[M4isKing]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

I think there was more than that. IIRC, there was a lot of work done to the suspension/chassis, more than just adjustable dampers with the competition pack on the M3. There is no way the LCI W204 performed the way it did with just a MCT (which isn't even that great in the C63), a lot more was done because the LCI was a significant improvement over the pre-LCI.

There should be a press-release somewhere outlining the changes done.

i agree...i love everything about the c63 minus the lack of manual or dual clutch.

also one thing is that bmw's age a lot better than the equivalent mercedes.

no one is sitting here talking about the c36 while the e46 m3 still looks pretty great.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

you're all over the place here

-race tires vs street tires. it makes a difference, a big one
-ring, the c63amg black is 6 seconds faster than the m4 at 7:46 and 15 seconds faster than the c63 lci. IE bigger difference between the m4 and c63 lci than between the m4 and c63 black
-laguna seca, .79 second difference between the m4 time and c63 black time, both driven by randy pobst
-black series .3 seconds faster than m4 at autocar dry testing track
-not one dct m3 has been magazine tested at 117mph, they have all been 118+
-how do you expect a slightly heavier (at best) c63 with only 50-70 more hp to trap 4-6 mph faster than an m4?
-randy pobst had very little negative things to say about the m4, I read the article too
-the c63 black is NOT more expensive because there are less made, that's preposterous. the audi ttrs was rare too, and it didn't cost that much. nor did the rs4 which is very rare. the c63 black costs more because it has a ton of extra shit on it which the c63 doesn't

Anyway, I have nothing else to say to you. You haven't supported any of your statements with facts at all, and the c63 LCI doesn't compete with the m4, and the C63 black is not that much quicker, and is on track tires and has aero parts.

The rest of your "sound" complaints and the rest are personal preference and have nothing to do with evaluating the performance of these cars.

Link to m4 track times and c63 black track times

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/merceds_...s_package.html

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_m4.html

I've supported everything with factual times.


I never said the LCI C63 competed with the M4. But e92 m3 vs lci c63 the c63 happened to hold more of the better times.

6 seconds on the Ring is A LONG TIME. The fact that the C63 Black weighs about 500 lbs more than an M4 yet dusts it with similar hp says a lot. And considering the C63 is competing with the current gen M4 and beating it EASILY, says even more.

Go back to MT's best driver's car, the car trapped 117.x mph.

What youre not getting is that 6 seconds on the Ring is a lifetime. .79 on Laguna Seca is a pretty large margin, and .3 in autocar is a pretty good margin as well. This is all against a very old C63 platform at this point. Remind me of this...all the reviews of the OLD C63 vs m4, which car was picked as the better overall car?

M3 GTS was more expensive than the C63 Black yet performed worse. The M3 GTS had every advantage over the C63 Black, weighed 700 lbs less, had a much better power to weight, race tires, better transmission, a role cage, aero, yet couldnt match it at all.

The reason I expect the new C63 to be much faster is this. The 2012 LCI C63 with MCT trapped 117 mph or basically the SAME as the new m3/4. The car just like the M3/4 are probably going to be quite underrated. The M4 makes clsoe to 500 hp in stock form. I am willing to bet the C63 at 469 rated ends up making close to 550 and going by the 117 mph the 2012 C63 runs, its not going to get slower. And the fact that it weighs much less now will only help.

The e63 amg is quoted at 575 hp, yet is makes close to 700 on the dyno. Oh yea, and that car also whipped the m4 at VIR despite being a 4400 lbs car, LOL. M5/6 arent even in the ballgame.

Yes sound is subjective, but the m3/4 sound awful. And their interior quality is still lacking behind the benz big time.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

Remind me of this...all the reviews of the OLD C63 vs m4, which car was picked as the better overall car?

Can't really make that comparison and come to a valid conclusion. You're comparing old tech vs. new tech where almost everyone favours the old tech (naturally aspirated engine, hydraulic steering), all of those reviews state the same thing, the sound of the N/A engine and steering which is a lot better (obvious reasons) is the reasons why it's picked over the M3/M4.

If the reality was BMW was going to keep making FI cars with electric steering and Mercedes was going to stick with big naturally aspirated engines with hydraulic steering, then yes, we could all conclude that Mercedes car is better. You really have to wait until the W205 comes out.

[Don N.]

Not a big fan of the rear tail lights on the car, but maybe my opinion will change once I see them in person.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

.79 on Laguna Seca is a pretty large margin, and .3 in autocross is a pretty good margin as well. .

L
M
A
O



TIL, autocars test track is an autocross track

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

L
M
A
O



TIL, autocars test track is an autocross track

Typ0...

The point is still the same. On a track where hundreths of seconds make all the difference, tenths and full seconds especially on tracks that are as short as a lot of these, they become monumental differences that are extremely hard to make up especially on a car like the m4 which its lap times will not be consistent and will deteriorate over time.
Just look at how badly the base 991 smoked the m4, 1.4 seconds on a sub 1:20 lap.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

Typ0...

The point is still the same. On a track where hundreths of seconds make all the difference, tenths and full seconds especially on tracks that are as short as a lot of these, they become monumental differences that are extremely hard to make up especially on a car like the m4 which its lap times will not be consistent and will deteriorate over time.
Just look at how badly the base 991 smoked the m4, 1.4 seconds on a sub 1:20 lap.

no, .7 seconds is not a "monumental" difference whatsoever at laguna seca. not even close to a huge difference. you don't know what you are talking about, and should just move on.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

the c63 was quicker than the e9x in certain situations, and certainly the revised suspension helped. however, what also helped was the new huge BBK they got at LCI and the fact that the car trapped 6-7 MPH faster than the e9x.

The W204 C63, from its inception, had 6-piston Brembo fixed front calipers and 4-piston Brembo fixed rear calipers. The LCI calipers did get a new paint job though (white AMG lettering instead of black; the new AMG logo with the modified "A" character was introduced).

I always thought that the LCI paint job made the calipers "pop" a bit more.

Pre-LCI:



LCI (mine):

Originally Posted by M4isKing

well the c63 was updated almost yearly, or had many versions come out vs the m3 is basically an '08 model with "zcp" as an update.

i like merc's way of thinking. instead, we got special editions that didnt really do anything. think if the lime rock version had more updates than just a special color - suspension, power, brakes. something in between a gts and zcp.

The C63 was only given one LCI or facelift - in 2012. That said, MB/AMG are much, much more aggressive with their facelifts. Anything is fair game when it comes to improvements. Just look at how radical the W212 E-Class facelift was. Many people think the current E63 is "new" when, in reality, it is also nearing the end of its run.

The 507 Edition merely replaced the "Performance Package" option.

[danniexi]

*sigh* if only we got the wagon...

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

no, .7 seconds is not a "monumental" difference whatsoever at laguna seca. not even close to a huge difference. you don't know what you are talking about, and should just move on.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html

Did I say that? You missed my point again. When do you only race 1 lap? Never. The m4 will be behind .7 seconds on each lap, add that up over 10, 12, 15 laps and you see the difference becomes monumental given both cars can continue at those paces relative to one another.
Half a second on a 1:30-2:00 lap is a pretty large margin, .7 seconds on a 3 minute lap is a pretty good margin whether you want to admit it or not. 4+ seconds on the Ring is starting to get into a large margin and thats an 8 min lap.
Go to Laguna Seca or any track that had an avg lap time of 3-4 mins and run the best time you can and see how hard it is to shave an additional .7 seconds off. Maybe you'll realize then what .7 seconds means.
Average speed is around 81 mph for the times we are talking at Laguna Seca. .7 seconds would be about 83 ft or 7 car lengths. That is not so easily made up like you think it is.

[hellrotm]

The limited "edition 1" C63-S.

[TheBingoBalls]

Overdid the red detailing...

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The limited "edition 1" C63-S.

Even just aesthetically, this car's looks inside and out are in a whole different ballgame than the f8x m3. Really makes the M3/4 look low rate in comparison. And my god is this car going to move and handle, and just as importantly SOUND good doing it.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

Overdid the red detailing...

The non-"Edition 1" aka normal C63-S

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The non-"Edition 1" aka normal C63-S

A lot better. The design itself is already amazing, no need to crazy with the contrast piping/stitching.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The non-"Edition 1" aka normal C63-S

Simply stunning!

[pr0gi]

ventilated seats ? damn

[DarthBalls]

The interior looks way beyond the M3/M4. I did see a new C class on the road this weekend, still not sure about the rear end, seems like it is chopped off, but the inside is stunning.

Also just saw the pricing for them.....the C63 is 76,100 EUR = $96K and the C63S at 84,371 EUR = $106K

And that is without added packages. Seems like quite a jump from a decently loaded M3/M4 in the mid 70's to low 80's. If those numbers are correct, and I'm looking at the right conversion tables, we'll have to see if it is really 20-30K better. Love the interior though, very well done.

[Razzy]

Needs more flared arches and fenders!

[Inablur]

love it

[W///]

Originally Posted by DarthBalls

The interior looks way beyond the M3/M4. I did see a new C class on the road this weekend, still not sure about the rear end, seems like it is chopped off, but the inside is stunning.

Also just saw the pricing for them.....the C63 is 76,100 EUR = $96K and the C63S at 84,371 EUR = $106K

And that is without added packages. Seems like quite a jump from a decently loaded M3/M4 in the mid 70's to low 80's. If those numbers are correct, and I'm looking at the right conversion tables, we'll have to see if it is really 20-30K better. Love the interior though, very well done.

FYI, I just checked BMW DE website and M4 starts at 72.2k Euros

[///MCFC]

interior is amazing...supercar worthy.