2018 Mercedes Benz AMG C63 S Coupe - First Impressions

[SavvyByNature]

Love the exterior of the car, but I can't stand how they did the display. Hopefully they integrate it like they are doing on the new E classes.

[Seniorleb]

Originally Posted by SavvyByNature

Love the exterior of the car, but I can't stand how they did the display. Hopefully they integrate it like they are doing on the new E classes.

I agree they will integrate it in their Facelift

[lm1z]

Love the car. However, they lease like garbage, which is what prevented me from hopping into either the sedan or the coupe. I also feel that they are a tad bit overpriced, but easy to argue against that point considering the engine is a masterpiece and the car is of superb quality.

If you were to purchase the car, the above point is moot.

[snareman]

What's bad with the leases? Bad rates and low residuals?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by snareman

What's bad with the leases? Bad rates and low residuals?

There's another thread around with more specifics from someone who leased, but I think it is a combination of lower residuals, higher MF and higher MSRP starting point.

[Ultimate Driving Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Viking123

I agree with this 100%. I would never consider the C63 sedan as I think the M3 looks so much better. The C63 coupe on the other hand looks great in my eyes and I personally think it looks better than the M4.

Agree as well. The C63 sedan is a dog, while the M3 (imho) is one of the best-looking sedans on the market. Moving to coupes, though, while the M4 is not a "dog" like the C63 sedan, it does have some awkward proportions, while the C63 coupe is (imho, again) just fantastic.

[El_Chiflero]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

There's another thread around with more specifics from someone who leased, but I think it is a combination of lower residuals, higher MF and higher MSRP starting point.

If you "option them equally" on the website, The C63 S is nearly $300 more a month than the M4 on a lease. That's a huge turn off.

[snareman]

Originally Posted by El_Chiflero

If you "option them equally" on the website, The C63 S is nearly $300 more a month than the M4 on a lease. That's a huge turn off.

Is there much of a euro delivery discount on them (not that BMWs are great these days)? I don't know how the Mercedes ED perks (if any) work.

[Ghosn]

The rear of the C63s Coupe is terrible. It doesn't know if it wants to be a coupe or fast back.

The best coupe shape is the A5 imo. I like when the rear window and boot are no so much merged but have their own distinctive lines.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by snareman

What's bad with the leases? Bad rates and low residuals?

Someone's post from MBWorld forum:

Leasing for C63 coupe is horrible. AMG's in general are bad cars to lease as MB offers no incentives. I leased my C63s in Sept of last year-2017 model yr. One of the 1st cars dealer got after I waited 3 months from order placement. Mine was a heavily optioned car with an MSRP of $103,000. Residual was quoted at 52%. Money factor worked out to an 8% interest rate. Lease came out to $1600/month with tax for 4 yrs/10k miles/yr. I put down $2500.

[snareman]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Someone's post from MBWorld forum:

Leasing for C63 coupe is horrible. AMG's in general are bad cars to lease as MB offers no incentives. I leased my C63s in Sept of last year-2017 model yr. One of the 1st cars dealer got after I waited 3 months from order placement. Mine was a heavily optioned car with an MSRP of $103,000. Residual was quoted at 52%. Money factor worked out to an 8% interest rate. Lease came out to $1600/month with tax for 4 yrs/10k miles/yr. I put down $2500.

Wow, and I thought my M4 was bad with the residual, etc

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by snareman

Wow, and I thought my M4 was bad with the residual, etc

Yeah, I'm cross-shopping right now for lease and ....

I'd love to have the V8 and don't mind the looks (the M4 *is* way better though) but the combo of worse looks, worse transmission (with the 3-on-the-tree stalk), soft top, and shitty lease ...

It's like that college chick that's super hot but a total bitch, wants the most expensive everything on a date, and insists on talking all the time - overall, it just ain't worth it.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by snareman

Wow, and I thought my M4 was bad with the residual, etc

I thought my M4 residual was great when I compared it to an RS5 back in 2015. 9-10% residual difference + high MF + high MSRP = No way Jose. Gotta buy some of those cars that lease like shit and then hope the actual resale value is better than what they build into the lease residuals which is a game I prefer not to play.

[Wills2]

The 63 coupe is way better looking than the 63 saloon which looks undernourished with almost zero rear flare plus the base car is so dull they really needed to give it some more visual impact than they have.

Those coupes on the thread look great but look better in real life.

[Viking123]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I thought my M4 residual was great when I compared it to an RS5 back in 2015. 9-10% residual difference + high MF + high MSRP = No way Jose. Gotta buy some of those cars that lease like shit and then hope the actual resale value is better than what they build into the lease residuals which is a game I prefer not to play.

Originally Posted by Ghosn

The rear of the C63s Coupe is terrible. It doesn't know if it wants to be a coupe or fast back.

The best coupe shape is the A5 imo. I like when the rear window and boot are no so much merged but have their own distinctive lines.

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Someone's post from MBWorld forum:

Leasing for C63 coupe is horrible. AMG's in general are bad cars to lease as MB offers no incentives. I leased my C63s in Sept of last year-2017 model yr. One of the 1st cars dealer got after I waited 3 months from order placement. Mine was a heavily optioned car with an MSRP of $103,000. Residual was quoted at 52%. Money factor worked out to an 8% interest rate. Lease came out to $1600/month with tax for 4 yrs/10k miles/yr. I put down $2500.

I do agree that the rear is the worst looking part of the car. The front looks great and the interior is fantastic but the rear is a bit odd. The rear looks better in Europe due to the weird looking bulges next to the license place in the US.

Mine had a resid of 52%. MSRP was 85k, I got 4% off and my 10k monthly lease is about $1300/month with no money down. Clearly more than a similar M3 but far better than the 1600/month in the example above (over 100k msrp must include every possible option including CCB)

The transmission is better than I expected. I can't really compare it to the DCT as my M3 was a manual. The stalk thing on the steering column almost prevented me from getting the merc but it works well and I actually don't mind it.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Viking123

I do agree that the rear is the worst looking part of the car. The front looks great and the interior is fantastic but the rear is a bit odd. The rear looks better in Europe due to the weird looking bulges next to the license place in the US.

Mine had a resid of 52%. MSRP was 85k, I got 4% off and my 10k monthly lease is about $1300/month with no money down. Clearly more than a similar M3 but far better than the 1600/month in the example above (over 100k msrp must include every possible option including CCB)

The transmission is better than I expected. I can't really compare it to the DCT as my M3 was a manual. The stalk thing on the steering column almost prevented me from getting the merc but it works well and I actually don't mind it.

By way of comparison, when I leased my 2015 M4, the residual was 58% but for 15K miles. If I recall, 10K miles would have been 60% or 61%. The M3 was a 1% or 2% higher than the M4. Seems like the C63 leases are more similar to the RS5 leases at the time (2015) which I believe had a 49% residual for 15K miles. Those differences translate into a 30% - 50% lease price premium, which is difficult for me to accept for myself, although I get it that if AMG can move cars at those rates there no reason to cheapen them.

[Seniorleb]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The 63 coupe is way better looking than the 63 saloon which looks undernourished with almost zero rear flare plus the base car is so dull they really needed to give it some more visual impact than they have.

Those coupes on the thread look great but look better in real life.

I agree in real life looks much better than pics

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Seniorleb

I agree in real life looks much better than pics

They've got a huge amount of road presence.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Wills2

They've got a huge amount of road presence.

HUGE...

C63 coupes look way better in person, especially lowered.

I think the M4 looks really good too.

The M3 is much better looking to me than the C63s sedan though.

But as coupes, both the M4 and the C63 look good, especially dropped (the M4 needs spacers too, the C not as much).

[BMWFanatic2008]

Wow, amg lease prices don't make much sense. For the price of C63, you can get M5.

[Seniorleb]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

HUGE...

C63 coupes look way better in person, especially lowered.

I think the M4 looks really good too.

The M3 is much better looking to me than the C63s sedan though.

But as coupes, both the M4 and the C63 look good, especially dropped (the M4 needs spacers too, the C not as much).

I agree 100%

[John Tanglewood]

Just commented in another thread. Loving the C63s coupe - and it's the only car I right now could afford to swap my M3 for.

But I love having a manual transmission. So for me it's the hardest thing to break on. I yearn for the sound of my e92 M3, and the Benz just has that growl that could do it.