Well looks are subjective but if we're talking about performance vs. performance, if the C63 undercuts the others, it makes the choice a lot easier for people.

 

There are stock E55's doing 11's in the quarter (I posted a vid here vs. a C6Zo6 Vette. This little beast will be in the 11's as well.

 

From all indications the M3 is still a much more engaging car to drive, plus you can get it with a manual tranny. Fractions of a second in 0-60 or the 1/4 mile don't really matter all that much unless you're racing

 

As determined by who? The same way someone could say it isn't really that much more engaging to drive, you could only tell the difference if you are a race driver.......

 

As determined by the magazines, which is basically all we have to go on since nobody on here to my knowledge has driven the C63 and M3.

And you definitely do not need a racetrack to appreciate a nicely balanced chassis, communicative steering, a nicely revving engine and a manual transmission. The M3 is smaller, lower to the ground, about 450lbs lighter and has a better weight distribution. All that should add up to a better driving experience

My car goes 0-60 in ~4.5 seconds and does the 1/4 in the mid to high 12s but I can probably count on one hand the times I've utilized the full potential of the engine on public roads. Great steering and handling is something you experience every time you get in your car

 

let me quote a friend for you:


p.s.
1- The M3 is NOT 450lbs lighter
2- I might have missed it, but what is the weight distribution of the C63?
3- It is lower to the ground?
4- The other cars in this class don't have balanced chassis and communicative steering?

 

Man, what is up with people in this thread simply making up numbers??? First we have someone claiming the C63 will be upwards of $90k and now we have someone saying the C63 is 450lbs heaver than the M3... You can easily figure out the weight of the cars by looking at my original post.

The M3 has 420HP with 9.1lb per BHP... Sooooo, 420*9.1 = 3822lbs
The C63 has 451HP with 8.9lb per BHP... Sooooo, 451*8.9 = 4014lbs

4014-3822 = 192lbs difference

Oops, I messed up... I calculated the RS4 instead of the M3

The M3 actually IS 450lbs lighter

414x8.6 = 3560lbs for the M3

 

READ POST #42 OF THIS THREAD

You will see that the M3 is actually MORE than 450lbs lighter, it has a better weight distribution, it's lower to the ground, which means a lower center of gravity especially coupled with the carbon fiber roof, and it is nearly universally accepted that the M3 has a more balanced chassis and more communicative steering than the C

Again, magazines aren't everything, but since this entire thread was based on magazine results, and nobody has driven the cars yet, it's pretty much all we have to go on. They're usually pretty accurate when describing the driving experience of a car, so even though their biases may impact their conclusions, you can still usually get a decent idea of how a car drives in a magazine article.

I'm not even an M3 fan, so I'm not really sure why I'm wasting my time defending it. The M3 doesn't look that great in my opinion, but it looks better than the other Merc or the Audi. I think all 3 of these cars are overpriced. If I were looking for a car in this performance class/price range, I would get a Corvette, which is exactly what I did and I love it. All I'm saying is that it's not a forgone conclusion that the C63 is better simply because it puts out better acceleration numbers

 

YEah E55s are beasts and faster than E63s....

 

i mixed the c-class and e-class AMG, my bad. i didn't go on the Mercedes website to compare the prices because i hate Mercedes. I just assumed the AMG would be overpriced because that is what they do.

 

Sorry, I was under the Impression that the C63 weighed in at 3800 odd pounds and the M3 at 3600 odd pounds.

None the less, the rest of my posts stands. Care concretely prove the rest of the drivel you posted?

 

I fail to see how anything in my post is 'drivel'. All the specs are in post #42, you will see that the better weight balance numbers are right there alongside the curb weight

If you increased your reading comprehension a little, you would see that nothing I have posted is factually incorrect. I have made some educated speculation about the driving experience of the cars based on both quantitative numbers as well as the subjective assessments of people who review cars for a living. I can't say with 100% certainty that the M3 has a more responsive chassis and better handling/steering than the C63, and if you actually read my posts you would see that I haven't attempted to do that. Anything at this point is an educated guess, but based on the only information that's out there, it's not too far of a stretch. Would you honestly be willing to bet that the C63 matches the M3 in handling and chassis response?

The reason I even posted in the first place is because somebody said it would be a no brainer to choose the C63 over the M3 simply because of the acceleration numbers. I was just refuting that statement.

 

Fast!

The AMG cars have always been quickest in their class, but running low 12's stock is still very impressive.

 

Hehehe, running low 12's and 3.9 0-60 is a lot impressive. Not that I personally need that power nor would choose the C63 over an M3, but I'm still very much impressed with its performance.

 

The title of this thread is "C63 does 12.3@116mph" not "I'm a (nissan, bmw, etc) fanboy and can find something else to beat it if I try hard enough". I can strap a V-8 to a turd and do 150 mph. B-F-D if one nissan can do it. Mercedes has SEVERAL cars in their lineup that are AMG tuned. S-E-V-E-R-A-L.

Props to the big mac daddy Mercedes. Not only is it faster, it does it in style. Personally my favorite vehicle on the market currently. (though I am hoping BMW does something spectacular to their bland interiors soon and wins me back).