RE: All-new Mercedes-AMG C63 - official!
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The DCT in the SLS could have been made faster but Mercedes couldn't both make it faster and meet their power train reliability tests, so it was tardy instead - apparently it improved over time. The speed of the gearbox in the E class is just fine - it's not quite as sharp as the best DCTs but it's perfectly good.The ZF transmission in the M135i/235i is very, very good. Extremely smooth in auto mode and quick in manual mode.
Patrick Bateman said:
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.
Well, my old man has the twin turbo V8 M6; some old duffer scraped it slightly (turned out it only needed a good polish, not a respray!) but when it went in for work he was loaned a CL63 AMG with the bi-turbo lump. I preferred the engine in the CL63, it had more character, made a nicer noise (not as nice as the old 6.2, but still nice)....but the car itself was a bit of a boat compared to the M6.Those saying M have lost their way with the noise and that understeer is the least of our worries should perhaps remind themselves that BMW are still making the cars with the better chassis compared to their rivals, with all other aspects being superior....the cars are lighter, more responsive etc which are all things which matter in a car you should enjoy. The engines may not have the noise or character of what you would expect from an M car, but everything else is still there IMO.
I will say though the M6 is not as fun to drive as the E92 M3 it replaced, but it's a GT car, and for that, it's one of the best, if not THE best, GT car I've ever been in. Wipes the floor with a DB9 in terms of performance, comfort, interior quality, price, practicality etc etc. Just doesn't sound as nice!
E65Ross said:
Patrick Bateman said:
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.
Well, my old man has the twin turbo V8 M6; some old duffer scraped it slightly (turned out it only needed a good polish, not a respray!) but when it went in for work he was loaned a CL63 AMG with the bi-turbo lump. I preferred the engine in the CL63, it had more character, made a nicer noise (not as nice as the old 6.2, but still nice)....but the car itself was a bit of a boat compared to the M6.Those saying M have lost their way with the noise and that understeer is the least of our worries should perhaps remind themselves that BMW are still making the cars with the better chassis compared to their rivals, with all other aspects being superior....the cars are lighter, more responsive etc which are all things which matter in a car you should enjoy. The engines may not have the noise or character of what you would expect from an M car, but everything else is still there IMO.
I will say though the M6 is not as fun to drive as the E92 M3 it replaced, but it's a GT car, and for that, it's one of the best, if not THE best, GT car I've ever been in. Wipes the floor with a DB9 in terms of performance, comfort, interior quality, price, practicality etc etc. Just doesn't sound as nice!
burwoodman said:
My call is that the new C63 will convincingly beat the M3/4. It will be faster, have the very latest interior and regardless of how it sounds, will be superior to the BMWs.
Lots of talk of a superior interior compared to Audi, BMW, etc. From what I can see, Mercedes still use the same matt effect on all their interior controls as they did in the late 90s, highlighting the fact that it's just cheap plastic with a silver coating. I know very few manufacturers this side of Pagani actually use machined metal parts for interior controls, however I believe BMW and Audi (and I'm sure even sodding Kia) often use either a shiny chrome like effect or piano black, both of which look less s
te in my eyes.The carbon fibre effect in the screenshot looks horrendous, tacky and with lots of reflections. In fact I'm struggling to think of any good interior from Merc.
Edited by ecs0set on Monday 29th September 12:41
Maldini35 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Fantastic engine aside I wasn't that impressed with the current (old) C63 AMG. Wooden brakes, slow witted gearbox and a general feeling that the car weighed as much as the QE2.Each to their own I guess
DJRC said:
All 4 seat barges do. Or are you another who regards things like an M5 as a sports car?
How very condescending. Why be so obnoxious? There really is no need. A previous poster seemed to rate the AMG driving experience very highly, I simply gave a counter point. I made no such assertions regarding the M5 or any other performance saloon.
In conclusion - wind your neck in.
Edited by Maldini35 on Tuesday 30th September 09:34
It's not the c63 but the AMG GT and same level of tune. Not bad for a turbo V8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Xjtrv8VKs
xRIEx said:
Hitch78 said:
That is a sad sad advert by Mercedes.
I found it mildly amusing and I hate most adverts.burwoodman said:
What I find bizarre is a sports cars noise is critical. It's the first thing any enthusiast notices and looks for. There is no question that the new 63 will sound great, despite being a turbo. Why can't BMW manage it?
Exactly! One of the reasons I bought a Cayman GTS over the M4.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff