RE: 2024 Mercedes-AMG GT 63

[HighwayStar]

z89 said:

A 911 is at least 200kg lighter, which do you think will be the better sports car?

Hmmm.. let me think about that
We know the answer. Saying that the GT is a different beast… it’s in the periphery of the 911 rather than a full on competitor. The GT can’t deliver there experience the 911 will.

[mrclav]

HighwayStar said:

z89 said:

A 911 is at least 200kg lighter, which do you think will be the better sports car?

Hmmm.. let me think about that
We know the answer. Saying that the GT is a different beast… it’s in the periphery of the 911 rather than a full on competitor. The GT can’t deliver there experience the 911 will.

I'd say the clue is in the name - it's literally aimed more at being a GT than an out-and-out sports car.

[HighwayStar]

mrclav said:

HighwayStar said:

z89 said:

A 911 is at least 200kg lighter, which do you think will be the better sports car?

Hmmm.. let me think about that
We know the answer. Saying that the GT is a different beast… it’s in the periphery of the 911 rather than a full on competitor. The GT can’t deliver there experience the 911 will.

I'd say the clue is in the name - it's literally aimed more at being a GT than an out-and-out sports car.

Hence my it’s a different beast comment… we agree :cheers:
Since the 992 gen some feel with its growth in size it’s more of a GT than sports car. I’m not a big fan of the 911 but I’d take one over the GT.

[cerb4.5lee]

HighwayStar said:

mrclav said:

HighwayStar said:

z89 said:

A 911 is at least 200kg lighter, which do you think will be the better sports car?

Hmmm.. let me think about that
We know the answer. Saying that the GT is a different beast… it’s in the periphery of the 911 rather than a full on competitor. The GT can’t deliver there experience the 911 will.

I'd say the clue is in the name - it's literally aimed more at being a GT than an out-and-out sports car.

Hence my it’s a different beast comment… we agree :cheers:
Since the 992 gen some feel with its growth in size it’s more of a GT than sports car. I’m not a big fan of the 911 but I’d take one over the GT.

Without going down rabbit holes, I see the 911 as more of a GT(because of the weight) as well. A proper sports car like an Elise/Caterham etc is a totally different proposition to the 911 to me.

[Kerniki]

mrclav said:

I'd say the clue is in the name - it's literally aimed more at being a GT than an out-and-out sports car.

But then the old ‘GT’ was very much a sports car, especially the C/R derivatives, new one? Yeah, definitely more in keeping with its GT moniker.

Its funny that merc called their old GT their ‘supercar’ but ive certainly not heard them call the new one that, not that i think the old one was a ‘supercar’ brilliantcar maybe

[chunder]

big_rob_sydney said:

Just cant believe it, but... that is terrible value for money.

You can go quicker for much less money. The new Tesla Model 3 performance is lighter, seats people more comfortably, will cost pennies to run, and save you about £100k. And what options will people get with the base AMG? This thing is at least £100k overpriced considering what else is available with the level of performance.

will cost pennies to run - is depreciation not a running cost ?

The "you can go quicker for less" argument is tiresome - I can provide examples of cars that will be quicker than a MP3 (in a straight line let alone on a B road) for £50k less than one of those costs.

And whilst I come across plenty of what I assume could be extremely rapid EV's on my daily commute I am yet to see any being driven enthusiatically.

In terms of costs I use my sons old learn to drive chipped D4 S40 for commuting the majority of the time - that costs pennies to run, a car worth nothing doesn't depreciate and I will get to my destination within 2 minutes of Max Verstappen driving the same 30 mile route at the same time in a GT3.

But no, I am not in the market for a new top of the range GT car, if I was a Tesla wouldn't even be considered, and if it was then so would the S40 and I'm not sure anyone could justify the Tesla over that.

[SilverSeraph]

The front also looks absolutely nothing like a 911. There is no way you could confuse the two when coming towards you.
But given the choice of the two, it would have to be the Merc every time for me.

[HighwayStar]

SilverSeraph said:

The front also looks absolutely nothing like a 911.There is no way you could confuse the two when coming towards you.
But given the choice of the two, it would have to be the Merc every time for me.

Absolutely no one said it the front did…..

[big_rob_sydney]

chunder said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Just cant believe it, but... that is terrible value for money.

You can go quicker for much less money. The new Tesla Model 3 performance is lighter, seats people more comfortably, will cost pennies to run, and save you about £100k. And what options will people get with the base AMG? This thing is at least £100k overpriced considering what else is available with the level of performance.

will cost pennies to run - is depreciation not a running cost ?

The "you can go quicker for less" argument is tiresome - I can provide examples of cars that will be quicker than a MP3 (in a straight line let alone on a B road) for £50k less than one of those costs.

And whilst I come across plenty of what I assume could be extremely rapid EV's on my daily commute I am yet to see any being driven enthusiatically.

In terms of costs I use my sons old learn to drive chipped D4 S40 for commuting the majority of the time - that costs pennies to run, a car worth nothing doesn't depreciate and I will get to my destination within 2 minutes of Max Verstappen driving the same 30 mile route at the same time in a GT3.

But no, I am not in the market for a new top of the range GT car, if I was a Tesla wouldn't even be considered, and if it was then so would the S40 and I'm not sure anyone could justify the Tesla over that.

1. The m3p will cost £57,990 in the UK. By all means show me what brand new car with warranty is quicker for £7,990.

2. Depreciation? Fine, by all means have that discussion. Average annual mileage in the UK is 7,400 miles. Find a brand new 4 door car that will do a 10.x second quarter mile; what will it cost in fuel, maintenance, and then depreciation? Are you sure you want to have this discussion?

[cerb4.5lee]

big_rob_sydney said:

chunder said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Just cant believe it, but... that is terrible value for money.

You can go quicker for much less money. The new Tesla Model 3 performance is lighter, seats people more comfortably, will cost pennies to run, and save you about £100k. And what options will people get with the base AMG? This thing is at least £100k overpriced considering what else is available with the level of performance.

will cost pennies to run - is depreciation not a running cost ?

The "you can go quicker for less" argument is tiresome - I can provide examples of cars that will be quicker than a MP3 (in a straight line let alone on a B road) for £50k less than one of those costs.

And whilst I come across plenty of what I assume could be extremely rapid EV's on my daily commute I am yet to see any being driven enthusiatically.

In terms of costs I use my sons old learn to drive chipped D4 S40 for commuting the majority of the time - that costs pennies to run, a car worth nothing doesn't depreciate and I will get to my destination within 2 minutes of Max Verstappen driving the same 30 mile route at the same time in a GT3.

But no, I am not in the market for a new top of the range GT car, if I was a Tesla wouldn't even be considered, and if it was then so would the S40 and I'm not sure anyone could justify the Tesla over that.

1. The m3p will cost £57,990 in the UK. By all means show me what brand new car with warranty is quicker for £7,990.

2. Depreciation? Fine, by all means have that discussion. Average annual mileage in the UK is 7,400 miles. Find a brand new 4 door car that will do a 10.x second quarter mile; what will it cost in fuel, maintenance, and then depreciation? Are you sure you want to have this discussion?

The Tesla Model 3 could do the quarter mile in 6 seconds flat for me and I still wouldn't consider it. I'm miles too shallow to sit in a car that looks as cheap and nasty on the inside and outside like the Model 3 does to be honest. We all like different things for sure though, and what works for one person won't work for another I reckon.

[Wills2]

SilverSeraph said:

The front also looks absolutely nothing like a 911. There is no way you could confuse the two when coming towards you.
But given the choice of the two, it would have to be the Merc every time for me.

Agreed to me it looks like a new AM vantage from the front and a bit 911 on the rear quarter only, however the interior looks like it was lifted from a C class and for that reason I'm oot.

[andy43]

cerb4.5lee said:

big_rob_sydney said:

chunder said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Just cant believe it, but... that is terrible value for money.

You can go quicker for much less money. The new Tesla Model 3 performance is lighter, seats people more comfortably, will cost pennies to run, and save you about £100k. And what options will people get with the base AMG? This thing is at least £100k overpriced considering what else is available with the level of performance.

will cost pennies to run - is depreciation not a running cost ?

The "you can go quicker for less" argument is tiresome - I can provide examples of cars that will be quicker than a MP3 (in a straight line let alone on a B road) for £50k less than one of those costs.

And whilst I come across plenty of what I assume could be extremely rapid EV's on my daily commute I am yet to see any being driven enthusiatically.

In terms of costs I use my sons old learn to drive chipped D4 S40 for commuting the majority of the time - that costs pennies to run, a car worth nothing doesn't depreciate and I will get to my destination within 2 minutes of Max Verstappen driving the same 30 mile route at the same time in a GT3.

But no, I am not in the market for a new top of the range GT car, if I was a Tesla wouldn't even be considered, and if it was then so would the S40 and I'm not sure anyone could justify the Tesla over that.

1. The m3p will cost £57,990 in the UK. By all means show me what brand new car with warranty is quicker for £7,990.

2. Depreciation? Fine, by all means have that discussion. Average annual mileage in the UK is 7,400 miles. Find a brand new 4 door car that will do a 10.x second quarter mile; what will it cost in fuel, maintenance, and then depreciation? Are you sure you want to have this discussion?

The Tesla Model 3 could do the quarter mile in 6 seconds flat for me and I still wouldn't consider it. I'm miles too shallow to sit in a car that looks as cheap and nasty on the inside and outside like the Model 3 does to be honest. We all like different things for sure though, and what works for one person won't work for another I reckon.

Using one single metric to compare cars is pointless. The VW Amorok clearly has a bigger boot than either of them, a Picasso has more seats, but the AMG has more cylinders than any of them so for me, it wins.

[WestAmesburyFarms]

As im lucky enough to own a 2019 GTR im hoping having seen this it will push the value of my AMG higher. Its to 'safe' imho and as for that oversize ipad no thank you.