# C&D 2008 M3 v. 2008 C63 v. RS4 comparo



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-benz-c63-amg-v-07-audi-rs-4-v-08-bmw-m3.html


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

Wow. The C63 is 4000 pounds? What a pig. The M3 is 500 pounds lighter.

And apparently the 335i coupe chipped eats the M3 for breakfast.


----------



## Burrogs (May 2, 2005)

C63 does 0-60 in 3.9 sec :yikes: This comparo still isn't all that fair since the M3 was the only coupe in the testing  I'd rather wait and see them test the M3 sedan against these and see if it still comes out on top. Also, I hate how the winner is always decided on subjective results. Looking at the data, the C63 was the clear winner in this test.


----------



## RedBread (Jan 3, 2003)

At some point, subjective ratings become relevant. If your sole purpose is a track car, or a quarter mile car, then the C63 might make sense, but so long as it is saddled with an automatic, they could give it another 200hp and a lot of us just won't care about it at all. Corvettes are massively fast, but for many people, they're not the right car. Subjective ratings, especially with cars that have more than ample power, are both relevant and helpful, so long as they're used in context.


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

Burrogs said:


> C63 does 0-60 in 3.9 sec :yikes: This comparo still isn't all that fair since the M3 was the only coupe in the testing  I'd rather wait and see them test the M3 sedan against these and see if it still comes out on top. Also, I hate how the winner is always decided on subjective results. * Looking at the data, the C63 was the clear winner in this test.*


Straight line speed isn't everything. An E46 M3 CSL can keep up with a 996 GT3 on the track despite the obvious horsepower advantage.


----------



## SteveinBelAir (Dec 28, 2005)

Wow. The C63 runs a 12.4/116 out of the box.

There's nothing like displacement eh?


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

SteveinBelAir said:


> Wow. The C63 runs a 12.4/116 out of the box.
> 
> There's nothing like displacement eh?


X2.:thumbup: That new C63 has been getting nothing but great reviews. Here in Asia when I was in Hong-Kong I picked up a car magazine review and they gave it a 9.5 out of 10 and picke dit over the M3. For performance and road use I would pick the C63 over the M3 If I wanted a car for the track then I would pick the M3 but if I really wanted a car for the track then I would rather get a EVO, WRX STI or a new Z06 Vette. When that new C63 hits the roads it is going to be an awesome car:thumbup:


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

BmW745On19's said:


> Wow. The C63 is 4000 pounds? What a pig. The M3 is 500 pounds lighter.
> 
> And apparently the 335i coupe chipped eats the M3 for breakfast.


Mercedes come with a lot of luxury stuff and accessories. One can easily knock off some weight on that new C63 200-300Lbs. should not be too difficult to get rid of on that car. With 200lbs. less that car will brake an perform even better. Out of the 3 the brakes on the C63 were the best even with all that weight, just imagine how good those brakes would be with a little less weight trimmed off that car..


----------



## Sergey (Nov 3, 2007)

I dont agry with this test...for the first
1.BMW have 3.2 and Mercedes 6.3,big difference
2.Mercedes can be only with Automatic transmissin
3.On tracks bmw would be better 100%
4.BMW M3 its a real sport car without luxurious things like in Mercedes
Only where C63 is winner- from 0 to 100 km/h!


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

Sergey said:


> I dont agry with this test...for the first
> 1.BMW have 4.0 and Mercedes 6.3,big difference *So Benz will walk at any speed*
> 2.Mercedes can be only with Automatic transmissin *It's a 7 speed tranny so it's well geared for acceleration not only at low speeds but high speeds as well*
> 3.On tracks bmw would be better 100% *Maybe a bit better but not 100% better (You won't be seeing 100% better lap times)*
> ...


*From 200kmh/r on the C63 is the winner as well all the way to up BMW's top speed and at its' top speed it will also walk it*


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

Last time I checked, roads have curbs in them. 

Strip out the M3 to nothing but bare bones and do the same with the benz and see which one is better on the track.


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

BmW745On19's said:


> Last time I checked, roads have curbs in them.
> 
> Strip out the M3 to nothing but bare bones and do the same with the benz and see which one is better on the track.


I agree, the Bimmer will most likely be better on the track but for everyday road use the C63 will be better (My opinion $.02). The C63 has about 50% more torque


----------



## Sergey (Nov 3, 2007)

> It's a 7 speed tranny so it's well geared for acceleration not only at low speeds but high speeds as well


If you remember Mercedes use 7-G Tronic only at luxiries models like S600 w221,E500 211 etc but AMG ussualy use only 5 gear transmissin S65 AMG 221,C55 AMG w203,E63 211,why???I think becouse AMG use only big engines more then 6 litres and its dont need 7 gears,you see...More gears doesnt mean that its better...Lexus LS has 8 gears and what???You consider that it woul better acelerate? I dont think so

On a track BMW would be better becouse of weight 50/50 and 4.0 V8 not 6.3...I think mercedes C63 would be good only at speedways
P.S Mercedes never was a real sport car for a tracks)


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

stylinexpat said:


> I agree, the Bimmer will most likely be better on the track but for everyday road use the C63 will be better (My opinion $.02). The C63 has about 50% more torque


Yeah. 

Question: How often do you need all that power? It isn't every day that I pull out in front of a semi going 60 mph. :rofl:


----------



## Sergey (Nov 3, 2007)

For every day Audi RS 4 better than BMW M3 and Mercedes C63 becouse of quattro transmission!


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

This being Car and Driver, I'd be curious if their advertising revenues are also 1,2,3 for BMW, MB and Audi. 

Don't trust a magazine that costs less than $1/issue, you know who pays their salaries.

Nice to see an AMG that finally has proper sport seats. :thumbup:


----------



## ___lk___ (Dec 21, 2001)

> At 3571 pounds, the M3 is the lightest car here


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

___lk___ said:


>


:rofl:

I rolled my eyes at that as well.

The E30 M3 weighs 1000 pounds less. Imagine that.


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

BmW745On19's said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I rolled my eyes at that as well.
> 
> The E30 M3 weighs 1000 pounds less. Imagine that.


I tto rolled my eyes at that one. These cars are putting on weight like the Americans are Seems like cars are a 1000lbs. more these days and Americans are 100Lbs. more as well..


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

Burrogs said:


> Looking at the data, the C63 was the clear winner in this test.


Yea, Im looking, and I dont see it. Fastest equals best? :dunno:

Other than speed, and a one foot braking advantage (which, considering they call the brakes "spongy" is a hollow victory), the M3 owns it. It continutes to handle better, turns in quicker, rides better, steers better.....I'm sure the list goes on.

See, all this is why it won, both here and in M/T.


----------



## Burrogs (May 2, 2005)

LoveTAH said:


> Yea, Im looking, and I dont see it. Fastest equals best? :dunno:
> 
> Other than speed, and a one foot braking advantage (which, considering they call the brakes "spongy" is a hollow victory), the M3 owns it. It continutes to handle better, turns in quicker, rides better, steers better.....I'm sure the list goes on.
> 
> See, all this is why it won, both here and in M/T.


I'm sure the list goes on too, but everything else on the laundry list of tests they did here had the C63 as the better car, in pretty much every way, except for "handling" and "ride quality." Which apparently are the only tests that count and therefore make a car "own" another car in your world.

I'm sure if the names were switched on the stats, the naysayers would be complaining about how dumb it is for the car that is significantly faster, better braking, while also managing to be larger and quieter, etc. etc. car to come in second place.

Just throwing it out there. Original thought is a good thing. You don't always have to be a fanboy. I love BMWs, always have, always will, but IMHO, BMW has dropped the ball on the new M3. Why would I pay 70G's for an M3 when I can take a chipped 135i and add an LSD for a total that is 20-30G's cheaper, will be much faster, (I know speed seems to be a bad word around here lately) and it will likely handle as good if not better to boot. The only draw I see in the new M3 is an LSD and the badge on the back.


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

stylinexpat said:


> I tto rolled my eyes at that one. These cars are putting on weight like the Americans are Seems like cars are a 1000lbs. more these days and Americans are 100Lbs. more as well..


At least the cars are heavier due to more safety equipment. The extra 100 lbs Americans gain sure as hell don't cushion them from car accidents.........or maybe they do?


----------



## sbw (Feb 18, 2007)

I could've predicted the outcome of this comparo. But I guess we all could have! Haha.


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

AzNMpower32 said:


> At least the cars are heavier due to more safety equipment. The extra 100 lbs Americans gain sure as hell don't cushion them from car accidents.........or maybe they do?


I'm a Bony guy so I assume the extra cushion add some protection:dunno: From a safety point of view the new cars offer a lot of safety features and those safety feature come with a price and some weight too.


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

LoveTAH said:


> Yea, Im looking, and I dont see it. Fastest equals best? :dunno:
> 
> Other than speed, and a one foot braking advantage (which, considering they call the brakes "spongy" is a hollow victory), the M3 owns it. It continutes to handle better, turns in quicker, rides better, steers better.....I'm sure the list goes on.
> 
> See, all this is why it won, both here and in M/T.


The C63 was better at braking then the M3 in most of the tests I have seen online. Put some light weight wheels on there and that thing would be even better at braking I did not see it really winning except on the track..


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/C63/index.html


----------

