First off, I'll say I was disappointed in the weight announcement in January and even more disappointed when the reviews came out last week. Like everyone has been saying, 4k lbs is 4k lbs. No way around it. I don't think anybody here saw those numbers and was relieved to see the curb weight, if you're being honest with yourself. Not liking the brake fade or slower than expected acceleration times either.

Now on to the main topic.
I've been doing some reading on the reviews for the new C class in 250, 300, and 400 guise.
The car has received universal praise for its styling, both interior and exterior. They're calling it best in class by a wide margin- and I agree. It looks fabulous. The design and ergomonics are first class.

That being said, I believe this overshadows the rest of the car.
Here is an excerpt regarding the transmission:
"Unfortunately, the seven-speed automatic proved clumsy, slow, and clunky. And if I’m being honest, the twin-turbo V6 makes the perfect argument for its rumored straight-six replacement. Not only is it too loud and coarse, but the whiny V6 engine note doesn’t match the elegance of the rest of the car."

"We also found the seven-speed automatic to be better matched with the less-powerful engine, as shifts often felt surprisingly harsh and oddly timed in the more powerful C400, no matter if the car's Agility Selector was in Eco, Comfort, Sport, or Sport+ modes."

Now, I know this isn't the C63, but the car will come ONLY with a 7 speed auto, which I'm guessing will be derived from this unit. And it may shift perfectly. Just throwing it out there.
Also, no manuals will be offered in AMG guise, just like the RCF, but nobody mentions that, strangely. And we know it's a twin-turbo 4.0 V8 powering the vehicle, so not sure what it'll sound like, but it won't sound like our 2UR 5.0 or the previous gen 6.2l V8.

Here are a few excerpts regarding the weight and ride:
"The C400 demonstrated a marked reluctance to turn, but the lighter C250 turns in quickly and remains fairly neutral in corners, with exemplary body control. Mid-corner bumps are met with a substantial thwack!, which might be an issue on our horrendous roads."

" The new C-Class is not a sport sedan, though, no matter how aggressively you set it, but it is an exceptionally sporty luxury sedan when it bares its teeth. It doesn't lack for acceleration, but with all the touting of weight savings, it didn't feel as fleet as we expected. Then we found an empty bit of road, put it into Sport+ and gave the throttle some what-for, at which point the bustle and gown came off and the car bolted. It's in there, but you've got to go get it."

"Sitting in the passenger seat while our drive partner tackled a bit of curvy road, the sedan's attitude remained perfectly flat. Attacking a few corners ourselves, the C proved it's game to play, but it's obviously not a hill-climb machine. The base model is 220 pounds lighter than the current car, but add in that twin-turbo V6, 4Matic and all the options thrown at our test car, and it becomes clear you're moving weight. The rear-wheel-drive C300 will be lighter on its contact patches when it arrives in Q1 of 2015, but frankly, no one's going to be buying this car to attack corners because, well, "baby S-Class."

There's plenty of talk of how quiet and luxurious the ride is. Honestly, it sounds like a Lexus. And that's not a bad thing.

"Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche said of the new C-Class, "It embodies what we understand modern automotive luxury made by Mercedes-Benz to be." This new C isn't arguing, isn't fighting, isn't trying to beat the BMW 3 Series or any other car. It is its own thing, surprisingly mature and substantial – the Mercedes of the segment.

Even though the C class directly competes with the 3 series, they say they aren't trying to compete with the 3 series, if that makes sense. And I totally believe them. The new C class, in reviews, is something totally different. I think if Lexus(or Yaguchi is who said it, I believe) isn't trying to compete with the M4, I don't see why it's such a far fetched notion.

In conclusion(sounding like a college professor), it's funny how the two things(amazing styling and amazing luxurious quality) the C class has going for it overshadow the the criticisms that are noted in each article(weight, sportiness, transmission, engine). Kinda reminds me of how the weight overshadows all of the positives for the RC F(C400 4matic weighed 3737 and felt heavy).
The new C class is a great all around luxury sedan, but at its heart does not seem to be a sports sedan and I'm only using deductive reasoning to say that the upcoming coupe and AMG version will NOT benefit from that attribute. Baby S class is the nickname. The IS/RC doesn't get Baby LS....baby GS if anything. And we know the GS is the best mid-sze sports sedan out there.
From what I've read with the RC350, it is a pretty good handling car and even at the track at Monticello, it did well before brake fade and fluid overheating because, well, nobody will/should be tracking their 350, but it IS capable. The C63 will win many beauty contests and maybe even speed shootouts, but when it comes to the ride, I don't think it will surpass the RC F IMO.

I know nobody here is really talking about the upcoming C63 unless its grouped in with the other discussions about the M4 and the RS5. I may just be answering the question nobody asked, but I thought I'd just put it out there for discussion


I pulled the quotes from three pretty good reviews on the C400

Road & Track First Drive
Autoblog First Drive
Autoblog Second Drive

 

To each his own, but I find the C-Class ugly inside and out. Especially, the weird navigation screen that looks like an iPad mounted to the dash.

 

no doubt its going to have a lot of power with a 4.0 V8TT, dont expect it to be that much lighter, it still has a V8 plus all the turbo hardware. C class hasnt ever been a good track car more of a muscle car. AMG trims are some of the most heavily depreciating cars also.

 

I am expecting the pro driver tests to indicate thatbthere is no sense of weight when pushing the RCf to the limit. Conversely, the lighter M4, based on Top Gear test, feels heavy.

All that matters here is the driver perception given the conservative performance numbers of the RCF. We'll see soon enough.

 

MB official numers

C63 AMG 476hp/650 nm 0-100 km/h ( 0-62 mph ) 4,2 s 1785 kg ( 3935 )

C63 AMG S 4 matic 503 hp/700 nm 0-100km/h ( 0-62 mph ) 4,1s 1800 kg ( 3968 Ibs )

A heavy car, but I guess 476/503 hp is very underrated and it will make 0-60 under 4 sek without problems.


( link in german )
http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/...-amg-c63s.html

 

New C63 will be tough competition.
BMW is planning M4 GTS as well.

I think there is room for the RC-F as it is the only one with a N/A V8 that will have long term reliability.
Ppl that like crazy power and mod engines would be better served with the turbo options.

 

The new C 63 AMG is really not a threat. It is as heavy as RC F, has more torque and is thus overpowered for traction, but underpowered in regards to its weight. It has a worse transmission than the RC F. The game is over, Lexus is the big winner here, not to forget the possible lighter IS F. And the remember the RC F is the car with the highest potential, both as NA and FI. AS FI it could get up to 650 PS, like the LS 650 TMG. It has a superior chassis compared to the others, in regards to the M3/M4, its engine is maxed out, so no much potential in power, and same goes for chassis.

 

[QUOTE=iggyhop9;8703346]First off, I'll say I was disappointed in the weight announcement in January and even more disappointed when the reviews came out last week. Like everyone has been saying, 4k lbs is 4k lbs. No way around it. I don't think anybody here saw those numbers and was relieved to see the curb weight, if you're being honest with yourself. Not liking the brake fade or slower than expected acceleration times either.

Iggy,

You are largely making assumptions based on incorrect data.

A synopsis follows:

1. Journalists were driving detuned prototype cars.
2. They did not have the final engine management software.
3. Motortrend jumped the gun and strapped equipment of the prototype.
4. They ran a second test--in the hot desert--and ran a no-sweat 4.3 0-60 with the new engine management software.
5. The acceleration is great, and most expect the RCF to run a 4.1-4.2 and a 12.3 quarter--soon to be learned in future production car tests.
6. The Benz weighs in at 3952-pounds versus the 3958 for the RCF.
7. Most of the reviewers who spent time in the car commented on the holding strength of the new brakes. One cannot account for fade comments from biased journalists leaning towards Germany. There are equally or more reviews praising the new Brembos.
8. I have had exchanges with Jason Harper, auto editor at Bloomberg/Business Week. He praised the RCF as a sophisticated, FAST, and FUN car with many merits exceeding the M4. He also had no concerns about the feel of the car (weight or otherwise).
9. The engine of the RCF is a true symphony of driving melody--unparalleled by any of the other cars in its class.
10. The RCF is likely to be crowned the best overall high-performance car in its class. Time will tell this story, IMO.

This is all stated with the best of intentions...and with some of the current up-to-date data on a prototype car. The real data will not be in until one of the magazines runs a true production car test.

I for one have been pleased enough to order the carbon-RCF.

 

And MotorTrend just ran a 4.3 0-60 mph with the RCF--and I am sure it will hit a 4.0-4.2 in non-desert conditions and an experienced RCF driver.

 

And Lexus is planning an RCF-S with 600 ponies. It's a power battle. The irony is even the Hellcat, which is really a dragstrip car with 700+ horsepower, is one of the most dangerous cars on the road--overpowered and under equipped n power management, suspension and handling, etc. In tests, it has been shown to step out from under the driver.

Really, when will manufacturers learn that power needs to be accessible? This is where Lexus and Yaguchi got it right with the new RCF.

 

Completely wrong here. Stock block 2ur can handle 700hp+ on nitrous and presumably somewhere around 1000hp with a turbo and proper EMS. But unless your willing to spend north of 40k, the 2ur is going to be nothing but a headache in the aftermarket. The AMG on the other hand has been proven to make over 800 hp stock motor without an issue

Think you could post where you found your info regarding the M3/M4 engine limitations?

 

Since I have a friend at Audi I had testdrives with every generation Audi RS6 so far, and other similar cars. I can assure you that the power of that engine is accessible to my grandmother. You could add another 150-200 hp without problems. It will be the same with C63 AMG. The combination of modern AWD with auto gearbox and advanced eletronics will make it unstopable in every kind of weather or driving enviroment.

I will never forget the moment I pressed full throttle in a RS6 on fresh snow, its simply amazing in every way. It was more like a rocket launch than driving a car.

 

Yeah, my post wasn't so much about the RCF as it was saying how the new C class is not really an athlete and more of a luxury car and I was expect that to translate to the C63 not being as athletic.
I like the RC F, even with weight. I did jump the gun on the prototype numbers, but even so, I like the car. I'm all but going to buy it in Q1 2015 UNLESS that GS F is announced, and theb I'll wait on that, no matter how heavy it is

 

Iggy,

My Lexus deep throat confirmed it's a go for the GSF, but in 2016. Yes, expect a husky boy with another F bulging hood.

If you need the back seat space, wait. Otherwise, RCF it.

 

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercede...ed-with-469bhp

Well the C63 V8 Bi-Turbo
469 HP
650N.m of torque

has a something else to say