Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls
This is the last thing I'm going to post because clearly you still don't understand comparing cars to arrive at a meaningful conclusion (which some of us are arguing) vs. comparing cars at a certain price.
Forget about options because it seems to overcomplicate the simple fact that if I was in the market with a budget, would I buy a M3/M4 for $62k/64k or a C63 AMG for $62k? I'm not even looking at a C63S that cost $10,000 more. I don't care if the C63 doesn't come with stuff the M3 has and vice versa. Each company has their own idea what they think is a good package and what options are available. If the C63 AMG didn't have option X but the M3 did, I would want to know that and see how it affected the car to come to a conclusion that I could use.
What you and all all these reviews are saying is that for an additional $10k, you should be getting a faster, stronger and likely more capable C63. Well, no shit. You spent $10k more over a M3/M4 and the base C63 but I still don't know if a C63 is a good car. Does the C63 not match up well with the M3/M4 that I need to spend an additional $10k for the C63S?
|
I wasn't even talking about price My comments were toward this, You clearly seemed to be missing it.
"all reviews are comparing the C63 S to the M3.. they should compare the normal C63 to it untill a comp pack M3 is out.. "
They NEVER COMPARED A BASE C63 TO M3. every c63 that has ever been compared were c63s varants I wasn't looking at price as a BASE m3 isn't even being used and When you have 9k brakes being used on the m3s is price really even a mark to compare? If you use a m3 with the brake pakages that is damn near equal to the price of the c63S if you really want to argue price.
So if you want to make that comparision then the m3 also needs to be the complete based performance option model. (yet to be done).