a lot more "standard" with these newer cars. For example, with the W205 you get premium (i.e., non-Halogen) headlights as standard. You get a premium Burmester sound system standard. And so on and so forth. Naturally, these additions serve to drive the MSRP up a bit.