C63 AMG - Has anybody owned or driven one? How does it compare to S4?

[drew4392]

I've seen a number of threads where specs are compared... or hearsay is shared... but curious to hear from those that have actually owned or driven a C63.
What are your overall impressions?

Handling ability?

I know they are powerful, but are they that much faster than our S4s with tunes?

Interior is the same as C class, so probably not as nice as S4.


Thanks!


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[jedirocker]

Two guys I know started out wanting the Audi RS5, but because the Audi dealers in Dallas area don't stock them, they both bought the C63 AMG.

[svirk2]

Amgs are crazy muscle cars. They don't handle extremely well, but it doesn't need to because they are built for doing donuts. Even my c43 gets sideways for no reason

[blackESfour]

before buying my s4 i test drove C63 M3 S4 CTS V, loved all of them but then it came to practicality of the cars. where i live, what is needed for my area etc. I chose the s4. The others i really had fun in but couldnt see myself driving them other than beautiful days and shorter drives at a time. I recently met up with a new c63 idk if he had the performance option for his car, but i have a stg2 tune/pulley, headers intake, cps, exhaust, and i was only neck and neck with him up to 135 but he wasnt gaining anything nor was i. i was super impressed because i know i pull on m3's all the time. Overall i love that car the sound of the motor, and with headers and exhaust its amazing. but for my needs the s4 is for me. if you dont need awd by you, go for the C63. that was the only thing holding me away from RWD.

[S4charged]

They don't handle that well from what I've heard. Tires need to be changed every 5-10K miles depending on how you drive?

No doubt that 6.2 motor is amazing. Tune + headers puts these things above our stage 2+ cars I believe. They have insane top end.

[drew4392]

Yea... practicality is pretty much the deciding factor here... handling and gas mileage are the show-stoppers.

[chrissswww]

I had a 09 c63 before I got the 13 S5. The sound of the c63 is way better than the v6t, but you can get a aftermarket exhaust for the s4. I'm in LA too so weather is not a problem for the rwd c63. The mainteinance is pretty much the same, I went to local shops to do the oil changes. I had my tire changed every 15k since I don't smoke my tires that often. Gas mileage is terrible compared to the v6t, the gas tank is too small for a 6.2 car. The exterior and interior is up to your own taste. I wouldn't be paying attention to the interior if I was driving a powerful car as long as it has navigation and bluetooth audio. I'm 6'1'' and 190 lbs, the seats on the 4-door c63 is too small for me, I mean the sides are too tight, the seats on the c63 coupe are ok. For handling, I never tracked my car, but the tires on the c63 are just too skinny for such a powerful car (235f/255r). I never stepped the pedal above 2k rpm when I was making a turn or on a ramp. C63 is more powerful at high speeds than the v6t, and with a simple ecu tune, it goes 510 at the crank just like the CLS63, E63, ML63, etc. With a few thousand more, you change the headers, exhaust, and reflash the ecu to stage 2, it becomes a beast. Again, you have to becareful because of the tires. I planned to custom the rear fenders and put on some 285 tires but I didn't want to spend so much money on a 09 car so I got the new S5. I like the S5 over the c63. Although the s5 doesn't make that much sound, it drives smoother, more comfortable and saves a lot of gas. If you don't always race on highways and drive 100+, there's no big difference between the acceleration, and now I can floor the car when I make a turn, lol. I deleted the resonator on the S5, replaced it with a x-pipe, removed the soundaktor fuse and it sounds very mean. Sry for my bad english, but hope it helps.

[drew4392]

I had a 09 c63 before I got the 13 S5. The sound of the c63 is way better than the v6t, but you can get a aftermarket exhaust for the s4. I'm in LA too so weather is not a problem for the rwd c63. The mainteinance is pretty much the same, I went to local shops to do the oil changes. I had my tire changed every 15k since I don't smoke my tires that often. Gas mileage is terrible compared to the v6t, the gas tank is too small for a 6.2 car. The exterior and interior is up to your own taste. I wouldn't be paying attention to the interior if I was driving a powerful car as long as it has navigation and bluetooth audio. I'm 6'1'' and 190 lbs, the seats on the 4-door c63 is too small for me, I mean the sides are too tight, the seats on the c63 coupe are ok. For handling, I never tracked my car, but the tires on the c63 are just too skinny for such a powerful car (235f/255r). I never stepped the pedal above 2k rpm when I was making a turn or on a ramp. C63 is more powerful at high speeds than the v6t, and with a simple ecu tune, it goes 510 at the crank just like the CLS63, E63, ML63, etc. With a few thousand more, you change the headers, exhaust, and reflash the ecu to stage 2, it becomes a beast. Again, you have to becareful because of the tires. I planned to custom the rear fenders and put on some 285 tires but I didn't want to spend so much money on a 09 car so I got the new S5. I like the S5 over the c63. Although the s5 doesn't make that much sound, it drives smoother, more comfortable and saves a lot of gas. If you don't always race on highways and drive 100+, there's no big difference between the acceleration, and now I can floor the car when I make a turn, lol. I deleted the resonator on the S5, replaced it with a x-pipe, removed the soundaktor fuse and it sounds very mean. Sry for my bad english, but hope it helps.

Very helpful! Thanks for sharing. Exactly the points I was looking for.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[bmoney]

I currently own a 2012 C63 and previously had a 2010 Audi S4. The only thing I miss about the S4 is the tranny. The MCT tranny in the 2012+ C63 is good but not as good as a true dual clutch. Other than that the C63 is better in every way in my opinion. The power is ridiculous as a 2012+ stock C63 with P31 pkg can run 11.9 1/4 mile. It's also 4 seconds faster around the "the ring" than the M3 which gives you a good idea of how it handles. It's not just a german muscle car as folks seem to think. The security of AWD is why some may think the S4 handles better but after a year + in each I don't think that's the case. If you do go with a C63 then get a 2012+ as the 2008-2011 models have a shit interior, tranny and a crap suspension.

[forcefed6.4ford]

Not buying a C63 is probably my biggest regret. I love my S5, but the C is the only car I have ever driven that tickled all those giggly bits. Quiet and subtle when just driving around and can turn into a face ripper when you press a little too hard on the loud pedal. The interior is not where near the quality of the audi, and you cant get AWD (for now). However that engine.... Is a masterpiece.

I just had coffee with my AMG adviser this weekend and it sounds like the P package has been upgraded to the 507 spec for the last hooray for the 6.2. Get them while they last.

With the new car coming out very soon with the 4.0TT V8 and AWD, I see one appearing in my garage as soon as my lease expires.

[audisarecool]

With the new car coming out very soon with the 4.0TT V8 and AWD, I see one appearing in my garage as soon as my lease expires.

God bless MB if they put the 4.0tt + AWD on the new c63, I'd pick one up in a heart beat. But all signs point to it not happening in the next gen .

[forcefed6.4ford]

From Autocar UK

"Autocar UK reports that the new W205 C63 AMG will not receive the M157 twin turbo V8 found in all the new 63 AMG models. Instead, the new C63 is supposed to get a downsized 4.0 liter V8 with twin turbos. Spyphotos of the W205 C63 AMG testing were accompanied by reports of twin turbo V8 power under the hood but that was thought to be the M157. A V8 with turbos is under the hood, just seemingly not the one we were all thinking.


Autocar claims this new 4.0 liter powerplant is good for 450-600 horsepower depending on the state of tune which certainly makes sense. Mercedes can wait to see what BMW does with the M3 and then simply up the output. Considering that the new M3 will have a fairly small inline-6 motor, Mercedes and AMG will still have it outgunned even with a 4.0 liter V8.

This new motor is set to eventually replace the SLK55's M152 V8. The M152 is not a bad motor but it's a step back from the M156 V8 the C63 currently has. It would seem the M152 was simply a stopgap engine until this new motor came out which shows in its design which is simply the M157 5.5 liter Twin Turbo V8 used currently in the 63 AMG's just without the turbos. That also means without a lot of the fun.

Mercedes could give the C63 the M157. They could even give the SLK the M157. These comparatively lightweight cars in relation to the E, S, SL, etc., with the M157 though would eat everything else in the lineup alive.

This new motor is apparently confirmed in a quote form the LA Auto Show by AMG boss Ola Kallenius, "We’ve already had downsizing to 5.5 and sophisticated direct-injection technology – we’ll see more of that in the future. We’ve already gone down to 5.5 and that's the technological road we’re on."

So a 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 is not as exciting as a 5.5 liter twin turbo V8 but with all wheel drive and a dual clutch transmission it certainly will still have quite a bit of muscle."

[IanVr6]

Where do I sign?

[Madbusy168]

I see myself in a Mercedes very soon..

[S4charged]

From Autocar UK

"Autocar UK reports that the new W205 C63 AMG will not receive the M157 twin turbo V8 found in all the new 63 AMG models. Instead, the new C63 is supposed to get a downsized 4.0 liter V8 with twin turbos. Spyphotos of the W205 C63 AMG testing were accompanied by reports of twin turbo V8 power under the hood but that was thought to be the M157. A V8 with turbos is under the hood, just seemingly not the one we were all thinking.


Autocar claims this new 4.0 liter powerplant is good for 450-600 horsepower depending on the state of tune which certainly makes sense. Mercedes can wait to see what BMW does with the M3 and then simply up the output. Considering that the new M3 will have a fairly small inline-6 motor, Mercedes and AMG will still have it outgunned even with a 4.0 liter V8.

This new motor is set to eventually replace the SLK55's M152 V8. The M152 is not a bad motor but it's a step back from the M156 V8 the C63 currently has. It would seem the M152 was simply a stopgap engine until this new motor came out which shows in its design which is simply the M157 5.5 liter Twin Turbo V8 used currently in the 63 AMG's just without the turbos. That also means without a lot of the fun.

Mercedes could give the C63 the M157. They could even give the SLK the M157. These comparatively lightweight cars in relation to the E, S, SL, etc., with the M157 though would eat everything else in the lineup alive.

This new motor is apparently confirmed in a quote form the LA Auto Show by AMG boss Ola Kallenius, "We’ve already had downsizing to 5.5 and sophisticated direct-injection technology – we’ll see more of that in the future. We’ve already gone down to 5.5 and that's the technological road we’re on."

So a 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 is not as exciting as a 5.5 liter twin turbo V8 but with all wheel drive and a dual clutch transmission it certainly will still have quite a bit of muscle."

that sounds yummy

[s4buckeye]

Mercedes can wait to see what BMW does with the M3 and then simply up the output. Considering that the new M3 will have a fairly small inline-6 motor, Mercedes and AMG will still have it outgunned even with a 4.0 liter V8.

The only question on the new M3/M4 will be if it is a single T, inline 6 (420-440hp) or TT V6 (430-460ish). Either way, you are talking a likely 450hp max hp out of the box (keeping the tune mild at least for 1st production year), so it appears the C63 will smoke the M3/M4 from the get go.

[s4buckeye]

So a 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 is not as exciting as a 5.5 liter twin turbo V8 but with all wheel drive and a dual clutch transmission it certainly will still have quite a bit of muscle.

Without a doubt.

If AMG can get 360 hp from a 2.0 liter, 4cyl. T with 450 nm of tq for the A45, the 4.0 liter TT will be a beast:

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/latest.p...d=20130213_a45

[NPuter]

The '13 C63 has a 6.2, correct? If so, pretty huge type on MB's site...

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...s-C/model-C63C

[dparm]

The "63" moniker is to pay homage to the old 6.3. It's technically a 6.2. Lots of car companies do this, though. The M5's 5.0L V10 is actually 4.9L.


Anyways, I drove the C63 yesterday, coincidentally. I autocrossed it as part of a driving school at Autobahn Country Club. It's a very crisp and sharp car, and the motor is really responsive and sounds great. It's definitely got that muscle car feel, if that's what you like. The car has a great personality, though the interior is pretty low-end compared to our S4s.

[NPuter]

The "63" moniker is to pay homage to the old 6.3. It's technically a 6.2. Lots of car companies do this, though. The M5's 5.0L V10 is actually 4.9L.


Anyways, I drove the C63 yesterday, coincidentally. I autocrossed it as part of a driving school at Autobahn Country Club. It's a very crisp and sharp car, and the motor is really responsive and sounds great. It's definitely got that muscle car feel, if that's what you like. The car has a great personality, though the interior is pretty low-end compared to our S4s.

I understand why they kept the "63" name, but take a look at the image I posted which shows the current C63 as having a "Handcrafted AMG 6.3L V8"

EDIT: ok I understand what you are saying. I find that a bit strange...

[s4buckeye]

EDIT: ok I understand what you are saying. I find that a bit strange...

The rounding up and down on displacement is done all the time on just about every motorcycle made.

[forcefed6.4ford]

It's very common for car companies to embellish displacement claims. Either way, that engine is fantastic and everyone should have to opportunity to experience it.

[A4 Centaur]

What is the interior volume compared to the S4? I read somewhere that it had was the size of a Honda Accord?

[drew4392]

I currently own a 2012 C63 and previously had a 2010 Audi S4. The only thing I miss about the S4 is the tranny. The MCT tranny in the 2012+ C63 is good but not as good as a true dual clutch. Other than that the C63 is better in every way in my opinion. The power is ridiculous as a 2012+ stock C63 with P31 pkg can run 11.9 1/4 mile. It's also 4 seconds faster around the "the ring" than the M3 which gives you a good idea of how it handles. It's not just a german muscle car as folks seem to think. The security of AWD is why some may think the S4 handles better but after a year + in each I don't think that's the case. If you do go with a C63 then get a 2012+ as the 2008-2011 models have a shit interior, tranny and a crap suspension.

Not buying a C63 is probably my biggest regret. I love my S5, but the C is the only car I have ever driven that tickled all those giggly bits. Quiet and subtle when just driving around and can turn into a face ripper when you press a little too hard on the loud pedal. The interior is not where near the quality of the audi, and you cant get AWD (for now). However that engine.... Is a masterpiece.

I just had coffee with my AMG adviser this weekend and it sounds like the P package has been upgraded to the 507 spec for the last hooray for the 6.2. Get them while they last.

With the new car coming out very soon with the 4.0TT V8 and AWD, I see one appearing in my garage as soon as my lease expires.

Anndddd.... now I'm interested again....

Thanks for the feedback.

How's the gas mileage?? People have said pretty bad, but if I'm easy on the pedal? Manageable? Or just awful regardless?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[s4buckeye]

How's the gas mileage?? People have said pretty bad, but if I'm easy on the pedal? Manageable? Or just awful regardless?

I know bad gas mileage and shredding tires = $$$ (not to mention what it costs to insure a car that eats gas and shreds tires), but it always sounds a little strange to me when people look in a segment such as this and worry about the cost for gas and/or tires.

Seems like unless you have a huge, daily commute and unless you are spinning the tires at every light, the extra cost of gas and another set of tires (even every year) is de minimis compared to the price of the car when you are talking $60k+.

[drew4392]

I know bad gas mileage and shredding tires = $$$ (not to mention what it costs to insure a car that eats gas and shreds tires), but it always sounds a little strange to me when people look in a segment such as this and worry about the cost for gas and/or tires.

Seems like unless you have a huge, daily commute and unless you are spinning the tires at every light, the extra cost of gas and another set of tires (even every year) is de minimis compared to the price of the car when you are talking $60k+.

An extra 1/2-1 tank per week and tires every oil change... most of us will feel that. The payment of the car is ~700.... An extra $100 per month for extra gas and $1000 twice as often for tires.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[s4buckeye]

An extra 1/2-1 tank per week and tires every oil change... most of us will feel that. The payment of the car is ~700.... An extra $100 per month for extra gas and $1000 twice as often for tires.

I hear you man and while I doubt the tires would need be be changed at exactly every 10k miles or that they cost as little as $1k , but another $1200 per year in gas and $1000 in tires is really not much, comparatively speaking, when you are talking about $62k base for the car.

[esimp2k]

I hear you man and while I doubt the tires would need be be changed at exactly every 10k miles or that they cost as little as $1k , but another $1200 per year in gas and $1000 in tires is really not much, comparatively speaking, when you are talking about $62k base for the car.

+1. (Weird I know).

[s4buckeye]

+1. (Weird I know).

haha! great minds think alike....

[drew4392]

(Removing foot from mouth)

After doing the math, it's $1200 extra per year for fuel. At the end of the day, not a big deal.

Interest increasing... think I need to go test drive...



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[PaperishPlastic]

I hear you man and while I doubt the tires would need be be changed at exactly every 10k miles or that they cost as little as $1k , but another $1200 per year in gas and $1000 in tires is really not much, comparatively speaking, when you are talking about $62k base for the car.

I don't know man I suspect one track day and it might go half of that. My tires don't last 10k on an S4, if I had a C63 I suspect it would need new tires every time I filled up at the pump.

[bmoney]

I average 15 or so around town and 22 on the highway so yeah it's not good but I don't care. As for tires I got 15K out of my stock Conti's. I just switch to Michelin PSS which I hear last longer. I'm not a conservative driver but I'm also not spinning my tires at every light. If you do that then you'll most likely only get 5K out of them!

[bmoney]

The car has a great personality, though the interior is pretty low-end compared to our S4s.

Doesn't look low end to me but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion! I thought my S4's interior wasn't quite as nice.

[drew4392]

Doesn't look low end to me but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion! I thought my S4's interior wasn't quite as nice.

Looks really nice

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[S4charged]

Interior on a C63 is much better than its competitor the M3. Audi>MB>BMW when it comes to interior.

[s4buckeye]

I don't know man I suspect one track day and it might go half of that. My tires don't last 10k on an S4, if I had a C63 I suspect it would need new tires every time I filled up at the pump.

Yeah, but that does not apply to a DD b/c tracking any car changes that equation altogether as the tires are going to be history on a much different schedule.

I thought the interior C63 was pretty nice and not that different from an S4 interior.

[Frcotting]

The C63 is an awesome car. However, a well-optioned C63 costs about $14K more than an equivalently optioned S4. Taking into account the added cost of gas, tires and insurance, the C63 becomes a very expensive car to live with. Add to that the fact that a C63 is rendered virtually useless in a few inches of snow makes the S4 an easy choice, at least for me.

[forcefed6.4ford]

It's not that the merc has a bad interior. The audi is just so much nicer. Less cluttered, cleaner, and more refined. The bimmer is just bad.

[s4buckeye]

Interior on a C63 is much better than its competitor the M3. Audi>MB>BMW when it comes to interior.

Wow man, you must have really wanted that M3 you didn't get......

The bimmer is just bad.

Anyway, what exactly is so bad about a BMW interior? Specifics? Are you talking electronic features? Seat comfort? Quality of the leather? Actual plastic too much like actual plastic? What is lacking in an M3 or any 3 series as far as a quality interior is concerned? I have owned just about every brand of car that comes out of Germany (or at least started there on a drawing board) and have not found that the BMW interior is any way "less" than other marques. More spartan maybe, but that is by design - what is the point in a bunch of superfluous interior accouterments if it only does one thing: weigh the car down?

That "one of the main reasons I bought the car was for the interior" and "the shift knob and boot are killer" things are lame. While important to some extent, the interior should not be some kind of dealbreaker if you have the tech you need, the layout makes sense and the seats are comfortable/adjustable. To each his/her own, but if you really drive a car like it should be driven then the interior fades into the background. Ever driven a GT3 or any Ferrari (whoops, can't count those crappy Ferraris, like the '13 458 Spider or '73 Daytona Spider as they are not really "sportscars" b/c they are convertibles....)? The interior sucks, and while maybe not the greatest example as a DD, there is a point to not having a bunch o' weight in the cabin from your 20 pounds or so of 12 gauge stitching, 722 buttons, 30 cupholders and the 112 pound shift assembly with the leather boot. "I am going to spend $5k on aftermarket wheels and rotors to save weight but load the interior with as much leather as possible....." Huh?

How does it drive, can the seat not kill my ass over 6 hours and can you get your phone to sync? Pretty much the end of the story.

[bmoney]

I had an 08 M3 and thought the interior quality was great but the layout was not so great. I actually thought the B6/B7 S4 used better quality materials than the B8 S4 interior.