Thursday 18th November 2010

New Mercedes-Benz CLS 63 AMG

AMG slots bi-turbo V8 into the CLS - planet is saved (for now)

---

With up to 557hp and 590lb ft of torque to call on, it's no wonder M-B puts the new CLS 63 AMG's fuel consumption figure near the top of its press announcement for the new model.

The number is 28.5mpg, which is a level of frugality we find frankly unbecoming in a fire-breathing monster from Affalterbach. Surely something in the low teens would be more appropriate - at this rate everybody will want one...

A 32 percent improvement in fuel consumption is only one of the eye-catching numbers associated with the latest CLS range-topper. The car gets the new twin turbo engine we tried in the (also fabulously frugal) S63 recently, which means 525hp and 516lb ft in standard guise, or the figures mentioned at the top of the article when the Performance Pack is fitted. (The latter raises charge pressure from 1.0 to 1.3 bar and shaves 0.1secs off the standard 4.4sec 0-62mph time.) The transmission is Merc's admirable 7spd MCT unit, which doubtless does quite a lot to help in all respects.

With exterior design inspired by the SLS AMG, the new machine is distinguishable from lesser CLSs by a bespoke bonnet, wider arches and AMG front apron with black painted cross-member. There's also a special diffuser insert, and twin chrome tailpipes.

The new car goes on sale in the UK in May next year, so get those deposits in now!

[Big Brin]

I love the current shape, the new one is contrived and IMO hideous. It may be a beast but it looks like one too.

[Bill]

Not convinced about the extra lines, and the rear arch makes the wheel look tiny. Hopefully it's better in the flesh (And black, obviously )

[cheesyblob]

Nice!

[Johnpidge]

Quite like the looks - some details a little fussy but overal it moves it on the right direction

[kambites]

Impressive stats, but it certainly ain't a pretty thing. Lets hope it looks better in the metal than in photographs.

[SWoll]

Love it.

Think the new design is far more purposeful and aggressive than the previous model which in my eyes aged very quickly once the initial "thats different" phase wore off.

Was looking at one (old model) in a car park the other day and thought it looked like a balloon that had been squeezed at both ends so all the air was in the middle.

The performance stats are pretty impressive also. Looks like all the complaints about a lack of torque when MB moved from the supercharged 55AMG to the N/A 63AMG can now be forgotten.

[[AJ]]

I quite like that too.

[JONSCZ]

http://sniffpetrol.com/

top story sums it up!!

[pSyCoSiS]

What an amazing machine.

Looks stunning, i'm sure it will have stunning performance to match!

[matc]

Bill said:

Hopefully it's better in the flesh (And black, obviously )

Like you I wasn't too convinced when I saw the pics for the first time; but having now seen and had a sit in one I would say it knocks the current model for six!

[Carl_Docklands]

sod the rs5, i want one of these!

[Or888t]

Very immpressive!

My dad want one of these so much it's untrue.

[Gizmo!]

Jebus H.

Same economy as my [small RWD roadster].

Comfortably over four times the power and twice the weight.

That's engineering progress for you.

[philmots]

Engine sounds like a work of art... and why wouldn't you spec the performance pack!

[cml]

Gizmo! said:

Jebus H.

Same economy as my [small RWD roadster].

Comfortably over four times the power and twice the weight.

That's engineering progress for you.

Mmmm. Partly. There is only so much energy in any volume of petrol, and while you can improve efficiency, there is definite limit. However, as we know real mpg and artificial mpg figures from some test are different things - changing gear ratios here and there can do wonders for fuel economy for the test for example. If anybody actually gets 28mpg we should bake a cake.

[Dracoro]

Gizmo! said:

Jebus H.

Same economy as my [small RWD roadster].

Comfortably over four times the power and twice the weight.

That's engineering progress for you.

I bet your MX5 would pi$$ all over it fuel economy wise if on shorter journeys, round town etc. Out on the long A-roads and motorways.

For many people, most big cars aren't great on fuel unless long journeys/motorway driving is the norm.

[Cacatous]

I like it a lot. The nose look a bit ugly from the side but apart from that it's grand.

Personally I'd take an AMG CLS Shoot Brake

[MacG]

Everyone will eventually agree that this is much more attractive than the first effort. No point contradicting me - it would just mean you haven't yet come to your senses.

So it is enshrined in the Big Book of Facts (Automotive Edition).

[anonymous-user]

Want.

[Charge99]

cml said:

Gizmo! said:

Jebus H.

Same economy as my [small RWD roadster].

Comfortably over four times the power and twice the weight.

That's engineering progress for you.

Mmmm. Partly. There is only so much energy in any volume of petrol, and while you can improve efficiency, there is definite limit. However, as we know real mpg and artificial mpg figures from some test are different things - changing gear ratios here and there can do wonders for fuel economy for the test for example. If anybody actually gets 28mpg we should bake a cake.

Yup agreed, it's a big heavy aerodynamic car with a big engine and long gears, it will do good economy with slight acceleration and constant speeds once warmed up, but pretty poor otherwise I would imagine. I had a BMW 135i, quoted mpg was just over 30, real world was low 20's. Boss has the old CLS 55 AMG, said it doesn't get more than mid to high teens!