RE: All-new Mercedes-AMG C63 - official!

[H100S]

I like the new C range however I expected more from the styling of the AMG version. The previous generation had a better mix of argression while still managing to be very classy too. I also think the estate is the best looking of the two.

[3ananaPie]

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.

[MarshPhantom]

I love small bodied, big engined Mercs.

Shame they never did a 2dr 190 with a big V8.

[xRIEx]

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.

They've done that with the E63 since 2011. More recently the A45 and the non-AMG SL400.

[carl_w]

Will there be a coupe?

[Atmospheric]

I just don't like the shape of this generation of C Class.

To me this generation of small Mercs look awkward. I think the E Class upwards the proportions seem to work with this design "language"

Give me a W212 atmospheric E63 over this.

[King James]

Wish the arches were more flared at the back!

[LP670]

the old car was much better. can we have the 6.2 litre engine back please...

[-Z-]

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.

They've done that with the E63 since 2011. More recently the A45 and the non-AMG SL400.

BMW the same with everything except ///M cars. M135i is not a 3.5! Shock horror etc....

[RudeDog]

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.

Marketing - the badge can't go 'down' can it, otherwise you would buy one and your neighbour's old c63 would be 'better'.

I like the look of these - hopefully there won't be a noise issue as with the new M3!

They did in the past when the C43 was superseded by the C32. I don't remember it being a big hit however so maybe they learned their lesson? I can't believe that was down to the name mind, more likely the move from NA to FI...

[Twin2]

That looks cracking... Want

[E65Ross]

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.

[lamboman100]

No way.

Looks gaudy inside. And borderline-ugly outside.

And slow, too. The next-gen Golf R400 will be faster to 62mph and almost half the price.

It will sell, for sure. But may lose some of its cult status. A bit like the M3 is doing at the moment.

[kambites]

I don't think anyone cares about 0-60 times anymore. At least not in cars of this sort of performance.

[bubney72]

Boring. Yawn yawn

[The Vambo]

gregf40 said:

Errrrrr...why have they glued an iPad to the top of the dash?

That is so original. Did you just make that up?

[zeduffman]

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.

[Wills2]

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?

[PorkRind]

Really not sure about the turbo's. Im sure it goes like stink, sounds great. But really, theres no replacement for displacement ! Doesnt look at hardcore/menacing as the old one either . #EurojellyMould

[unpc]

God that thing is ugly. Merc seem to have totally lost their way on the styling front. And what is about modes? Who wants or needs fking modes? I want 1 mode that works on all roads. Is that too much to ask?