PDA

View Full Version : BMW M4 vs C63 507 Coupe.



rage2
05-14-2014, 02:58 PM
uAaJRIg63kM

Autocar UK compares the two, new gen M4 vs old gen C63. Really hope the new C63 won't be numbed down like the M4 vs E9X M3.

shakalaka
05-14-2014, 03:04 PM
Good video. Saw it this morning on MBworld. I am afraid the new C63 will have to follow suit with the 'numbing' down part, but hoping they don't.

killramos
05-14-2014, 04:45 PM
Not surprising. The 507 is so good.

I wonder what M will do about all this. I see a track pack in it's future to compensate.

beyond_ban
05-14-2014, 06:05 PM
Ya, I wonder how big of difference the comp pack will make once its released.

rage2
05-14-2014, 06:22 PM
I see the new c63 having the same disadvantages as the M4 so they'll be par for another generation.

Redlined_8000
05-14-2014, 08:10 PM
Im surprised the amount of hate the BMW engine sound gets. I rather like it. I dont personally think the engine in the M4 is bad compared to the c63. Especially in Calgary that m4 would be fast compared to other N/A cars.

Darkane
05-14-2014, 09:03 PM
Turbos will never be as responsive as NA.

Turbo lag will always be there.

benyl
05-14-2014, 09:05 PM
until we get torque fill electric motors that are in Hypercars (918, la ferrari, P1).

I bet in 10 years or so, we will see the M4 and C63 with either torque fill or electric turbos like F1 cars.

rage2
05-14-2014, 10:31 PM
Torque fill, yes. Electric turbos, no. Turbo heat recovery only works efficiently during a race when you're at high throttle a lot. Torque fill is a much easier and proven solution.

dirtsniffer
05-14-2014, 11:22 PM
the only time the ceramic brakes were mentioned was when they mentioned how the costs of the two cars were comparable. That whole test I never even saw brake lights.

I have done absolutely zero research but I bet you can get an m4 for 10K less than that 507 they tested

Darkane
05-15-2014, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by dirtsniffer
the only time the ceramic brakes were mentioned was when they mentioned how the costs of the two cars were comparable. That whole test I never even saw brake lights.

I have done absolutely zero research but I bet you can get an m4 for 10K less than that 507 they tested

Actually in canada I think you can get the 507 for 10 grand less than the m4.

Seriously.

Edit: just built a 507 with every option for around 82k less tax.

The bmw is north of 100 hahah.

507 wins by a lot.

killramos
05-15-2014, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Darkane


Actually in canada I think you can get the 507 for 10 grand less than the m4.

Seriously.

Edit: just built a 507 with every option for around 82k less tax.

The bmw is north of 100 hahah.

507 wins by a lot.

Carbon brakes are not a normal thing to spec. So while it is possible to bring an individual m4 over 100 it's going to be less common that the E9X.

The packages on the m4 are the same as were on my m235i with few exceptions so the price can stay VERY reasonable. C63 is also outgoing which helps the price movement.

BMW screwed up with the S55. They should have done something more like the n55 (basically the m4 relies on it's turbos to much which kills the response and noise).

I would have liked to see the 4.0 V8 with a twin power (either single twin scroll or twin turbos) unit. It would have increased efficiency enough for the cafe numbers but retained much more sound etc. It also would have fixed the torque problem of the 4.0.

Everything I have heard about and experienced with the N55 is that the throttle response is great, because while it has a turbo it doesn't really need it. Low boost smooth power delivery. High efficiency.

The only downside to doing this with the v8 is weight imo.

I think bmw is worried about canabalizing m5 sales with having the same number of cylinders which imo is stupid.