I especially like the paddle shifters on the smoothest transmission around. The seven speed is a joy. Always managing to keep the car at just the right torque level at all times. This tranmission along with the massive amounts of torque, make this car far quicker than the horse power ratings suggest.

Looking at the graphs in a motor mag, the torque falls off quite steeply after 5000 rpm, so the power rises fast to 5000 rpm, and is almost flat thereafter.

I can’t believe the price. The C63 is $93k here in South Africa. You lucky Americans!

Oh, and I enjoyed the review.

Or the front end will look like a 20 year old Lincoln with the rear shocks/air bladders that gave up the ghost a long time ago. Avoid speedbumps…

To be exact, the C63 makes 443 ft lbs at 5000 rpm.

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/C63/

In regards to Edgett’s corvette comparison, SunnyvaleCA wrote:

Corvette’s own marketing department quotes 0-60 time of 4.3–same as Mercedes (and probably both quite conservative). However, the Mercedes is front-heavy and weighs about 25% more. So, those extra 21 horses must be very big ones indeed. Alternately, don’t believe the marketing figures!

The last line says it all…but the DOHC C63 probably has more torque bandwidth than the Vette.

0-60 times are useful metrics for 200 HP minivans, but are a poor measure of performance in the 400+ HP range, since traction/weight transfer is variable, and driver skill is paramount. However, quarter mile trap speeds, which are more indicative of power/weight ratios, support the idea that the C63 is underrated.

The C’s blistering 116 mph trap speed in C/D is identical to what they achieved in the LS3 Vette.

Since the Vette is much lighter, the C is probably underrated, but it also probably has more area under its torque curve, since the 4 valve heads continue flowing air efficiently to 7000 rpm, when the Vette’s 2 valve layout starts showing some weakness.

I suspect the 451 HP number is more marketing than anything…to keep from stepping on the more expensive E63’s toes. The E, which trapped at 115 mph in C&D is rated at 507 HP…which is probably what the two ton C63 is making to trap at 116. BTW…C&D posted 0-60 in 3.9 for the C!

The fact that it won’t get any love from the “Prius People” is a plus!

Also consider that, I believe, Corvette’s own marketing department quotes 0-60 time of 4.3–same as Mercedes (and probably both quite conservative). However, the Mercedes is front-heavy and weighs about 25% more. So, those extra 21 horses must be very big ones indeed. Alternately, don’t believe the marketing figures!

With respect to having 400+ HP for legal driving, I’m with you on that one that there is little point.

I agree with many posters who question 400+ horsepower. The 335 will do sub-5 second 0-60, 155 mph and get 19-20 mpg in city driving and 25 mpg on the road. I can’t use the 300 hp I have.

Finally, the comparison of the base Corvette V8 and this one is interesting. The 48-valve, DOHC Merc motor has a similar power output to the 24-valve OHV Corvette of the same size. I’m guessing that the Corvette engine is a whole lot easier to maintain, and lighter to boot.

Power = torque * rotation speed * magic constant. When power is measured in horses, torque is measured in pound*feet and rotation speed is measured in revolutions per minute, the magic constant is 1/5252. So, plugging in your numbers from your correction 3 posts above, 443 lb ft * 6800 rpm / 5252 = 573 horses, implying the engine cranks out 573 HP at 6800 RPM. I think your 6800 rpm figure should probably have read 4800, since I can believe 443*4800/5252=405 HP at 4800 rpm.

Yes! it is a German car but where is the thrill of it when I need to to put some after market parts. Like carbon fiber side mirrors, carbon fiber hood or just a simple Fujita F5 SRI.

Fast ya sure. 500 hp doesn’t really make any difference if the car hauling its 4,000 body weight and with a V8 engine a Boston to New York trip will cost me $200 buck just for gas especially CT and NY traffic on 95 South.

We need more economical cars and Horsepower now a days is passe.

At least that’s what they say, but 451 hp is enough to put them ahead of competition -and- keep consumption/emission a bit lower.

How do you jack it up to 500+ hp? Or is it just under-rated from the git-go?

Corrected to reflect 443 lb ft. The 369 number hung around during copy-paste editing, where it had originally referred to the torque from 2000-6250 rpm. That 443 lb ft number is max torque, only coming at 6800 rpm.

I’m sure Justin will correct that figure to 443 before the day is done. :-)

Also, this engine is slightly detuned from the one in the larger cars. The E-class 6.2 makes figures of 507 and 465. Even so, the 4.3s acceleration figure is probably easy to beat under good conditions.

shabster,

Swearing is a tasteful way of making a point.

I’d say that swearing CAN be a tasteful way of making a point. When it works (as seen above) it works wonders. When used in most everyday parlance, swearing loses its effectiveness, but that’s just one man’s opinion.

I too thought the C63 suspension was less compliant than the M3’s but then again, butts differ greatly. The C63, in my mind, is just overpowered and not as svelte (!?) as the M3. I’d prefer to hear a V8 zinging to its redline than to hear the big bore guttural bellow of the 6.2 in the C63. I’ll buy the Camaro/Charger to hear those noises.

Lookswise its very um….

Yeah, I think I prefer the BMW.