Vs Another comparison Autobild: M3 vs C63

[Zafiro]

0-100 kph | 0-200 kph | 80-120 kph
M3: 4.8s | 15.2s | 2.6s
C63: 4.7s | 14.9s | 2.6s

Braking distance:
M3: 34.5m - 35.6m
C63: 35.3m - 35.9m

Weight:
M3: 1614kg
C63: 1818kg

Consumption:
M3: 13.1l/100km
C63: 14.9l/100km

Both cars were on 18" tires.

Verdict:
The author is addicted to the sound of the C63, but the M3 wins (5 points difference) due to its more direct and more economical "nature".

 

[Zafiro]

Wow, this is the best 0-200km/h number for M3 I ever seen. Earlier the best one was 15.7 sec.

Good boy little M3

 

[castagna]

Wow, this is the best 0-200km/h number for M3 I ever seen. Earlier the best one was 15.7 sec.

Good boy little M3

The C63 still beats it.

And the M3 wins the comparo only because it is more economical, lol, like if that was really important to judge these kind of cars.

 

[Tarek]

The C63 still beats it.

And the M3 wins the comparo only because it is more economical, lol, like if that was really important to judge these kind of cars.

Exactly..kinds makes u wonder about the reviewer is he stupid or what? those are V8 performance cars!

 

[S'Pimp]

main Question is: which car has larger trunk?

 

[Yperion]

M3 only won by 5 points so that sounds like a draw to me.

 

[Monster]

The C63 is 204 kg heavier than the M3, and to come within 5 points of victory shows how good the new C63 really is, but it also shows how much better the C63 would have been if it is 200kg lighter.

 

[Sunny]

The C63 is 204 kg heavier than the M3, and to come within 5 points of victory shows how good the new C63 really is, but it also shows how much better the C63 would have been if it is 200kg lighter.

I can turn that around and say how much better the M3 would have been if it had 40 more HP, but I frankly find these 'if' arguments pretty frivolous. I mean it is MB that decided to make the car 400lbs heavier and put an automatic transmission not some unavoidable act of nature.

 

[fortuner]

Its silly that the tester gives it to m3 because off econemy...this segement off cars and drivers have nothing to do with econemy it about power speed handling and fun....


if they worried off econemy they wont worry off the amg or m

they would settle for a c220cdi or a 320d or simalair...


so its crap if the editor found the m3 better for another reason i would like to no but not econemy bull.....

anyway i would have to wait till next year to drive both and see what i think...i must say from what i read the c63 is not a pushover like the c55

it seems the c63 has caught up with the m3 or maybe even surpassed it


would like to read a test of the m3 sedan and c63 soon....

 

[Guibo]

Verdict:
The author is addicted to the sound of the C63, but the M3 wins (5 points difference) due to its more direct and more economical "nature".

What is meant by "more direct nature"? Is that about the purity of the driving experience?

 

[Tarek]

What is meant by "more direct nature"? Is that about the purity of the driving experience?

Most likely

 

[Zafiro]

Again its crazy how people are so obsessed which car wins. You buy what you want. Im sorry but only true fanatics care about winnings.

yeah and those arguments, "what if" and so on is just childish. You just have to accept how the cars are built.

 

[Zafiro]

What is meant by "more direct nature"? Is that about the purity of the driving experience?

probably, also Autobild think the steering was better "sharper" in the M3 than in the C63.

 

[Monster]

I can turn that around and say how much better the M3 would have been if it had 40 more HP, but I frankly find these 'if' arguments pretty frivolous. I mean it is MB that decided to make the car 400lbs heavier and put an automatic transmission not some unavoidable act of nature.

Again its crazy how people are so obsessed which car wins. You buy what you want. Im sorry but only true fanatics care about winnings.

yeah and those arguments, "what if" and so on is just childish. You just have to accept how the cars are built.

I was simply saying what I think MB should do in the future development of the car, and I didn't expect people to react that way. The C63 did very well and I am not complaining about the comparison result. I don't see how what I have said can be seen as an argument.

As an engineering student, I am always thinking of ways to improve existing mechanical designs, so even though I accept how the cars are built, I still think about how it could be improved.

 

[cawimmer430]

I love these German reviews of performance cars.

"Poor fuel economy!"

"Poor fuel economy!"

"Poor fuel economy!"


My question is: WHO CARES?

If you do, then get a 320d or a C220 CDI.


Also, I don't think Autobild really pushed the cars. It looks like they quoted factory acceleration times, as most German magazines do, sadly. When it comes to 0-100 km/h times, I think I really only trust Car and Driver, EVO, 5th Gear, Motor Trend and Road & Track. At least these guys give you an impression that they "push the cars to the limit". When German magazines test these cars, so I gather from reading and feel, they simply drive them, but not hard enough.

Too bad the Motorvision website ain't too good...

 

[Mr Robert]

Seems like the new M3 performs a lot better than some initially predicted...

 

[Zafiro]

I was simply saying what I think MB should do in the future development of the car, and I didn't expect people to react that way. The C63 did very well and I am not complaining about the comparison result. I don't see how what I have said can be seen as an argument.

its not you, but I have heard it before and now I hear it again. Some people are actually using it as an excuse.

C63 did well but so did M3. I have driven the new M3 and its a fantastic car, it might be under powered compared to C63 but the M3 has plenty of speed and its a fantastic drive. And reeving to 8400 rpm is addictive.
All three germans are great car and argument which one is the "best" is pointless, we all know its subjective.

 

[Zafiro]

I love these German reviews of performance cars.

"Poor fuel economy!"

"Poor fuel economy!"

"Poor fuel economy!"


My question is: WHO CARES?

If you do, then get a 320d or a C220 CDI.


Also, I don't think Autobild really pushed the cars. It looks like they quoted factory acceleration times, as most German magazines do, sadly. When it comes to 0-100 km/h times, I think I really only trust Car and Driver, EVO, 5th Gear, Motor Trend and Road & Track. At least these guys give you an impression that they "push the cars to the limit". When German magazines test these cars, so I gather from reading and feel, they simply drive them, but not hard enough.

Too bad the Motorvision website ain't too good...

actually there are people that care. Many M5 owners complain the new V10 drinks a lot of fuel. Which mean they have stop a lot and add more gasolin. Heck , some have even sold the car becuase its so thirsty. So yes its important.
I wouldnt mind seeing a performance car drinking fuel like a diesel. I think thats the future, fast cars that drink little. That would be a dream come true.

PS factory time for M3 isnt 15.2 sec, its more like 16 sec.

 

[castagna]

Seems like the new M3 performs a lot better than some initially predicted...

The M3 was supposed to destroy its rivals

Has that happened?

 

[Zafiro]

The M3 was supposed to destroy its rivals

Has that happened?

Thats not possible since BMW decided that American market is more important to them. They even admited that and said the new M3 is more of a GT rather than a sportcar. I guess they want to sell more cars.

BTW can you evolve the word "destroy", what is destroy for you? and who said the M3 was going to destroy? the fans?