[absoluteis350]

Great engine (sounds like from the review) but I really, really dislike the exterior of the C class, and this looks just like that.. I liked the look of the old C AMG, I cannot get over how much I dislike the look of the new C.

Glad I didn't wait for this car.

[Oh Captain My Captain]

I'm wondering how people would respond to the vehicle if it was offered in '4-Matic' ?

I'm not a track person in the least, but with the amount of torque this car put out (as well as the M3/4), wouldn't AWD offer better control? If there was a 60/40 rear wheel bias? Not make it standard but have it as an option. I don't think that would upset the track stars and purists too much.

[UK6]

That's a fast taxi, but no thanks.

[tonymac1]

looks like a regular c class to me.

[MFNATIK]

Soft sums it up pretty good. That's both good and bad, just depends on what suits you better.

[RickMonet]

Need to see it in person before I comment strongly on the looks.

But pretty sure I won't be a fan of the entertainment/navi screen looking like they stuck an iPad to the dash.

But the deal breaker is no manual transmission option.

[eff 80]

Give me the c63 engine with the f8x looks and tranny.

[VCP]

Did not hear much that attests to fast laps. Also, nice S63 clone Benz.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by gthal

I posted this in the other thread...

Based on this, it doesn't appear to have really leap frogged the M cars and is likely pretty close overall. Maybe it comes down to what you personally like best. Fair enough.

It seems like the cars maintained their relative character to one another this generation with the C63 being a bit more of a muscle car feel than the M. I bet it will be a great street car and maybe better than the M in that regard. For the track, it initially appears that the M is better suited... not that you see many C63's there anyway.

HOWEVER... the only disappointment for me is that it really doesn't look that aggressive and has a shape that doesn't appeal to me as it is so round and soft looking... very subjective and personal view, obviously... and the wheels are too Grandpa looking and no ability for concavity which is similar to the old C63. The M wins the looks race, IMO, by a mile.

Overall, seems like a great car from MB and will be a big hit. I will defer on my final decision about looks until I can see one in the flesh.

I agree with this.

Performance won't be so different as for there to be a clear winner (Harris said the M3 is more 'taut', the C63 more 'relaxed' but most of us probably won't feel that much of a difference day to day....) and from there, it will be what do you like?

From photos, I agree I much prefer the F80 looks, especially the rear end.

From sound clips, that M177 motor sounds pretty gorgeous.

Interior...things I like about the MB interior, things I dislike. On the whole, I probably like my M for that...(again, all based on photos)

As I said in the other thread I think the C63 looks like a real winner of a car, but nothing about these initial reviews has made me second guess the decision to not wait to test drive one before buying Lucy.

[bimmerking818]

Originally Posted by myzmak

I agree with this.

Performance won't be so different as for there to be a clear winner (Harris said the M3 is more 'taut', the C63 more 'relaxed' but most of us probably won't feel that much of a difference day to day....) and from there, it will be what do you like?

From photos, I agree I much prefer the F80 looks, especially the rear end.

From sound clips, that M177 motor sounds pretty gorgeous.

Interior...things I like about the MB interior, things I dislike. On the whole, I probably like my M for that...(again, all based on photos)

As I said in the other thread I think the C63 looks like a real winner of a car, but nothing about these initial reviews has made me second guess the decision to not wait to test drive one before buying Lucy.

I don't understand why BMW did not do the same with the f80s. They should of kept the v8 and put a twin in that engine. I bet u it would of sounded 100 times better then it sounds now!

[aajami]

Crazy that the only difference in drivetrain between the C63S and the AMG GT S is dry sump lubrication and a DCT transmission.

[ybbiz34]

A few more interior shots:



A little subtler:



There are 3 steering wheel options: 1) Full leather with perforated side grips; 2) Leather with alcantara side grips; 3) Full alcantara (below). All three have the 12 o'clock indicator, like the BMW M Performance wheel.

[ybbiz34]

"Brilliant Blue" -







Standard C-Class:



W205 C63:

[Blksnowflake]

Damn, the difference is like Clark Kent and his glasses, takes them off and he's "unrecognisable" as Superman. Though in this his glasses have been replaced by contact lenses.

MB is just going for the timeless look that ages well over time. They want to be perceived more luxury than track and there's no better way to look timeless than to make a plain bland design. This new style is the Bangle era for MB, except much more bland, round and generic.
A decade later this car will still look nice and cute.

The M3/4 will also age well I think, but in the same way some of those aggressive overt cars aged, like an F40, 2005 STI or even the wild for it's time E30 M3.

The look of this new C63 has grown on me after staring at it for a few days, but that screen really really irks me, and looking back at pictures of the BMW interior it looks more German and classic/analog but with a touch of modern class. The MB looks gorgeous for sure but plasticky and artificial and somewhat cold.

I'm still liking it though and will be excited to see it in person.

[Properstyle]

This is a interesting yet sore topic for me. I have 2010 C63 and I love the out side look of the car as well as the v8, The handling on stock suspension could use alot of improvement but for the most part I love the car. Clearly more torque then amy E90m3 but no where near the same handling ability on stock suspension. The new C63 is freaking ugly as sin. it looks like a baby S class which I really don't like BUT the New C63S performance wise almost has me willing to look past the out side. I mean shit 503 untune or decatted. Thats an easy 550 wheel capible on mild adjustment, and finally they mad it standard for the LSD. adjustable suspension ablity that you can actualy feel. It's going to be close match but I will say I don't think BMW expect that type of comback from benz. to challange the f80.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by UK6

That's a fast taxi, but no thanks.

Hey hey now, this isn't an E-Class we're talking about here.

[Draman]

If I was in the market for this type of car I would probably consider the AMG over the M due to the engine difference, but at the same time I think I'd be disappointed in the overall looks. Love the way the car looks in general (including the interior) but the aesthetic differences between the AMG and the regular C are just too subtle for my taste.

[BoostedTerp]

I liked the looks of the previous gen C63 a lot more. No DCT or manual option is a bummer too, granted I own an F80 but I wouldn't consider a C63 for these reasons alone.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Blksnowflake

Damn, the difference is like Clark Kent and his glasses, takes them off and he's "unrecognisable" as Superman. Though in this his glasses have been replaced by contact lenses.

MB is just going for the timeless look that ages well over time. They want to be perceived more luxury than track and there's no better way to look timeless than to make a plain bland design. This new style is the Bangle era for MB, except much more bland, round and generic.
A decade later this car will still look nice and cute.

The M3/4 will also age well I think, but in the same way some of those aggressive overt cars aged, like an F40, 2005 STI or even the wild for it's time E30 M3.

The look of this new C63 has grown on me after staring at it for a few days, but that screen really really irks me, and looking back at pictures of the BMW interior it looks more German and classic/analog but with a touch of modern class. The MB looks gorgeous for sure but plasticky and artificial and somewhat cold.

I'm still liking it though and will be excited to see it in person.

I agree. This looks like it'll age better than the F80 by a long shot; the M's abrasive fascia cuts provide some more visual menace, but I think it'll be dated far quicker in the long run. That's not to say one looks better than the other, but the C63 has more jewelery and intricacies placed around its body. Less aggressive, more upscale, typical Benz-fare.

It's almost like MB is taking BMW's surfacing (sculpting based on deep scallops and light/shadow interplay) and merging it with Audi's calculated, conservative proportions and sharp styling elements (heavy but tasteful use of brightwork, intricate inserts and mesh pieces, more graphics-based than body-based as opposed to BMW). It's a good look that suits an older demographic.

[rantarM3]

It looks like there's no sunroof on the C63 (presumably as standard equipment). It would be great if you could order one without a sunroof.

[ybbiz34]

Top Gear Reviews the W205 C63 S (2/26/15):

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/m...ive-2015-02-26

"What's this, then?

It's the new Mercedes-AMG C63 S, a subtle name change to reflect the super-saloon's subtle new styling. In fact, this C63 is hardly more aggressive than any C-Class busied up with a few choice AMG styling touches.

But when you look a bit closer, there are tell-tales that this is a bit more than a C250 CDi with swanky wheels. First up, there are a couple of AMG powerdomes on the bonnet, and a front bumper with a pair of massive airdams through which you can see nothing but radiator - always a good sign.

Then there are front wings gently flared to cover a wider track, and the cars sits low but not ridiculously so on 19-inch rims - 18s on the standard car. Front and rear are linked by a set of subtle sill extensions, and there's an almost vestigial stub of a rear spoiler on the bootlid with a pair of rectangular exhausts either side of the rear valance.

Yes, there are a few ‘V8 Biturbo' badges knocking about, but visually lairy, this is not. It is, however, one of those quiet, bookish types who happens to be a part-time ninja.

How so?

Well, under the bonnet of this sober-looking saloon is a wet-sumped version of the AMG GT sports car's 4.0 V8 Biturbo (their codenames are only one digit apart, being 'M177' and ‘M178').

That means 510bhp and 516lb ft for the ‘S' we have here, 476bhp and 480lb ft as a standard C63. Rest to 62mph is dealt with in four seconds flat, and the car is limited to 155mph. Which - on paper at least - makes it a proper thundersaloon.

What about the chassis?

This is a proper re-working rather than an enhancement of a top-end Merc. The front suspension consists of four links and a wider track than the previous generation C63, the rear a similarly slightly fatter-tracked traditional multi-link with independent mounts.

Both ends are tied together by AMG's electronically-controlled ride-control system, offering three strata of firmness: comfort, sport and sport+, accessed from a series of buttons around the touchpad controller. The S also gets a further option in the COMAND system called ‘Race', that allows the driver to play with the various functions (engine response, damping, ‘box and exhaust) to optimise their own preferred set-up, linked to an S-specific electronic rear differential.

And the transmission?

It's Merc's ‘AMG SpeedShift MCT-7', but uprated to punt out what the company refers to as ‘significantly quicker shift times'. The standard car gets a straight mechanical locking rear diff, and the S gets that electronic version which apparently reacts a little quicker and adds a level of finesse when matched to the bespoke modes in the Race function.

Other fun stuff includes a Race Start function (left-foot brake in either Sport+ or Race, pull both paddles, acknowledge by pulling the right hand paddle, floor the accelerator and lift brake), which gives picture-perfect starts every time.

Also, there's the usual suite of traction and stability controls to keep everything pointing in vaguely the desired direction, a completely re-worked set of complicated algorithms that mean that the C63 should help you be a hero without feeling patronised.

Does it work?

Oh yes. The engine feels barely turbocharged, with a delivery that is elastic, responsive and hammer effective. There's a vague feeling that there's too much torque in the mid-range for a normally-aspirated car, and there's a faint turbo whistle, but it really does just feel like a car with a much bigger, non-turbo motor.

What that means is that it reacts faithfully to the throttle, every time. No muss, no fuss. Of course, you can play with the way it delivers its power via the various modes, but it's never anything short of impressive.

How does it sound?

Magnificent. The C63 warbles away like sub-bass through a thin wall at idle, and then sonically transforms into a howling bass at full throttle in Race and Sport+. It also does the most delicious backfires and crackles on the overrun - and unlike some manufacturers who ‘engineer in' identical off-throttle cackling that sounds the same every time (and hence makes you feel a little hoodwinked), the new C63 has a full range of spits, gobbles, cracks and bangs.

Can it go round corners?

It can. This isn't just a C with a big motor dropped into it. There's sophistication running through the whole thing. The ride is firm - even in Comfort mode - but the staging is well-judged to the point where you really can drive it in Sport+ without needing to be on a track.

And when you really start to drive hard, the car immediately comes with you. Turn-in is sharp rather than darty, and the C doesn't seem to lean - just like the AMG GT, it features active engine mounts that slacken to reduce vibration and NVH from the engine/gearbox combo during cruising, and tighten during more committed driving to improve response.

It basically reduces disturbing inertia in the oily bits during cornering, leading to a more instant-feeling response from the steering wheel. Result? You can pick a line and stick with it without constantly second-guessing the balance between under and oversteer.

The gearbox is quick, although not quite as slick as a DSG, but is regular and useful and predictable, even when it shifts itself rather than using the paddles.

Will it drift?

Delete the electronic minders and there's plenty of slewing about like a hooligan to be had if you desire, but the C63 rewards tidiness more than anything. And if you really just want to smoke antisocially, it will also do quite ridiculous rolling burnouts.

I know it's pointless, but interesting that AMG still let you take the reins if you want to be silly. It's a real feel-good car, and I think even more so when you get out of it and realise it just looks so normal. I hesitate to use the word ‘boring', but there's a defined under-the-radar vibe to this car.

It has good brakes, too. Just in case you get too enthusiastic, which you probably will. Try 390mm discs at the front and barely smaller 360mm discs on the rear. I would, however, option the carbon ceramics if you like going fast or intend any sort of track work - on our test route we managed to sort of set fire to the optional set-up, so I doubt the steel stoppers will be better.

What's it like on the inside?

Special without being gaudy or overdone. There's a flat-bottomed, slightly too-thick steering wheel, fabulous deep, contoured seats and lots of little carbon and AMG touches that make the car feel reassuringly expensive. Top options include lovely Burmester surround-sound audio, an even louder variable AMG sports exhaust, head-up display and intelligent LED headlights.

There's also an ‘Edition 1' variant for the UK, which costs £73,500 and gets bespoke finishes and extra bobbins. Basically it's a gussied-up S to celebrate the launch of the car.

Another little kicker comes in the shape of the C63 Estate from £60,995. Just about the perfect size, pretty much all of the performance (same top speed, only 0.1 seconds added to either model's 0-62mph time, less than 1mpg less efficient) and even less likely to attract attention, it's a properly attractive semi-sleeper. But we've always been suckers for a fast wagon here at Top Gear.

Is it, um, economical?

Officially, the new engine is a third more efficient than the old 6.2-litre naturally-aspirated V8 in the previous generation C-class. That's impressive, and apparently provides the new C63 with the ability to do nearly 35mpg driven carefully. For a car with more than 500bhp, that's extraordinary. Also pretty unlikely - we got around 25mpg.

Should I buy one?

The obvious competition comes in the shape of BMW's M3, and I have to say that, for me, the C63 is a better car. More duality, more confidence, all of the performance. But when you have a car that's subtle-but-good-looking, an absolute joy to drive quickly without scaring you witless, capable of carrying the family and putting the wind up a serious sports car, you know you've got a winner."

[rjd598]

find it funny how the m3 is only mentioned ONCE in a "review". hmmmmm