Ultimate Sport Sedan Comparison
- Thread starter Flash5
- Start date
Ultimate Sedan Comparison: Lock and load: Eight cylinders, four doors, one winner in a high-caliber sedan shootout.
The late, great Mark Donohue is credited with saying, "It will never have enough power until I can spin the wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear." This response, to the Porsche engineers of the Can-Am-dominating 917-30, was tongue-in-cheek (the car's turbocharged flat-12 may have produced as much as 1400 bhp, depending on boldness with the boost control), but it's a sentiment that echoes through the engineering halls of Audi, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz when it comes to their production cars. "If 350 bhp is good, wouldn't it stand to reason that 450 bhp is better?" That's a foregone conclusion with us at R&T.
So here we have an incredible crop of normally aspirated aluminum-block 4-cam V-8 engines, ranging in displacement from 4.0 to 6.2 liters, with an average specific output of 90.2 bhp/liter and a redline average exceeding 7600 rpm! With a world-conquering power-to-weight ratio being more easily achieved by reducing the "weight" part, these manufacturers elected to cram these V-8s into some of the smaller 4-door bodyshells in their lineups. So with the shoehorn that is modern computer-aided design, these optimized air pumps were finessed into the engine bays of the Audi RS 4, BMW M3 Sedan, Lexus IS F and Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG some fitting more easily than others.
To borrow a tire company's tagline, power is nothing without control, so all contestants here have firm suspensions, tightly valved shocks, sticky-compound performance tires (with section widths as high as 265 mm) and braking systems with pizza-sized rotors and as many as eight pistons per caliper. And each sedan serves up varying degrees of visual intimidation to complement the superior roadholding and acceleration.
In addition to our normal performance tests, we spent two and a half days driving up the California coast to Morro Bay via Highways 33, 166 and 101, then across sinuous Highway 58, an asphalt-lined bobsled run that tightly zigzags through hills and then cuts across desolate oil fields and valleys, terminating in Buttonwillow ("Heart of Cotton Country," says the sign). After multiple runs that, er, got the tires up to operating temp, a number of car swaps and extended note scribbling, we turned in our ratings sheets and tallied the results.
continued.....
The late, great Mark Donohue is credited with saying, "It will never have enough power until I can spin the wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear." This response, to the Porsche engineers of the Can-Am-dominating 917-30, was tongue-in-cheek (the car's turbocharged flat-12 may have produced as much as 1400 bhp, depending on boldness with the boost control), but it's a sentiment that echoes through the engineering halls of Audi, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz when it comes to their production cars. "If 350 bhp is good, wouldn't it stand to reason that 450 bhp is better?" That's a foregone conclusion with us at R&T.
So here we have an incredible crop of normally aspirated aluminum-block 4-cam V-8 engines, ranging in displacement from 4.0 to 6.2 liters, with an average specific output of 90.2 bhp/liter and a redline average exceeding 7600 rpm! With a world-conquering power-to-weight ratio being more easily achieved by reducing the "weight" part, these manufacturers elected to cram these V-8s into some of the smaller 4-door bodyshells in their lineups. So with the shoehorn that is modern computer-aided design, these optimized air pumps were finessed into the engine bays of the Audi RS 4, BMW M3 Sedan, Lexus IS F and Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG some fitting more easily than others.
To borrow a tire company's tagline, power is nothing without control, so all contestants here have firm suspensions, tightly valved shocks, sticky-compound performance tires (with section widths as high as 265 mm) and braking systems with pizza-sized rotors and as many as eight pistons per caliper. And each sedan serves up varying degrees of visual intimidation to complement the superior roadholding and acceleration.
In addition to our normal performance tests, we spent two and a half days driving up the California coast to Morro Bay via Highways 33, 166 and 101, then across sinuous Highway 58, an asphalt-lined bobsled run that tightly zigzags through hills and then cuts across desolate oil fields and valleys, terminating in Buttonwillow ("Heart of Cotton Country," says the sign). After multiple runs that, er, got the tires up to operating temp, a number of car swaps and extended note scribbling, we turned in our ratings sheets and tallied the results.
continued.....
Ultimate Sedan Comparison: Lexus IS F
Points: 367.9
Nobody likes to finish off the podium, but it's not as bad as it might seem for the first Lexus to wear the stylized "F" and the first Lexus capable of decidedly "non-Lexus" performance in the vein of the BMW M3. Its explosive 060 and quarter-mile times of 4.2 and 12.6 seconds put it second in the test, just a tick slower than the Mercedes. A slalom weave of 70.9 mph also puts it in second, behind the BMW. Pass the 3600-rpm transition point...and be deep into the throttle...the 416-bhp 5.0-liter V-8's dual-geometry intake manifold transforms the induction note from a Lexus purr to an angry race-car rasp whose low-frequency vibrations would rattle the interior trim of a lesser car.
And its 8-speed paddle-shift transmission? Said Andrew Bornhop: "It makes us all feel like excellent drivers...and I love how you can get wheelspin in 2nd gear while accelerating hard not many automatics allow that!" For a torque-converter automatic, the system is simply the best of the breed in shift quickness and aggressive self-blipping of the downshifts. Bravo!
Other great attributes are the best seats of the lot, agreeably bolstered and covered in a perforated ivory/black leather combination. The wheel is a thickly padded 3-spoker, with bumps and depressions in all the right places on the rim. The main instruments have needles that glow in signature blue lighting, easy to read at a quick glance.
So no flies in the ointment yet. Until you look at the IS F among the others. Said Dennis Simanaitis: "To me, the Lexus' oddly pugnacious snout detracts from its otherwise stylish lines." The tarted-up oval finishers for the exhaust do the car no aesthetic favors, and the side treatment makes the Lexus appear a little bottom-heavy. "It's as if the bodywork additions were made of wax," I wrote in my notes, "and then left under a heat lamp." Bornhop added, "It looks a bit reptilian."
Inside, the ergonomics and general layout are appealing, but the IS F deserves a much higher-quality dash pad; its contours are doughy, its surface texture indifferent and a gap was starting to appear between it and the top of the center-stack plastic. On the plus side, the trim on the center console and door panels is a home run...it has the look of woven carbon-fiber cloth, only done with bright strands of aluminum.
In the bendy stuff, the Lexus can hold its own, despite having the narrowest front tires, 225/40ZR-19s. Second-heaviest in the test (a curb weight of 3825 lb.), it felt bulkier than the others, no doubt partly due to its high, wide hood as seen from the driver's seat. We found the yaw control's Sport setting to be a little limiting in our harder-than-average driving, but it can be shut off. Ride quality took a points hit in our ratings, the primary motions judged to be the jiggliest of the lot. "Still," offered Mike Monticello, "it is a confidence-inspiring machine that can be truly flogged over back roads. I was surprised at the lack of compliance from the rear suspension, though, over large harsh bumps."
If it sounds like we're splitting hairs here, it's because we are; just look at the tightly spaced points totals. The IS F just happened to be the least brilliant of this exceptional foursome.
Points: 367.9
Nobody likes to finish off the podium, but it's not as bad as it might seem for the first Lexus to wear the stylized "F" and the first Lexus capable of decidedly "non-Lexus" performance in the vein of the BMW M3. Its explosive 060 and quarter-mile times of 4.2 and 12.6 seconds put it second in the test, just a tick slower than the Mercedes. A slalom weave of 70.9 mph also puts it in second, behind the BMW. Pass the 3600-rpm transition point...and be deep into the throttle...the 416-bhp 5.0-liter V-8's dual-geometry intake manifold transforms the induction note from a Lexus purr to an angry race-car rasp whose low-frequency vibrations would rattle the interior trim of a lesser car.
And its 8-speed paddle-shift transmission? Said Andrew Bornhop: "It makes us all feel like excellent drivers...and I love how you can get wheelspin in 2nd gear while accelerating hard not many automatics allow that!" For a torque-converter automatic, the system is simply the best of the breed in shift quickness and aggressive self-blipping of the downshifts. Bravo!
Other great attributes are the best seats of the lot, agreeably bolstered and covered in a perforated ivory/black leather combination. The wheel is a thickly padded 3-spoker, with bumps and depressions in all the right places on the rim. The main instruments have needles that glow in signature blue lighting, easy to read at a quick glance.
So no flies in the ointment yet. Until you look at the IS F among the others. Said Dennis Simanaitis: "To me, the Lexus' oddly pugnacious snout detracts from its otherwise stylish lines." The tarted-up oval finishers for the exhaust do the car no aesthetic favors, and the side treatment makes the Lexus appear a little bottom-heavy. "It's as if the bodywork additions were made of wax," I wrote in my notes, "and then left under a heat lamp." Bornhop added, "It looks a bit reptilian."
Inside, the ergonomics and general layout are appealing, but the IS F deserves a much higher-quality dash pad; its contours are doughy, its surface texture indifferent and a gap was starting to appear between it and the top of the center-stack plastic. On the plus side, the trim on the center console and door panels is a home run...it has the look of woven carbon-fiber cloth, only done with bright strands of aluminum.
In the bendy stuff, the Lexus can hold its own, despite having the narrowest front tires, 225/40ZR-19s. Second-heaviest in the test (a curb weight of 3825 lb.), it felt bulkier than the others, no doubt partly due to its high, wide hood as seen from the driver's seat. We found the yaw control's Sport setting to be a little limiting in our harder-than-average driving, but it can be shut off. Ride quality took a points hit in our ratings, the primary motions judged to be the jiggliest of the lot. "Still," offered Mike Monticello, "it is a confidence-inspiring machine that can be truly flogged over back roads. I was surprised at the lack of compliance from the rear suspension, though, over large harsh bumps."
If it sounds like we're splitting hairs here, it's because we are; just look at the tightly spaced points totals. The IS F just happened to be the least brilliant of this exceptional foursome.
Ultimate Sedan Comparison: Audi RS 4
Points: 375.4
In its last year of production, Audi's RS 4 continues to amaze and delight. In the "amaze" category, we're all impressed how a car whose compact V-8 engine completely overhangs the front axle centerline can change directions with such agility. And how the styling, both inside and out, has held up so well, reflected by points wins in both styling categories...in spite of the controversial "gasping trout" grille. Our car had the Titanium Package that includes gunmetal-gray 19-in. alloy wheels and rearview mirror housings, plus black-out trim for the oval exhaust tips and fish mouth. "The RS 4 is all about subtle style, nothing outrageous or trendy," wrote Simanaitis.
The only car in the group with all-wheel drive, the RS 4 pays a weight penalty, but not as much as you might think second lightest at 3785 lb., it's 135 lb. trimmer than the Mercedes. Couple that with a fat 255/35ZR-19 Michelin at each corner and the Quattro system whose default torque split is 40/60 front/rear, and you have all-weather grip without dumbed-down handling. Said Bornhop: "The rear-biased awd keeps this car from being an understeering swine, while endowing it with stability that I much appreciated on the muddy, frosty downhill sections of Highway 33." Monticello agreed for the most part, but qualified it thus: "There's something about sliding the tail of a rear-drive V-8 sedan, and the RS 4 will have none of that."
With 420 bhp from its 4.2-liter direct-injected V-8, the Audi launches hard and beats the BMW to 60 mph by a tenth (4.5 sec.) and ties its quarter-mile E.T. of 13.0 sec., but with a slightly lower trap speed; but both will be viewing the taillights of the Lexus and Benz at 1320 feet. The intake rumble and exhaust note are a little more muted than the others: "Audi chose a high-class sound rather than the C63 and IS F's manly V-8 noises and the M3's race-car roar," said Monticello. But you can play its engine note like the proverbial Stradivarius with the RS 4's excellent 6-speed manual whose lever "glides through its gates with a Teflon smoothness," observed Bornhop.
Inside, there's much to like, but many of us felt the leather seats could've offered some additional lateral support. "The RS 4's interior is the roomiest, most comfortable for larger sorts, and the most logically arrayed as well," offered Simanaitis. There's a straightforward purity to the dash and door panels, a simplicity to the center stack, and the gauges are icons of all that is right with German design: bold white numerals on black faces with big red pointers. Plus, materials, fit and detailing just don't get any better than in the RS 4. If you had any doubt, pop the hood and check out the real carbon-fiber dress panels and red wrinkle-finish cam covers.
Unfortunately, that goodness is reflected in the base price that, at $66,910, is more than $10,000 dearer than the second-most-expensive car's. Simanaitis spoke for the group when he wrote, "The RS 4's Quattro system is still the Real Deal in snowy climes indeed, the only logical choice of these hyper-sedans in such settings." And mightily impressive in the dry, too.
Points: 375.4
In its last year of production, Audi's RS 4 continues to amaze and delight. In the "amaze" category, we're all impressed how a car whose compact V-8 engine completely overhangs the front axle centerline can change directions with such agility. And how the styling, both inside and out, has held up so well, reflected by points wins in both styling categories...in spite of the controversial "gasping trout" grille. Our car had the Titanium Package that includes gunmetal-gray 19-in. alloy wheels and rearview mirror housings, plus black-out trim for the oval exhaust tips and fish mouth. "The RS 4 is all about subtle style, nothing outrageous or trendy," wrote Simanaitis.
The only car in the group with all-wheel drive, the RS 4 pays a weight penalty, but not as much as you might think second lightest at 3785 lb., it's 135 lb. trimmer than the Mercedes. Couple that with a fat 255/35ZR-19 Michelin at each corner and the Quattro system whose default torque split is 40/60 front/rear, and you have all-weather grip without dumbed-down handling. Said Bornhop: "The rear-biased awd keeps this car from being an understeering swine, while endowing it with stability that I much appreciated on the muddy, frosty downhill sections of Highway 33." Monticello agreed for the most part, but qualified it thus: "There's something about sliding the tail of a rear-drive V-8 sedan, and the RS 4 will have none of that."
With 420 bhp from its 4.2-liter direct-injected V-8, the Audi launches hard and beats the BMW to 60 mph by a tenth (4.5 sec.) and ties its quarter-mile E.T. of 13.0 sec., but with a slightly lower trap speed; but both will be viewing the taillights of the Lexus and Benz at 1320 feet. The intake rumble and exhaust note are a little more muted than the others: "Audi chose a high-class sound rather than the C63 and IS F's manly V-8 noises and the M3's race-car roar," said Monticello. But you can play its engine note like the proverbial Stradivarius with the RS 4's excellent 6-speed manual whose lever "glides through its gates with a Teflon smoothness," observed Bornhop.
Inside, there's much to like, but many of us felt the leather seats could've offered some additional lateral support. "The RS 4's interior is the roomiest, most comfortable for larger sorts, and the most logically arrayed as well," offered Simanaitis. There's a straightforward purity to the dash and door panels, a simplicity to the center stack, and the gauges are icons of all that is right with German design: bold white numerals on black faces with big red pointers. Plus, materials, fit and detailing just don't get any better than in the RS 4. If you had any doubt, pop the hood and check out the real carbon-fiber dress panels and red wrinkle-finish cam covers.
Unfortunately, that goodness is reflected in the base price that, at $66,910, is more than $10,000 dearer than the second-most-expensive car's. Simanaitis spoke for the group when he wrote, "The RS 4's Quattro system is still the Real Deal in snowy climes indeed, the only logical choice of these hyper-sedans in such settings." And mightily impressive in the dry, too.
Ultimate Sedan Comparison: BMW M3 Sedan
Points: 376.7
No doubt, the M3 Sedan is the varsity athlete of the bunch. From its styling — all lean muscle and sinew — to the lightest curb weight to the widest tires of the rear-drivers, the M3 both looks and acts the part. It practically takes down the road, pins it and forces a tap-out submission. Its agility, grip and braking (curiously, the last still accomplished with 2-piston sliding calipers in front) all scored class wins. Yet if there's anything holding the BMW back, it's the engine — at once its biggest asset and most glaring irritation.
The 4.0-liter V-8 makes 414 bhp, spins to a nerve-tingling 8300 rpm, has an ingenious dual-sump oiling system seemingly impervious to g-loading, makes feral-cat sounds but...it's still only 4.0 liters, the smallest capacity in the test. This means the lowest peak torque of 295 lb.-ft., generated at 3900 rpm. By contrast, the Mercedes feels as if it has this much at 2500, and packs on an additional 150 lb.-ft. or so by the time it reaches 5000 rpm. "The M3's V-8 is a very special piece, but it just doesn't have the punch of the Mercedes, or even the Lexus," noted Monticello. As such, the M3 was the tail-ender in 0–60 acceleration (4.6 sec.) and couldn't crack the 12s in the quarter mile.
So you really have to wring its neck to throttle-steer, but that's because its aluminum-intensive suspension and optional 19-in. Michelin Pilot Sports (245s in front, 265s in back) are doing their jobs so well. Said Bornhop: "I like the M3 because of its overall harmony, in which the engine doesn't overwhelm the chassis." The light engine up front (at 445 lb., it weighs 33 lb. less than the previous M3's inline-6) helps to achieve its 50/50 weight balance and also aids turn-in sharpness and transitional agility, as witnessed by the M3's winning 72.9-mph slalom speed. And the steering feel, channeled through the most thickly padded rim in the test, rises above the rest. Said Simanaitis: "BMW continues to endow its steering systems with supernaturally clear communication." If only the shifter were as good; the 6-speed's gates are well delineated, but the throws are on the long side, with some BMW standard-issue notchiness past the synchros.
We wish the interior could be as vibrant as the chassis. The seats are excellent — smooth black leather bolsters, grippy dark cloth inserts — but the subtle, boring convexity of the dash and the rather plain-looking gauges are more statesman than sportsman. The speedometer's twin scales crowd each other for space, but at least the tach shows some life...there's a neat redline scale around its perimeter that slowly rotates to the full 8300 rpm as the oil temperature increases. And please, don't get us started on BMW's detent-less stalk controls for the turn signals and wipers...the wheel didn't need reinventing here.
So if catlike handling reflexes top your priority list, and you don't mind elevated revs to extract the full goodness of a somewhat high-strung engine, the M3 sedan may be the ticket. Its price-as-tested is also the lowest of the group at $59,050 (including four years of maintenance), while lacking some of the office-on-wheels telematics fitted to the Mercedes and Lexus. But we don't really need those things in a Sturm und Drang sports sedan, do we?
Points: 376.7
No doubt, the M3 Sedan is the varsity athlete of the bunch. From its styling — all lean muscle and sinew — to the lightest curb weight to the widest tires of the rear-drivers, the M3 both looks and acts the part. It practically takes down the road, pins it and forces a tap-out submission. Its agility, grip and braking (curiously, the last still accomplished with 2-piston sliding calipers in front) all scored class wins. Yet if there's anything holding the BMW back, it's the engine — at once its biggest asset and most glaring irritation.
The 4.0-liter V-8 makes 414 bhp, spins to a nerve-tingling 8300 rpm, has an ingenious dual-sump oiling system seemingly impervious to g-loading, makes feral-cat sounds but...it's still only 4.0 liters, the smallest capacity in the test. This means the lowest peak torque of 295 lb.-ft., generated at 3900 rpm. By contrast, the Mercedes feels as if it has this much at 2500, and packs on an additional 150 lb.-ft. or so by the time it reaches 5000 rpm. "The M3's V-8 is a very special piece, but it just doesn't have the punch of the Mercedes, or even the Lexus," noted Monticello. As such, the M3 was the tail-ender in 0–60 acceleration (4.6 sec.) and couldn't crack the 12s in the quarter mile.
So you really have to wring its neck to throttle-steer, but that's because its aluminum-intensive suspension and optional 19-in. Michelin Pilot Sports (245s in front, 265s in back) are doing their jobs so well. Said Bornhop: "I like the M3 because of its overall harmony, in which the engine doesn't overwhelm the chassis." The light engine up front (at 445 lb., it weighs 33 lb. less than the previous M3's inline-6) helps to achieve its 50/50 weight balance and also aids turn-in sharpness and transitional agility, as witnessed by the M3's winning 72.9-mph slalom speed. And the steering feel, channeled through the most thickly padded rim in the test, rises above the rest. Said Simanaitis: "BMW continues to endow its steering systems with supernaturally clear communication." If only the shifter were as good; the 6-speed's gates are well delineated, but the throws are on the long side, with some BMW standard-issue notchiness past the synchros.
We wish the interior could be as vibrant as the chassis. The seats are excellent — smooth black leather bolsters, grippy dark cloth inserts — but the subtle, boring convexity of the dash and the rather plain-looking gauges are more statesman than sportsman. The speedometer's twin scales crowd each other for space, but at least the tach shows some life...there's a neat redline scale around its perimeter that slowly rotates to the full 8300 rpm as the oil temperature increases. And please, don't get us started on BMW's detent-less stalk controls for the turn signals and wipers...the wheel didn't need reinventing here.
So if catlike handling reflexes top your priority list, and you don't mind elevated revs to extract the full goodness of a somewhat high-strung engine, the M3 sedan may be the ticket. Its price-as-tested is also the lowest of the group at $59,050 (including four years of maintenance), while lacking some of the office-on-wheels telematics fitted to the Mercedes and Lexus. But we don't really need those things in a Sturm und Drang sports sedan, do we?
Last edited:
Ultimate Sedan Comparison: Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG
Points: 380.9
An enormous, throbbing engine encased in a sports-sedan exoskeleton...that, in brief, describes the C63 AMG, the latest recipient of the 6208-cc V-8 that's hand-assembled by a single technician at the AMG plant in Affalterbach, Germany. And although it makes the scales groan at a 3920-lb. curb weight, the 451-bhp C63 leaps off the mark to a test-best 4.1-sec. sprint to 60 mph, and a ground-shaking 12.5-sec. pass through the quarter mile.
The "ground-shaking" part isn't complete hyperbole, as thick chunks of sonic energy get hurled out the quad tailpipes with every articulation of the throttle pedal. And wheelspin (with traction/stability control off, naturally) is never far away. Said Monticello: "Any C63 owner who doesn't go through a set of rear tires in 5000 miles or less should turn his car in at the 'Weenie Depot.'" (Disclaimer: Mike's opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the entire R&T staff.)
Of course, there's great satisfaction in stepping the tail out incrementally, and turning that power mostly into forward thrust. A competent ally here is the 7-speed automatic, dubbed AMG SpeedShift Plus, a paddle-shift gearbox whose three modes offer increasingly quicker shifts. In Manual mode, for instance, cog-swapping is 50 percent quicker than in Comfort, with Sport falling in between. But even in Manual, the shifts seem a bit lethargic compared to the Lexus; and the steering-wheel paddles are smaller than those of its Japanese rival. At least there's automatic rev-matching on the downshifts.
One might think that the C63's massive engine up front would hobble the Benz with nose-heaviness and understeer, but with 56/44 front/rear distribution, a 1.8-in.-wider front track and suitably adhesive Pirelli P Zero tires (235s in front, 255s in back), the C63 gives the M3 a run. In corner-carving sharpness it's not quite a scalpel, but a high-quality buck knife after 10 minutes with a whetstone. Steering feel, communicative and with a slightly higher effort level than the others, ranked second after the BMW, and everyone was impressed with the stability control's Sport mode, which allows significant yaw angles before intervening. Said Bornhop: "A perfect safeguard for those wanting to have some fun on an unfamiliar back road."
The C63 also looks the part, with German Touring Car-Lite fender flares, mean-looking extractor vents ahead of the front wheels and a tasteful small trunklid spoiler, though some took issue with the 18-in. wheels, since all others roll on 19-in. stock. Simanaitis offered a counterpoint: "They look less boy-racer and certainly don't compromise the C63's progress."
Inside, the Lap-of-Hockenheim fantasy continues with by far the most aggressively bolstered front seats and an exquisite D-shaped sport wheel. Our test car was fitted with the Multimedia Package, with a display screen that electrically articulates into view when the car is started, then retreats within the dash on shutdown. Gauge-wise, a large floating-needle speedometer is front and center, its interior containing readouts for gear selection, trip computer functions, etc. It's a great driving environment, but those bulky front seats do compromise rear-seat leg room (tightest of the lot). And since we're in nitpick mode, Mercedes should really do something about the dash finish, whose flat, weathered-looking texture is at odds with all the other nicely turned-out bits.
So huge power and prodigious, tire-pulverizing torque end up ruling the day. That should surprise no one, but that once-stodgy Mercedes can tune a chassis that compares favorably with its perennial Bavarian rival...well, that gets our attention. And while none of these super sedans can spin its wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear, the C63 comes the closest.
- RoadandTrackmag
Points: 380.9
An enormous, throbbing engine encased in a sports-sedan exoskeleton...that, in brief, describes the C63 AMG, the latest recipient of the 6208-cc V-8 that's hand-assembled by a single technician at the AMG plant in Affalterbach, Germany. And although it makes the scales groan at a 3920-lb. curb weight, the 451-bhp C63 leaps off the mark to a test-best 4.1-sec. sprint to 60 mph, and a ground-shaking 12.5-sec. pass through the quarter mile.
The "ground-shaking" part isn't complete hyperbole, as thick chunks of sonic energy get hurled out the quad tailpipes with every articulation of the throttle pedal. And wheelspin (with traction/stability control off, naturally) is never far away. Said Monticello: "Any C63 owner who doesn't go through a set of rear tires in 5000 miles or less should turn his car in at the 'Weenie Depot.'" (Disclaimer: Mike's opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the entire R&T staff.)
Of course, there's great satisfaction in stepping the tail out incrementally, and turning that power mostly into forward thrust. A competent ally here is the 7-speed automatic, dubbed AMG SpeedShift Plus, a paddle-shift gearbox whose three modes offer increasingly quicker shifts. In Manual mode, for instance, cog-swapping is 50 percent quicker than in Comfort, with Sport falling in between. But even in Manual, the shifts seem a bit lethargic compared to the Lexus; and the steering-wheel paddles are smaller than those of its Japanese rival. At least there's automatic rev-matching on the downshifts.
One might think that the C63's massive engine up front would hobble the Benz with nose-heaviness and understeer, but with 56/44 front/rear distribution, a 1.8-in.-wider front track and suitably adhesive Pirelli P Zero tires (235s in front, 255s in back), the C63 gives the M3 a run. In corner-carving sharpness it's not quite a scalpel, but a high-quality buck knife after 10 minutes with a whetstone. Steering feel, communicative and with a slightly higher effort level than the others, ranked second after the BMW, and everyone was impressed with the stability control's Sport mode, which allows significant yaw angles before intervening. Said Bornhop: "A perfect safeguard for those wanting to have some fun on an unfamiliar back road."
The C63 also looks the part, with German Touring Car-Lite fender flares, mean-looking extractor vents ahead of the front wheels and a tasteful small trunklid spoiler, though some took issue with the 18-in. wheels, since all others roll on 19-in. stock. Simanaitis offered a counterpoint: "They look less boy-racer and certainly don't compromise the C63's progress."
Inside, the Lap-of-Hockenheim fantasy continues with by far the most aggressively bolstered front seats and an exquisite D-shaped sport wheel. Our test car was fitted with the Multimedia Package, with a display screen that electrically articulates into view when the car is started, then retreats within the dash on shutdown. Gauge-wise, a large floating-needle speedometer is front and center, its interior containing readouts for gear selection, trip computer functions, etc. It's a great driving environment, but those bulky front seats do compromise rear-seat leg room (tightest of the lot). And since we're in nitpick mode, Mercedes should really do something about the dash finish, whose flat, weathered-looking texture is at odds with all the other nicely turned-out bits.
So huge power and prodigious, tire-pulverizing torque end up ruling the day. That should surprise no one, but that once-stodgy Mercedes can tune a chassis that compares favorably with its perennial Bavarian rival...well, that gets our attention. And while none of these super sedans can spin its wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear, the C63 comes the closest.
- RoadandTrackmag
Last edited:
Outside of the obvious, where the hell is the Pontiac G8 question, even though it's not quite up to par quality wise (some might say) of these biznitches nor in price, how is it even remotely fair to judge the performance aspect of the audi, lexus, and BMW when the MB uses an engine almost 25% bigger than those of the competition. Granted look at the GTR and we know displacement isnt everything but when Naturally Aspirated...it's hardly worth comparing the bimmer's 4L v8 against a rediculously oversized 6.2L v8...a true testimate to BMW, Audi, and Lexus for their technological acheivements in their fairly small engines compared to their output.
oh well...just an observation...that'd be like comparing any car with a 4 cylinder VTEC engine against a car with the VQ35 Motor like the G35 or 350z
oh well...just an observation...that'd be like comparing any car with a 4 cylinder VTEC engine against a car with the VQ35 Motor like the G35 or 350z
Last edited:
FreewheelBurner
Member
- :
- E36 M3/4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEedZ4pyhSg
In that video the VXR is just absolutely destroyed by the higher end cars in terms of performance, The G8 GT has considerable less horsepower and is much larger. It would obviously perform much less and is no comparison to these other sedans.
SilverBulletES
Member
- :
- '90 MX-5, '00 328i
Manual tranny BMW 4 teh w1n. No contest. I'd still rather cut my own dick off than to lose a third pedal. OK almost.
I'm sure it's been done. S2000 vs 350Z convertible?
Same old agrument as usual. Was the VXR supercharged in the comparo? I can not view the video here at work. Of course the G8 GT would not perform on par with these cars it has only 364hp vs 400+hp. All other mags and car shows call the VXR a cheap M5.
Last edited:
I finally watched the vid. The VXR had major traction issues at launch because of the mountain of torque its puts out. I feel if it was the S/C'd model with its 500hp or the new VXR8 with the LS3 6.3L making 425hp the out come with be completely different.
I wonder how these imports would have dealt with the all American bad boy the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V?
I wonder how these imports would have dealt with the all American bad boy the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V?
Last edited:
I finally watched the vid. The VXR had major traction issues at launch because of the mountain of torque its puts out. I feel if it was the S/C'd model with its 500hp or the new VXR8 with the LS3 6.3L making 425hp the out come with be completely different.
I wonder how these imports would have dealt with the all American bad boy the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V?
Holy sex
kudos to caddyI saw that, and had to grab my laptop and look up this thread to make sure I was thinking of the right cars! Funny how Clarkson talked about shredding the tires on the Merc. and so did this article.
