Autocar Compares F82 M4 vs C63 507 Edition

[M5 BAT]

To address the M4's shortcomings, add a:
- Performance Exhaust System - improve sound & reduce weight - Why are reviewers making such a big deal about the 'sound'!!!
- ECU upgrade - More power
- Lightweight Flywheel - Sharper throttle response - I'm sure a tuner will make one for the new M4 one day
- Lightweight Battery - Slightly lower weight in the front end - Drop 30lb or so
- Lowering Springs or Coil overs
- Race Brake Pads

Then figure out how to switch off the artificial sound through the speakers. Job done!

[FogCityM3]

Think its pretty hard to draw a firm conclusion on the M3/4 based essentially on one outlier review, as it is to draw one from an uber-positive one (ie the Bimmerpost one). While the tails need to be paid attention to, we need more consensus opinions. If those opinions start skewing negatively after more time with the car in standalone reviews, comparisons with the old version (eg C&D and a few others preferring the non-M E90s to the F30s) or comparisons with competitors, then may be something to worry about.

[dreamspeed]

So the reviews that don't praise the M4 as the second coming aren't good? Lol

Isn't the whole point of these reviews to hear about these journalists "professional" opinion? Whether they are favorable or not.

[RoboM]

It's like the reviewer was in the state of shock while he was doing the review and couldn't make a valid judgement. LoL

[Lups]

Okay boys, no more of that video to you, go and watch porn for a while and try not to get so pumped up.

I'll work on the phrasing of that one later, now obey.

[Race_Doc11]

+1000

Originally Posted by dreamspeed

So the reviews that don't praise the M4 as the second coming aren't good? Lol

Isn't the whole point of these reviews to hear about these journalists "professional" opinion? Whether they are favorable or not.

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

I have learned one thing. If Sutcliffe would've preferred the M, he would've been praised as a genius. But because he didn't, he's an AMG fanboy (which is ludicrous since he heaped praise upon the F80 M3 not more than a few days ago).

No, people who follow Autocar know that Sutcliffe is one of those guys whose opinions often come far out of left field. He may just have unpopular opinions, maybe he's biased, or maybe he likes to be controversial to get more views, I really don't know. I think he's like Jonny Lieberman (Motor Trend), they prefer cars that are very easy to drive. Sutcliffe has repeatedly said that he'd take a paddle-shifted gearbox over any manual any day and he tends to prefer cars that do it all for the driver so I have no problem believing that he preferred the C63 over the M4. The C63 is a great car but I really don't see how he can be so in love with its steering feel and I've driven lots of them. Also, the throttle response may seem incredibly sharp compared to a turbo motor but the M156 isn't THAT responsive of a motor, partially because it's attached to a slightly sluggish torque converter. A transmission retune to get rid of paddle shift delay and speed up shift times really wakes the C63 up IMO.

This is a man who claimed the new Range Rover was sportier and more of a driver's SUV than the Cayenne Turbo in a comparison test...that's just absurd.

[dondula]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

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.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

To add to the burn, Harris even owned and made a couple of videos of his Alpine White E92 M3 back in the day when it first came out.

I think that's when he was with Driver's Republic or Autocar, well before /Drive was even a thing.

You're absolutely correct. Now, Chris Harris has a C63 507 Wagon/Estate, among other cars.

Originally Posted by TC M3

I had 3 e92 m3's and 2 mb c63's

M3 is a more balanced car but I prefer the C63

That is absolutely stunning. What color is that?

Originally Posted by M4 BAT

To address the M4's shortcomings, add a:
- Performance Exhaust System - improve sound & reduce weight - Why are reviewers making such a big deal about the 'sound'!!!
- ECU upgrade - More power
- Lightweight Flywheel - Sharper throttle response - I'm sure a tuner will make one for the new M4 one day
- Lightweight Battery - Slightly lower weight in the front end - Drop 30lb or so
- Lowering Springs or Coil overs
- Race Brake Pads

Then figure out how to switch off the artificial sound through the speakers. Job done!

That's it?

Originally Posted by dreamspeed

So the reviews that don't praise the M4 as the second coming aren't good? Lol

Isn't the whole point of these reviews to hear about these journalists "professional" opinion? Whether they are favorable or not.

I have always been a fan of Sutcliffe. He loves the new Stingray, too. I gotta drive one of those at some point.

Originally Posted by Lups

Okay boys, no more of that video to you, go and watch porn for a while and try not to get so pumped up.

I'll work on the phrasing of that one later, now obey.

[r3dbimmer89]

I dunno how I feel about this... from what I remember having driven a C63 is that yes it sounds good, V8 vs Turbo Inline 6 is no comparison but it just was too heavy and not balanced. To me, that's enough for me to not want a C63 unless I wanted a fast, heavy car in a higher class such as a CLS 63. I am hoping that I will like the M4 and not be disappointed....

[Dave2011M3]

Originally Posted by Buddy Revell

Thanks for that. He didn't seem to be a huge fan of the previous M3 when it came out either:

I didn't get that impression from that review at all. He said it was a little soft but an excellent car. I feel this review is going to mirror a lot of other reviews.

Dave

[ybbiz34]

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.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by r3dbimmer89

I dunno how I feel about this... from what I remember having driven a C63 is that yes it sounds good, V8 vs Turbo Inline 6 is no comparison but it just was too heavy and not balanced. To me, that's enough for me to not want a C63 unless I wanted a fast, heavy car in a higher class such as a CLS 63. I am hoping that I will like the M4 and not be disappointed....

Here are some test drive notes from a review of the C63. The topic is handling.

"Excellent grip. We recorded 0.96g around the skid pad. Sport Handling ESC mode was hardly intrusive at all, allowing very aggressive turn-in."

"Steering is quick and weighted properly to manage this well-balanced [car]."

"This car is built for places where it pays to be fast and laps are timed. The only way to truly appreciate the driving experience is to put the C63 thorugh its paces on the track."

[Mdecisive]

Originally Posted by M4 BAT

To address the M4's shortcomings, add a:
- Performance Exhaust System - improve sound & reduce weight - Why are reviewers making such a big deal about the 'sound'!!!
- ECU upgrade - More power
- Lightweight Flywheel - Sharper throttle response - I'm sure a tuner will make one for the new M4 one day
- Lightweight Battery - Slightly lower weight in the front end - Drop 30lb or so
- Lowering Springs or Coil overs
- Race Brake Pads

Then figure out how to switch off the artificial sound through the speakers. Job done!

Problem is, it should have had most of what you mentioned to start with. In saying that i think the car is pretty much perfect as is. minus the power i think it should have been around the 460hp mark.

[dondula]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

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.

Not that it didn't fit my needs, it's that it lacked the rounded performance you get with bmw.

C63 is more muscle and less refinement that is fact.

BMW uses more F1 tech in their cars. BMW gives you more bang for the buck Base car vs MB Base car.

You are comparing 507 pack car in the Audi review and a 507 c63 in the first review in this thread was shown. The 507 is 110k Not a fair comparison at 30k more then a loaded M4 to begin with. 30 thousand dollars more, c63 507 better be something...

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by dondula

Not that it didn't fit my needs, it's that it lacked the rounded performance you get with bmw.

C63 is more muscle and less refinement that is fact.

BMW uses more F1 tech in their cars. BMW gives you more bang for the buck Base car vs MB Base car.

You are comparing 507 pack car in the Audi review and a 507 c63 in the first review in this thread was shown. The 507 is 110k Not a fair comparison at 30k more then a loaded M4 to begin with.

BMW uses more F1 tech?

They aren't even in F1. Mercedes AMG has won every single F1 race this year . . .

And that's not a fact, at all. That's your opinion of the car. I have clearly spelled out why with numerous reviews, lap times, personal anecdotes, etc. I think it's best we just agree to disagree and let people who have driven the car make up their own mind.

[dondula]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

BMW uses more F1 tech?

They aren't even in F1. Mercedes AMG has won every single F1 race this year . . .

And that's not a fact, at all. That's your opinion of the car. I have clearly spelled out why with numerous reviews, lap times, personal anecdotes, etc. I think it's best we just agree to disagree and let people who have driven the car make up their own mind.

I just find it funny that a company that has won "every single F1 race this year" does not use a lick of CF or any other F1 techniques in producing the c63.. They produce heavy cars and throw huge engine's in them to make up for the weight. Not very F1 like IMO

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by dondula

I just find it funny that a company that has won "every single F1 race this year" does not use a lick of CF or any other F1 techniques in producing the c63.. They produce heavy cars and throw huge engine's in them to make up for the weight. Not very F1 like IMO

http://www.formula1.com/results/team/

Well neither does BMW lol. And the C63 is 6-7 years old man haha!

But . . . Mercedes does use quite a bit of this new technology for their flagship performance car, the AMG GT. And the new AMG GT will share its engine with the next-generation C63.

The new W205 comes out in September. It will weigh 220+ lbs less than the current generation. It will also produce 500+ horsepower from a 4.0L biturbo V8.

Also, the M3 and C63 are NOT purebred sports cars. If you haven't driven a Porsche 911 GT3, go do it and then you'll understand what I'm talking about. The C63, M3, RS4, etc. are nothing more than fast grand touring cars. And that's a fact.

Some of AMG's recent innovation can be found in the CLA45, which has the world's most powerful 2.0L, 4-cylinder engine. About 155 horsepower per liter. Not bad, IMO.

And this is not going to end well. The 5-Series (including the M5) is one of the fattest, most bloated cars on the market. And BMW M has had to compensate for that by dropping a huge turbocharged motor into the M5. Doesn't mean it's a bad car, but it's no cutting edge lightweight.

[Mdecisive]

Originally Posted by dondula

I just find it funny that a company that has won "every single F1 race this year" does not use a lick of CF or any other F1 techniques in producing the c63.. They produce heavy cars and throw huge engine's in them to make up for the weight. Not very F1 like IMO

+1

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Mdecisive

+1

Except for the CLA45/A45/GLA45, which do not have a "huge" motor.

Mercedes AMG engineered the world's most powerful 2.0L, 4-cylinder production engine ever. 360 horsepower total from that tiny little motor.

But somehow that is forgotten?

[unagi]

Exactly! It seems we all agree that BMW seems to be trading away its old customer base which helped shape its brand image for a larger market of new customers like this who just want raw performance numbers even without the visceral experience that made BMW an object of desire. The old customers are all lamenting that the M4 may be evolving more toward a Nissan GT-R experience -- fast and soulless.

Originally Posted by chiplee

I agree that it's questionable whether driving experience/excitement is a primary factor for you. I'm probably BMW's target audience for this new M3/4. I think much of the BMW line up is now targeted at average consumers vice purists, and that's me, an average consumer. I've always lusted after an M3 but never owned one; never even driven one. I'm buying mine without a test drive. I've been a turbo enthusiast my whole driving life and I don't mind muted exhaust notes. In fact I love them. What matters to me when I spend money is to get the most bang for the buck; the best of all possible worlds. That is torque on tap from an engine that won't penalize me with 15mpg every time I move the car. I want comfort, versatility, dare I say "practicality" if such a thing exists in the $60k+ realm. I just don't know who is doing that better this year than BMW. Those are all my important factors though and yes, "different strokes", "to each his/her own", etc.

[Mdecisive]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Except for the CLA45/A45/GLA45, which do not have a "huge" motor.

Mercedes AMG engineered the world's most powerful 2.0L, 4-cylinder production engine ever. 360 horsepower total from that tiny little motor.

But somehow that is forgotten?

Time will show the reliability of those motors. However you are right though, They aren't to be over looked.