Mercedes C63 AMG > BMW E92 M3?

[billers]

Everyone needs to stop with the technicalities. Yes, per litre the Merc produces less power, and yes, the BMW is balanced, and yes, the BMW has anal German technology and so on. But who cares when in the Merc you have a big, chunky axe murderer of a V8 that shouts and produces not only 30-40bhp more than the BMW, but 150 more torques. A hundred and fifty. That makes a difference. The BMW is just far too boring. The Merc is fun. And just for that reason, I couldn't give a flying 🤬 about which is marginally faster and which has F1 technology and so on.

Love it, can't agree any more! The BMW is just too boring, and for too many footballers and salesman have them so enough said!

 

[BobbyBRAKEaNek]

I prefer M3 over C63 any day.

Fixed...👍

 

[Tzun]

Everyone needs to stop with the technicalities. Yes, per litre the Merc produces less power, and yes, the BMW is balanced, and yes, the BMW has anal German technology and so on. But who cares when in the Merc you have a big, chunky axe murderer of a V8 that shouts and produces not only 30-40bhp more than the BMW, but 150 more torques. A hundred and fifty. That makes a difference. The BMW is just far too boring. The Merc is fun. And just for that reason, I couldn't give a flying 🤬 about which is marginally faster and which has F1 technology and so on.

This! THIS! THIS IS THE THRUTH! THIS!

 

[CarNut11]

The BMW is just too boring, and far too many footballers and salesman have them so enough said!

Exactly right. The drivers are the only things more hateful than the M3 itself.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I like driving the C63 better than the BMW.

Everyone needs to stop with the technicalities. Yes, per litre the Merc produces less power, and yes, the BMW is balanced, and yes, the BMW has anal German technology. But who cares when in the Merc you have a big, chunky axe murderer of a V8 that shouts and produces not only 30-40bhp more than the BMW, but 150 more torques. A hundred and fifty. That makes a difference. The BMW is just far too boring. The Merc is fun. And just for that reason, I couldn't give a flying 🤬 about which is marginally faster and which has F1 technology and so on.

And who cares if the M3 is ever so slightly faster around the Nürburgring? The drivers probably won't even notice, they'll be too busy with their head up their own backside.

This.

 

[HeXoSKEL3t0n]

Is the Mercedes simply better than the BMW in this case?

I did a comparison on two stock cars, driven about 20 miles each, with racing soft tires and an oil change. The speed test results had the C63 ahead everywhere except for Gs generated (didn't do a top speed test), then I took them to the twistiest track I could think of, the Nordword, and I took the M3 around, fastest I could manage was just under a 1:07, the C63 beat that with a 1:06.5.

So... perhaps if I hotted them both up, but I thought I saw a turbo option for the C63 and not the M3, besides, while the M3 will finish lighter, the C63 has a head start in BHP 'before' adding a turbo on top.

Is it true? I was hoping not, in the real world people say the M3 will be faster because the C63 will just make smoke... I could try sports hard/soft tires, but something tells me the results won't end up favourable for the M3 anyway.

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/17907684.jpg

 

[Supermelon]

I believe the M3 is able to achieve a level of driver and car connection, a direct linkage of the drivers mind and the cars movement together, if you will. Kind of like the Jinba Ittai slogan used for the Miata MX-5.

The amount of fun in the C63 is measured in the amount of long smoky drifts and huge adrenaline rush from the mountainous torque. No doubt this is very fun and can make the M3 seem very boring in comparison, but once you take a deeper look at the M3 from a different perspective, it can be seen that both cars are engineered to entertain in their own special way.

The M3 is different from the C63 in the way it interacts with the driver. It is designed in a way that can accurately convey the drivers inputs into vehicle motion. Everything from the vehicle's cornering balance to the steering feedback allows the driver to be involved in the driving experience. This level of instantaneous feedback and interaction is something the C63 lacks a bit. A simple example is the standard manual transmission, I'm sure that those who have driven a manual will agree that no matter how much quicker the shifts are or how much more faster it is around the track, the automatic still isn't quite able to substitute the level of driver interaction a proper manual can give. The M3 is designed to provide an intimate driving experience to the driver and creates a type of fun different from that of the C63.

 

[Finduszip]

You'll get the M3 if you want a balanced car that also could be practical. You get the C63 when you want to spin around and create alot of smoke so that nobody can see and everyone will die in a big, horrible accident.
And car accidents are more fun than balanced driving, so get the C63.

 

[Vegard]

Both are great cars in their own right.
If you really want to see how these cars compare, drive them stock, on comfort soft tyres, with fuel and tyre depletion on.

For me the Benz is a hot rod. Big engine, big noise, simple construction.
The BMW is more of a pure sports car with its high rpm engine, better balance, and that magnificent diff.

For road use, Mercedes. For track work, there is no competition. BMW by a mile.
Even Clarkson admitted that.

 

[CarNut11]

I believe the M3 is able to achieve a level of driver and car connection, a direct linkage of the drivers mind and the cars movement together, if you will. Kind of like the Jinba Ittai slogan used for the Miata MX-5.

The amount of fun in the C63 is measured in the amount of long smoky drifts and huge adrenaline rush from the mountainous torque. No doubt this is very fun and can make the M3 seem very boring in comparison, but once you take a deeper look at the M3 from a different perspective, it can be seen that both cars are engineered to entertain in their own special way.

The M3 is different from the C63 in the way it interacts with the driver. It is designed in a way that can accurately convey the drivers inputs into vehicle motion. Everything from the vehicle's cornering balance to the steering feedback allows the driver to be involved in the driving experience. This level of instantaneous feedback and interaction is something the C63 lacks a bit. A simple example is the standard manual transmission, I'm sure that those who have driven a manual will agree that no matter how much quicker the shifts are or how much more faster it is around the track, the automatic still isn't quite able to substitute the level of driver interaction a proper manual can give. The M3 is designed to provide an intimate driving experience to the driver and creates a type of fun different from that of the C63.

TOO MANY TECHNICALITIES. The BMW feels precise, but overall a bit too dull. It does not make you smile. It has no sense of humour whatsoever. It's a characterless robot with a plethora of diffs and electronics and acronyms that make it go round corners millimetrically perfect. So only half of it is the driver. The other half is some German geezer's expertise. It's not fun in the slightest. Fast, yes, but less thrilling than a Jane Austen novel.

The AMG, on the other hand, is a maniac. It is a dog with a waggly tail, at it's happiest when it chews it's own tyres in a cloud of smoking rubber. A challenge to control, yes, but that's the fun of it. It's more rewarding holding a huge 460bhp powerslide than going round a corner .002 of a second faster than the lap before. And on straights...it blows the BMW into the weeds and smears dog poo over it's drab, robotic face, to such an extent that the lap times on a track in the C63 end up only marginally slower than the M3. And when driving on roads normally, it turns into a docile, burbling Mercedes-Benz. Go to a track, turn the pointless traction control off, and it turns into a raving, screaming, chaotic AMG. In both cases, it's absolutely stunning.

It's a choice between precision and thrills. And for me, that's a no-brainer. The AMG is phenomenal.

Both are great cars in their own right.
If you really want to see how these cars compare, drive them stock, on comfort soft tyres, with fuel and tyre depletion on.

For me the Benz is a hot rod. Big engine, big noise, simple construction.
The BMW is more of a pure sports car with its high rpm engine, better balance, and that magnificent diff.

For road use, Mercedes. For track work, there is no competition. BMW by a mile.
Even Clarkson admitted that.

Clarkson is sort of right; the BMW, on a track, is probably slightly quicker than the Merc. It is very balanced, very precise. But fun is what makes cars enjoyable, not psychotic attention to detail. The 6.2-litre axe-murderer is laugh-out-loud mad. The 4.0-litre accountant is tedious.

 

[symustafa1996]

The M3 has been claimed to be the best car ever by quite a large number of car magazines and reviewers. The C63 is just too much to handle. I mean, it may be fun and drifty on track, but imagine driving it on a mountain road in Switzerland. I did this with a friend's C63, and it was quite scary. The handling was quite wild. But the noise was amazing.
The M3 just handles better. It's the obvious choice for the track day driver who also wants to go home in the same car. It's the benchmark sport saloon, along with the M5.

And I still kinda regret buying an E63 AMG.

 

[W3H5]

Cool, you got an E63 AMG, nice ride. Got any pictures?

I quite like the look of the convertible one, from around '94 I believe.

 

[hawkeye122]

Where were you in Switzerland? Was it in the Alps?