Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback
Compare the Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback. The Audi RS5 Sportback is £13,000 cheaper. The Mercedes-AMG C 63 is 0.1s quicker to 60mph. The Audi RS5 Sportback is more fuel efficient. Full performance, cost & ownership breakdown.
The Mercedes-AMG C 63 is priced from £55,000, powered by a 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8, producing 503 hp, with 700 Nm of torque, reaching 0-60 mph in 3.8s, a top speed of 180 mph, sent to the road via rear-wheel drive. The Audi RS5 Sportback is priced from £65,000, powered by a 2.9L Twin-Turbo V6, producing 444 hp, with 600 Nm of torque, reaching 0-60 mph in 3.9s, a top speed of 174 mph, sent to the road via all-wheel drive.
The Mercedes-AMG C 63 offers a 455-litre boot, folding rear seats, runs on petrol, returns around 26 mpg, is covered by a 3yr / unlimited mi warranty. The Audi RS5 Sportback offers a 480-litre boot, folding rear seats, runs on petrol, returns around 30 mpg, is covered by a 3yr / unlimited mi warranty.
On cost of ownership, the Audi RS5 Sportback is £13,000 cheaper than its rival, the Audi RS5 Sportback costs less in annual maintenance (£1,100 versus £1,000), the Audi RS5 Sportback is the more fuel-efficient choice, a full tank costs around £80 for the Mercedes-AMG C 63 and £80 for the Audi RS5 Sportback.
Driving Character: Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback
The Mercedes-AMG C 63 remains a titan of the executive performance segment, defined by its thunderous 4.0L twin-turbo V8. The engine delivers a character that is increasingly rare, offering an aggressive, theatrical soundscape that is amplified by the mechanical limited-slip differential. The rear-wheel-drive platform provides a traditional, tail-happy balance that rewards a skilled driver, though the sheer power output requires significant caution in adverse weather conditions. It is a car that thrives on the open road, where the balance of torque and power delivery can be fully exploited, making it a visceral, highly engaging piece of German engineering.
The RS5 Sportback delivers a sophisticated driving experience focused on immense, all-weather pace. Its 2.9L twin-turbo V6 pushes 444 hp, providing a linear and authoritative surge of acceleration that makes the 0-60 sprint feel effortless. The Quattro system, paired with a sport differential, ensures the chassis feels planted and neutral, even in challenging conditions. While it may lack the raw, emotive bark of a V8, the technical precision is hard to ignore. It is a car that covers ground with clinical efficiency, keeping the driver composed and confident regardless of the severity of the road surface.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG C 63 takes our 0-100 driving character grading, 84 against 72. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG C 63: Thunderous twin-turbo V8 with a playful, adjustable rear-drive character. For the Audi RS5 Sportback: Composed, quattro-assured pace with a characterful twin-turbo V6. In outright terms it is 503 hp against 444 — a 59 hp gap — and the Mercedes-AMG C 63 reaches 60 mph 0.1s sooner.
Interior & Cabin: Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback
Inside, the C 63 is a blend of high-end executive luxury and focused performance. The cabin features premium Nappa leather and DINAMICA materials, with AMG-specific detailing that differentiates it from the standard C-Class. The Performance seats provide excellent support during spirited driving while remaining comfortable for daily commuting. Infotainment is delivered through a high-resolution interface that is ergonomic and well-integrated. While the rear seats offer adequate space for adults, the overall interior environment feels sophisticated, maintaining a luxurious ambience that balances the car's extreme performance capabilities with the comfort expected of a premium Mercedes saloon.
The cabin is a triumph of function and premium finish, centring on the high-resolution Virtual Cockpit. Everything is exactly where a driver would expect it, with high-quality materials and a robust build feel that characterises Audi’s best interiors. The Sportback silhouette does slightly compromise headroom for rear passengers, though the four-door configuration makes it far more accessible than a traditional coupe. It feels intimate yet spacious, balancing a cockpit-style atmosphere with sufficient room for adults. While it shares some architecture with the standard A5, the RS-specific trim and seating elevate the experience to something truly special.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS5 Sportback takes our 0-100 interior & cabin grading, 76 against 82. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG C 63: Flamboyant, premium-feeling cabin with supportive seats. For the Audi RS5 Sportback: Spacious, well-finished cabin with practical 5-door hatch access.
Daily Usability: Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback
Practicality is a cornerstone of the C 63's appeal, offering a 455-litre boot that handles everyday chores with ease. In Comfort mode, the suspension softens significantly, turning the car into a compliant cruiser capable of managing motorway miles without fatigue. It is a vehicle that transitions effortlessly from a daily office commuter to a weekend sports machine. The only real trade-off for this usability is the fuel consumption, which is significant under load, and the wide wheel arches and stance that can make navigating tight city streets or multi-storey car parks an exercise in careful spatial awareness.
Practicality is the RS5 Sportback’s hidden talent, blending high performance with genuine usability. The 480L boot is surprisingly cavernous, and the rear doors make loading children or shopping a non-issue. Its footprint is manageable for urban environments, allowing for relatively stress-free parking. The ride, while undeniably firm when set to Dynamic, remains supple in Comfort, smoothing out motorway undulations effectively. It is a car that thrives on long-distance grand touring, where its stability and power come into their own, yet it remains perfectly at home running mundane errands through a congested city centre.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS5 Sportback takes our 0-100 daily usability grading, 70 against 85. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG C 63: Comfortable, well-isolated cruiser despite its firm setup. For the Audi RS5 Sportback: Genuinely practical everyday performance car with a usable boot. that means 455 litres of boot space against 480, and everyday running costs that favour the Audi RS5 Sportback at the pumps.
Ownership: Mercedes-AMG C 63 vs Audi RS5 Sportback
Owning a C 63 is a relatively straightforward experience, thanks to the vast global Mercedes dealer network and the availability of specialist support. Maintenance is predictably expensive, with high-performance components like tyres and brakes requiring frequent attention, but the overall reliability of the powertrain is well-regarded among the community. As the industry moves toward electrification, the W205 C 63's naturally aspirated-feel V8 is increasingly seen as a desirable classic, helping to stabilise residual values. It remains a benchmark for the segment, offering a combination of daily utility and performance that continues to attract a strong, loyal owner base.
Ownership costs for the RS5 Sportback are balanced, leaning towards the premium end of the mid-size performance spectrum. Achieving 30 mpg on a steady run is a welcome benefit of the V6 layout, though enthusiastic driving will see that figure plummet. Servicing intervals are well-structured, though the Quattro driveline does require specific attention to remain in peak condition. Audi’s expansive dealer network is a massive advantage, ensuring that parts and expertise are never far away. Strong residuals and a broad appeal make this a sound financial proposition for a high-performance vehicle, provided you are prepared for the annual maintenance budget.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Audi RS5 Sportback takes our 0-100 ownership grading, 66 against 78. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG C 63: Feels robustly screwed together. For the Audi RS5 Sportback: Strong Audi reliability reputation. On the wallet the two diverge at £55,000 versus £65,000 — a £10,000 difference, with annual maintenance of £1,100 against £1,000.