RE: Revised E63 AMG revealed

[Hellbound]

I'm warming to the rear...











Are those seat switches new?

The estate with third row must be the fastest 5 + 2 seater on the market.

Edited by Hellbound on Thursday 10th January 11:54

[WCZ]

looking forward to test driving one of these

[ocrx8]

ensignia said:

W00DY said:

3.6 to 62?


Holy fk.

The new 5.0T Audi S8 has clocked 0-60 in 3.5 seconds and it's a fair bit larger.

S8 is 4WD.

[mjk1]

kambites said:

Or "launch control" as everyone else calls it. Still can't break the laws of physics though, and getting a front engined 2WD car to 60 in 3.6 seconds would require massive friction between the driven wheels at the road. That's an average of 7.5g.

Not quite! More like 0.78g average acceleration, still impressive though.

[TaylotS2K]

Undecided on the looks from the front. Looks very similar to the brand new Clio RS and I thought that was ugly.......

[Bladefist]

3.6 seconds to 62mph? M5 and RS6 has got bhslapped.

[Tomatogti]

Bladefist said:

3.6 seconds to 62mph? M5 and RS6 has got bhslapped.

And it doesn't have the XF 8 speed 'box everyone has been raving about which I thought was the reason many recent cars have such impressive 0-60 times.

[Ollieb7]

TAXI!

[GroundEffect]

Still prefer the C-class. The E-class is a hell of a big car.

[BBS-LM]

YES!

[breadvan]

Tomatogti said:

And it doesn't have the XF 8 speed 'box everyone has been raving about which I thought was the reason many recent cars have such impressive 0-60 times.

The new Jag XF Sportbrake has this 'box, I'm baffled how 0-60 is 6.1 and 0-62 is 6.6?

[Matt UK]

kambites said:

Or "launch control" as everyone else calls it. Still can't break the laws of physics though, and getting a front engined 2WD car to 60 in 3.6 seconds would require massive friction between the driven wheels at the road. That's an average of 7.5g.

7.5g of acceleration? You sure?

[GroundEffect]

Matt UK said:

kambites said:

Or "launch control" as everyone else calls it. Still can't break the laws of physics though, and getting a front engined 2WD car to 60 in 3.6 seconds would require massive friction between the driven wheels at the road. That's an average of 7.5g.

7.5g of acceleration? You sure?

[foxhounduk]

0-60 in 3.6s.
Near-enough-makes-no-difference 600bhp.
Meaty front grille and generally angry demeanor.

Yes please. Don't mind if I do.

[kambites]

mjk1 said:

kambites said:

Or "launch control" as everyone else calls it. Still can't break the laws of physics though, and getting a front engined 2WD car to 60 in 3.6 seconds would require massive friction between the driven wheels at the road. That's an average of 7.5g.

Not quite! More like 0.78g average acceleration, still impressive though.

Oops, decimal point in the wrong place.

[kambites]

doogz said:

Someone forget to carry the ten?

Actually, I think I got as far as m/s/s then forgot to divide by 9.8.

[s2000db]

Any chance of getting more than 5k out of a set of rear tyres??

That's why the 4wd is the one to go for and this is nothing more than a marketing exercise lol..

[kambites]

s2000db said:

Any chance of getting more than 5k out of a set of rear tyres??

That's why the 4wd is the one to go for and this is nothing more than a marketing exercise lol..

Is there any reason it should get through tyres quicker than any other E-class if you drive it sensibly? Most of these will spend most of their time pounding motorways, I'd imagine.

Besides, the 4wd one probably just gets through all four tyres in 5k miles.

[loudlashadjuster]

HELL YES.

[MyCC]

Tomatogti said:

Bladefist said:

3.6 seconds to 62mph? M5 and RS6 has got bhslapped.

And it doesn't have the XF 8 speed 'box everyone has been raving about which I thought was the reason many recent cars have such impressive 0-60 times.

It's not powerful enough to cope with the torque.