W205 C63s actual weight

[M5Rlz]

Unless you're a track rat or someone who spends significant amount of time at the track... The weight is so easy to hide in street driving. I doubt many here have spent significant time around the likes of the M5 or other super sedans well in the 4k weight range, but that car hid the weight amazingly well...

Now I can't comment on if AMG was able to replicate that kind of engineering but I have to imagine unless you are a routine and experienced track driver the likely hood you'd be able to out maneuver a C63s or even an m5 on the street is unlikely.

[Roadkiller]

Originally Posted by W///

220 lbs for a sunroof? 0 chance. Still goes to show just how difficult it is to shed weight off a car.

Either way, still no 3rd pedal, no care for me.

The roof is heavy -- possibly around 150 lbs...but certainly not 88 lbs. I'd like to see the link or "current" data that says the roof is that light in weight. I think they were 88 lbs years (maybe 7) ago. Some of the more modern MB cars are quoting about 150+. We're talking about the structure to support a big piece of glass on top of a pretty long car.

As was said above, a little over 4000 lbs is what you get if you want a luxury muscle car (V8) with all options, a heavy piece of glass on top and a full tank of gas. We know the car is really somewhere between 38XX and 39XX....

Reviewers had no problems moving this weight....

In any case, kudos to BMW for going in the opposite direction with the CF roof.

[Pauly Walnuts]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

With 4,000+ lbs on the C63, I'd be much more interested in the new CTS-V. It is not much heavier at 4145 lbs (if Caddy can be believed) and it has a monster V8 that makes the C63 look weak. Plus, comparably equipped, they are likely very similarly priced.

I am really looking forward to all the head-to-head reviews this fall.

The new CTS-V is in a different class in both size and pricing, more along the lines of the M5/E63.

The ATS-V is comparable, assuming you want a 1998 Bonneville gauge cluster.

[myzmak]

I expect the V8 is enough to move this (not entirely unexpected but still disappointing) big weight for the Merc.

What this shows, to me anyway, is the continued philosophical difference between ///M and AMG.

The M3 is going lighter and an I6 is plenty. AMG still packs on the pounds and makes up for that with more cylinders/displacement. Ultimately, that lighter/more agile ///M will appeal to some whereas the more powerful "GT" nature of the AMG will appeal to others.

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by Pauly Walnuts

The new CTS-V is in a different class in both size and pricing, more along the lines of the M5/E63.

The ATS-V is comparable, assuming you want a 1998 Bonneville gauge cluster.

While I agree the CTS-V is somewhat larger than the C63, the pricing is pretty close when you compare similarly equipped cars. The CTS-V includes as standard many things that are optional on the C63. The only thing I would add to the CTS-V is the performance seats.

For the C63, I would need to add the multimedia package (or whatever they are calling voice command, nav, etc.), the heads up display, the performance seats, and perhaps the performance exhaust.

The sticker prices for these cars so equipped would likely be within $4K and I bet out the door, I could get the Caddy for less than the C63.

Also, even though the CTS-V is larger, I know it will out perform the C63 in a straight line and likely on a track as well.

Again, I can't wait to see all the test results.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by myzmak

I expect the V8 is enough to move this (not entirely unexpected but still disappointing) big weight for the Merc.

What this shows, to me anyway, is the continued philosophical difference between ///M and AMG.

The M3 is going lighter and an I6 is plenty. AMG still packs on the pounds and makes up for that with more cylinders/displacement. Ultimately, that lighter/more agile ///M will appeal to some whereas the more powerful "GT" nature of the AMG will appeal to others.

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

Exactly and nothing tells the story better than a 220 lbs panorama roof. The M3's sunroof adds 44 lbs as a comparison if I remember right. That's some difference in philosophy and customer base right there.

Heck our Cayenne is supposedly 4400 lbs according to Porsche. Ending up at +4000 lbs on the scale with our without sunroof is not impressive for an M3 class car, which makes sense since you can't really say it's the same class or customers.

[gtman]

I don't really view the C63 as a direct competitor to the M3
the M3 is more about balance and precision with a Side order of power
whereas The c63 is about luxury and power with a side order of balance and precision
Honestly I don't think the typical C63/AMG buyer will care much about the weight becouse the majority of them don't take their vehicles to the track

[minn19]

Forgive me if I am talking out my posterior again, but isn't it supposed to get better overall MPG than the M 3/4? Not that this is the biggest reason people would decide between these cars, but I am curious.

I don't see how it could weighing so much and having two extra cylinders. If it does, I will be stunned and bow down to the MB engineers because they will have pulled off an incredible engineering accomplishment.

[fortressmaximus]

Originally Posted by minn19

Forgive me if I am talking out my posterior again, but isn't it supposed to get better overall MPG than the M 3/4? Not that this is the biggest reason people would decide between these cars, but I am curious.

I don't see how it could weighing so much and having two extra cylinders. If it does, I will be stunned and bow down to the MB engineers because they will have pulled off an incredible engineering accomplishment.

Here you go:
It's very close for these cars. 18/25 for c63/c63s and 17/26 for m3/m4

[minn19]

Originally Posted by fortressmaximus

Here you go:
It's very close for these cars. 18/25 for c63 and 17/26 for m3/m4

Will be interesting to see real world figures, but if the EPA estimates hold true, that is amazing. It seems to go against the laws of physics. Hats off to MB, I wonder how they pulled it off from an engineering standpoint. .

[fortressmaximus]

Originally Posted by minn19

Will be interesting to see real world figures, but if the EPA estimates hold true, that is amazing. It seems to go against the laws of physics. Hats off to MB, I wonder how they pulled it off from an engineering standpoint. .

Aside from the weight and power considerations, perhaps the c63's electronic systems/amenities/etc. are less power hungry than those for the m3/m4.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by fortressmaximus

Aside from the weight and power considerations, perhaps the c63's electronic systems/amenities/etc. are less power hungry than those for the m3/m4.

Yah, that is way above my pay grade to figure out. I cant imagine they are that different between similarly optioned cars. Maybe, I certainly don't know.

[Pauly Walnuts]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

While I agree the CTS-V is somewhat larger than the C63, the pricing is pretty close when you compare similarly equipped cars. The CTS-V includes as standard many things that are optional on the C63. The only thing I would add to the CTS-V is the performance seats.

For the C63, I would need to add the multimedia package (or whatever they are calling voice command, nav, etc.), the heads up display, the performance seats, and perhaps the performance exhaust.

The sticker prices for these cars so equipped would likely be within $4K and I bet out the door, I could get the Caddy for less than the C63.

Also, even though the CTS-V is larger, I know it will out perform the C63 in a straight line and likely on a track as well.

Again, I can't wait to see all the test results.

You might be thinking of the 2015 CTS-V. The 2016 CTS-V has 640hp and starts at $85k while the C63 has 470hp and starts at $64k. They moved the CTS up a class to compete with the 5-Series and E-Class. The ATS replaced the CTS as a 3/4-series and C-Class competitor.

Either way I'd have the MB over the ATS or CTS. CUE is atrocious.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by Pauly Walnuts

You might be thinking of the 2015 CTS-V. The 2016 CTS-V has 640hp and starts at $85k while the C63 has 470hp and starts at $64k. They moved the CTS up a class to compete with the 5-Series and E-Class. The ATS replaced the CTS as a 3/4-series and C-Class competitor.

Either way I'd have the MB over the ATS or CTS. CUE is atrocious.

Nope, I'm thinking of the 2016 CTS-V which does sticker at $85K with another $1.5K for the performance seats.

Try building a C63s with the same equipment as the CTS-V. I believe you will come out at $82K to $83K. Heck, AMG charges an extra $1.5K just for forged wheels. At these prices, I can't understand how cast wheels are standard.

Again, I suspect that regardless of stickers, I could actually purchase the Caddy for less than the similarly equipped C63s.

The C63 (non-S version) is not even in the running here because (a) they don't exist yet; and (b) at least the S has decent power to weight ratio, but still not close to the 640 HP monster Caddy.

[JoeFromPA]

I'm not surprised at the weight. I had an e39 m5 that was 3,950 pounds and that C-class is as big/bigger with alot more features (and 16 extra years of development).

I don't understand why people expect 3,500 pound vehicles with 400+ hp/tq, leather slathered, controlled ride quality and road noise, awesome sound systems, and $60k price tags. The M3/m4 have a good amount of daily comfort sacrifices compared to the C63 to achieve it's level of responsiveness, performance and lightweight status.

[solstice]

"The M3/m4 have a good amount of daily comfort sacrifices compared to the C63 to achieve it's level of responsiveness, performance and lightweight status."

Which is why, even at it's current size and practicality it is still an M3 and worlds apart from for example a 550i, M5 and other brands luxury power sedans. Lose that and you effectively kill the M3 and the reason to buy one over the more luxury alternatives. The C63S looks like a decent value in terms of luxury power sedans but M5s can be had at pretty good discounts and would be my choice over a C63S.

[8600RPM]

Well we have essentially the same situation with e92. Less power but 400 less pounds me and identical acceleration for the base model c63 and m3. The c63s will outrun a stock m3 in straight but not on a track. Mild tune on m3 will outrun c63s. Tuned c63s will destroy mild tuned m3.

Sounds like status quo.

I'd still take 420whp and 3600 pounds over 460 whp and 4000 pounds. So m3 still has a competitive advantage with weight.

Now nerc could have hit 3600 pounds and annihilated the m3 but that Wil have to wait until next generation!

[Warranty P]

Pending RS4/5 it looks like M3 rules yet again.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by gthal

Yeah, people will argue this... BUT... I do think there is merit to that. The extra weight doesn't really matter as much on the street. For a street car, picking a C63 or an M3 will be based on preference and I think some will like the V8. IMO, the weight matters WAY more at the track and that is why for some, the M3/4 is a better option.

I think the weight issue is overplayed for street use and the C63S has MORE than enough power to offset its weight for stop light and highway performance. Most people use the car to go to and from work, to Walmart, out to dinner and the occasional back road blast. Those people will not care about an extra 400 lbs because the chassis, from all reports, seems well sorted enough to deal with it... that weight, however, would kill the car for serious track use IMO.

Again, this is simply MB building a car for a slightly different demographic... just like the RC-F.

I differ slightly on your opinion of weight not affecting the street driving of this car.

Sports cars today are too fast, you just can't exploit the power on the street, it is too much and too quick. Handling is basically something that we can still judge on the streets.

One of the things I didn't like with my old ('08 pre lci) AMG was it was less confident to drive than my old 335i around corners. It was not as predictable, TC cuts in way too early, rear slides on power, and the Tranny was slow to respond to inputs. Granted on paper the C probably handled better, but it simply did not inform me of its intentions as well as the 3er.

These all translate to a lower satisfaction on the street for me.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by 8600RPM

Well we have essentially the same situation with e92. Less power but 400 less pounds me and identical acceleration for the base model c63 and m3. The c63s will outrun a stock m3 in straight but not on a track. Mild tune on m3 will outrun c63s. Tuned c63s will destroy mild tuned m3.

Eurocharged says their new stock C63S is faster than their 2015 M3(w/ stage II tune, downpipes, intake).

[orevah]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Eurocharged says their new stock C63S is faster than their 2015 M3(w/ stage II tune, downpipes, intake).

I highly doubt that. Renntech just took out a tuned GTS, used LC and did an 11.3. not impressed to be honest. Mercedes have always been fast in a straight line so this is nothing new. The new C63s will be a little slower than the GTS considering MCT, tire sizes, heavier, and GTS has dry sump.

[ASAP]

Sorry but you can't hide weight as many here claim... 4000 lbs is heavy... that is ~450 lbs more than an M3... any person will feel that on every turn. Straight line... it doesn't matter but there is more to a car.