RE: All-new Mercedes-AMG C63 - official!
Discussion
Eski1991 said:
RudeDog said:
C36 AMG - 3.6 NA engine
C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
That threw me as well, don't really understand why that's been done.C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
xRIEx said:
Eski1991 said:
RudeDog said:
C36 AMG - 3.6 NA engine
C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
That threw me as well, don't really understand why that's been done.C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
0a said:
Eski1991 said:
RudeDog said:
C36 AMG - 3.6 NA engine
C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
That threw me as well, don't really understand why that's been done.C43 AMG - 4.3 NA engine
C32 AMG - 3.2 Supercharged engine
C55 AMG - 5.5 NA engine (almost)
C63 AMG - 6.3 NA engine (again almost)
then...
C63 AMG - 4.0 Turbocharged engine
Why the break from the naming convention?
I like the look of these - hopefully there won't be a noise issue as with the new M3!
3ananaPie said:
Over 1700kg, and here the RC-F was being criticised for being too fat. Front ok, rear terrible as others have mentioend. Current car certainly has more presence. Interior is ok but that screen looks dreadful.
Well, the Lexus is a fair chunk heavier than that.Not sure whether BMW have under-powered the M3/4 a little. I use under-powered in the loosest possible term. It's more than quick enough, but in respect to its competition.
gregf40 said:
Errrrrr...why have they glued an iPad to the top of the dash?
I'm surprised no one at the top of Mercedes has said "we can do better than that".It's not just the way it's tacked on either, look at the size of the bezel on that screen. It's 2014, that screen should take up the entire unit.
E65Ross said:
Not sure whether BMW have under-powered the M3/4 a little. I use under-powered in the loosest possible term. It's more than quick enough, but in respect to its competition.
Same 0-62 times of 4.1 PTWR 263 vs. 277 for the Benz so pretty similar (standard version), but I'd have thought 450 would have been a good output for the M3 giving it just 6hp over the e92 seems mean, even when factoring in the weight loss. I wonder were they will price it?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff