RE: Mercedes-AMG C43/63: Driven

RE: Mercedes-AMG C43/63: Driven

Saturday 4th June 2016

Mercedes-AMG C63 Cabriolet: Driven

AMG V8 versus 1,900kg convertible C-Class - who wins?



PistonHeads isn't really the place to judge a car solely on its numbers. Here, arguably more than anywhere else, is the place to bleat on about the subjective, emotional appeal, and to hell with the fuel consumption, price or CO2.


Well, mostly. See there are a few numbers around the new AMG C63 cabrio that don't get it off to a great start. As well as being a £72,245 car, it's also said to weigh 1,910kg with a driver. Call it two tonnes when you take your pal to golf. This on top of the five settings for the Drive Select. At least the encouraging numbers from the coupe are carried over unchanged: four litres, two turbos and 510hp in the S model.

Moreover, when you see it, the objective considerations take a (quite spacious) back seat. It looks fantastic. Where the saloon and even the coupe can seem almost meek for a V8 AMG, the cabriolet comes across as noticeably more aggressive. With the roof lowered your attention is diverted down the car, to those wildly flared arches (66mm wider than a regular C-Class) and the AMG grille. If a car could swagger, this would swagger. Parked up next to a C300 and C250d, it looks like it might start a fraternal fight - this is much more like it!


Cut out the cr-
The feel-good factor continues inside, with the same sumptuous interior and great seats as the coupe, although harness cut-outs seem just a tad unnecessary for this. Then you'll start it up roof down and, however staunch your opposition to big old cabrios is, it's very hard not to be amused. V8s tend to do that.

Yes, it isn't quite as rapid as a saloon or the coupe, but this is still a very fast car. And it's such a lovely engine, responsive from next to no revs and willing right up until the limiter. The noise is all the more magnificent with the roof down as well, thundering and snarling its way through the rev range.

But then it all falls apart, right? Large, stylish, charming Mercedes V8 that can't really cut it when you actually want to drive - it's a familiar story. Actually that's not the case, which is nice.


Loutishbehaviour
Of course it rumbles along the Riviera nicely, topless refinement very good with the Aircap and wind defector in place. Yet up in the mountains with one of the more aggressive drive modes selected, it's all the more impressive. Now there are weaknesses - the steering column will wobble over imperfections, for example - but the C63 puts up a far better show than those disconcerting numbers appeared to predict. The body control is top notch, the optional carbon ceramic brakes strong and the structure is admirably rigid. Far from continuing at a relaxed pace, you're soon pushing the C63 and enjoying it as a sports car.

Plus, if you happen to miss a sat-nav turning and come across a few hairpins (that really did happen), the C63 is entirely happy to play the hooligan. Beyond the impressive traction of the Michelin Pilot Super Sports is a chassis of excellent balance and composure. Perhaps not the most relevant test, but again a pleasant surprise in something so heavy.


The point to take is that the cabriolet doesn't feel as blunted by its weight gain - officially 125kg from the coupe - as you might think. Of course it can't quite match the relative precision of the hard-top cars, and a back-to-back comparison would surely prove the point more emphatically, but AMG appears to have done a convincing job of minimising the usual cabrio compromises.

Gameoftwohalves
Sideways addiction indulged and rain imminent, the C63 settles back into a refined cruiser. Should a Slovenian van driver be very cross you're raising the roof on the move (again, this did happen), its ability to raise or retract at up to 31mph and in 20 seconds will prove very handy. Roof up refinement is fantastic given the C-Class uses a cloth roof, although the AMG-C43 also tested - full story to follow soon - did seem to generate a little less wind ruffle around the windscreen. Curious.


It's a hugely likeable car, the C63 Cabriolet, but one that supports that charm with objective ability. Go into it expecting the last word in precision and finely honed dynamics and you will be disappointed, but also unrealistic. For its combination of V8 power, Mercedes luxury and AMG thrills, the C63 presents a pretty compelling case. It may not look to be your cup of tea, but a brief drive should do a lot of convincing - guilty pleasures have never been so appealing.

 

 


MERCEDES-AMG C63/S CABRIOLET
Engine
: 3,982cc, V8 biturbo
Transmission: 7-speed MCT, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 476@5,500-6,250rpm/510@5,500-6,250rpm
Torque (lb ft): 479@1,750-4,500rpm/516@1,750-4,500rpm
0-62mph: 4.2sec/4.1sec
Top speed: 155mph
Weight: 1,910kg/1,925kg*
MPG: 31.7 (NEDC combined)
CO2: 208g/km
Price: £65,685 (C63 Cabriolet), £72,245 (C63 S Cabriolet), £78,295 (C63 S Edition 1 Cabriolet)

*Weight includes 90 per cent full fuel tank, with 68kg driver and 7kg luggage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
   
   
   
Author
Discussion

ZX10R NIN

Original Poster:

27,607 posts

125 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
72K

sidesauce

2,476 posts

218 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
I like this car (maybe not in white with the black roof) but I much prefer the S-Class Coupe cab from a proportional standpoint, this C-Class looks a little 'stumpy' in the flesh. And 1.9 tonnes!? Wow...

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
said:
0-62mph: 5.2sec/5.1sec
With a full second as a reaction time?

sh33n

194 posts

187 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Looks very nice indeed, and a little trad off at the edge for all that world above you is a price worth paying imo.

Couple of downers though, the price....unless there's some serious discounts to be had this is a fair bit more than a M4 Cab. But then it will be much rarer for it, so pay your monies and all that.

I know it's really pub banter more than anything, but the 0-60 does look a bit shabby, a good 0.5 secs slower than a M4 Cab, odd. Would be good to compare in gear times.

Bladedancer

1,269 posts

196 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
1.9 tonnes. One point nine. This is as much as my W211 estate.

Edited by Bladedancer on Friday 3rd June 12:24

mikey P 500

1,239 posts

187 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Does look nice. Good to see they have avoided a folding metal roof to keep weight down.

Timbola

1,956 posts

140 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Beautiful. Absolutely lovely thing.

Mercedes's exterior styling department have really nailed the new C coupé and cabrio, and AMG have enhanced those already magnificent lines.

Now they just need to sack the person in the interior styling department who created that cheap, nasty, plastic, stuck-on display unit in the middle of the dash.

Blackpuddin

16,523 posts

205 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
279 said:
said:
0-62mph: 5.2sec/5.1sec
With a full second as a reaction time?
I think this is a typo, 5 instead of a 4, S 0-62 time should be 4.1sec, non-S 4.2.

Edited by Blackpuddin on Friday 3rd June 09:11

swisstoni

16,997 posts

279 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Timbola said:
Beautiful. Absolutely lovely thing.

Mercedes's exterior styling department have really nailed the new C coupé and cabrio, and AMG have enhanced those already magnificent lines.

Now they just need to sack the person in the interior styling department who created that cheap, nasty, plastic, stuck-on display unit in the middle of the dash.
Subjective of course but this picture made me think someone had left some old Nike trainer in a beautiful European town square.

ziggy328

855 posts

214 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
I agree that the 0-62 must be a typo. I've just ordered an e400 cab and it does it in 5.3s.

GranCab

2,902 posts

146 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Text says rear wheel drive ... badge says 4MATIC ... explain please ?

GranCab

2,902 posts

146 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
I think you've managed to post a spurious photo of a white A45 AMG's badge in there ....

Matt Bird

1,450 posts

205 months

PH Reportery Lad

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Hi all,

Apologies for the errors! 0-62 time should indeed by 4.2 and 4.1 seconds, that's now reading correctly. As for the 4Matic badge, that's from the C43 that we'll have a story on soon - our fault for storing all AMG C-Class cabrio pics in one place! C63 definitely, definitely rear-wheel drive...

Cheers,


Matt

9k rpm

521 posts

210 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Matt Bird said:
Hi all,

Apologies for the errors! 0-62 time should indeed by 4.2 and 4.1 seconds, that's now reading correctly. As for the 4Matic badge, that's from the C43 that we'll have a story on soon - our fault for storing all AMG C-Class cabrio pics in one place! C63 definitely, definitely rear-wheel drive...

Cheers,


Matt
God knows what it would have weighed if it was 4WD! tank

How is it so heavy!? The M4 conv is 80kg lighter and has a metal roof! The M3 V8 conv also metal roof weighs the same.

Edited by 9k rpm on Friday 3rd June 10:27


Edited by 9k rpm on Friday 3rd June 10:28

Atmospheric

5,305 posts

208 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
So much fuss over a 0-60 or 62 time?

Bladedancer

1,269 posts

196 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Timbola said:
Beautiful. Absolutely lovely thing.

Mercedes's exterior styling department have really nailed the new C coupé and cabrio, and AMG have enhanced those already magnificent lines.

Now they just need to sack the person in the interior styling department who created that cheap, nasty, plastic, stuck-on display unit in the middle of the dash.
Subjective of course but this picture made me think someone had left some old Nike trainer in a beautiful European town square.
Very subjective as for me Merc is doing some of the ugliest cars out there. Everyone to their own I guess.

J4CKO

41,562 posts

200 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Atmospheric said:
So much fuss over a 0-60 or 62 time?
Yeah, its going to be bonkers quick whatever, cant see anyone thinking it lacks power or performance, 72 grand is eye watering though !

GT119

6,574 posts

172 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Why the jaw-dropped amazement with how heavy these cars are?
The comments seem to indicate that Merc could have made it sooo much lighter.
Almost as if they made it weigh more on purpose just for a laugh, not for any sound engineering/design reasons.
It's plenty fast enough, full of toys, handling is more than acceptable it seems, why does it matter.
I remember the same comments a few years ago when the M3 V8 convertible was tested.
High performance 4-seat luxury convertibles weigh more than their saloon/coupe counterparts, get over it guys.

F1GTRUeno

6,354 posts

218 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
Utterly gopping.

sidesauce

2,476 posts

218 months

Friday 3rd June 2016
quotequote all
GT119 said:
Why the jaw-dropped amazement with how heavy these cars are?
Because the S-Class Coupe S65, a car with a V12 engine, is over 5 metres long, over 2 metres wide and is at least two rungs up Mercedes model hierarchy, has a kerb weight of 2185kgs. In S500 form, it weighs 2030kgs - so why is the smaller C-Class Coupe weigh almost as much?