betrezra

Just relax and have a chill until some time-slips come out on this new platform. I think you will be happy with the results.

Leave the bench racing to the m-power follks. Just trolling around.

PeterUbers

touche. Any article thought that speaks against the c63s is gunna get lambasted by this crowd .. And I get that anchoring bias. Party on Wayne

Iceman II

It doesn't matter to me. I get my car soon and I don't plan to track it. Will love every minute of my street driving.

PeterUbers

And THATS all that should matter ... But some will lose sleep over c&d articles, and no disrespect this is a very meaningful thing to some, this car ...

betrezra

Those who actually drive the car(s) in question probably care more about this.

I question the interest from those who drive something else other than to "stir the pot".... which while a different motive can be fun for all

SolidGranite

Amen! I wish more shared your sentiment. All of these cars are fast, handle well and look good. Who cares what one mag says?? It's almost like buying speakers... One test or opinion will differ to the next. But who cares? What matters is what your *** in the seat feels when hitting that on ramp or how big is your grin when she starts up in the morning.

I personally have not driven either but would likely buy the C based on looks and commitment to MB after getting T-boned in a W211. But if I ended up in an M I'm sure I could "manage."

g-f

So the 425rwhp W204 runs 12.1@120 but the 475rwhp W205 runs 12.2@116?

Sounds about right to me.

SolidGranite

Turbo vs NA might have something to do with it. Just a guess, but let's wait and see what some other tests come back with..

Point2Point

The simplest explanation is that Car and Driver made a mistake and copied the ATS-V acceleration data into the C63S column.

oldman&theC

[QUOTE=TopGun32;6479112]ATS-V picked up 6 to 7 MPH trap speed from 6 sp manual to 8sp auto.. sounds very fishy to me.

The manual was lighter than the auto and same set up of tires. To me GM is really trying to make a splash and negotiations were made behind close doors.

Some people on the net claim the engine on the Caddy is SAE certified.. but they dont realize is the SAE cert comes months before production and GM can still tune a car differently when it rolls out of the factory.

116 for the C63S is average at best and slower than W204 coupe with PP option. We all know the C63S is faster than that.

Let's not be surprised if Motortrend has way different numbers...

122 for the ATS-V is almost too hard to believe... even faster than C7 corvette which both claim to have similar HP on paper. But the C7 is 500lbs lighter. LOL.[/Quote.

Sounds to me like C & D used their numbers from a previous test and was not tested on the same day as the C63 & M3.How could they get identical numbers on different days?Something really fishy about a 122 trap speed.A good downhill slope would cause the unbelievable top end numbers.

TangoRed

All the people crying about bias in here are hilarious. Cadillac people claim C&D is a BMW-only magazine (yet ignore the numerous BMW losses) and here people are saying C&D sandbagged the C63. Car and Driver generally likes MB's but isn't afraid to call them out when needed.

Tons of MB losses in comparison tests would say otherwise.

cays

Over the past few years C&D has actually been pretty hard on BMWs in general, at least compared to what they were writing over the previous decade. I'm surprised to see it come out on top based on that. It seems all the American mags have been more critical of BMW too. And what's with the curb weight of the C63? This is the first time I've seen it published and I thought it would be a minimum of 100-150 lbs lighter than what I see here. Disappointing to see it so close to the W204.

SolidGranite

I could be mistaken, but didn't MB increase both length and width of the W205 over W204? Yes, there should be some engine weight savings but the overall chassis is larger I think.

cays

True, but I remember reading in one of the English car mags that the basic W205 platform alone was 80+lbs lighter than that of the W204.

Will617

Could be the pano roof. Aman's c63s without the pano was 3865 I believe

AlexZTuned

Doesn't he have aftermarket wheels? And I had heard it was weighed with half a tank of gas vs full tank which would add another ~50lbs on top of any savings from the wheels... Full tank it would probably be in the low 3900 lb range.

msd3075

I was just on C&D's website, and ran across the following article about the Mercedes AMG GT S:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...e-specs-page-5

And it got me thinking about test data for the C63S, in particular one figure that seems to stick out to me. Trap Speed.

I understand the differences between them (BSME here), but the AMG GT S and C63S should be somewhat similar when it comes to acceleration capability. Almost the exact same engine (same power but slight tune difference, dry sump in the GT S), both have performance-oriented transmission, similar aerodynamics (not talking Miata vs. F150 here), slightly wider rear tires on GT S, and about 300 lb weight difference.

None of that should amount to an 11 mph drop in 1/4 mile trap speed. Maybe 3-4 mph, but that's about it. The biggest difference between the two is the added weight and tire width difference, but those should affect mostly your hole-shot time and not so much your trap speed (where aerodynamics play a much bigger role).

All in all, something just doesn't add up.

But really, at the end of the day, who cares? It's a car magazine article. If you bought your car based on what a magazine told you to do, I feel very sorry for you.

betrezra

I find it odd that MB does not advertise performance figures for AMG products.
I'm pretty sure they know what this car does....no?

With all the extensive testing they perform on each platform, I'm sure they know the 0-60, 1/4 mile times etc....

Do they with-hold this information for marketing purposes? Or insurance purposes?

If my engineering team just completed a new platform, we'd have target performance numbers in mind before the project, and then extensive testing to tweak/tune and then tell the world about the results.

Am I off here?

.....

PeterUbers

0-60 Is on the website ... You mean 1/4 mile? How many manufacturers do that?

I see your point though

betrezra

Peter - yeah I agree no mfr's seem to quote 1/4 mile performance.
If I was on the team @ AMG who built/tested this..... the 1/4 mile would be part of the testing. Anyone on the inside know what it runs?

Who would build such a car, and not want to know?

BTW - no one is crying about this..... there is no crisis here.... the people who actually own this car or have one on order are interested (as you can imagine).

No need for the seagull flyby comments..... unless you have some timeslips or a link take it elsewhere.

deutschlandFan

this car hauls butt stock. Im running with modded LS3, coyote 5.0, RCF, and a E85 WRX STI. The heavy modded LS3 is the only one to beat me, and I beat the LS3 the other 2 of 3 runs.

Downpipes, tune, intercooler, more footprint is all this car needs and i do believe it is capable of low 11s in daily driver trim

YellowJacket

I bet that panoramic roof added all that weight. They should never send a test car with that feature.

PeterUbers

Can offset the weight of the panoramic roof by just running on empty in the fuel tank. Doesn't car and driver magazine run with a full tank of gas?

Thericker

Biased can mean both for or against someone, I meant against MB not for

bwoodbmw

The article actually makes a point of the fact that Mercedes made them run the C63 with the tires inflated to the absolute max PSI. Sounds like they were trying to make a point about the fact that they couldn't get it to hook up but Mercedes dictated how it was setup (which most all OEM's do). It apparently was hot and humid as well. Lots of variables that can effect the times, and given that none of the numbers seem to be up to max potential I'm guessing the conditions were less than ideal (unless you are in the Caddy camp).
No reason to disbelieve that the M3 was faster on that particular day with those particular conditions.
I think it'll be clear over time that generally speaking the C63s will be considerably quicker than the M3. Both cars are awesome, not going to kick either out of bed with me.