Yep, looks a whole lot better.

I just think that the M3 looks a little soft....

I think the M3 sedan looks GREAT in white.

Sigh........, as many have said, the more things change, the more things stay the same (or worse) for the C-AMG car. Now we have multiple head to head comparisons showing the same thing. On a track the new M3 is quite a bit better than the C63 when it comes to laptimes. Using that as a measure of performance capability, the M3 is a clear winner. On the streets, the C63 is the faster one, but not by a big margin at all according to this test.

Maybe the facelifted C63 in a few years will come with chassis improvements to narrow the gap to the M3 (just like the C55 did compared with the C32). But it may be too late at that time, as people's impressions will be made now, with all these head to head tests proclaiming the M3 to be the better car. I hoped MB/AMG would come out with their best effort the first time around, as they have said they publicly wanted to compete with the new M3 head on for the first time. In a few years, the wet-clutch 7 speed transmission in the new SL63 will probably make it into the C63 at facelift time. Of course, BMW will remain ahead of the game with their M-DCT transmission which will be offerred NOW.

I'm liking the M3 sedan more and more.......lighter, more agile, almost as fast as the C63 in acceleration, more fuel efficient, and a significantly better track car, yet more comfortable than the C63. Damn.....

Yeah, C63's straight line advantage is not as big as I imagined it would be. I wonder how a DCT equipped M3 would stack up in a straight line.

M3 with DCT will will humiliate C63..mark my words..C63 is allready owned on track..and in comfort..and in handling..looks even..IMO off course So,what are real advantages on Merc in this comparison?Sorry,but I dont see any at all

humiliate is a strong word, not many cars today humilite a similar car.

torque = good for citydriving, automatic gearbox is what speaks for C63.

Torque,torque..I´m sick of torque comparison when M3 and C63 are at hand..Off course that 2 litre bigger engine has better torque but no normal person could say that 400 Nm in M3 isn´t enough..Only a mad man would say so..After all,M cars are not about torque..never were,never will(probably)..So,Merc can have 100 percent more of it and I would still appreciate more high tech,high revving M divison engine under BMW´s bonnet..
I agree humiliate is strong word..but this is internal combustion thread..so,I could not help myself..sorry

PS - this reply of mine is not intended to you or anyone with goal to start a fight..I had to blow off some steam..thats all

Well cause the C63 follows the Benz tradition of buliding cars of high strength Steel not aluminium like other makers that's why it's 200KG heavier than the other cars and that applies to every and other AMG machine always heavier than any other in segment for the same reason.

If DCT is anything like SMG vs 6-spd manual in the M5, then it's possible to see 60-150 times drop by about 2 whole seconds. However, this would only put the E92 M3 about level with the C63; E90 is likely still a bit slower than the C63.
Thing is, I doubt AMG will remain still. Aside from the new transmission, AMG has the upper hand in potential power gains due to more displacement. They already knew what the M3 engine would be like, capacity-wise, anticipated this, and have said their 6.2-liter is capable of 580 horses before durability concerns arise. I think we might already have seen a taste of some of this potential in the Italian C63 vs E90 M3 tests, in which the C63 was a bit quicker than all known times for the CLK63 Black Series even ignoring the launch variables.

Agreed. I'm sure an ECU flash will do wonders for the car. The reason I'm skeptical about the C63's power boost by MB is because they don't want it to compete with other cars in the range. I mean the Cayman could be a lot quicker, but if it was faster than a 911, then that would be a problem.