Is it possible to make a C63 into a AWD? Roughly how much money

I think the easiest way would be to take an AWD C class and put a V8 in it.

Anything is possible with enough time and money, but it's not practical. You'd basically be ripping the car apart and building a new car out of its pieces, and it'd be a crazy race car when it was done, not a nice comfy luxury car. Doing it right would cost at least 100k

Of the cars you mentioned, I'd take the M3.

>>17079345
Wouldn't work, there's almost zero chance the AWD system could handle the power/torque of a 6.3. The only way I could see it being done is with real racing/rally components.

>>17079373
>The only way I could see it being done is with real racing/rally components
How about AWD bits from, say, an AMG E-Class?

>>17079373
>and it'd be a crazy race car when it was done
That's kind of what I'm looking for.
But with that being said, if the car(used) is 50K, putting another 100K in to make it AWD seems kind of dumb. It would be cool, but dumb and maybe not worth the money when I really think about it.

>>17079327
Why do you want to ruin this C63?

>>17079397
AWD only makes cars better. Why do you think it's banned in racing? It's too good.

>>17079403
full time awd is good for rallying but bad for road racing.

>>17079445
>bad for road racing.
Then why is the quattro system banned?

>>17079375
That would probably work, but again, at that point you're basically building a custom chassis and dropping a C63 shell on top of it. You could probably chop down an E-class floorpan and drop the C63 shell on that (there's a shop in NZ that's done similar things a few times, like an "AWD Mazda2" that's on a WRX floorpan), but then you're paying for two whole AMG cars and doing a fuckton of fabrication work for something pretty pointless.

>>17079388
Yeah, that's basically the issue. The only reason to do it is if, say, you were AMG corporate and for some reason wanted to race a car that looked like a C63 in an AWD series/event, or a shop that wanted to show off their skills.

>>17079327

Even if you somehow managed to connecting the front wheels with the drivetrain you will end up with an uncontrollable missile. This is because the electronic controls don't know the front wheels are suddenly also pulling the car, your ABS, tractio control, everything will be fucked

>>17079345
The transfer case would be gone in days with that torque

>>17079466
The only time AWD is better is when you're highly traction limited on acceleration. That's why it's used in rally cars. Now, check the WTAC records and you'll see that the fastest cars are RWD, despite putting 800-1000 horsepower through 265 width street tires. That's about as traction limited as it gets, and AWD still isn't a big enough advantage for the Evos and GT-Rs to take the top spots.

As far as being banned; its not. Many series specify that cars must be RWD, but affects FWD as well. Are you going to argue that FWD is better than RWD because it's banned in racing?

>>17079327
GAD Motors made one but I think they used the drivetrain from a E 63

https://youtu.be/zkJblcybCfo

>>17079777
I think I came. It's everything I have ever wanted

>>17079777
ew just realized they swapped the engine for a 5.5... WHY!