160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 01
160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 06
160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 14 faqd
160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 15 sq2z
160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 05
Adam Davis12 Feb 2016
REVIEW

BMW M4 v Mercedes-AMG C 63 S 2016 Comparison

Latest German muscle machines battle it out on road and track

BMW M4 LCI v Mercedes-AMG C 63 S
Comparison Test

When these two last met, the newly-turbocharged BMW M4 was able to see off the characterful – but ageing – Mercedes-Benz AMG C 63 Coupe. Now, Mercedes has joined the turbocharged party, endowing the newly-named Mercedes-AMG C 63 S with a slug of extra power. Yes, this one has two extra doors, but we couldn't resist the challenge: Can an AMG sedan match it with the recently-updated M4 Coupe as a driver's car? Let's find out...

German Giants
Practicality versus purpose: It's a balancing act that both Mercedes-AMG and BMW's M Division have been perfecting for generations.

In surveying the latest Mercedes-AMG C 63 S sedan, it's more evident than ever that the two are not mutually exclusive, especially in the tested car's specification: carbon-ceramic brakes and Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres are not everyday road car fodder. This is no German Taxi spec C-Class.

In contrast, the BMW M4 is proud of its four-seat, two-door layout. Its body sits tautly over fat, low-profile rubber, giving it a look that suggests equal capability on race-track or road.

Which one best translates form into function?

The C 63 S...
A lot has changed since we last pitted the beast of Bavaria with the animal from Affalterbach.

Priced from $154,510 (plus on-road costs) the aforementioned ceramic composite brakes fitted to the front are a cool $9900 option. Asking for the Cup tyres adds another $1200 to proceedings, giving this particular car true track day capability. Price as tested? $165,110.

Standard equipment highlights include LED headlights, AMG Dynamic Select with adaptive damping control, ARTICO man-made leather dash upholstery, heated AMG Nappa leather sports seats, head-up display and 19-inch alloys.

The 1730kg C 63 S is based on the new C-Class architecture that won carsales Car Of The Year in 2014.

It adopts the downsized 4.0-litre twin-turbo V8 seen in the gorgeous AMG GT S, throwing 375kW and 700Nm (the latter betters even the GT) to the rear wheels and revving to 7000rpm.

Idle-stop technology is incorporated and the C 63 S (allegedly) drinks a claimed 8.6L/100km on the ADR Combined cycle.

The new V8, with its turbos mounted ‘within-vee' to maximise response (and improve packaging), is mated to the latest version of Mercedes' MCT seven-speed automatic transmission. It includes smart tech such as a coasting function that can disengage drive at a cruise and default start in second gear.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 43 qujy

As expected there's a multitude of dynamic settings, grouped into Comfort, Sport, Sport+ and Race. There's also an individual mode, so you can play with damper/steering, exhaust, transmission and stability control settings until you find your perfect mix, saving them for quick selection later.

Inside, the C 63 S builds on its already well-credentialed donor vehicle, the trim fit and finish beautifully finessed and enhanced by contoured AMG sports seats and a gorgeous alcantara/leather steering wheel.

The seats themselves are comfortable and highly adjustable and there is full seating for five occupants.

There are, however, a couple of grate points among the assembled test team. Chiefly it's the infotainment screen that appears like an add-on, especially when you consider the progress Audi's Virtual Cockpit layout has made. Others mention the fiddly grain within the gloss Ash wood trim (carbon and aluminium trims are available) and the showy door-mounted Burmester audio speakers.

The Merc's headline figures suggest more of everything than the $150k BMW, and that's true, for the most part...

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 15 sq2z


The M4...
This particular M4 has been optioned with a $1840 metallic paint job, taking its as-tested price to $151,740 (plus ORCs).

Key spec highlights of this LCI (Life Cycle Impulse) M4 include adaptive LED headlights, adaptive M suspension, comfort access, head-up display, digital radio with harman/kardon audio, navigation system professional, heated leather sports seats for driver and passenger, 19-inch alloys, surround view camera system and BMW's ConnectedDrive system with internet and real-time traffic capability.

Powered by a twin-turbo 3.0-litre inline six, the M4 generates 317kW and 550Nm. These outputs are 58kW and 150Nm down on the Benz, but the M4 is claimed to be slightly more fuel efficient at 8.3L/100km.

It's also leaner. At 1537kg the M4 is a significant 193kg lighter than the Benz.

Like the AMG, the M car has a seven-speed transmission, however, the BMW's is a dual-clutcher. Unlike the Benz, a six-speed manual remains special-order available, for no extra cost.

Inside the M4's driving position is definitely coupe – seating you low to generate a sense of vehicle connection greater than the Merc's.

There's Comfort, Sport and Sport+ options as well as M-Dynamic mode, which loosens the stability control's threshold. At the other end of the spectrum, an 'Efficient' throttle map maximises economy.

The BMW's non-integrated screen doesn't appear as much of an afterthought than the Mercedes and its operation is still good, but one tester notes that the C 63 S interface has now passed the M4's by.

Jump in the back and there's decent room for a coupe, though seating is only for two. Of course, entry is also compromised by the lack of rear doors, though it's not really a problem if you're not buckling kids into booster seats.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 59

Taking it to the street
Worried the new turbocharged V8 won't sound as good as the previous C 63? Don't be.

Firing up the 4.0-litre provokes a sense of occasion that all-but-matches its predecessor; a confident blast of decibels before settling to a loping idle.

What's more immediately concerning is the weather. There's not just rain – enough for the auto wipers to hit full power – but standing water… and that's the enemy of the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres fitted to the test car.

There's no choice but to cruise through these conditions, reading the road to avoid possible aquaplaning. It seems sacrilegious in a car with an old-fashioned 500bhp, but it allows me to grow familiar with the heated seats and stereo. Like the C-Class on which it is based, the cabin is a nice place to spend time.

But we're not here to spend time; we're here to enjoy the drive.

Swapping into the M4 it's once again apparent just how much of an effect tyres have on a vehicle's overall ability. On Continental SportContact 5Ps – the tyres that dominated wet performance in our 2015 ABDC – the M4 has lost none of its shape front-end response, but does feel more poised overall.

It's also able to put its power down more completely than either Luke or myself recall from that sodden week in Tasmania.

Interestingly it's the BMW that packs a larger foot print, despite the power deficit: 255/35s are up-front with 275/35 rears, compared with 245/35 and 265/35 respectively for the Mercedes. All are 19-inch in diameter.

Its looks are also garnering attention from the road test team.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 73

"At 150 big ones, I want a car that's going to excite me when I look at it, as much as when I drive it," says road tester, Andrea Matthews.

"The M4 just looks the business; in fact, I wish it was a bolder colour as the grey is too subtle."

"I'm with Andrea," adds V8 Supercar driver, Luke Youlden.

"The BMW's aggressive styling and purposeful stance win me over."

We've enlisted Youlden's assistance for the track component of this test. But more on that in a moment.

All of us agree that the new C 63 S lacks the stylistic menace of its wide-hipped predecessor; however, its interior has really moved the game on… if you can get past the infotainment screen.

The seats look and feel great though you do sit noticeably higher, given the sedan layout. Mercedes has also done a masterful job of providing tactile control surfaces and switchgear, and it's that leather/Alcantara steering wheel that really brings home the combination of comfort and performance the C 63 S provides. It dates the M4's cabin, which no longer feels as differentiated from mainstream BMW product as it once did, despite the gorgeous carbon fibre fillets splashed throughout.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 06

Drying conditions allow an opportunity to return to the C 63 S with more confidence, and the reward is plentiful.

Personally, I find the comfort-mode ride acceptable, though others have commented on its stiffness; perhaps the lower unsprung mass from having carbon brakes has a positive impact.

No matter the mode, the Merc offers strong (electric) steering response, particularly in the dry (it did betray a peculiar weight shift in the earlier standing water); just make sure you turn that lane-keeping assistant off, lest it try and correct your line.

There's natural-enough weighting, though there's a slight off-centre delay according to the hyper-sensitive hands of Youlden.

Despite the tyre roar, the AMG can play executive express pretty well, cruising barely above idle in seventh gear where required; but still able to maximise its explosive outputs when the right foot grows twitchy. Unleash the beast (preferably with sport exhaust engaged), and its full 700Nm force is unleashed as stability systems equate the best way forward. In the dry, and through the mid-range, the BMW has no chance.

Cornering grip is also high, the balance able to be altered with steering or throttle, and the brake pedal feel – often an issue with carbon-ceramic equipped cars – is consistent and feelsome.

Into M4, your focus is more immediately on driving, given its lower-set driving position. But it's never going to match the Merc's practicality.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 10

"Does it matter?" I'm reminded by Andrea.

"People who buy these cars will have a practical vehicle too."

Before the new C 63 S, it was the M4 that had a reputation for an overabundance of mid-range torque, but on these Contis (tyres) it feels more hooked up, more of the time. The BMW does feel less explosive than the Mercedes but it also relishes revs… it's just a pity its exhaust note remains so hollow-sounding (but still voluminous): AMG proves turbocharging doesn't have to destroy tenor.

Where Merc has nailed the multi-function drive modes of late, the M4 has room for improvement. In Comfort the vehicle moves oddly over surfaces, so you move to sport to tighten up that wheel control. That helps, but creates a stiffness that sees the inside-rear wheel lift in tighter corners, with Luke at the helm.

Thankfully, you can separate out the damping and steering controls (as well as engine response), so you do eventually find a blend that suits whatever ribbon of tarmac lies ahead… Hello, Broadford.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 47

See the full motoring.com.au C 63 S vs M4 photo gallery

Track Time
Nature seems to have it in for us.

As soon as we pull up to the track, the heavens open once more. It turns Broadford's sinuous layout into a passable powerboat circuit.

We proceed with gathering media content and hope there'll be a passably dry patch for Luke to set some times that are representative of each vehicle's specification.

For the record, the wet-but-drying acceleration and braking figures are detailed below. They confirm both the competence of the BMW on its Continentals in these conditions, and hint at the traction limitations evident in the comfortably more powerful C 63 S.

With more heat in the tyres and brakes, it's the Mercedes that surprises with our initial lap times on a drying track, posting a marker one-second up on the BMW; and looking visibly quicker at the end of Broadford's two straights.

"Once you have it pointing straight, it just takes off," says Youlden.

"Its stability systems are also less intrusive than the M4's in these conditions."

Youlden also found both German machine's gearboxes highly capable, to the point where they are mentioned as afterthoughts. Quick-shifting without clunking like the old C 63's, the latest Merc Speedshift is essentially a match for the BMW's DCT.

Intriguingly, with ten minutes of track time left the track dries, giving Youlden one final stab at lap times. Amazingly, it's the BMW that turns the tables, delivering a half-second improvement over the Mercedes.

"Where you could really lean on the chassis with the systems off, the BMW's sharp turn-in and better traction helped," Youlden adds.

"It's also much lighter, which helps it in the long corners and direction changes around here."

Fuel consumption figures, including the extensive track time showed the BMW swallowed 23.2L/100km with the Mercedes-AMG burning 22.3L.

160129 BMW M4 VS Mercedes AMG C63S 21

Choosing the line
After a hard day's drive in changeable weather, it's time for us to arrive at a verdict… and it's not what I expected.

Matthews was wedded to the BMW's performance from the outset, an affection that simply grew as the day progressed.

"With both cars so close in performance, it's always going to come down to individual preferences," she suggests.

"The numbers stack up for the AMG, and it sounds way better; and is much more practical.

"I wouldn't be disappointed if I bought the C 63 S, but I'd always think wistfully of the M4 as the one that got away… For me, the heart wins over the head in this battle," she concludes.

Youlden, meanwhile, found his decision shifting throughout the day.

"They're both great cars, and I actually started the day favouring the AMG," he notes.

"It feels like a much newer-generation of car with its fantastic interior, intuitive layout and awesome engine note.

"But as the day progressed I found myself leaning toward the slightly more raw machine.

"The BMW's responsive chassis performance is closer to a race car and therefore it breaks the tie for me," he decides.

For this scribe, it's the C 63 S that I would take home. Yes, it's more practical and its styling may be subtler, but they are both attributes in my eyes. And if they don't matter to you, I suggest you wait for the C 63 S coupe before making a two-door decision.

That these attributes combine with a truly breathtaking engine, highly capable (if less ultimately sharp) chassis and gorgeous interior have it tugging at my heart strings.

Replace the Cup tyres and carbon brakes, pocket the $10,000 saving and you have a true multi-purpose winner.

2016 BMW M4 pricing and specifications:
Price: $149,900 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 3.0-litre six-cylinder twin-turbo-petrol
Output: 317kW/550Nm
Transmission: Seven-speed dual-clutch
Fuel: 8.3L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 194g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: N/A

2016 Mercedes-AMG C 63 S pricing and specifications:
Price: $154,510 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 4.0-litre eight-cylinder twin-turbo-petrol
Output: 375kW/700Nm
Transmission: Seven-speed automatic
Fuel: 8.6L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 200g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: N/A

Performance (Wet)
BMW M4
0-60km/h: 3.49
0-100km/h: 5.83
50-70km/h: 1.15
80-100km/h: 1.18
60-0 (m): 15.27
Lap (mixed conditions): 1.13.85
Lap (dry): 1.05.5

Mercedes-AMG C 63 S
0-60km/h: 3.82
0-100km/h: 6.83
50-70km/h: 1.47
80-100km/h: 1.52
60-0 (m): 17.87
Lap (mixed conditions): 1.12.85
Lap (dry): 1.05.8

— with help from Luke Youlden and Andrea Matthews

See the full motoring.com.au C 63 S vs M4 photo gallery

Share this article
Written byAdam Davis
See all articles
Our team of independent expert car reviewers and journalistsMeet the team
Stay up to dateBecome a carsales member and get the latest news, reviews and advice straight to your inbox.
Download the carsales app
    AppStoreDownloadGooglePlayDownload
    App Store and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC.
    © CAR Group Ltd 1999-2024
    In the spirit of reconciliation we acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.