Regarding the acceleration times. It remind me of M5 and E63. Up to 160km/h both M5 and E63 are equal but after that the M5 starts to pull and accelerate faster than E63.

Seem to be the same case between M3 and C63, they are pretty much equal to 160km/h but after that C63 starts to pull away from the M3.
Makes me wonder how effective the new DCT gearbox from M3 is going to be. How much is it going to improve the acceleration in high speeds

Both shifts up from 3rd to 4th around 160 km/h, but the E63's 4th is a bit longer. It can go 225 km/h in that gear (M5: 210 km/h).

Which? M5 (E63 AMG):
1st - 74 km/h (71 km/h)
2nd - 111 km/h (108 km/h)
3rd - 161 km/h (162 km/h)
4th - 210 km/h (225 km/h)
5th - 253 km/h (309 km/h)
6th - 293 km/h (320 km/h)
7th - 325 km/h (320 km/h)

(numbers in red are estimated speeds)

This review is weird. It's inconsistent at best. But oh well, you can't please everyone. The fuel issue shouldn't even matter on cars like this. Who would be stupid enough not to anticipate that a car 6L+ V8 would have bad mpg value?

Where does all the extra weight over the M3 come from? I thought that the C63 engine was supposed to be (5kg?) lighter than the M3s?

for 1, it's lacking a CF roof. it probably has more sound-drowing materials and other stuff.

There is really no standards on weighing engines, like what is included and what is not, so there is really no way to tell which is really the lighter engine short of pulling it out of the car and weighing it.

M3 sedan with out the CF roof is also about 350lbs lighter than the C63.

HAHA wow AMS seem confused..anyways nice test..

oh my bad...I thought you were talking about the coupe.

LOL @ AMS ratings.

lovely car though