Quote:
Originally Posted by dondula
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. I think that's not cool with such an expensive car.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
Most of these gripes are based off of your personal preferences and experiences though.
First of all, the C63 sedan has much better seats than the coupe. They come with the integrated headrests, much like the new seats on the F80/F82. There are controls that adjust the side bolsters, the thigh bolsters, and the lumbar support.
Second, the brakes on my C63 don't squeal
at all. In fact, one of the reasons why my first F30 M Sport 335i was bought back (it was a lemon) was because they could never fix the squealing brakes. That is a risk you run with ANY big brake hardware, not just the AMG's.
Third, whether you like the temperature set at 71 or 72 is a very minor (and certainly unique) complaint. It's incredible that you can feel the difference between 71 degrees and 72 degrees. I have not seen that complaint elsewhere (that is, this issue is something that is personal to you, which is fine).
Fourth, just because one car offers a carbon fiber roof doesn't mean that the other car is inherently flawed. Not many manufacturers offer a carbon fiber roof. The E90 M3
did NOT have a carbon fiber roof available.
Fifth, the M156 revs out to over 7,200 rpm. That's less than the M3 but generally still very impressive. I would trade that extra space on the tachometer for nearly 150 lb-ft of torque any day.
So what I'm basically getting at is that most of your criticisms pertain to why the car did not fit your particular needs.
Edit: Also, the MCT does in fact shift faster than the previous transmission. I have no idea where you found information stating otherwise.
I also wouldn't say that 100 millisecond shifts are crappy. Are they slower than the M DCT? Yes. But Porsche's DCT also puts the M DCT to shame. Everything is relative.