Meet the new M4 enemy - official Mercedes C63 AMG

[Dawko]

I never was a fan of MB, but the new models certainly are good looking. But the difference is not enough to actually say these scream out 'AMG' or powaaah. This even more so than for the M4-435i M Sport.

Little to no difference for the untrained eye or enthusiast. And where are the widened fenders??

[RPiM5]

Yeah like I said, 1640kgs. I don't know if there is a difference between UK kgs and German kgs though, but if it is truly only 1640kgs that would put the weight at just about 115lbs more than an M3/M4, which is not too shabby at all. With 503hp and 516tq and only 3,615lbs, the new C63 should be a real contender and a pretty fast car.

Originally Posted by Just_me

[W///]

Had the day to digest it, and still not really loving the way it looks. There's not really a feature that makes me go wow, whereas the F80 does (such as the big flares or aggressive front end).

Everything just kind of looks like it's melted, just generic round curves everywhere, IMHO of course. Having said that, there should be no doubt that the car will perform though.

I do like the wagon version a lot more than the sedan. BMW, please wake up and realize that Audi and MB both have performance wagons. I would have done silly things for an F81.

[damnitBobby]

weak rear fenders.. no significant weight loss.. red ring around rims was cool in 2007

underwhelmed

but that wagon though

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Bigger wheels also usually means . . . heavier wheels. Heavier wheels mean a decrease in a performance, to a degree.

Nope, because bigger wheels also mean lighter tires. Typically it's an even swap

I think it's funny btw how much you got on me for being an m3 aplogist, and look at what you have become. Quite the c63 apologist Id say

[Bowser330]

I am interested to know what the widest tire you can fit back there is, those 265s look skinny...

Also what's the over under in how long renntech and the rest (kleeman, weistec, brabus,etc)will come out with flash tunes? 1 month? Less? more?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

Nope, because bigger wheels also mean lighter tires. Typically it's an even swap

I think it's funny btw how much you got on me for being an m3 aplogist, and look at what you have become. Quite the c63 apologist Id say

I haven't apologized for anything.

You've read my F8X review.

I challenged you for making determinations about a car (F8X) before the first real world reviews and measurements were in. And I'm challenging you for doing the same thing again. Sometimes people have a tendency to rush to judgment when the first pictures and info trickle out. I prefer to wait until after I've driven the car and seen some real-world data/feedback.



Btw, the tire/wheel discussion had to do with the W204.

And bigger wheels mean lighter tires . . . light enough to offset the jump in size from 18" to 19"? I just did some weighing. You want to rephrase that?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Bowser330

I am interested to know what the widest tire you can fit back there is, those 265s look skinny...

Also what's the over under in how long renntech and the rest (kleeman, weistec, brabus,etc)will come out with flash tunes? 1 month? Less? more?

On the W204, 275s fit easily in the rear without rubbing.

[Kriston]

That wagon is tits, love it!!

Gotta see the W205 in the flesh. Cant wait until it hits the show rooms.

In all honesty (looks aside as its subjective) - The W205 C63 makes the M3/M4 looked underpowered again in this generation. All that were holding onto is how would the car handle on the track. Well the LCI W204 was quicker then the M3 around the ring. Do you really think they will make the W205 slower and less agile?

Simply put - the M3/M4 are only "catching up" in terms of numbers. The W204 C63 has been consistently doing the numbers the M3/M4 have been doing in stock form. All be-it NA power!

Im no where brand biased, so I have to respect what MB has done with this car they have pushed the envelope once again. I hope M Division releases a Power package for the M3/M4.

I would hate to see what a W205 C63 BS would be. I'm guessing easily 550-600 HP from the factory.

[gblansten]

I had a 2009 C63 and it was under tired in the back. It went through rear tires every 7K miles or so. This was common for C63 drivers and I did not drive crazily or do burnouts.

If the new C63 with even more torque does this then that is a problem for me as a customer. I don't mind every 10K or so but 7K was ridiculous. It was even the cost as much as the hassle.

[Black Gold]

I'm definitely somewhat BMW biased. I have driven a lot of other brands cars, like Audi, merc and Porsche. So I have a decent base to compare from. I've said many times how much I like the lci w204, almost more than the e92 and more than the e90.

I also like more raw cars and manuals, so merc isn't exactly in my wheelhouse, which I've said.

I was wrong to believe bmws weight loss, and owned it when it became apparent the claims were bs. I also don't think the m is perfect. Front end is busy and the hoodline sucks. I also don't like the idea of active sound.

I'm giving you a hard time bc you kinda did the same thing. You believed the base model would have 500+ hp and wider rear fenders. Which it doesn't. But you just glossed over it which is what you called me out for

I am bummed about this car bc I am hesitant to buy into the weight loss, don't like the style language of new mercs and think mct sucks. They also didn't widen the rear track and the wheels are still way too narrow at 9.5 inches. Both the Bmw and merc IMO should have 10.5 rear wheels.

I don't think the merc has matched this m for suspension enhancements or tech. Cf roof and driveshaft, efficient accessories, widened front and rear track, high tech electronic controlled diff etc.

I also am not convinced the merc will be that much quicker than the m at reasonable speeds. The m is clearly both underrated and very efficient in terms of dt losses. It's notably quicker than the merc 507 in multiple tests. The e92 was way slower than the merc, IMO while the merc will be quicker, it won't be by as much. Both cars will have issues putting power down on track, thus handling will separate them, where IMO Bmw will prevail. I expect it to be close. But the BMW IMO will be more fun on track.

I just think the merc could have been better. For all the good (motor, sound, seats) there is too much bad for me (mct, no rear widening/fenders, styling, lack of cf tech)

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

The W205's V8 is only 8 pounds heavier, than the S55 in the M3.(Yeah, A V8 only 8 pounds heavier than an I6) The W205 C63 has active engine mounts, The W205 C63 has an LSD(E-diff for the S) The engine in the W205 sits far back in the bay. This car is going to murder the competition.Honestly, if you think about it, it's not such a heavy car at all. The W205 C63 S is the same weight as the previous generation standard C63.

Mercedes has come to play.

P.S. Mercedes has a tendency to underrate their engines. That V8 is making more then claimed. You can bet on it.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

The W205's V8 is only 8 pounds heavier, than the S55 in the M3.(Yeah, A V8 only 8 pounds heavier than an I6) The W205 C63 has active engine mounts, The W205 C63 has an LSD(E-diff for the S) The engine in the W205 sits far back in the bay. This car is going to murder the competition.Honestly, if you think about it, it's not such a heavy car at all. The W205 C63 S is the same weight as the previous generation standard C63.

Mercedes has come to play. You also don't get fake engine noises pumped into the cabin.

P.S. Mercedes has a tendency to underrate their engines. That V8 is making more then claimed. You can bet on it.

[Roadkiller]

Official videos:

[Kriston]

Carbon Drive shaft in the BS cars.
Dynamic engine mounts
Front end of the C63 is widened by an inch over the regular W205's and the overall length is 2 inches longer.

In regards to styling that's your taste, no one can change that.

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I'm definitely somewhat BMW biased. I have driven a lot of other brands cars, like Audi, merc and Porsche. So I have a decent base to compare from. I've said many times how much I like the lci w204, almost more than the e92 and more than the e90.

I also like more raw cars and manuals, so merc isn't exactly in my wheelhouse, which I've said.

I was wrong to believe bmws weight loss, and owned it when it became apparent the claims were bs. I also don't think the m is perfect. Front end is busy and the hoodline sucks. I also don't like the idea of active sound.

I'm giving you a hard time bc you kinda did the same thing. You believed the base model would have 500+ hp and wider rear fenders. Which it doesn't. But you just glossed over it which is what you called me out for

I am bummed about this car bc I am hesitant to buy into the weight loss, don't like the style language of new mercs and think mct sucks. They also didn't widen the rear track and the wheels are still way too narrow at 9.5 inches. Both the Bmw and merc IMO should have 10.5 rear wheels.

I don't think the merc has matched this m for suspension enhancements or tech. Cf roof and driveshaft, efficient accessories, widened front and rear track, high tech electronic controlled diff etc.

I also am not convinced the merc will be that much quicker than the m at reasonable speeds. The m is clearly both underrated and very efficient in terms of dt losses. It's notably quicker than the merc 507 in multiple tests. The e92 was way slower than the merc, IMO while the merc will be quicker, it won't be by as much. Both cars will have issues putting power down on track, thus handling will separate them, where IMO Bmw will prevail. I expect it to be close. But the BMW IMO will be more fun on track.

I just think the merc could have been better. For all the good (motor, sound, seats) there is too much bad for me (mct, no rear widening/fenders, styling, lack of cf tech)

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Kriston

Carbon Drive shaft in the BS cars.
Dynamic engine mounts
Front end of the C63 is widened by an inch over the regular W205's and the overall length is 2 inches longer.

In regards to styling that's your taste, no one can change that.

Thanks. But like I said, no wider rear track. Not good IMO

Interested to see how the mounts affect things. Seem to be effective in the 911

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I'm definitely somewhat BMW biased. I have driven a lot of other brands cars, like Audi, merc and Porsche. So I have a decent base to compare from. I've said many times how much I like the lci w204, almost more than the e92 and more than the e90.

I also like more raw cars and manuals, so merc isn't exactly in my wheelhouse, which I've said.

I was wrong to believe bmws weight loss, and owned it when it became apparent the claims were bs. I also don't think the m is perfect. Front end is busy and the hoodline sucks. I also don't like the idea of active sound.

I'm giving you a hard time bc you kinda did the same thing. You believed the base model would have 500+ hp and wider rear fenders. Which it doesn't. But you just glossed over it which is what you called me out for

I merely reported what was being speculated. There was plenty of speculation regarding the F8X before it was officially revealed. That's the nature of the game. But the base model has damn-near 500 horsepower and the "S" model literally does have 500 horsepower - which is absolutely incredible.

I am bummed about this car bc I am hesitant to buy into the weight loss, don't like the style language of new mercs and think mct sucks. They also didn't widen the rear track and the wheels are still way too narrow at 9.5 inches. Both the Bmw and merc IMO should have 10.5 rear wheels.

The current version of the MCT shifts in 100 milliseconds. That's pretty quick. The MCT gets beat up a lot but I think that's partially because people that haven't used one simply regurgitate information about it that they read somewhere. The newest version of the MCT should be sharper. If you read through all the release info., you will see that there is some hope there.

I don't think the merc has matched this m for suspension enhancements or tech. Cf roof and driveshaft, efficient accessories, widened front and rear track, high tech electronic controlled diff etc.

A proper mechanical locking differential is now standard. The C63 "S" model has an electronic rear locking differential.

Some of the things you're complaining about . . . did you even read the press release (I don't mean that to be a dick, just asking haha)?

Regarding the suspension, etc.:

At the front of the C63 is a four-link front suspension with motorsport-based radially mounted brakes. Independent steering knuckles and a wider track permit higher lateral acceleration. The multilink rear suspension with independent wheel mounts likewise has a higher negative camber. To improve traction and dynamics, the C63 has a mechanical locking differential at the rear, while the C63 S is equipped with an electronic rear locking differential.

Both locking differentials reduce slip at the inside wheel without braking input. As a result, the driver can accelerate sooner out of corners and the car maintains its stability when braking at high speed. The locking differential also improves traction when accelerating from a standstill. Compared with the mechanical solution, the benefits of the electronic locking rear differential, which is standard equipment on the C63 S, are its faster and more finely tuned control, thus pushing the physical limits of the driving envelope even higher. The standard 3-stage ESP® with the functions "ESP ON", "SPORT Handling Mode" and "ESP OFF" is perfectly networked with the locking rear differential and expertly tuned to the high level of dynamics.

The electromechanical speed-sensitive sport steering ensures precise and agile handling, with the driver benefitting from a direct ratio and optimized response characteristics. It also has variable power assistance, whereby the steering force is adapted relative to the current vehicle speed. The power assistance reacts not only in accordance with vehicle speed, but also in line with current lateral acceleration and the drive programme chosen via AMG DYNAMIC SELECT.

I also am not convinced the merc will be that much quicker than the m at reasonable speeds. The m is clearly both underrated and very efficient in terms of dt losses. It's notably quicker than the merc 507 in multiple tests. The e92 was way slower than the merc, IMO while the merc will be quicker, it won't be by as much. Both cars will have issues putting power down on track, thus handling will separate them, where IMO Bmw will prevail. I expect it to be close. But the BMW IMO will be more fun on track.

I just think the merc could have been better. For all the good (motor, sound, seats) there is too much bad for me (mct, no rear widening/fenders, styling, lack of cf tech)

My responses above in bold.

As I said above, some of the things you're complaining that the W205 lacks, it actually has: mechanical differential standard in non-S model, electronic diff standard in S model, wider track, etc.

[Black Gold]

K. So no wider rear track, no e LSD on standard model...what part was I wrong about?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

K. So no wider rear track, no e LSD on standard model...what part was I wrong about?

It has a wider track - read the bold text.

And you said that there was no electronic differential available. When there is.

Just because it's not standard on the standard model, doesn't mean it's not an option. The fact that a proper mechanical differential is standard is fantastic.

[tallshortguy]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

This car is going to murder the competition.

You confident enough the standard C63 is going to murder the M3/4 and new RS5 to bet on it? I'll take those chances, and I'm talking murder not 1 second faster on the ring.

Also, did you just copy and paste your post in two different threads?

[Black Gold]

Yes of course and lsd is good, but the standard model still doesn't have e lsd

Also, the bold does not say anything about wider rear track. If it did it would need wider bodywork to fit it. Maybe I'm missing something?

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by tallshortguy

You confident enough the standard C63 is going to murder the M3/4 and new RS5 to bet on it? I'll take those chances, and I'm talking murder not 1 second faster on the ring.

1 second at the 'ring is significant. 4 seconds is very significant (which was what the gap was last time between the W204 (8:01) and E9X (8:05)).

General reminder (not directed at tallshortguy in any way, shape, or form):

Let's all take a moment to remember that regardless of which car ends up faster where, you can't go wrong in choosing either car.

When you get into the C63, M3/M4, ATS-V, RC F (okay, you can go wrong there haha) category, you're winning regardless of what you buy.

It's fun to argue king of the hill on the internet but there's no need to crap on anyone's personal taste.

I'm weird in that I tend to like a lot of cars, even ones that are fierce competitors.