View Single Post
      05-14-2014, 11:32 PM   #96
dondula
First Lieutenant
59
Rep
320
Posts

Drives: 2015 m4
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: driving

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ybbiz34 View Post
The video you posted featured the pre-LCI W204 C63. In 2012, the C63 received major updates from Mercedes AMG, including a new suspension and new transmission, among other things.

I don't have any problems with my climate control. And I found the COMAND system pretty intuitive to use. Is iDrive better? Yes, it's more comprehensive, but COMAND is by no means intolerable. I don't mess around much with the infotainment system in any car so both systems suit my needs.

Regarding the interior, the C63's seats blew away the M3's. So I thought the M3 was outdated in that respect. I also thought the C63's flat-top, flat-bottom steering wheel was perfect with respect to thickness. I have an all-alcantara version of the wheel on the way so I'm ensure I'll enjoy that version even more.

And here are the lap times around the 'ring (http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html):

C63 - 8:01

M3 - 8:05

As far as lap times are concerned, neither car is "universally" faster than the other around a road course. On tighter, more technical tracks, the M3's lesser weight will be an advantage. On faster tracks filled with high-speed sweepers, the C63's additional power is going to provide a major advantage.

And here are a few reviews in which the C63 was not spanked at all:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test

The C63 lost out by a single point against the M3.

Here's another review against an RS5:

Let's put all the dealer service issues aside because in the end, it depends on the dealer, as I can say my local MB dealer never had a loaner car for me.

Lets talk about the cars for what they are for a sec.

I would normally never speak about something I knew nothing about, but being I owned both these cars and both 2013's, I think I can give pretty fair judgment. I am in no way against MB. If they push out a car that impresses me, I will be the first one to yell it. The thing is, it is all subjective.

I personally like my AC set at 71 degrees and in the MB, they don't give you precise climate control. it jumps every two degrees and is very hard to get the car's climate just right. 70 degrees or 72 degrees or 74 etc.. I think that's not cool with such an expensive car. 1 degree in temp change can make a HUGE difference with a human body

Next point, C63 seats are very basic compared to the M3 that give you bolster control for the seats to hug you more or less depending on what driving condition you're in and even leg extension.. Next thing I found disappointing was the lack of little storage pockets in the c63 compared to the M3.

IMO this is the cherry on top of the cake, M3 gives you standard, a Carbon roof. How sweet is that? Carbon is so expensive and BMW sure gives you a tone on the car at base price. When I crashed my e92, I couldn't believe how much carbon parts and spacers were used under the front bumper and in other places that bmw doesn't advertise. The only thing you can get for the c63 is the panoramic sunroof for extra $$$. If I'm driving a race car, I want as much carbon fiber on the car as they can muster you best believe.

If I'm driving a luxury car, then fine, I will take the panoramic sunroof.

Looks wise "which has nothing to do with performance" I feel the c63 looks plain on the exterior and the exhaust looks like buck teeth sticking out the back of the car.

As far as the new updated MCT trans is concerned, it still shifts the same speed as the first gen non MCT trans c63 as in the video I posted. The MCT does nothing but give you a wet start clutch which allows for launch control which the first gen c63's did not have. Then we are talking about straight line 0 to 60 improvements with launch control, not track times nor shift times.

Depending on who is doing the review, or who is driving the car, I'm sure we can both find video's where one is faster than the other and vise versa.

The c63 engine is great because it is hand built etc.. But why should that dismiss the e92 engine? let's not forget the e92 has a HIGH REVVING engine. Those are not easy to produce. To produce an engine that can operate on a daily basis under those extreme tolerances.. the car screams up to 8300 RPM's for crying out loud and sounds amazing.

I just like to look at the facts. Stock car for Stock car. which car gives you more bang for the buck? Which car is more responsive? Which car is better around a track? Which car has lower center of gravity? Which car is better as a daily driver (smoother)? Which car gives you carbon fiber standard? IMO I feel the M3 hits all these spots. I am not trying to pick on MB, I was completely open going into the c63 and saw it for what it really was.
The engine is fantastic with a terrible trans. C63 breaks are nice large ones but they squeal like PIGS Everything else is very plain with the c63.

IMO while the insurance is more $$ and the registration is more $$ and the car costs more $$ and the service is more $$, in the end, MB charges more and and gives you less. BMW at least I think, cares more about what their fan's expect to see out of their M line up's, where MB doesn't give a crap what anyone wants or thinks. They will do what they please.

Keep in mind that most of these reviews being posted c63 vs e92m3 or M4 are 507 c63's that cost well over 100k... I would hope for that money a 507 c63 would spank a 75k m4... same goes for an 85k loaded RS5 vs 507 c63 over 100k

This is just all my 2 cents.

Last edited by dondula; 05-14-2014 at 11:49 PM..
Appreciate 0