W205 C63 Officially Announced

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by Ezio

going to be faster than a M3 watch...

+1. We know the M3 is underrated, and just like the e63, this will be too.

And given that a C63 LCI was faster on many tracks than the e9x m3, this car is going to be either ahead of the m3/4 or pretty equal.

We all know that even though the C63 Black Series was 510 hp and 4000 plus lbs, it bested the 3400 lbs 450 hp M3 GTS with relative ease.

As I said, Merc at their best, BMW simply cant compete with. BMW is too busy making underperforming and ugly hyrids like the i8.

[dmk08]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

+1. We know the M3 is underrated, and just like the e63, this will be too.

And given that a C63 LCI was faster on many tracks than the e9x m3, this car is going to be either ahead of the m3/4 or pretty equal.

We all know that even though the C63 Black Series was 510 hp and 4000 plus lbs, it bested the 3400 lbs 450 hp M3 GTS with relative ease.

As I said, Merc at their best, BMW simply cant compete with. BMW is too busy making underperforming and ugly hyrids like the i8.

Wait so the M4 is underrated now? lol

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by dmk08

Wait so the M4 is underrated now? lol

Well, the M4 made 484 hp on Dinan's engine dyno. They posted a thread here with detailed graphs.

So yeah, I'd say the M4 is a bit underrated from the factory. I believe that is what the poster was referring to.

[danniexi]

omfg can't wait.

i had my eyes set on the F80 M3 as my next car, but the W205 has certainly swayed my decision. so exciting!

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by dmk08

Wait so the M4 is underrated now? lol

Yes, when people are putting down 420-420 RWHP on a stock car, yes thats pretty damn underrated.

And when Dinan does an engine dyno that shows crank hp at 484, pretty safe to say this car is making about 60 mpre hp than stated or ~14% more than the factory rating.

[dmk08]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

Yes, when people are putting down 420-420 RWHP on a stock car, yes thats pretty damn underrated.

And when Dinan does an engine dyno that shows crank hp at 484, pretty safe to say this car is making about 60 mpre hp than stated or ~14% more than the factory rating.

I just thought you were one of the main people arguing against this point for a long time. I definitely think it's underrated fwiw

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Well, the W204 C63 507 Edition managed a 12.2 1/4 mile @ 117+ mph with both Car & Driver and Motor Trend (it also handled the 0-60 sprint in 3.8 seconds with those same two publications).

In the Motor Trend comparison against the AWD RS5, the RWD C63 recorded a quicker 1/4 mile time and a quicker 0-60 time.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...07_comparison/

The 507 was equipped with 255-section rear tires (Continental ContiSportContact 5P).

I'm a drag strip novice and my personal best time with my '13 C63 is 12.1 (on 255-section Continental ExtremeContact DWs), although I know those that have made it into the 11s bone stock.

The new W205 C63 has been spied with larger 265-section tires in the rear (every mule has had these). The car will weigh 220+ lbs than the previous generation.

Two questions:

1) Given those numbers above, how did the W204 fail to put the power down (especially considering it put down numbers that were better than the AWD RS5)?

2) What makes you say the W205 will fail to put the power down, given the fact that no one has tested it yet?

Now, keep in mind, I'm not arguing that the C63 couldn't put down better numbers with AWD. I just don't understand why you are speculating about potential poor performance with the W205 when the W204's most powerful iteration put down better numbers that one of its AWD rivals (the RS5).

Thats not all that impressive. 12.2@117 could have easily been 11.7 with the same trap. I did 11.91@115 in my 5300lb+ Jeep SRT8, with just 530hp, thanks to its AWD, and similar times with my X5M (though with 100hp more). With my CTS-V though, I couldn't get the power down and the times suffered, even though she trapped at over 120mph. Breaking traction at 100mph tends to do that.

Look at the Hellcat. 707hp yet the times are barely better than the 580hp ZL1. It can't launch or use first gear because its only got power to 2 wheels. Yet the much less powerful GT-R and 911 Turbo put down better times. AWD FTW.

BTW, can't really compare the RS5 to the 507 edition C63. Its got 57 less hp and gobs less torque. AWD can't make make up for an inferior engine, which the 4.2 most certainly is.

Its come to a point where tires technology simply hasn't kept up with engine tech. Engines make way more power than just 2 tires can effectively put down. Hell, last night my 750 squealed all 4, and I wasn't even hard on the gas. Until tire tech catches up, AWD will be considered a must have on performance cars. AMG put it on their more expensive cars because I thought they realized that, and maybe on those cars they did. Perhaps they're making the C63 for hooligans who don't care about real performance and are just interested in making smoke. Thats pretty much what high powered 2wd cars on street tires do best.

Just my $0.10.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by dmk08

I just thought you were one of the main people arguing against this point for a long time. I definitely think it's underrated fwiw

Noooo...Ive been saying its way underrated since the start. I also said from the start it would weigh about the same as the e9x m3 did which is also correct.
I do however think given the car has about 500 hp it doesnt perform like a 500 hp car. 500 hp car should be trapping well into the 120 range and this one is like 117-119 based on results seen thus far.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by ///MCFC

i absolutely love what i've seen about this car so far. any rumors on pricing yet?

Since historically it's been priced around the same range as an M3, I'd imagine it would still be priced around that ballpark, so $65k-$90k depending on options.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

+1. We know the M3 is underrated, and just like the e63, this will be too.

And given that a C63 LCI was faster on many tracks than the e9x m3, this car is going to be either ahead of the m3/4 or pretty equal.

We all know that even though the C63 Black Series was 510 hp and 4000 plus lbs, it bested the 3400 lbs 450 hp M3 GTS with relative ease.

As I said, Merc at their best, BMW simply cant compete with. BMW is too busy making underperforming and ugly hyrids like the i8.

IMO when i heard the specs on the M4 i knew BMW would be in trouble. IMO the M4 needed at least 500HP to really dominate its competition.

[davis449]

Thats not all that impressive. 12.2@117 could have easily been 11.7 with the same trap. I did 11.91@115 in my 5300lb+ Jeep SRT8, with just 530hp, thanks to its AWD, and similar times with my X5M (though with 100hp more). With my CTS-V though, I couldn't get the power down and the times suffered, even though she trapped at over 120mph. Breaking traction at 100mph tends to do that.

Look at the Hellcat. 707hp yet the times are barely better than the 580hp ZL1. It can't launch or use first gear because its only got power to 2 wheels. Yet the much less powerful GT-R and 911 Turbo put down better times. AWD FTW.

BTW, can't really compare the RS5 to the 507 edition C63. Its got 57 less hp and gobs less torque. AWD can't make make up for an inferior engine, which the 4.2 most certainly is.

Its come to a point where tires technology simply hasn't kept up with engine tech. Engines make way more power than just 2 tires can effectively put down. Hell, last night my 750 squealed all 4, and I wasn't even hard on the gas. Until tire tech catches up, AWD will be considered a must have on performance cars. AMG put it on their more expensive cars because I thought they realized that, and maybe on those cars they did. Perhaps they're making the C63 for hooligans who don't care about real performance and are just interested in making smoke. Thats pretty much what high powered 2wd cars on street tires do best.

Just my $0.10.

Now I'm gonna preface this by saying I previously owned two AWD cars (modded, decently powerful ones) that I very much enjoyed driving. You need to re-think your entire post here in reference to what type of "performance" is desired in relation to whether or not AWD is "required". Just think about it...'cause as it stands right now, from certain aspects, you are entirely wrong and can be easily proven so.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Ezio

IMO when i heard the specs on the M4 i knew BMW would be in trouble. IMO the M4 needed at least 500HP to really dominate its competition.

See, this is so stupid. People said the same thing about your beloved E92 when it came out! "Only" 420? Well the Benz has more, so it's going to get pillaged by the C63 AND the RS4. You can't just look at everything on paper. What about things like weight?

Personally, I'm looking forward to the C63, but I'm honestly looking to downsize to a smaller model now.

[solstice]

An estate would be awesome. Is it coming to the US?
Estate or sedan it's going to be brutal. Hopefully the handling will finally feel as crisp and athletic as an M3. Interesting times.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by W///

See, this is so stupid. People said the same thing about your beloved E92 when it came out! "Only" 420? Well the Benz has more, so it's going to get pillaged by the C63 AND the RS4. You can't just look at everything on paper. What about things like weight?

Personally, I'm looking forward to the C63, but I'm honestly looking to downsize to a smaller model now.

but when it came out, it had the power in comparison to what was out. i mean a mustang GT had 300HP in 2007. Was just as fast as the 911 of those days also. It wasn't until a few years later when other cars really stepped it up.

of course its not all about power. there are just so many fast cars out today, the M3 is less appealing than ever before IMO. I honestly think the golden days of the M3 are over. the E46 days, and its never going to get back to that. the E92 wasn't even that great of a car, i just really really love this engine.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

At a certain point, if you go too wide, you start to get a mushy sidewall.

ONLY if your wheels are super narrow.......kinda like Mercedes c class amg wheels (9 inch wide rears)



its all relative to the width of the wheel of course

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by swanson

Think about this. The last C63 weighed 38XXlbs and was plenty fast, this one is gonna weigh about 200lbs or so less, with more hp and that massive torque. I cant see anything in its class that can compete. We know nothing about the ATS-V yet, but I hope its gonna have close to 500hp or its not gonna compare.

lets wait to see what it actually weighs first

the list of cars that have overpromised on weight targets is very long

-mustang gt
-corvette
-m3
-m235
-standard c class
-audi a3/s3

to name a few

[VMRWheels]

Originally Posted by 5soko

Man, i cant wait to see what this car offers. I am more excited for this debut then i was for the M3/M4...

+1

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Ezio

but when it came out, it had the power in comparison to what was out. i mean a mustang GT had 300HP in 2007. Was just as fast as the 911 of those days also. It wasn't until a few years later when other cars really stepped it up.

of course its not all about power. there are just so many fast cars out today, the M3 is less appealing than ever before IMO. I honestly think the golden days of the M3 are over. the E46 days, and its never going to get back to that. the E92 wasn't even that great of a car, i just really really love this engine.

aren't you like 19??

what do you know about golden days? or any of these cars?

have you even driven any of these cars you talk about? on the track? any experience on track? ive owned and tracked 3 different m cars, and will track my f8x too. you don't have any perspective to speak from on these cars, so why try?

I can tell you first off that a car that traps 119mph stock (like the m3) is a freaking handful on the street and track. both this and the c63 are really fast cars and IMO cater to different people.

the m3 still offers something that the merc cant offer, a more raw and unfiltered experience. lighter weight, light weight tech, more sophisticated differential and suspension tech and a manual. doesn't mean those things appeal to everyone, but the m3 exists in this form because they do to many of us

EDIT : and FYI, the e92 came out in the USA the same year the much more powerful c63 did. and the audi rs4 already made 420 hp since 2006

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by davis449

Now I'm gonna preface this by saying I previously owned two AWD cars (modded, decently powerful ones) that I very much enjoyed driving. You need to re-think your entire post here in reference to what type of "performance" is desired in relation to whether or not AWD is "required". Just think about it...'cause as it stands right now, from certain aspects, you are entirely wrong and can be easily proven so.

Performance is acceleration, handing and braking. Acceleration is helped by AWD because the power isn't going up in smoke. Handling is helped in the same way, 4 wheels pulling, no rear wheel spin and ridiculous, time hurting drifts. Braking isn't helped as much, though you could say the extra weight on the front of the car helps push the tires into the ground since the weight shifts forward on braking and the front brakes do a lions share of the work. Then you have the intangibles, like confidence. The more confidence you have, the harder you're likely to push the car, and AWD greatly helps with that. Ask anybody who's driven a GT-R.

What part of it is wrong?

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Mike_L

Performance is acceleration, handing and braking. Acceleration is helped by AWD because the power isn't going up in smoke. Handling is helped in the same way, 4 wheels pulling, no rear wheel spin and ridiculous, time hurting drifts. Braking isn't helped as much, though you could say the extra weight on the front of the car helps push the tires into the ground since the weight shifts forward on braking and the front brakes do a lions share of the work. Then you have the intangibles, like confidence. The more confidence you have, the harder you're likely to push the car, and AWD greatly helps with that. Ask anybody who's driven a GT-R.

What part of it is wrong?

Depending on the car, AWD systems have been known to induce more understeer than RWD alternatives, so handling would take a hit. Plus, they're more expensive (obviously since there are more parts involved) and they're gonna weigh more than if the car started off on a RWD platform.

Otherwise, AWD cars with true torque vectoring will help mitigate some of that understeer and make it an epic performer (see GT-R, 997 and up 911 Turbo/S etc etc.)

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Mike_L

Thats not all that impressive. 12.2@117 could have easily been 11.7 with the same trap. I did 11.91@115 in my 5300lb+ Jeep SRT8, with just 530hp, thanks to its AWD, and similar times with my X5M (though with 100hp more). With my CTS-V though, I couldn't get the power down and the times suffered, even though she trapped at over 120mph. Breaking traction at 100mph tends to do that.

Look at the Hellcat. 707hp yet the times are barely better than the 580hp ZL1. It can't launch or use first gear because its only got power to 2 wheels. Yet the much less powerful GT-R and 911 Turbo put down better times. AWD FTW.

BTW, can't really compare the RS5 to the 507 edition C63. Its got 57 less hp and gobs less torque. AWD can't make make up for an inferior engine, which the 4.2 most certainly is.

Its come to a point where tires technology simply hasn't kept up with engine tech. Engines make way more power than just 2 tires can effectively put down. Hell, last night my 750 squealed all 4, and I wasn't even hard on the gas. Until tire tech catches up, AWD will be considered a must have on performance cars. AMG put it on their more expensive cars because I thought they realized that, and maybe on those cars they did. Perhaps they're making the C63 for hooligans who don't care about real performance and are just interested in making smoke. Thats pretty much what high powered 2wd cars on street tires do best.

Just my $0.10.

You've had an impressive array of high-performance vehicles!

I know several folks that have hit the high 11s (11.8-9) in stock* C63s (*with drag radials).

Personally, I disagree that AWD is a must-have on modern "performance" cars. Proper driving techniques and proper tires can make up for the lack of all-wheel traction.

Sure, AWD makes it easier (in some respects) to track a car on street tires at a road course. I still prefer a car with a tendency to oversteer over one with a tendency for understeer.

Out of curiosity, what are you thoughts on the new M3/M4 then? Or the new Corvette Stingray? Too much power and torque since they're both RWD platforms?

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

aren't you like 19??

what do you know about golden days? or any of these cars?

have you even driven any of these cars you talk about? on the track? any experience on track? ive owned and tracked 3 different m cars, and will track my f8x too. you don't have any perspective to speak from on these cars, so why try?

I can tell you first off that a car that traps 119mph stock (like the m3) is a freaking handful on the street and track. both this and the c63 are really fast cars and IMO cater to different people.

the m3 still offers something that the merc cant offer, a more raw and unfiltered experience. lighter weight, light weight tech, more sophisticated differential and suspension tech and a manual. doesn't mean those things appeal to everyone, but the m3 exists in this form because they do to many of us

EDIT : and FYI, the e92 came out in the USA the same year the much more powerful c63 did. and the audi rs4 already made 420 hp since 2006

it really has nothing to do with if someone has been on a track . YES i have some track experience. Last time i was at the track i was driving a rented SLS AMG.

it has to do with the point of view from the car buyer. My self, i am looking for a car within a certain price point. I weigh my options out. It just feels like other car companies are do more appealing stuff. thats really all it is.

I mean , ford is about to come out with a high revving flat plane N/A V8 with 600HP. that is totally insane.... thats something Ferrari would do, FORD ? ???