RE: Mercedes-AMG C63 Coupe - official!
Discussion
Ares said:
True, but like for like/everything else being equal, a 200kg lighter car will be better. Weight is never a good thing.
....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
'Weight is never a good thing' - This is wholly incorrect. If you look at the demographic of performance car buyers, I'm sure the vast majority don't see a track/drive at ten tenths, so having as high a power to weight ratio as possible simply doesn't matter. If they wanted to track it, then yes, it could be classed as 'too heavy' but the angle you're coming in from seems solely bent on performance and lap times. Feel free to disagree....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
Pesty said:
Ares said:
True, but like for like/everything else being equal, a 200kg lighter car will be better. Weight is never a good thing.
....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
All things being equal yes.....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
It still may be an epic car to drive in which case it wouldn't matter to me.
JockySteer said:
Ares said:
True, but like for like/everything else being equal, a 200kg lighter car will be better. Weight is never a good thing.
....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
'Weight is never a good thing' - This is wholly incorrect. If you look at the demographic of performance car buyers, I'm sure the vast majority don't see a track/drive at ten tenths, so having as high a power to weight ratio as possible simply doesn't matter. If they wanted to track it, then yes, it could be classed as 'too heavy' but the angle you're coming in from seems solely bent on performance and lap times. Feel free to disagree....and the C63S isn't pitched as a GT car....it's a direct competitor to the M4. It's a real shame they got lazy and didn't do a BMW with weight saving.
redroadster said:
Weight does not seem to blunt its performance ,I like modern Merc styling will be interesting to see how it stacks up against m4 in road tests but on noise alone it's got my vote.
It does blunt it's performance though. There was a test against the M4 with the C63S saloon, which has considerably more power than the M4, yet the M4 was quicker round a track and supposedly the more fun and involving to drive too. E65Ross said:
hornetrider said:
1800kgs?!
That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
Pretty sure it isn't! That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Even if there's a small descrepancy somewhere across different sites (there usually is with kerb weights) my general point remains. A small coupe weighs the around the same or a bit more as a large estate from a segment above.
redroadster said:
Weight does not seem to blunt its performance ,I like modern Merc styling will be interesting to see how it stacks up against m4 in road tests but on noise alone it's got my vote.
Taking the C63 saloon which is technically (near) identical. Even the C63 S with an extra 60bhp is slower round a circuit. 15% more power, 15% more weight....makes for a slower car. Performance certainly is blunted.hornetrider said:
E65Ross said:
hornetrider said:
1800kgs?!
That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
Pretty sure it isn't! That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Even if there's a small descrepancy somewhere across different sites (there usually is with kerb weights) my general point remains. A small coupe weighs the around the same or a bit more as a large estate from a segment above.
It's not a small coupe either! But at least it has a fair amount of poke!
E65Ross said:
hornetrider said:
E65Ross said:
hornetrider said:
1800kgs?!
That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
Pretty sure it isn't! That's heavier than my E61 5 series Touring!!
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Even if there's a small descrepancy somewhere across different sites (there usually is with kerb weights) my general point remains. A small coupe weighs the around the same or a bit more as a large estate from a segment above.
E65Ross said:
It's not a small coupe either! But at least it has a fair amount of poke!
Smaller then. C class is the equivalent of a 3 series. The segment below. And it's a sporty coupe, that weighs the same as a family estate. For me that will blunt the enjoyment in the corners, although the engine in these is epic, even at 4 litres.Ares said:
Taking the C63 saloon which is technically (near) identical. Even the C63 S with an extra 60bhp is slower round a circuit. 15% more power, 15% more weight....makes for a slower car. Performance certainly is blunted.
What the C63 loses out on weight it certainly gains with sense of occasion and noise, something that is desperately lacking in the M4. How many will track these cars anyway? 5%?I drove the C63-S at the weekend and it was amazing. The power is epic as is the delivery and throttle response. But it was the noise that reminded me why the C63 is a league above the M3/M4. I am pretty sure the C63-S would leave an M3/M4 in it's wake on the road (just not the tight twisties).
The M3 and M4 just lack the sense of occasion when you are in the cabin struggling to get excited with the boring sound track. This just doesn't happen in the C63 with the roar of the V8 (not far off the M156 6.2 V8), and the crackle and popping of the exhaust.
If I have one criticism of both the M3/4 and C63 is how much they have smothered the turbo noise.
moffat said:
What the C63 loses out on weight it certainly gains with sense of occasion and noise, something that is desperately lacking in the M4. How many will track these cars anyway? 5%?
In my experience this has always been the difference between the M-division and AMG. The BMW tends to be technically better cars to drive but also comparatively rather lacking in character. Hence whilst I generally prefer the BMW, I'd imagine that the Mercs are probably more desirable for most people. kambites said:
moffat said:
What the C63 loses out on weight it certainly gains with sense of occasion and noise, something that is desperately lacking in the M4. How many will track these cars anyway? 5%?
In my experience this has always been the difference between the M-division and AMG. The BMW tends to be technically better cars to drive but also comparatively rather lacking in character. Hence whilst I generally prefer the BMW, I'd imagine that the Mercs are probably more desirable for most people. 
E65Ross said:
It does blunt it's performance though. There was a test against the M4 with the C63S saloon, which has considerably more power than the M4, yet the M4 was quicker round a track and supposedly the more fun and involving to drive too.
The M4 is also very, very track-focused. BMW said this themselves on the launch. The question is, why does one want to buy a saloon or coupe designed more for the track than for the road? It's inherently wrong from a conceptual standpoint. Give me a bit of extra weight and some refinement. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff