RE: Next AMG C63 to go four-cylinder
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Quite the opposite in fact, as long as you aren't a Luddite.
For example, I was part of the team that developed this:
When it was first announced PH said "why don't they just drop all the stupid, heavy, electrical nonsense and just use the V8" and in many threads on here, having actually driven the car i said, "just you wait, it's BRILLIANT because it IS electrified" and was mainly shouted down by the Luddites.
Then lo and behold, the car is released, driven by the press to critical acclaim:
it's a whole new thing
And it's the same with EVs. I've been saying for years now that EVs are the future, generally to most people disagreeing. Today we are, just a few short years later, well past the tipping point for EV adoption for the mass private car market. Today, the challenges of rushing to market the Battery Electric Vehicle are numerous, and, well challenging, but they offer massive benefits over a conventional ICE vehicle in terms of de-carbonisation, and critically for the OE PassCar industry, make emissions SEP (Someone Else's Problem) which following things like DieselGate, is a welcome relief
There has, imo, never been a better time to be an vehicle engineer :-)
AgreedFor example, I was part of the team that developed this:
When it was first announced PH said "why don't they just drop all the stupid, heavy, electrical nonsense and just use the V8" and in many threads on here, having actually driven the car i said, "just you wait, it's BRILLIANT because it IS electrified" and was mainly shouted down by the Luddites.
Then lo and behold, the car is released, driven by the press to critical acclaim:
it's a whole new thing
And it's the same with EVs. I've been saying for years now that EVs are the future, generally to most people disagreeing. Today we are, just a few short years later, well past the tipping point for EV adoption for the mass private car market. Today, the challenges of rushing to market the Battery Electric Vehicle are numerous, and, well challenging, but they offer massive benefits over a conventional ICE vehicle in terms of de-carbonisation, and critically for the OE PassCar industry, make emissions SEP (Someone Else's Problem) which following things like DieselGate, is a welcome relief
There has, imo, never been a better time to be an vehicle engineer :-)
The joy of engineering is solving a problem and doing it better in the process.
The P1 is a great example.
I love the fact they took a technology develop to help the environmental impact and reworked it to torque will the gaps in and ICE
I loved my 650 and 675, I'm REALLY looking forward to the next McLaren Hybrid
Max_Torque said:
Erroneous. Just because A is "bad" does not make "B" being bad any different.
And the cruise ship thing is also erroneous. Hint, how many people get to work in a cruise ship everyday, compared to doing those miles in a private car.
Just in the UK, car total mileage is estimated to be 658 Billion KM in 2017, and of course a cruise ship has something like 1,000 people onboard, so your carbon footprint per person is divided down as well. Cruise operator Carnival reported in 2008 that their fleet returned around 400 g/km per person. A C63 AMG on an official test (significantly lower consumption than in the real world with traffic, cold starts, aggressive driving etc) returns around 200 g /km.
So your cruise ship, per KM is twice as bad as a C63 AMG per person, per Km, and whilst it's particulate emissions ARE indeed also bad, they tend to be released mainly in the middle of the ocean, far from centers of high population density, unlike those from a typical passenger car.
So, if we all commuted to work in cruise ships, yes, your 'argument' would be valid, but we don't....
And of course, cruiseships are being electrified and are driven by the same cost and economy decisions due to their use of a high carbon fuel as cars have been. Soon, imo, ANY high carbon activity (flying, cruising etc) may become socially frowned upon. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in 5 10 or even 30 years time, but i think it will happen (especially should the real effects of climate change start to impact a rich 1st world nation, rather than some poor "sh*thole" (TM D.Trump) country far away........ )
So those particulate emissions from the cruise ship equivalent to 1 million cars is okay because it's not released in city centres, just into the atmosphere..... righteo.And the cruise ship thing is also erroneous. Hint, how many people get to work in a cruise ship everyday, compared to doing those miles in a private car.
Just in the UK, car total mileage is estimated to be 658 Billion KM in 2017, and of course a cruise ship has something like 1,000 people onboard, so your carbon footprint per person is divided down as well. Cruise operator Carnival reported in 2008 that their fleet returned around 400 g/km per person. A C63 AMG on an official test (significantly lower consumption than in the real world with traffic, cold starts, aggressive driving etc) returns around 200 g /km.
So your cruise ship, per KM is twice as bad as a C63 AMG per person, per Km, and whilst it's particulate emissions ARE indeed also bad, they tend to be released mainly in the middle of the ocean, far from centers of high population density, unlike those from a typical passenger car.
So, if we all commuted to work in cruise ships, yes, your 'argument' would be valid, but we don't....
And of course, cruiseships are being electrified and are driven by the same cost and economy decisions due to their use of a high carbon fuel as cars have been. Soon, imo, ANY high carbon activity (flying, cruising etc) may become socially frowned upon. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in 5 10 or even 30 years time, but i think it will happen (especially should the real effects of climate change start to impact a rich 1st world nation, rather than some poor "sh*thole" (TM D.Trump) country far away........ )
you're describing it as erroneous/flawed/inaccurate because it doesn't suit your agenda. I'd like to know how Carnival manipulated their own figures, because if you divide a cruise ship's emissions by the number of people onboard and distance travelled, the g/km figure is much much higher.
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
An epic engine for sure. 
Pleased you are enjoying it.
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
Does it rev to 5500 rpm?TheDrBrian said:
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
Does it rev to 5500 rpm?A44RON said:
So those particulate emissions from the cruise ship equivalent to 1 million cars is okay because it's not released in city centers, just into the atmosphere..... righteo.
yes.Particulates are simply sooty chunks of carbon (and a few other trace compounds), and are harmless unless inhaled into the lungs of an air breathing mammal. They matter when released in significant concentrations in our cities because our cities are full of air breathing mammals. In the middle of the ocean, not only are there very few air breathing mammals per cubic km of air, but in fact the wave action actually removes these aerosols from the atmosphere, effective the waves and water vapour released wash those particulates out and into the sea, where they become just another bit of carbon in an ocean of a billion tonnes of carbon.
And as you haven't provided any actual figures to back up your "equivalent to 1 million cars" we have to consider that figure suspect, especially as PM number and size will not be comparable between the tail pipe emissions of a small passenger car engine with full aftertreatment, and those of a large marine diesel. And i'm sure you are aware that the harmful effects of PM are inversely proportional to PM size.
A44RON said:
you're describing it as erroneous/flawed/inaccurate because it doesn't suit your agenda. I'd like to know how Carnival manipulated their own figures, because if you divide a cruise ship's emissions by the number of people onboard and distance travelled, the g/km figure is much much higher.
I don't have an agenda. Even if Carnival have manipulated their figures down (and i'm sure they have), it makes no difference because the number of passenger km per cruiseship is billions of times less than the number of passenger km for a passenger car! So even if a cruiseship emits 4,000 g/km, instead of 400 g/km the overall result is un-altered.
I've never been on a cruise, and i never will, mainly because you are likely to get trapped with some massive bore for 2 weeks who only wants to talk about how amazing their new AMG Merc is......... :-)
Exactly - the number of passenger km travelled by cruise is less than your average personal car user, however the carbon emissions kicked out by those cruise ships are off the charts - just because less people travel less total distances on cruise ships than cars shouldn't allow it to be swept under the carpet when the carbon footprint is multiplied.
A poster above correctly commented that an average cruise ship's particulate matter is equivalent to one million cars and many links on google confirm this to be true - one large cruise ship = CO2 to 83,678 cars... NOx to 421,153 cars... particulate emissions to 1.05 million cars... Sulphur Dioxide to 376 million cars
Now times that by the number of cruise ships and other large ships operating daily around the world...... Bingo.
give it a go, it took all of 30 seconds.
"Marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that a large cruise ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses. According to leading independent German pollution analyst Axel Friedrich, a single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultra fine particles a day.
"Air pollution from international shipping accounts for around 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe alone, at an annual cost to society of more than €58bn [$65bn]."
Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”
Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.
and - "The average cruise ship passenger emitted 0.83 tonnes (830,000 grams) of CO2-equivalent just for their cruise. Most packages would also include some air travel to the port of embarkation and back home, adding to the overall footprint, plus a cruise ship passenger accounts for 3.5kg of rubbish daily - compared with the 0.8kg generated by local people on shore."
Gluttonous unnecessary excess.
I'm off to test drive a selection of used naturally-aspirated V8 coupes, including a W204 C63 tomorrow before purchasing, will be rude not to.
A poster above correctly commented that an average cruise ship's particulate matter is equivalent to one million cars and many links on google confirm this to be true - one large cruise ship = CO2 to 83,678 cars... NOx to 421,153 cars... particulate emissions to 1.05 million cars... Sulphur Dioxide to 376 million cars
Now times that by the number of cruise ships and other large ships operating daily around the world...... Bingo.
give it a go, it took all of 30 seconds.
"Marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that a large cruise ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses. According to leading independent German pollution analyst Axel Friedrich, a single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultra fine particles a day.
"Air pollution from international shipping accounts for around 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe alone, at an annual cost to society of more than €58bn [$65bn]."
Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”
Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.
and - "The average cruise ship passenger emitted 0.83 tonnes (830,000 grams) of CO2-equivalent just for their cruise. Most packages would also include some air travel to the port of embarkation and back home, adding to the overall footprint, plus a cruise ship passenger accounts for 3.5kg of rubbish daily - compared with the 0.8kg generated by local people on shore."
Gluttonous unnecessary excess.
I'm off to test drive a selection of used naturally-aspirated V8 coupes, including a W204 C63 tomorrow before purchasing, will be rude not to.
I can totally see the point about the V8, but if left to PHers, no car manufacturer would ever do anything new or different, ever.
I look forward to hearing the reviews, I am thinking it will probably be pretty impressive. I suspect its an A45 AMG engine with added electric motors, the A45 engine is regarded as one of the best four pots in the world folk seem to like the A45 AMG.
In the meantime, maybe buy one of the thousands of V8 ones that are in the classifieds struggling to find a home, ahh but lots wont as they have an image problem. Get a few and tuck them away, bet they will, in time be sought after.
I look forward to hearing the reviews, I am thinking it will probably be pretty impressive. I suspect its an A45 AMG engine with added electric motors, the A45 engine is regarded as one of the best four pots in the world folk seem to like the A45 AMG.
In the meantime, maybe buy one of the thousands of V8 ones that are in the classifieds struggling to find a home, ahh but lots wont as they have an image problem. Get a few and tuck them away, bet they will, in time be sought after.
I get the C32 and C55 being clearly about it’s displacement (well was the C55 actually a 5.4?)
I get the history of why it’s called a C63 but why did they make it a 6.2v8 instead of a 6.3v8?
Clearly hot V TT changes everything
Also the S65 isn’t that a 6.0 ltr V12 bi turbo not a 6.5?
Confused for com
I get the history of why it’s called a C63 but why did they make it a 6.2v8 instead of a 6.3v8?
Clearly hot V TT changes everything
Also the S65 isn’t that a 6.0 ltr V12 bi turbo not a 6.5?
Confused for com
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff