German Car Forum

humiliate is a strong word, not many cars today humilite a similar car.

torque = good for citydriving, automatic gearbox is what speaks for C63.

Torque,torque..I´m sick of torque comparison when M3 and C63 are at hand..Off course that 2 litre bigger engine has better torque but no normal person could say that 400 Nm in M3 isn´t enough..Only a mad man would say so..After all,M cars are not about torque..never were,never will(probably)..So,Merc can have 100 percent more of it and I would still appreciate more high tech,high revving M divison engine under BMW´s bonnet..
I agree humiliate is strong word..but this is internal combustion thread..so,I could not help myself..sorry

PS - this reply of mine is not intended to you or anyone with goal to start a fight..I had to blow off some steam..thats all

Well cause the C63 follows the Benz tradition of buliding cars of high strength Steel not aluminium like other makers that's why it's 200KG heavier than the other cars and that applies to every and other AMG machine always heavier than any other in segment for the same reason.

If DCT is anything like SMG vs 6-spd manual in the M5, then it's possible to see 60-150 times drop by about 2 whole seconds. However, this would only put the E92 M3 about level with the C63; E90 is likely still a bit slower than the C63.
Thing is, I doubt AMG will remain still. Aside from the new transmission, AMG has the upper hand in potential power gains due to more displacement. They already knew what the M3 engine would be like, capacity-wise, anticipated this, and have said their 6.2-liter is capable of 580 horses before durability concerns arise. I think we might already have seen a taste of some of this potential in the Italian C63 vs E90 M3 tests, in which the C63 was a bit quicker than all known times for the CLK63 Black Series even ignoring the launch variables.

Agreed. I'm sure an ECU flash will do wonders for the car. The reason I'm skeptical about the C63's power boost by MB is because they don't want it to compete with other cars in the range. I mean the Cayman could be a lot quicker, but if it was faster than a 911, then that would be a problem.

The magnitude seems to be much greater with the C63 though. The C55 was not that much heavier than the E46 M3, compared to E90 M3 vs C63. A 328i and C300 Sport are separated by only 100 lbs according to C&D measurement.
Curb weights from an old R&T comparo:
E39 M5 - 4000lb
W210 E55 - 3620lb

The current E63 is heavier than the current M5, yes, but by about 200 lbs.

Rs4 for me please Haha, yeah I'd take the M3 out of them three, but if i was going to buy a four door sports sedan, I'd go with an rs4

Yes, I see what you mean. However, look at Motor Trend's times for the C63 here compared to their times for the E63.

C63/E63
0-60: 4.1/4.3
0-100: 9.8/10.1
1/4 mile: 12.5 @ 113.5 / 12.7 @ 113.0
2007 Audi S6 vs 2006 BMW M5 vs 2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Specs - Luxury Sports Sedan Road Test & Review - Motor Trend

Oops!

But then again the E63 is by no means a prestige performance model by Mercedes. Hence, it is fine to have it outrun by the C63.

I think the C63 that Italian test featured a 63-engine tuned in a manner similiar to what we can exptect from a FL or maybe a BS version of said 63 model. If no BS version of the current C63 is released the engine, in that shape, sure will appear in the next CLK 63 (BS?).

Videos:

2008 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG - Sports Sedans Comparison - There Will Be Blood - Comparison - Motor Trend Video


Comparison: Winner - Sport Sedans Comparison - There Will Be Blood


2008 Lexus IS F - Sports Sedan Comparison - There Will Be Blood - Comparison - Motor Trend Video


M

What a comparison, 3 evil-inside machines dressed with 4 doors to be proper family evil ...!

I'll list them;

1: M3, king-of-the-ring since debut & won't hand over the crown like a cup of tea
2: Is-F, a great beginning & a crystal-clear view of shiny performer with standards to turn on the Euro icons
3: C-63, like a nightmare, keeps coming back stronger & mysterious every time

Really want to know how this new M3 compares with the E46 M3... the E46 is probably faster than the new M3 on track right?

The results were surprising to me.. with all the comments about the M3 having a soft, street type suspension while the C63 have this rock-hard suspension, and so much more power/torque, i thought the C63 would've been faster on track, if not way faster.. but this is the other way round now..

I guess it won't affect sales, most people who can afford something like this is probably older than 40, what they are after is just engine response... nothing else... I have a friend in his 50s, cared nothing other than the 0-100km/h time...

I haven't seen any test suggesting that.

I've always seen that the new M3 is quite noticeably faster than the e46 on a track.

Michelin Pilot Sport for all the cars but for the
e30 they used :Pirelli P 6000
So no sport Cup.

Final lap times:
e30 1:58,9sec.
e36 1:53,4
e46 1:52,3
e92 1:47,2 (5,1sec faster)

Max speed
e46 193,29km-h
e92 204,20km-h

http://www.germancarforum.com/interna...46-vs-e92.html

wow. find it quite unbelievable though that the E46 is just over a second over the E36... i mean, that doesn't even represent the engine gain, so it is implying the e46 is actually slower? doesn't matter though, e92 is what it all matters now..

thats quite unexpected? The lexus was actually faster then the C63 even though it has a less powerful engine and crappier gearbox(esp for track use). I guess the weight/power delivery is really killing the C63 around the track.

I for one must admit, I was terribly wrong about the C63. I recall a few months ago I kept reiterating that the C63 was going to annihalate the M3 around the track as well ( I guess I freaked out when I heard AMG was offering a PP with LSD, etc). I was wrong, kudos to the M3 for regaining its 'track demon' title

IMO , the C63 is still the king of the streets. 2 fascinating cars with completely different personalities