C43 or C63

[Cpb1702]

C43 would smash a c63 in most typical UK road conditions particularly in the wet due to the 4 wheel drive. There is a vid on you tube showing this happen in a drag race. With the exhaust it's like fire cracker. I tried the couoe and better than a 718, more car for the money- 3.0 v6, 4 wheel drive with rear bias, better sound, back seats for the kids and big boot. Great looking car if a little understated.

[jahill]

If you're the kind of person that always hankers after more performance, the C43 might not be such a good plan, but I have every reason to believe the C43 is a fantastic car, designed for people who want a fast car, but don't need a rocket-ship and the 4WD is almost certainly a good deal safer, especially in the wet. It's exactly the kind of car I was looking for when I bought my previous C63 five years ago.

Having had a C63, I didn't want a slower car (it's always difficult getting into to a slower car) and went for the C63s this time around...

[FunMeterAMG]

Every day weather driving ability comparison depends on skill of the driver. As said before, C63 is good in wet or damp in the right hands. 4.0 is more composed.

Additionally, 4.0 vs 6.3 is just a flat argument of opinions. Both are great, but I think the 4.0 is better as an overall package.... Having put miles on both models.

[Swole]

FunMeterAMG said:

Every day weather driving ability comparison depends on skill of the driver. As said before, C63 is good in wet or damp in the right hands. 4.0 is more composed.

Additionally, 4.0 vs 6.3 is just a flat argument of opinions. Both are great, but I think the 4.0 is better as an overall package.... Having put miles on both models.

There is so much internet hype suggesting that the only way you should buy a performance car is if it had 4WD these days, as if anything RWD is un-driveable and will without doubt kill you in the wet. We then have these "point to point" and 0-60 arguments however, about the only time I want to drive 15-miles across twisty roads at 90mph is when I've cut an artery and I need to get to A&E. These arguments are as laughable as the internet craze that swept the BMW community not long ago which had everyone buying Winter tyres for fear they'd for certain die without them. My personal view is that if you are unable to handle a powerful RWD car sensibly, then perhaps performance cars aren't for you, as has been demonstrated many times when an inexperienced driver hops into a 4WD car with 3/4/500hp, believe's they are invincible and then stuff it in a serious way at high speed.

Anyway, regarding W204 & W205, I have to say that I prefer the W204, especially if we are talking a 507 or a fettled one as that engine is just a sledge hammer with more punch in the back than I've felt before in a lot of turbocharged cars. I'd say that the W205 is sharper in handling (you'd expect it to be) but the W204 package is matched perfectly i.e. all components are perfectly suited and you feel connect by all of the noises and the feedback.

Now, if there was a W205 6.2...

[FunMeterAMG]

Swole said:

There is so much internet hype suggesting that the only way you should buy a performance car is if it had 4WD these days, as if anything RWD is un-driveable and will without doubt kill you in the wet. We then have these "point to point" and 0-60 arguments however, about the only time I want to drive 15-miles across twisty roads at 90mph is when I've cut an artery and I need to get to A&E. These arguments are as laughable as the internet craze that swept the BMW community not long ago which had everyone buying Winter tyres for fear they'd for certain die without them. My personal view is that if you are unable to handle a powerful RWD car sensibly, then perhaps performance cars aren't for you, as has been demonstrated many times when an inexperienced driver hops into a 4WD car with 3/4/500hp, believe's they are invincible and then stuff it in a serious way at high speed.

Couldn't agree more. The most fun is managing RWD in all conditions when you want to push on and test the limits.
4 Matic is like most 4WD, they shift power rear to front as needed. They are great for more grip and thus fast in poorer conditions, but not as fun by a big margin. But having spoken to Mercedes AMG instructors, doesn't sound like many owners have driving skill, just buying into a brand and an image. At brooklands they where surprised I mostly used paddle shifters and could drive well, they said most owners leave in auto, just hit the accelerator and let ESC do the work!

[ohnoodle]

I've had a number of RWD cars and do love the experience. Having said that, at present I lease a Golf R, I have to say, it's a phenomenal car to drive! It's makes me question why I need a C63! The power is mightily impressive and the handling is superb. I can't really find fault with it, and the all wheel drive is so noticeable in the wet - which it's been a lot lately!! So, I can see the discussion on both sides.

[diehardbenzfan]

craig1912 said:

I have the 430d and my son has the C43 and I disagree- C43 is in a different class on terms of power delivery and speed

Maybe an extended test drive in a fully worn in c43 would relfect what you're saying as the one I drove had like 800 miles on it, but my point isn't that the C43 is slow, my point is that on a day to day basis, on the average commute to work with traffic, the difference between any 3.0 diesel and a c43 won't be huge.

[dimots]

I have a rwd 580 odd bhp AMG CLS 63s and if you leave the traction control on wet roads are absolutely no issue.

I used to drive an E30 320i Touring years ago, and have also owned a few W123 rwd cars...those things would slip out on wet roundabouts and do all kinds of scary things in the wet.

I don't think 4wd is a requirement for most British motorists. Wouldn't make it the deciding factor in choosing one car over another. Just get the one with the V8

[gibbo37]

diehardbenzfan said:

Maybe an extended test drive in a fully worn in c43 would relfect what you're saying as the one I drove had like 800 miles on it, but my point isn't that the C43 is slow, my point is that on a day to day basis, on the average commute to work with traffic, the difference between any 3.0 diesel and a c43 won't be huge.

Surely that's a bit of a strange argument, a moped in traffic on the daily commute would probably be faster to the office than either car......