Much has been written about the four-cylinder Mercedes-AMG C63, but not much of it has been positive. The latest version of Mercedes’s sport sedan dropped its much-loved twin-turbo V8 for an inline-four hybrid setup in 2023, and while it made more power, it also added weight and stripped the car of its rowdy personality and snarly engine note. The result is a car universally scorned by the internet.
The uninspiring powertrain, paired with a starting price of $85,050, scared away buyers to the point where rumors soon began spreading about whether Mercedes would reverse course and replace the four-cylinder with an inline-six or even a new version of the old V8 (Mercedes revealed last month it would be the former).
With a starting price nearing $90,000, new C63s remain as unappealing as ever. But used C63s are starting to make some sense now. Thanks to the power of depreciation, you can easily score lightly used models – which are mechanically identical to the C63 current in dealerships – for under $60,000, or around the price they should’ve been when they were new.
Now We’re Getting Somewhere
At over 80 grand, the C63 doesn’t really compute. Its two closest competitors, the BMW M3 and the Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing, are thousands of dollars cheaper, and both can be optioned with manual transmissions (the C63’s only gearbox is a nine-speed auto). Sure, the C63 is quicker, but it’s definitely the least fun to drive out of the three.
The thing is, neither of those cars has depreciated as quickly as the Mercedes. If you want a 2024 CT4-V Blackwing with a stick, you’ll be paying at least $60,000 out the door for a car with more miles on the odometer. This is despite the Cadillac starting at just $62,890, including destination. It’s like these cars are virtually depreciation-proof.
It’s the same story with the M3; the cheapest examples from 2024 are all over $70,000, with at least 17,000 miles on the clock. The 2024 M3 started at $76,995, so there’s at least some savings to be had, but still, you’ll have to front Corvette money to own one.
Not so with the C63. Sure, it’s a bit of a porker at 4,749 pounds, but with 671 hp and 752 pound-feet of torque at your disposal, you’ll have no trouble smoking 97% of cars off the line. According to Car and Driver testing, the four-cylinder AMG can sprint to 60 mph in just 2.9 seconds, matching supercars like the hybridized Porsche 911 and the McLaren Senna. Plus, with all the fancy hybrid running gear, it’s the most fuel-efficient of the bunch, with a combined rating of 37 mpg (including one mile of all-electric range from its 4.8-kWh battery).
The Price Is Right
Used C63s are distinctly cheaper than their contemporary rivals. The cheapest one I could find is priced at $55,000, or over $30,000 off MSRP. It’s located in Georgia and has just over 10,000 miles on the clock, sporting a clean CarFax and an interior that looks like it was never even sat in. Some people might not like the silver paint or base wheels, but for a sleeper like this, it’s actually my preferred spec.
Want something a little flashier? This blue-painted model is just $1,000 more and comes sporting bigger wheels and way fewer miles (3,716, to be exact). The original MSRP for this car was over $95,000. If you want to lean into the brawny AMG vibe, there’s also this all-black model in New Jersey with 5,284 miles on the clock for $57,995.
These are just a few examples of many. There are nearly a dozen of these C63s listed across the nation right now for under $60,000, and plenty more listed for below 70 grand, all in seemingly like-new condition with low miles.
The biggest downside I can see to cheap four-cylinder C63 ownership is further depreciation. Even at these prices, some people just can’t get over the lack of a V8 rumble coming from the tailpipes. If Mercedes never makes a V8-powered C-Class again, it’s possible these current-gen C63s could eventually end up being less valuable than the last-gen models, which have V8s.
Another unknown is reliability. These cars use a complex hybrid setup that features a two-speed transmission at the rear for the e-motor, which can’t be cheap or simple to fix if it breaks. I couldn’t find anything online suggesting this generation of C63 had any major failure points worth worrying about, but these cars are also so new that even if there were failure points to worry about, they likely haven’t revealed themselves yet. It’s just something to keep in mind, should you take the plunge.
Either way, the market has spoken, and C63 prices finally make sense. If you’re in the market for a tech-heavy four-door rocketship on wheels, now’s a good chance to snag a low-mileage example for tens of thousands of dollars off of MSRP.
Top graphic image: Mercedes-Benz
I see a few of these in my area.
And the people drive them seem to drive like douchebags most of the time.
And for US$55,000 used, if I wanted something fun, there are numerous other cars I’d rather have… like this NEW manual Nissan Z
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicle/745413667
This manual Dodge Challenger
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicle/772420783
And if I must have 4 doors, the Civic Type R, Corolla GR hatchback, Subaru Impreza WRX or even this $5200 1989 Ford Taurus SHO
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicle/765270602
… and then use the remaining $49,800 keeping it in tip top shape.
I’m feeling very old now… Isn’t a C63 supposed to have a 6.3 litre engine?
Fine if you can make the same power with turbo on a smaller, but couldn’t you invent a new name for it then please?
It’s almost as confusing as the Audis with the 35 and such, which I have learned doesn’t stand for 35 horsepower or 3.5 litre engine, but something in between somewhere.
I’m sticking with my previous century cars:
My Citroën DS21 has approximately a 2.1 litre (2,165ccm, how french to round down…)
My Mercedes Benz 250SE has approximately a 2.5 (2,496ccm, very german and quite precise)
My Porsche 1600 has approximately a 1.6 (1,720ccm aftermarket kit, originally 1,582)
—I know they’re measured in 3 different kind of decimals… but at least there’s SOME kind of connection to the engine size 😉
Certain buyers can’t handle having a smaller number on their car than someone else. Many, many buyers in fact.
You kinda made your point invalid, because why would I buy this when I could get the Blackwing with a manual for the same price and not deal with German car repair costs?
Thou shalt engineer an engine with incredible power to weight ratio.
Thou shalt make said engine sound like ’twas visited by night-time rhodium merchants.
Thou shalt do everything in thine power to make the receiving car heavier.
Thou shalt ensure that added weight offers no discernible advantage to the driver.
Thou shalt make fat stacks of cash.
You forgot the C class isnt the bottom of the range and those had a terrible interior at 50k. A hybrid c class sounds great at that price c63 or not.
I don’t know about this car but 2019-2022 E and C class plug-in hybrids have proven to be reliable.
And in actual fact, they’re mechanically simpler than traditional pure ICEs from pre-2015 where the engine bay was full of belts and pulleys.
The W221 S-class has THREE 12 volt batteries because one wasn’t enough to power all of its electric gizmos. Current models use a 48V system instead and power everything through that instead of an alternator, the same applies for this C-class.
Opinions on reliability always lags 10-20 years behind current reality.
Much like I have more heartburn over the Mach E pretending to be a mustang than I do over it being electric, I take more umbrage at this thing usurping the 6.3L than I do at it having a turbo 4. I might even want to pick up a used one one day…
Except they dumped the fun transmission option in their fun car, so I don’t want it and neither will others like me. These will depreciate to sideways flat-brim vape bro territory and be totaled out in fender benders. The few survivors might actually belong on that list of future collector cars from a few days back.
I didn’t know it did 37mpg combined, that’s genuinely impressive with a relatively small battery.
That’s not nearly enough of a reason to pick it over rivals.
It doesn’t, it’s a misprint. It does 37MPGE when fully charged and traveling the like…5 feet it can travel as an EV. The actual ratings are 19/22…which are fairly impressive for something with this much performance, but not 37.
The 19 is kind of impressive… The 22 can be topped by a Hellcat.
On paper maybe, in practice? I’m not so sure. I find the advertised highway mileage of modern V8s to basically be the male equivalent of astronomy. A fun prediction that’s just not based in anything real.
I can actually confirm. I’m in the industry, once put several tanks of fuel through a hellcat Charger and saw 23 MPG in 100% highway driving. Not babying it, but certainly not driving it like I stole it either. The axle ratio is so tall that the manual Challenger will blow past 60 in first gear and the HP70’s second overdrive ratio is 0.67:1. It’s probably running no boost OR vacuum at cruise speed.
Ouch! says the solar system. 😉
Gt350 got 18mpg highway not caring 21-22 up hill because i had a heavy tailwind. 6
Mind 13mpg intown kinda hurts. As the axlegrease it used for engine oil.
That might be astrology 🙂 astronomy is pretty much established by now
You don’t say! I walked right into that one lol
That drivetrain does not say “reasonable ongoing maintenance costs” to me
The badge on the grill says it ever louder!
Mercedes-Benz owner here.
I find most AMGs to be ultra-cringe anyway – but I certainly wouldn’t touch this with your 10 foot pole. Not because it’s a 4 cylinder – after all, the 190E 2.3-16 was a 4 cylinder – but because of the overly unnecessary complexity, weight and expense, not to mention the ridiculous “63” badge on a 2.0t.
Unlike some others, I don’t have an issue w/ the 4 cylinder SL43 – after all, the 190SL was a 4 cylinder. And I do not have an issue w/ the inline 6s – after all, the Ur 300SL was an inline 6. So I don’t believe a V8 is necessary for an AMG C Class.
But this is not the way.
It feels like such an own-goal. The V8 has been the defining characteristic for MB’s performance cars since the 1970s (the spicy 190s notwithstanding). Swapping it out for a 4-cyl turbo hybrid feels like they don’t know their customers at all.
It’s like Outback switching to Impossible Meat patties.
You’ve clearly never heard of the AMG 3.6-24 engines from the 1990s – such as those in the C36
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45210584/1995-mercedes-benz-c36-amg-archive-test/
That engine was also found in the E Class in Europe and Japan.
I had not!
I like how they look, I’ll not pretend otherwise. Very AMG thicc, much like how a hippo looks fat but is actually nothing but muscle.
The engine noise doesn’t bother me (much), but the reliability certainly does. The tech on these things is just hilarious, it’s like the engineers were given bonuses based on how overcomplicated they could make every component. I’m not convinced they weren’t, it certainly seems like a car built specifically to spend as much time in the service department as possible. The whole vehicle feels like a corporate con, like Mercedes was deliberately trying to build a car that would suck as much money out of owner’s pockets as possible, while being nearly impossible for independent shops to repair. Owning this car at any price point feels like a sucker’s choice. What fish deliberately bites a hook?
If the price is now what it should’ve been when new, shouldn’t the price for one be lower than what it is? Maybe $33,000?
Still too expensive
These will probably hit their stride when they’re in the low 30s (and have so much deferred maintenance you’ll pay close to msrp in 5 years)
I can’t get over a C63 without a V8.
Had one of these drive by me the other week. Genuinely sounded like a rust belt, four-cylinder car, with holes in its exhaust
Just wait another 2 or 3 years until they are mechanically totaled and can be had for $5k from the auction. Can be driven ala bmw style nothing working but the warning lights bleeding and burning every fluid but still somehow driving very poorly with a former Altima driver at the wheel.
I found a CPO 2024 with 4k miles for $63k. Obviously a bit more than some of the examples above, but I feel like the extra year of warranty might pay for itself.
Without reeding the article: the title is ridiculous.
Was this the one with the absurdly powerful 4 cylinder? Like, 2 liters, 560 hp or something? That seems… reliable.
I saw one of these in the wild recently that, in typical AMG fashion, was being hooned within an inch of its life downtown by some rich kid. I literally broke out laughing when it sped past me. It sounded like an asthmatic Hyundai N. While I currently drive a farting 4 cylinder crossover that many would say sounds like ass, I paid $36,000 for it.
I cannot even begin to fathom paying $100,000 for something that sounds like a worse version of my car. It’s absolutely laughable. What’s even funnier is this 4 pot is still the base engine in the AMG GT! You can pay $120,000+ for a 911 fighter than sounds like a hot hatch with an aftermarket exhaust.
Anyway I’m getting ahead of myself here…but for $55,000 I’m still out. The repair bills on these things once they’re off warranty are going to be eye watering. I cannot even begin to imagine what it’s going to cost when the additional transmission for the rear electric motor goes bad. Or the battery. Or the electric motors. And did I mention that the electric range isn’t even usable?
Apparently in practice you’ll barely be able to go a mile in EV mode. The new RS5 may be an absolute pig, but at least you’ll be able to use it as an actual PHEV. Same with the M5. There are a lot of advantages to being able to commute with a PHEV and it (on paper at least, Ze Germans may have engineered a way for this not to be true) should hypothetically save a lot of wear and tear on the performance bits.
But you can’t even do that with this stupid ass car! Anyway, maybe I’d be intrigued when they’re down to $30,000 in a year or two. But in that case it would still be a horrible idea for someone with a $30,000 budget to buy one. It would be for someone with a $50,000+ budget due to the inevitable repair costs.
Ultimately these are all going to wind up on buy here, pay here lots within the next 5 years and will promptly be expensive paperweights soon after. I award Mercedes no points, and may god have mercy on their soul.
Bless you and your contributions to the site.
While I agree the price is definitely more in line, especially the 4 cyl’s, I know I am not alone in disliking those front ends. BMW and MB seem to have a battle over who can create intensely unlikable front ends, and I don’t know who is winning the war.
EDIT: Just adding in case it wasn’t evident. This is a hot take.