When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The August issue of C&D ran a comparison of the ATS-V, M3 and C63S. While the C63S came in second (I was not expecting C&D to rate it above the M3), the instrumented tests, particularly for straight line acceleration were quite disappointing.
C&D reported 1/4 mile performance for the cars as follows.
I don't really care about the ATS-V as the review have consistently said that the interior stinks and is completely inappropriate for anything beyond a Chevy Cruz. Thus, it does not fit in this group.
However, I have no idea how the C63S could be slower than an M3 (particularly an M3 that put down merely average numbers for this generation of M).
We have seen at least 3 different youtube videos of the C63S pulling away from Ms, even tuned Ms, and have never seen a video in which an M even kept up let alone passed a C63S.
We have also seen youtube videos of the C63S pulling away from the face lift W204 C63. Yet the face lift W204 ran better 1/4 mile time and particularly trap speeds than this result from C&D for the C63S.
The only thing I can imagine is that C&D stupidly inflated the tires to their maximum pressure (46 PSI rear) and thereby lost significant traction causing the launch control and the traction control to reduce engine output.
I just hope some of the owners here are planning some track time of their own so we can get some real numbers.
The August issue of C&D ran a comparison of the ATS-V, M3 and C63S. While the C63S came in second (I was not expecting C&D to rate it above the M3), the instrumented tests, particularly for straight line acceleration were quite disappointing.
C&D reported 1/4 mile performance for the cars as follows.
I don't really care about the ATS-V as the review have consistently said that the interior stinks and is completely inappropriate for anything beyond a Chevy Cruz. Thus, it does not fit in this group.
However, I have no idea how the C63S could be slower than an M3 (particularly an M3 that put down merely average numbers for this generation of M).
We have seen at least 3 different youtube videos of the C63S pulling away from Ms, even tuned Ms, and have never seen a video in which an M even kept up let alone passed a C63S.
We have also seen youtube videos of the C63S pulling away from the face lift W204 C63. Yet the face lift W204 ran better 1/4 mile time and particularly trap speeds than this result from C&D for the C63S.
Car & driver?? Man you can't take their numbers serious at all. They are always biased depending on who spends more $$$ on advertising with them IMO.
They had such a bad name in the 80's with bologna results from tests they performed on cars. I have not bought or read any articles from them in probably 30 years.
Ultimately this is the opinion of what someone else thinks. I would also like to see some more accurate numbers, but honestly its really what you think about the car that matters most.
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.
as someone who owns an e92, I think the new car is beyond boring to drive, the only way to enjoy it is on the track. Hence why I am swapping for the w205, I am starting to think m3post guys are delusional.
...and now Car & Driver tests an automatic ATS-V Sedan in this comparo and is runs 12.1 @ 122 MPH. That's a 7-8 MPH increase in trap speed... was this ATS-V a ringer?
Based on the acceleration results we're seeing, the ATS-V should absolutely crush the M3 and C63S - it's trapping 5-6 MPH higher in the 1/4 mile and it's nearly 4 seconds faster than the C63S and M3 to 150 MPH. Very curious to see how the ATS-V actually performs in the real world against the M and AMG... it'll be pretty obvious if this car was just a ringer, or if it really is a beast.
What's odd is that we've already seen the C63S outrun an M3 on a roll and in a drag race (as well as a tuned M3) - yet these results show the M3 actually accelerates faster than the C63S... strange results for sure.
Just a few days ago(like less than 10 days) I was at Safeway getting a sandwchich for lunch. i stopped by the magazines section and saw a test of the Cadillac ATS-V that did like a 12.6@114 or so which was not impressive at all.
It is too soon to determine any performance, what I have noticed through is that some car magazines are biased on their report and they are biased because of the briefcases with money passes in the editors offices.
I wouldn't take this test serious. The trap speed seems a little lower compared to other test I have seen.
I think these results are invalid and unreliable as they cannot be repeated by a unbiased reviewer. As others have said, recent real-world runs have provided data that conflicts with the C&D numbers. The ATS-V numbers are interesting to say the least. I think the car is a beast but that trap speed. Really? As I mentioned on another forum, I'm glad I don't buy my cars based on magazine reviews.
It is too soon to determine any performance, what I have noticed through is that some car magazines are biased on their report and they are biased because of the briefcases with money passes in the editors offices.
Here it states that the c63s gets to 60 mph in 3.9 sec but it takes 23.7 sec to get to 150mph.
Well I did a search on Youtube because I know this is horse doody.
In this video from a regular Fritz he gets to 100km (62mph) in 4.4 seconds but he gets to 250km (155/156mph) in 20.8 sec. So a bit slower to 60 but then by some miracle he is like 3 plus seconds faster suddenly to 150mph.
Like I stated before, these Magazines are biased by $$$$ IMHO
C&D has always been biased... Forget their #'s though pay closer attention to what BMW has been doing for years & years vs MB just starting to do w/their more elite models SLS/Black series & latest MB GT-S they use lighter superior DCT, w/superior hp/tq multiplying gearing IE C63 S is using 2.82 FD vs M3 using far far more aggressive 3.46 FD add that to a lower curb weight VS MB by some 330 + lbs it adds up to BMW easily edging the superior eng in MB
They did the hp-to-weight ratios for us: 8.5 lb/hp for the M3, 8.2 lb/hp for the Cadillac, and 7.8 lb/hp for the C63S.
Barring traction or very significant shifting issues, the C63S should have the fastest acceleration, followed by the Cadillac, and then the M3. Unless BMW & Cadillac have bigger advertising budgets in C&D.
They did the hp-to-weight ratios for us: 8.5 lb/hp for the M3, 8.2 lb/hp for the Cadillac, and 7.8 lb/hp for the C63S.
Barring traction or very significant shifting issues, the C63S should have the fastest acceleration, followed by the Cadillac, and then the M3. Unless BMW & Cadillac have bigger advertising budgets in C&D.
I am pretty sure that the 8.5 lb/hp for the M3 is based on the 425 HP that BMW prints on paper. BMW is notorious for sandbagging their figures. Just a FYI, a few dyno testing of the M3 (yes, I know dyno figures vary) have been reporting at around 485 HP (and around 450 TQ) so it makes more sense that the M3 is edging out the C63S and ATS-V in the 0-60 department.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
are biased by $$$$ IMHO
