RE: PH Fleet: C63 AMG Estate
Discussion
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
I think even someone with a £60k car is going to notice the sacrifices made at the pumps, the point is this is a thirsty car. An internal conversation must go on each time you watch the numbers scroll past - this is an estate car and it is costing me £x a month to run, is it really that good or should I save some money and buy a diesel, no it is really good, no I can't justify this much money when I can only get the most of it 10% of the time, oh but it is so special and sounds so great, etc etc. An £80 fill-up is an £80 fill up, or it could be a meal for 2, some new clothes etc etc, irrespective of how much cash you have.In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
For what it's worth, I think it is a great car and I preferred the sound of one of them being floored nicely for us on the trip to Le Mans this year to pretty much everyone else who obliged us. The noise is just pure filth!
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
£70k actually. Yes, it's unaffordable, but we're giving up our helicopter and the traditional family Christmas on Necker Island first.In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
Chris-R said:
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
£70k actually. Yes, it's unaffordable, but we're giving up our helicopter and the traditional family Christmas on Necker Island first.In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
Buy an E39 M5 in preference: 400HP, 18/20MPG, £10k, £100 to fill, so what...In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
zebedee said:
Those numbers make a lot of sense, but the M5 doesn't sound like the AMG! Few things sound like the AMG, though I imagine the end of the world will probably come close!
Nothing an aftermarket exhaust couldn't fixhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgqDURRmD4
plus you get to row your own gears
SleeperCell said:
Nothing an aftermarket exhaust couldn't fix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgqDURRmD4
plus you get to row your own gears
better listen to that at home rather than at work, is it an E39?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgqDURRmD4
plus you get to row your own gears
SleeperCell said:
zebedee said:
Those numbers make a lot of sense, but the M5 doesn't sound like the AMG! Few things sound like the AMG, though I imagine the end of the world will probably come close!
Nothing an aftermarket exhaust couldn't fixhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgqDURRmD4
plus you get to row your own gears
silversixx said:
Chris-R said:
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
£70k actually. Yes, it's unaffordable, but we're giving up our helicopter and the traditional family Christmas on Necker Island first.In this vein, I was astounded by this month's Car magazine conclusions about its long termer E63 AMG estate (which cost £80k new). Apparently the extra economy of the new twin turbo E63, which is worth the princely sum of £500 over 10,000miles, is such a big saving it warrants sacrificing the 6.2 litre na motor (which is supposed to be just so great) for the 5.5 litre twin turbo!
2 year old Mercedes C220 CDI blahblah blah mpg
8.2 Litre Cadillac - actually pretty much the same, when converted
r129sl said:
It is quite bizarre to complain about the fuel consumption of a fifty (sixty?) grand car. If money is that tight, surely the car is unaffordable for you?
It's not just the cost, the range is important as well. According to the internet the fuel tank on these cars holds about 14 gallons, so if mpg is in the "high teens" as per the article, that's a range of less than 300 miles, which is no good for touring.excel monkey said:
It's not just the cost, the range is important as well. According to the internet the fuel tank on these cars holds about 14 gallons, so if mpg is in the "high teens" as per the article, that's a range of less than 300 miles, which is no good for touring.
I think I could happily get out and stretch my legs once every 300 miles!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff