Video: BMW M3 vs C63 S AMG comparison review | evo DEADLY RIVALS

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

80 horsepower difference and 80 kg difference. I do think that the horsepower is more relevant, as that caused the car to rocket in the straight. I get your point, but the C63 should have been able to regain the advantage in the straight which the M3 obtains in corners, even with the 80 KG weight surplus in the C63. It is obvious that the C63 is more road oriented though, you can see it due to the narrow rear track and tires.

Weight difference between these two cars is more than 80kg.

Plus its hard to gain back time on the straight, when you are peddling the car coming out of the corner.

[e1000]

Originally Posted by Matt_B

He calls the transmission a conventional single clutch automatic.

Conventional auto to me means torque converter, not a single automated clutch. Which is it?

Although I think in the end the transmission is a plus for BMW no matter how you cut it. If you prefer automatic the DCT is leaps and bounds better than Merc's unit. If you prefer manual it's not even an option for the AMG.

It doesn't have a torque converter, but what I think he meant is that it uses planetary gears like a normal automatic does.

[FilipMPower]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Weight difference between these two cars is more than 80kg.

Plus its hard to gain back time on the straight, when you are peddling the car coming out of the corner.

Don't forget the car in the video is the M3, not the M4 with the carbon bootlid. I doubt the weight difference is higher than 100kg, if the difference is higher than 80.

[swagon]

I'm actually glad there is still a difference between M and AMG. Both brands have been getting closer and closer with each generation, but these slight differences is what makes the cars so special in their own way.

evo video top as always.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

Don't forget the car in the video is the M3, not the M4 with the carbon bootlid. I doubt the weight difference is higher than 100kg, if the difference is higher than 80.

The difference between the two was probably closer to 400lbs or 180kg. Eurocharged weighed their similarly optioned C63S at 4045lbs. I have seen some DCT M3's below 3,600lbs.

[Powaup]

Ah now that's a way to start my ///Monday

(now time to get out of this thread before it turns to a sh*t show")

[DD335i]

Originally Posted by Ghetto2315

[FilipMPower]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The difference between the two was probably closer to 400lbs or 180kg. Eurocharged weighed their similarly optioned C63S at 4045lbs. I have seen some DCT M3's below 3,600lbs.

4000 lbs?! What the hell is inside that C63? That is heavier than most 5 series.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

4000 lbs?! What the hell is inside that C63? That is heavier than most 5 series.

We've got one here on the scales now, at 3865lbs.

[FilipMPower]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

We've got one here on the scales now, at 3865lbs.

Thanks for the real weight. Still seems very excessive.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

We've got one here on the scales now, at 3865lbs.

That is members amanuuh's car right? No pano roof.

Wow the pano roof is HEAVY!

[chipotle_napkins]

Suck it Mercedes!

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

Thanks for the real weight. Still seems very excessive.

That is real weight of a car without pano roof.

The car in the video with pano will weigh over 4,000lbs.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

It is obvious that the C63 is more road oriented though, you can see it due to the narrow rear track and tires. And I guess it somehow suits the Mercedes clientel better, eventhough enthusiasts might be sad that the W204 is dynamically the better car, even if its not the most comfortable.

Hmm.. how do you think a W204 is dynamically a better car? I don't know if I can agree on that.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

That is members amanuuh's car right? No pano roof.

Wow the pano roof is HEAVY!

No panoramic roof, correct.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by bimmerj

You might be right. I was talking about the dyno sheets we've seen here.

C63S will spank the M beyond 60 mph, though- that much has not changed

[F80NJM3]

How about a camparo around the Nurburing? Taking these numbers into account, m3 would be a winner by at least 6-7 seconds. BMW does it again.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

No panoramic roof, correct.

Wow, definitely wouldn't tick that box if I was ordering a C63. 180lbs additional weight and all the weight is at the highest point.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

That is members amanuuh's car right? No pano roof.

Wow the pano roof is HEAVY!

heh yeah right? My wife's E350 has the pano and it is a ridiculous piece(s) of glass.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by F80NJM3

How about a camparo around the Nurburing? Taking these numbers into account, m3 would be a winner by at least 6-7 seconds. BMW does it again.

well if history repeats itself, Merc will make big changes on the LCI and then add hp to beat the time of the M3/M4 on the ring.

[BEng711]

It is amazing how much better looking the M3 is than the C63. I don't see why anyone would buy the C63 other than for pure spec-page bragging rights. The M3 is a better performing car and loads prettier to look at. The C63 looks the same is the non-AMG version other than the quad exhaust. Boring.

[F80NJM3]

Originally Posted by dkhm3

well if history repeats itself, Merc will make big changes on the LCI and then add hp to beat the time of the M3/M4 on the ring.

It already has more power than the m3. Clearly that hasn't translate to winning numbers around the track. I don't see that happening at the moment. Unless they add another 50-100hp. Even then, I can't imagine beating it around the Green Hell.