RE: Mercedes-AMG GT: Review
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A tad hysterical, if I may! The point of the story was to point out that within the GT range it is possible to spec a car with a couple of bits on it that might help appease a purist left cold by the tech you describe, tech I think we all understand is there on all new cars but could be mitigated in this instance by a couple of key 'touch points' that play a big part in how the driver interacts with the car. I wanted to make a bit of noise about this car because the gaze inevitably gets drawn towards the models with the more juicy specs, be they optioned up base models or bigger/better/faster/more senior ones and there was a danger this would be overlooked. And if you don't like the direction this is taking then you can always buy an SLS, though best be quick about it because prices seem to be hardening!
And I'll take exception at the accusation of being apologist for new turbo tech, especially regarding the 718s. They are interesting cars. They are cars worth talking about. They are different from what went before and lose out on some of the charismatic things we hold/held dear but they are categorically not s
t. I know you're passionate about 6-cyl Boxster/Caymans and nowt wrong with that - by all means fly the flag. But offering up an objective assessment of the new tech for people to make their own judgements from is not apologist, especially when there is technical merit in what's been done. Argue the toss by all means. But an opposing view or one that doesn't fit with yours ain't necessarily wrong, mm-kay? While I'm here I'd beg to differ with your assessment of variable racks too - they're 'slower' around the dead ahead as I understand it to stop the car feeling too pointy off-centre, speeding up at the extremes to prevent too much low-speed arm twirling while parking. I guess the overall sense this contrives is of 'fast' steering and a greater sense of agility without feeling too nervy on turn-in but I think we're agreed it's mostly horrid. The 'careful what you wish for' example on this, however, is the passive steering option on the Huracan. The Dynamic Steering is horrid and goes from - IIRC - c. 9:1 to around 17:1 but the fixed rate system is really slow at c. 16:1 so just feels light, vague and imprecise. Audi's compromise on the R8 of locking the Dynamic Steering to c. 12:1 in one of the modes (I forget which one exactly!) seems a reasonable solution, albeit to a problem of their own creation.
Cheers!
Dan
Edited by Dan Trent on Thursday 11th August 14:05
It's an interesting point but, respectfully, I don't agree because I think the context is different from brand to brand and car to car. So dogmatic policy stance - 'we defend manuals to the death!' or whatever - I think boxes you into a corner and prevents appreciation of the subtleties (and contradictions!) that make the fast car world such an endlessly fascinating place.
A for instance. I love manual gearboxes and I'd typically trade a few seconds here and there for the joy of a perfectly executed heel'n'toe shift. But not for the sake of it and if you look at the last two generations of M3 although both could/can be had with a manual the DCT actually works much better in that package. So if *I* were buying an M3 I'd have a DCT. If I were buying a Cayman though I wouldn't even hesitate - manual all the way. And if there were a 'threat' to that I'd make a lot of noise. If BMW were to delete the manual option on the M3/M4? Don't think I'd personally be that bothered. R8? If you were Audi and developing a second gen car four years ago with a historical split of (I forget the exact number but it was in this region) 85-90 per cent S Tronic you'd probably make the business decision it wasn't worth your bother developing a manual even if a few noisy people moan on the internet. If a resurgence for stickshifts makes that case then the business case for creating one will be there but for that car I rather doubt it.
So simply saying 'manuals good, paddles bad' and adopting that as a policy decision across the board is I think more hypocritical (and less interesting) than taking it on a case by case basis.
Why shout about the passive dampers and mechanical diff on this GT then? I think because it shows within the Mercedes mindset of always leaping on the new tech AMG's more old school engineers have managed to 'sneak' a couple of more traditional features into the car in a bit of a knowing wink to those of us who appreciate such things. Most buyers will just tick the box for the adaptive dampers and/or spec the S as a reflex action. But the chap who developed the dampers I spoke with on the launch had obviously gone to a lot of bother and was very proud of the passive set-up, while realistic hardly any GTs would be sold with them. So a bit of a nod to him I guess.
Cheers!
Dan
A for instance. I love manual gearboxes and I'd typically trade a few seconds here and there for the joy of a perfectly executed heel'n'toe shift. But not for the sake of it and if you look at the last two generations of M3 although both could/can be had with a manual the DCT actually works much better in that package. So if *I* were buying an M3 I'd have a DCT. If I were buying a Cayman though I wouldn't even hesitate - manual all the way. And if there were a 'threat' to that I'd make a lot of noise. If BMW were to delete the manual option on the M3/M4? Don't think I'd personally be that bothered. R8? If you were Audi and developing a second gen car four years ago with a historical split of (I forget the exact number but it was in this region) 85-90 per cent S Tronic you'd probably make the business decision it wasn't worth your bother developing a manual even if a few noisy people moan on the internet. If a resurgence for stickshifts makes that case then the business case for creating one will be there but for that car I rather doubt it.
So simply saying 'manuals good, paddles bad' and adopting that as a policy decision across the board is I think more hypocritical (and less interesting) than taking it on a case by case basis.
Why shout about the passive dampers and mechanical diff on this GT then? I think because it shows within the Mercedes mindset of always leaping on the new tech AMG's more old school engineers have managed to 'sneak' a couple of more traditional features into the car in a bit of a knowing wink to those of us who appreciate such things. Most buyers will just tick the box for the adaptive dampers and/or spec the S as a reflex action. But the chap who developed the dampers I spoke with on the launch had obviously gone to a lot of bother and was very proud of the passive set-up, while realistic hardly any GTs would be sold with them. So a bit of a nod to him I guess.
Cheers!
Dan
sidesauce said:
Dagnut said:
I guess it's mechanically the same as the S apart from a map?
these things make 600+hp easily with an exhaust and a remap...I know it would put you on shaky ground warranty wise but it would be frustrating knowing you could release the 50hp lost to the S without any mechanical changes and a 500 quid map..and then spend 2k and you have a seriously quick car still well within its mechanical tolerances
No it isn't - The S has an electronically controlled LSD, the GT has a normal mechanical LSD and passive dampers, the S has bigger brakes and the gearbox has a faster 'race' mode.these things make 600+hp easily with an exhaust and a remap...I know it would put you on shaky ground warranty wise but it would be frustrating knowing you could release the 50hp lost to the S without any mechanical changes and a 500 quid map..and then spend 2k and you have a seriously quick car still well within its mechanical tolerances
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ferrari stopped offering manuals because no one ticked the box? The offered a manual on the California and no one wanted it.
The media have been banging on about manuals for years and they have still fizzled out...Clarkson especially..people will prattle on about wanting the "pure" experience but when they go into the showroom they choose the paddles.
I know the dealers had a big part to play in it, especially with Ferrari, warning customers about re-sale of manuals(look at the prices now!) but I always remember the main media players talking about the joys of a manual until recently...the media change when the know the audience changes.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I know you wouldn't value Clarksons opinion but he has been the most influence motoring journalist of all time, considering the audience he reached. If his constant bemoaning the loss of a manual couldn't influence the market no one's could.From Porsche's perspective do you not think they had the R in mind when they deleted the manual from the RS?
It's a no brainier for them, keep legacy technology for the niche purist market and charge a premium for it. I bet a lot of Porsche customers bought both.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you are giving average Porsche customers more credit for being interested in cars than they actually are(to your level). You must frequent Porsche forums right? How many of you have brand new cars?You need to detach the purist from the customer, even with the RS, how many of them do you think see any real action?
All of the RS's sold out with PDk's, still getting huge premiums, so why is it a political issue and not an economic one?
They are creating demand and niche markets, I don't think anyone is concerned with politics just making money. The GT4 is a huge success with manual only, business case proved, lets bring it back for 991.2 GT3. This is why the make small runs, not because they think they won't sell them it's to create a market.
I could get excited about this AMG GT (and other cars of its ilk) if it were smaller (especially in width), a lot quieter, slightly less powerful, a lot simpler, slightly cheaper and available in solid beige paint with green and red plaid wool upholstery.
Give me the 106 rallye any day.
Give me the 106 rallye any day.
Dan Trent said:
As per the story it's especially disappointing given so much of the front end hardware comes directly from the SLS and that had really good steering.
Cheers,
Dan
Totally agree, I loved the steering in my SLS. Nicely weighted, relatively feelsome, linear and direct without being at all nervous. One of the best steering systems I've used. I then bought a GT-S, a subjectively better car in most areas. But not the over-light steering which really spoilt the car for me. As a result, it's tenure lasted a very short time.Cheers,
Dan
I notice the new R8's steering pop up again in this thread and, now owning one of these, I really don't get the hate for it. Personally, I love the R8's steering; it works very well on the road and is certainly more pleasant than the ridiculously light and nervous rack of the GT. The R8's is weightier, equally direct but a lot less nervous and I don't even mind the variable nature which I think suits road driving perfectly well. And, if you do want it to be linear, just select Performance mode and....voila. Or just spec the car without dynamic steering.
What a hoot - every thread on PH gravitates quickly to how useless modern Porsches are. We know; we've bought them! 
Leaving that aside,
Leaving that aside,
- If I was spending c.£100k on a car I wouldn't be looking to spend it on a car where the bonnet is so long and driver sitting just in front of the rear wheels, but
- If I was buying an AMG-GT this is definitely the car I would buy from the range. Does 99% of the job for 70% of the price!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff