Sorry IS-F but your top 0-60 time was short lived.

ilikeautos submitted on 10/28/2007 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 12:52 AM
from: www.caranddriver.com

[245] user comments | category: Spy Shots

Print this Page |

Digg It |

del.icio.us

Sorry IS-F but your top 0-60 time was short lived.

For you IS-F fans, and your 4.2 sec 0-60 time, well sorry your title didn't last too long, C63 does 0-60 in 3.9 sec.

Car & Driver
'08 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG v '07 Audi RS 4 v '08 BMW M3 - Comparison Tests

Third Place: 2007 Audi RS 4
Second Place: 2008 M-B C63 AMG
First Place: 2008 BMW M3

C63 0-60 3.9 sec.

M3 0-60 4.3 sec.

Although the C63 seemed to out-perform the M3 it got second place. Seems the guys at Car & Driver can't stop sucking up to BMW, just kidding.

I like this quote, "But if you like to be seen, heard, and talked about, the C63 is your Lamborghini of sports sedans."

Link:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/14276/08-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-v-07-audi-rs-4-v-08-bmw-m3.html Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 1:40:42 AMView My AgentSpace

+6 Boost

I want all three...

reply to this comment

Will_ - 10/28/2007 2:00:29 AM

-3 Boost

Wny should anyone be sorry? I never bragged about the IS-F's 0-60 times. You seem to be the only one who cares so much, so I'm happy for you. The C63's torque and horsepower SHOULD give it the lead over all these cars. Who expected otherwise?

dlingkk - 10/28/2007 2:42:52 AM

-1 Boost

This is very dubious test. A 54/46 weight distribution 2 wheel drive can get to 60 in 3.9? You got to be kidding me. Did they put Pilot Sport Cup tires specifically for MB or what?

If Car and driver can get 3.9 out of C63, I bet they will get 3.1 for GT-R while MFR "humbly" claims 3.5. I don't trust the test number other than Motor Trend's.

Maybe F1 should send all drivers to C&D to learn how to launch a car. :)

Bill - 10/28/2007 7:10:41 AM

+4 Boost

"...the IS-F can do 186 mph."

And where can one use this speed? On a local freeway? On the track (not even, at least not for sustained periods)?

Audi, MB and BMW have a top-speed gentleman's agreement in which they limit their cars electronically to 155 mph. Pay extra and they'll remove the limited and your RS, AMG or M can go over 155 mph easily.

I think you just learned something new today!

Bill - 10/28/2007 10:27:17 AM

+8 Boost

No, Mr. Nicad, you're the idiot here. Need I explain why?

bmwdrvr - 10/28/2007 10:47:38 AM

+3 Boost

i agree i want all 3, i think the M3 would be the car for me out of the 3 though. with the rs being second. but wow 3.9 sec 0-30 is crazy thats faster than everything else from amg except the slr, thats amazing. i wonder customers of those 6 figures amg cars will think of this..lol

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:10:02 PM

+1 Boost

i'm with you!

all amazing cars...it just comes down to individual preference as each stands out in slightly different ways.

Bill - 10/28/2007 6:24:05 PM

0 Boost

"You have to pay extra to raise the top speed on the C63. MB is ripping you off."

It's amazing how the Lexus fanboys come up with the dumbest comments. By your lowlife logic, I guess Audi or BMW must be ripping off their customers too.

Did you even read what I wrote? There's an agreement between these three companies to limit their cars to 250 km/h. Lexus is NOT PART of this agreement.

Idiot.

mitchatlexusofmarin - 10/28/2007 6:44:16 PM

+2 Boost

Hey 001- just a question. You once banned me for calling Bill an idiot (which is why I seldom post here anymore) and I notice that you allow insultd from he and others to fly rampantly. Just curious what your logic may be in this?

Mitch

mitchatlexusofmarin - 10/28/2007 6:45:45 PM

+1 Boost

Insults

xj13 - 10/30/2007 10:16:50 PM

+1 Boost

so do I.

528i - 10/28/2007 2:24:52 AMView My AgentSpace

+5 Boost

3.9 sec and a very good handling WOW!!

reply to this comment

Bill - 10/28/2007 7:17:08 AM

+2 Boost

"Did I hit a sour note? LMAO!!! Too bad the C63 is limited to 155 versus 172 for the IS-F. Past 155 mph all you'll be seeing will be the quad exhaust pipes from the IS-F pulling away from your C63."

Really? Because in a straight-line acceleration race the C63 AMG will leave the IS-F behind. By the time you reach about 65 mph, doing these kinds of acceleration races in the city are dangerous. And a racetrack isn't a straight-line either. And too bad for the IS-F, the C63 AMG is not only wickedly fast but it also handles. So the bottom line is that even on the track the IS-F will have a hard time catching up to the C63 AMG, which will undoubtedly have the better midrange performance thanks to the extra torque.

Use some common sense, fool.

reply to this comment

JRobUSC - 10/28/2007 9:26:34 AM

+2 Boost

technically you'd just see the fake quad exhaust tips that are nothing but window dressing since they're not even connected to the mufflers.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:17:48 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

"RS4: 0-60 in 4.8
M3: 0-60 in 4.8
IS-F: 0-60 in 4.6
C63: 0-60 in 4.5

those are the official numbers. IS-F has nothing to be sorry about."

The official numbers mean NOTHING. Nice try, but BMW and Audi ALWAYS underestimate their times, and both the M3 and RS4 have achieved 4.2 sec 0-60 times. The IS-F doesn't pull away from anything in this class, is what you guys don't understand. There is no car that just blows away the others!

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:08:58 PM

+2 Boost

lexus:

a limiter really is a deal killer because we're able to regularly drive at 175mph on the way to work right?

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:14:28 PM

0 Boost

nicad:

car & driver 0- 60test results:

C63 3.9
ISF 4.2
M3 4.3

the C63 is the CLEAR winner. no contest. and the ISF edges out the M3 by only a 0.1 second. that 0.1 second doesn't really give any bragging rights as the numbers are so close. only the class leader gets bragging rights when it's this tight.

reply to this comment

Lemantech - 10/28/2007 8:45:03 PM

+2 Boost

oh by the way lexus-admirer the skidpad tests for the three germans were based off of the 150-ft skidpad..the lexus was 300ft skidpad...two completely different handling test....therefore your knowledge is completely bullsh*t.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/29/2007 5:11:13 PMView My AgentSpace

-2 Boost

Because Edmunds can't test cars for performance! They just have opinions! Care to explain why they got 4.8 sec for the IS-F and 4.3 sec for the RS4??? They're inconsistent! Incompetent! Whatever!

reply to this comment

moto - 10/30/2007 5:32:42 PM

+1 Boost

Unbelievably childish, these arguments. Stop blindly defending the badge and turn on your brains, people!!! You're comparing lateral accelerations of cars on two different sets of tires. That's a big difference. Also, what tire pressure was used? Was it the same driver? What was the track and tire temperature when each car was run? 0.93 skidpad is terrific for any sedan, but to be honest, I'm more impressed with the AWD Audi achieving 0.89g on ContiSports. Edmunds seems to like the RS4 better, despite its lesser ultimate lateral grip on stock tires, it clearly handles better overall with a quicker slalom time:

"The Lexus generates an impressive 0.93g of grip on the skid pad with its Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires, significantly more than the Audi's 0.89g on its Continental ContiSport Contact3 rubber. Despite this, the RS4 barrels through the slalom fractionally faster at 70.5 mph to the IS-F's 70.2 mph. Give some credit here to the Audi's super-quick steering ratio and some blame to the IS-F's tail, which according to one understated tester, 'gets pretty lively.'"

reply to this comment

Lemantech - 10/30/2007 5:39:10 PM

+1 Boost

i just told you that the germans were tested under the 150 ft skidpad not the 300 like the is-f.

reply to this comment

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/28/2007 2:31:03 AMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

Holy shit, this cant be too good for my cars ego...

reply to this comment

minimalist - 10/28/2007 3:16:54 PM

0 Boost

i think you mean "your" ego.

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/28/2007 11:29:44 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I think I mean a little bit of both... but I can always get a faster car (think Nissan GT-R), meanwhile my car will never get faster. =/

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 10/28/2007 3:04:01 AM

+6 Boost

Brilliant test! 3.9 seconds to 60 is amazing.

I want the M3 and C63.

reply to this comment

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 10/28/2007 3:13:27 AM

+3 Boost

C63 AMG:

"the world’s best automatic"

Enough said. Back in '03 the 7G-tronic was way ahead of its time and it still is the best automatic out there. Nobody needs a silly 8-speed "direct shift" automatic. It doesn't even has full lock-up torque converter on all gears like the 7G has!

Will_ - 10/28/2007 3:15:52 AM

-8 Boost

The IS-F's 8-speed automatic is faster than the Ferrari F430's, and just as fast as the 599.

SevorbeupstryIsBack - 10/28/2007 4:37:10 AM

+4 Boost

"The IS-F's 8-speed automatic is faster than the Ferrari F430's, and just as fast as the 599"

eurhm.. so?

Back in '03 the 7G could do shifts in under 200ms, now this AMG speedshift version can do it in under 100ms. There is nothing special about that.

Shift speed don't make an automatic better, it's the overall performance that counts, how the transmission matches the engine.

LexusKindaGuy12 - 10/28/2007 3:44:11 AM

+1 Boost

congrats to merc. it is a beautiful looking car and has much more to offer. but how much will it cost? at least 10K more than the lexus...

also someone noted that the 7G has the lockup in all gears while the 8 speed doesnt have lockup in the first gear. doesnt that mean that both have a lockup for 7 gears? so its pretty much even....

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:21:19 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

And it DOESN'T MATTER what the differences between these cars are. If you're financing, they're inconsequential; $150 more/month at the most.

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:21:32 PM

+1 Boost

and all of this pricing nit picking matters because....??

reply to this comment

stash84 - 10/29/2007 1:53:44 AM

+1 Boost

i ordered the isf a couple weeks ago and i was told that they only come fully loaded. he said it would be around 60,000, so 63 sounds about right.

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 10/29/2007 12:13:58 PM

+3 Boost

The C63 is more expensive because it is a better car than the IS-F. Lexus could never charge AMG like prices because no one would pay AMG dollars for a Toyota.

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:19:47 PM

0 Boost

lexus:

what does weight have to do with lexus needing 5.0 liters rather than 4.0 to achieve the same hp rating?

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 3:06:34 PM

+1 Boost

lexus:

still didn't answer my question...

what does weight have to do with lexus needing 5.0 liters rather than 4.0 to achieve the same hp rating?

reply to this comment

henbmw - 10/28/2007 7:38:44 PM

+1 Boost

I'll answer it! Because Lexus has a harder time squeezing horsepower out of an engine than the masterminds in Munich.

reply to this comment

leelemon - 10/28/2007 5:14:40 AM

+1 Boost

LOL. ilikeautos, you need to go easy on the Redbull. So many darn posts. LOL

Anyways, it was a little disappointing that C&D didn't include the IS-F in this comparo, especially since they have just recently reviewed it in a different article.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:23:35 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Yes, nicad, and we all know that. But what gets us angry is when you proclaim how much better the IS-F is than the rest. It isn't. They're all just about equal, but the fact that they didn't include the IS-F in this test speaks volumes.

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:24:14 PM

-1 Boost

leelemon:

it is funny that the ISF wasn't here. but it is generally up to the manufacturer to provide cars for review. maybe lexus didn't have an ISF available in germany? or maybe they they chose not to be included?

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 7:47:05 PM

+1 Boost

xero:

correction. none of these cars is presently available in the US. all will be available at the same time in the spring of 2008. the C63 and M3 as 08 models...and the lexus as an 09.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 9:09:30 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

And by then, the RS4 will be discontinued. )-:

reply to this comment

MunichRob - 10/28/2007 5:13:41 AMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

3.9 is incredible! I expected 4.1 at best, that's faster than any BMW or Audi, Gallardo Spyder, F430 Spyder, every other Benz with exception of the SLR & Clk black series.

BTW I think this comparison test makes it perfectly clear that the M3 has indeed taken back it’s crown & is once again the king of the segment.

reply to this comment

leelemon - 10/28/2007 5:25:30 AM

+2 Boost

Yes, the c63's 0-60 is nothing short of amazing and yes the M3 did win this comparison.

However, if you read the article, there was an overwhelming amount of positive things said about both the Audi and MB. I won't be too surprise if the M3 doesn't come in first in another magazine's comparison. Each of the three here have something different to offer and I can't decide which one I want to buy.

Bill - 10/28/2007 8:08:31 AM

+2 Boost

The M3 is the "best balanced", hence the win.

Bill - 10/28/2007 8:23:51 AM

+2 Boost

The M3 is the best balanced in handling, performance, comfort, sport and the addition of the manual transmission probably also helped it seal the victory. I wonder how the C63 AMG would have placed if it had a manual transmission...

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:25:26 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Well, actually, MunichRob (I just had to say this), the R8's fastest time is also 3.9... so it's as quick as Audi's fastest car. It's also Mercedes's quickest car under $400K (lol).

I don't care if the R8 is "only" as quick as a C63 AMG; it has 2.0L less V8. I still want one. Actually, I want both. That would be perfect!

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/28/2007 12:43:49 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

i only hope its not faster than 4.1 lol...

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:27:54 PM

+1 Boost

nicad:

are you really that single minded?

fastest does not equal best performance car. and cars do vary wildly in their ability to provide an involving driving experience. this is simply where the M3 stands out...the connection between car and driver.

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/28/2007 11:33:13 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Actually, many people have been saying that the C63 has the handling and feel closer to the old m3, while the new m3 has handling closer to the old C55. The C63 is supposed to HANDLE and without compromise. The ride is even harsh according to 5th or top gear. I cant remember which one...

S4cabriofoxone - 10/29/2007 5:15:26 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

CLK63BlackSeries:

"After 700 miles behind the wheel of this M3, we feel confident that much of the simple, honest goodness that made the M3 the envy of the automotive world is present in the new car. It’s no longer a homologation special, but next to the C63 and RS 4, this latest M3 offers the purest, least diluted, most involving, and best-in-class driver-and-machine relationship. Those characteristics are what made the M3 great, and they’re still evident in a faster and more refined package."

S4cabriofoxone - 10/29/2007 10:30:57 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

...You stand corrected.

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/30/2007 9:25:05 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

By one source/magazine/reviewer. I said in my post that it was top gear or fifth gear that made those comments. I was over here correcting someone that posted below me and now im getting corrected. Maybe we should just wait till the goddamn cars get here before we make any judgements. All I was really trying to say was that the C63 is a better handling car than any C class has ever been.

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/30/2007 9:25:47 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

By one source/magazine/reviewer. I said in my post that it was top gear or fifth gear that made those comments. I was over here correcting someone that posted above me and now im getting corrected. Maybe we should just wait till the goddamn cars get here before we make any judgements. All I was really trying to say was that the C63 is a better handling car than any C class has ever been.

CLK63BlackSeries - 10/30/2007 9:27:44 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

...and I said many people have been saying that, not everyone.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/30/2007 5:02:05 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

"All I was really trying to say was that the C63 is a better handling car than any C class has ever been."

Yes, of course, and I know that. It's like the RS4--both are massive improvements over previous AMG/RS models... but they still can "only" catch the M3. Neither really crushes it.

MunichRob - 10/28/2007 5:31:28 AMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

One other thing to all the guys boasting about the amount of G's the IS-F generated in a test...I got news for you, that doesn't mean it's the more capable vehicle by a long-shot.

Good example would be R&T magazine shows an M Coupe generating .88 g's on the skidpad, & in a separate test a 750i doing .90 g's.

It then goes on to show the slalom numbers for each in which the M-coupe of course is doing Porsche like numbers of 70.5mph through the slalom, & the 750’s doing Lexus IS350 like numbers (Yes you read right) of 67.0 mph through the slalom.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/29/2007 5:17:08 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

XeroK00L, I thought we agreed not to trust Edmunds? You're making an exception, eh? LOL.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:27:03 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

It's AS quick as the M3 and RS4, not any quicker. Get that through your thick skull! They have ALL achieved 4.2 sec 0-60 times.

reply to this comment

Bill - 10/28/2007 7:14:17 AM

+1 Boost

Man you're such an idiot...

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:20:30 PM

0 Boost

you are dense beyond belief.

reply to this comment

MunichRob - 10/28/2007 6:14:45 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

"XeroK00L" Edmunds is so unreliable with their test numbers, they use drivers of various skill levels for different tests, & not to mention they don't always test in the ideal conditions. Seriously though, you think an IS250 is more capable than a CLK Black series? Hell Edmunds tested an LS cornering better than a 7-series…Please!

Example being Edmunds tested a 650i doing 5.6sec to 60mph, R&T tested a heavier 550i doing 5.0sec to 60mph, what does that tell you? I'd personally take R&T's word over Edmunds anyday, in fact I don't even take any of Edmunds test numbers seriously because they're usually way off the average test results conducted by everyone else.

reply to this comment

Jag_xfr - 10/28/2007 7:45:49 AM

-3 Boost

None of these cars are good looking, they could be ordinary diesel models...

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:27:39 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Where does that leave the Jaguar S-Type R?

AUTO_UNION - 10/28/2007 9:57:03 AM

+2 Boost

C63 AMG is the new king for now! There would be nothing wrong if fanboys would admit it! I am an Audi guy and I say C63 AMG is the best right now! I like all good cars!

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:28:20 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

I agree, I want it.

Waiting for the RS5 to show the M3 who's boss, though... (-:

Hwany - 10/28/2007 7:40:23 PM

+2 Boost

Espeically with the price competition. Normally, AMG would cost alot more but this time it will be similar in the US market. At least that's what I heard..

M53R - 10/28/2007 10:00:32 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

I BMW M3.
wonder where GermanNut is hiding?!

Here comes the king, once again. Im totally in love with the new
All three are amazing cars, I wouldnt mind any of them, but my heart just goes to the M3...

reply to this comment

M53R - 10/28/2007 10:02:41 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

wow computer messed up badly on this one...

*I wonder where GermanNut is hiding?!

Here comes the king, once again. Im totally in love with the new BMW M3.

All three are amazing cars, I wouldnt mind any of them, but my heart just goes with the M3...*

SupraNeverBack - 10/28/2007 12:26:08 PM

-8 Boost

Yeah, that sucker does that with a truck engine and impressive 10mpg as return.

The problem for you is that IS-F is still on the top of the winner, M3. ^0^

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 12:29:28 PMView My AgentSpace

+4 Boost

SHUT UP already!!! Stop polluting this thread!!! The IS-F wasn't included in this test!!!

M53R - 10/28/2007 2:34:00 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

How is the IS-F on top of the winner?! Thats simply a moronic statement if you cant give me any evidence.

enthusiastx11 - 10/28/2007 2:34:14 PM

0 Boost

go away.

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 9:10:43 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Because I never read his posts anyway.

Well, maybe sometimes... but only to make me laugh. Like when he said the Acura RDX looked like an all-in-one printer. That was a bit funny.

EL34 - 10/28/2007 12:52:19 PM

0 Boost

I wsill be buying the Mercedes-Benz C63.

It's fast, has the best interior and the doors can handle a 200 pound man sitting on each.

MB #1 :)

reply to this comment

JRobUSC - 10/28/2007 1:03:39 PM

+1 Boost

"It's fast."

Yes it is. Extremely.

"It has the best interior."

I've been in the new C-class. It has the worst interior in the class. And it's not even close.

EL34 - 10/28/2007 1:54:07 PM

-2 Boost

The reason you don't like the interior in the C-Class is because it doesn't have that Panasonic all-in-one home theater look.

I like the no nonsense quality German approach of designing interiors.

C-Class is #1 for interiors in this segment!

Bill - 10/28/2007 6:33:14 PM

-2 Boost

The C-Class interior strikes me as solid and well built, definitely not cheap. A big improvement over the last generation. I don't know what all the fuzz is about. People see it in the pictures and claim it's "cheap" without ever giving it a second glance or chance. A bit unfair, ain't we?

In fact I'd rank the C-Class interior right up there with Audi and Lexus in terms of perceived build quality and above the BMW 3er. Having checked out all these cars, I wasn't very impressed with the flimsy plastics in the BMW 3-Series cockpit. It felt breakable. The C-Class plastics felt solid and tough. There are also certain aspects of the Lexus IS interior I find horribly overrated in terms of quality.

Bill - 10/28/2007 6:33:27 PM

0 Boost

EL34 - 10/28/2007 12:55:07 PM

-1 Boost

Let's face it, the styling of the Lexus IS-F still makes it look like a whelp :(

reply to this comment

mscottc1 - 10/28/2007 1:40:03 PM

+1 Boost

Ordered my M3 sedan-- yes the order guides are official, too bad pricing isnt.

incidentally, I'm positive that those little insignificant things like cost of ownership (you know, maintenance, resale, insurance, etc.) have nothing to do with the fact that M3's perennially outsell all the other guys in the class (pretty sure that it's even more than the others combined as of last year's production on the 06's-- BMW is projecting the gap to widen with the addition of the sedan again & continue the dominance through the H/T convertible in the early summer/late spring, although I'm sure some buyers will opt for a 135 cp or conv and put the other 25G's in their kids college fund!)

ORDERED:
08 M3 sedan
Jerez Black Metallic
Fox Red Extended Novillo Leather
ZCW
ZPP
ZTP
EDC
19"s
Moonroof
Sycamore Anthracite Wood Trim
SIRIUS
iPod/USB
Enhanced Premium Sound

Est. Production Week 01-08

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 10/28/2007 3:32:23 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

NICE! That will be sweet. Post an article when it comes!