RE: All-new Mercedes-AMG C63 - official!
Discussion
Dr Interceptor said:
It'd be better if they dropped the number altogether and just called it the Mercedes-AMG C-Class, and the Mercedes-AMG C-Class 'S'.
Or the Mercedes C-AMG and C-AMG S
Ya, der C32 AMG, C43 AMG, C55 AMG, C63 AMG und now,,, oh sheizerOr the Mercedes C-AMG and C-AMG S
Simply C lass AMG would have been a far better idea, problem is, thanks to Audi's stupid S line idea, and Mercedes following, everyone with AMG floor mats thinks they have a C class "AMG"
I do remember when the original C63 AMG arrived, handsome, well proportioned, modern, low loud n fast, like it was made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts, a "mad car" as Clarkson put it, this on the other hand looks like a really compromised marketing led effort with plasticy looking interior and tacked on corporate nose
Edited by SteelySteve on Wednesday 24th September 23:14
Edited by SteelySteve on Wednesday 24th September 23:15
Gorbyrev said:
Fantastic performance. The rocket MB load lugger continues. Must put a deposit on one. Nuts, I can't afford it. Total man maths failure. Darn, darn, darney darn! (in the words of Bad Cop, Lego Movie)
That's unforuante, you could have been the first C63 owner that quotes the Lego Movie...neil1jnr said:
lamboman100 said:
And slow, too. The next-gen Golf R400 will be faster to 62mph and almost half the price.quote]
Why are you obsessed with a fictitious Golf??
The Golf R400, if it every sees daylight will be at least 45K, will be a highly strung A45 rival. The new C63 is actually a few quid less than the outgoing model. Sub 55k in standard guise.Why are you obsessed with a fictitious Golf??
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Totally agree - initially the old C63 had the 7 g tronic without MCT and yes that was an awful 'box. But the new one in the E63 with MCT is absolutely fine, so I suspect will be fine in the C63 too. The dual clutch transmission in the RS5 I drove wasn't any better than MCT certainly, if anything it was a tiny bit worse.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's not the box type thats important, it's how quick it responds to a command to change gear.The SLS DCT suffered until it was updated, which is weird becuase it uses the same box that is razor sharp in the Ferrari 458 but Merc seemed to engineer in a pause for no apparent reason.
In my M5 with DCT, the box responds instantaneously to any flick of a paddle. On the C63 MCT there is/was a noticeable pause. That would drive me insane.
If they've sorted it, great! Who cares what kind of box it has. The M135i has a ZF Slushbox, but that is celebrated because it responds instantaneously to a pull of a paddle.
To reiterate, its not the type of box, its not how fast it physically changes gears, its how fast it responds to the command that seems to drive people loopy.
Oh another point that is related, they better have got rid of it's over cautious nature when down shifting.
Panayiotis said:
Gorbyrev said:
Fantastic performance. The rocket MB load lugger continues. Must put a deposit on one. Nuts, I can't afford it. Total man maths failure. Darn, darn, darney darn! (in the words of Bad Cop, Lego Movie)
That's unforuante, you could have been the first C63 owner that quotes the Lego Movie...Scockers said:
Estate looks good.
Saloon is ugly. Same droopy rear as the CLA. Styling team trying too hard?
Don’t think it’s as bad as the CLA, it is very colour sensitive however. Well from the extremely small pallet of colours MB give you from which to choose.Saloon is ugly. Same droopy rear as the CLA. Styling team trying too hard?
Anyway, the M3 is finished!
Patrick Bateman said:
How does the twin-turbo engine compare with the 6.2?
Having experienced both in various guises, the 6.2 in a C63 and early E63) and the 5.5 in a later E63 and also a CL63 there's no denying the 5.5 is technically quicker and the better engine. Didn't quite have the zing and character of the 6.2 though in my opinion. Both are good, mind! E65Ross said:
Having experienced both in various guises, the 6.2 in a C63 and early E63) and the 5.5 in a later E63 and also a CL63 there's no denying the 5.5 is technically quicker and the better engine. Didn't quite have the zing and character of the 6.2 though in my opinion. Both are good, mind!
I was curious as to how the turbo V8's in the Mercs faired in that department compared with the BMW rivals, given the latter cars are often said to miss some of the excitement of old with the introduction of turbos.Atmospheric said:
German marques underrate their cars.
2013 B8 S4 is approaching 380hp as standard
F30 M3 460 - 470bhp
2013 Audi S8 making 590bhp
2014 W212 E63 PP 4matic making 636bhp
F10 M5 making 600bhp
These are rated by magazines. The excellent Motor Trend youtube channel has a few of them being dynoed.
They have been doing it for years, Alpina were especially guilty off this with the E60 B5 which made way over 550bhp, but marked up as 500bhp, when the V10 M5 was 501 (internal politics, I would have thought)
This is partly why suggesting FWD hatches are catching up - the 4.0 turbo V8s from such cars are producing much more power than written.
Typo. The V10 was 507.
2013 B8 S4 is approaching 380hp as standard
F30 M3 460 - 470bhp
2013 Audi S8 making 590bhp
2014 W212 E63 PP 4matic making 636bhp
F10 M5 making 600bhp
These are rated by magazines. The excellent Motor Trend youtube channel has a few of them being dynoed.
They have been doing it for years, Alpina were especially guilty off this with the E60 B5 which made way over 550bhp, but marked up as 500bhp, when the V10 M5 was 501 (internal politics, I would have thought)
This is partly why suggesting FWD hatches are catching up - the 4.0 turbo V8s from such cars are producing much more power than written.
Typo. The V10 was 507.
Edited by Atmospheric on Tuesday 23 September 23:23
t on that.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff