This whole article comparing the M3 coupe and the 4 door C63 is all wrong. They should have compared the m3 sedan first of all. Then they complain about how the C63 has "over the top styling", but isn’t that the whole point of the car? They say that the car has "Shocking performance, heroic engine wail, the world’s best automatic, excellent seats." and it still comes in second to the much slower M3 which is 463lbs lighter. The car does 0 to 60mph is 3.9seconds to the m3s 4.3 seconds. They also stated that they got tired of the "aggressive behavior and looks—the creases, the bulges, the vents, and the gaping front fascia could almost pass as an aftermarket job in this tasteful group." Then they complimented it on how it’s the Lambo of sports sedans.”But if you like to be seen, heard, and talked about, the C63 is your Lamborghini of sports sedans." I just don’t get how first of all on the cover of the mag they said "Hell Raising sedans" but what they should have said was 2 sedans and 1 coupe. This whole article just makes me angry. I would like to see the C63 in first because its a street car and its faster in every acceleration test and in stopping. Any thoughts on this article?
Maybe it's the FREE Demo BMW's every year for the staff and parties, etc. that BMW does for these magazines? The C63 is the car to buy for the money and with a tune maybe over 500HP! FAST! Don't believe everything you read nowadays everyone is paying off everyone. Marketing, marketing and more marketing.
Oh, I forgot does anyone want to drive a BMW for free? Maybe an M5, M3 or M6? Get rid of that slow Mercedes for a fast and beautiful BMW. NOT!! Joking guys!
Car & Driver loves Honda and BMW. Yes they are great cars but it seems that anything else will come second, even if the car is better. Mercedes put a detuned 6.3 in a small sedan and the styling is great. It is unfair of C&D to poke at the styling when the BMW is equally radical. AMG listened to critics when they enabled the traction control to be disabled completely. The transmission is supposed to be awesome as well with the paddle shifters. AMG did this car right, period! Could you imagine a Black Series!
I do agree that C&D contradict themselves in the article like the original poster stated. Oh well, I think Mercedes can be very proud of this car.
suprisingly enough, this is the first pics/reviews i have seen of the C63.. i never cared for the C classes - any of them; so this new C class, including the C63, is a pleasant suprise. The new M3 however, is a slight dissapointment, although i know i'll eat my words if and when i drive one. I wish BMW had made the M a bit more radical, ala a E46 on GH - yes, injected with modernized steroids!! I agree with the editors comments on the looks of the C63 - or atleast as seen in silver - the front bumper vents are a bit too ostentatious for a mercedes, i think the CLK63 black series looks "calmer" or atleast its lines flow better and appear more deserving of the exotic aesthetical upgrades. i cant believe the black series CLK is $180k!!! i was peeking at one the other day; even more ridiculous is the fact that only in newport beach would you see $180k cars parked OUTSIDE of the showroom!!!
E55/63: simple hotshit executive sedan. S65: reserved for hedge fund managers and their plastic-perfect wives. CLK black series: pure sex, i must have one before i die. C63: eh, if it were a psycholigical complex, it would be called the "Napolean" it looks like a little guy with too much to prove, albeit im sure its got plenty of performance - it better have with that monster V8.
__________________
Once, i thought i was wrong; but i had only been mistaken...
Vehicle: '07 MB G500 & '08 MB CLK 63 AMG Black Series
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 47
What a surprise that the CLK 63 AMG Black Series has such an absurd mark up in Newport Beach! My local dealer here in Denver sold me my car at MSRP. Period. That sort of dealer gouging is all too common in SoCal. To whit, a Porsche GT2 rolled out of Rusnack in Thousand Oaks at $300K when they first were available. My son worked there at the time.
I saw the C63 AMG and the new M3 at the LA Autoshow Thanksgiving weekend. The Benz has presence, looks menacing. The M3 is very blah offering a domed hood and wheels to distinguish it from the 335 coupe (which is a tick slower for a lot less money). Wait until Dinan massages the 335 let alone the 135 and there will be some disappointed M3 owners!
Great article in a recent EVO comparing all the M cars. I have always thought the E 30 M3 was the best. Only wish I had bought one when I test drove one in '88.
If I were in the market, the C63 AMG would be at the top of my one car list!
REM
^ yeah i was really surprised at the price, i had "assumed" the car was priced ~$120k, so i was pretty surprised to see the 179k sticker price... even when i examined the window sticker looking for the "adjusted market price adendum" i didnt see it, i guess they can print out their own proprietery window sticker?? thats new to me, i didnt think that was allowed. since i thought it was a legit window sticker i didnt question it, although i was pretty duumbfounded that MB would want more money for a CLK black series than for a SL65..
very cool car, im jealous. i actually think the car looks almost as hot as the CLK DTM offered in europe. makes me laugh everytime i see "MTV cribs" and see the same boring ass cars(cars i see on a daily basis in newport) vs the "real" baller cars, that seem to be way over the heads of "new money" ballers.
To go back to the M3 vs. C63. It comes down to a personal preference. The M3 is more balanced, but the C63 is the raw power someone like myself would enjoy more. Not to mention, this time around, the C63 is no longer just a straight line driver, it can corner quite well.
The worst thing about this comparison, though, is that all these magazines need to do this test over with the M3 sedan. It's really like comparing apples to oranges.
Linear Mode
