The reality is Jaguar and Aston Martin have been getting beat up by the Germans for what seems like decades now. Aston Martin is even going to AMG for technology as they have fallen so far behind with their now ancient V12. The editors at Autocar do not even acknowledge this fact.
Ok, so how do the cars stack up around the track? Well, it's difficult to say. The reviewer states he can not put the power down in the Mercedes. He states the track is wet making the Jaguar a handful. The conditions are working against cars with sport rubber. The Pirelli Pzero Corsa tires on the Jaguar for example contribute to its slow laptime considering the tires are a max performance compound designed for use in the dry. What is the point of even taking the cars out in these conditions when the cars can not truly show what they are capable of? They might as well run them during a blizzard and throw a regular Audi A4 into the mix that thanks to Quattro will come out on top.
The Aston comes out a half second ahead of the C63 Black Series which itself is a few seconds ahead of the Jaguar. Without the cars being able to have full grip the results do not mean much of anything. BenzBoost would be embarrassed to publish such a track comparison and it should be beneath supposed professionals as the results for each car will change significantly in the dry.
The Aston Martin is picked as the winner and it is said it wins rather easily. Based on a lap in the wet by the British reviewer, really? Even despite the fact the Mercedes C63 Black Series undercuts the Aston's price by almost 20,000 British pounds? The only thing that is easily identifiable here Autocar is what a joke this comparison is. As is calling yourselves, "the world's leading motoring magazine and website."