RE: New 2.0-litre Mercedes-AMG C63 officially unveiled

RE: New 2.0-litre Mercedes-AMG C63 officially unveiled

Author
Discussion

cerb4.5lee

23,920 posts

161 months

Derventio said:
Initially, the fact that this is fitted with a "mere" four cylinder engine did prejudice my thoughts on it.

However, two thing s have changed my mind, from "No Thanks" to "Actually, Yes Please!"

The first was seeing the estate on Mat Watson's video. Oof! That looks good, although I preferred the wheels fitted to the saloon.

The second thing that has changed my mind, is that one of my all time favourite performance Mercedes cars only had four cylinders. This in no way diminished my serious want for one. Perhaps it is time to realign your minds and look at it this way: The mid sized performance Mercedes saloon has come full circle when it comes to powerplants.

I'll just leave this here:
That is a good way of looking at it to be fair. The E30 M3 has always been my least favourite M3(I love the way they look though)...because it only has a 4 cylinder engine. Maybe I need to start looking at it as the best...rather than the worse...now that times are changing as well?

Either way we are in sad times now for sure in many ways in terms of engines for me.

JAMSXR

701 posts

28 months

I sold my M performance 340i estate and moved the C63 as I found the B58 a little dull. It was a great engine, but paired with an estate car, I found it pretty boring day to day. The C63 is a different kettle of fish.

No doubt the S58 in the M3 takes it up a notch or two and will be more of a track weapon compared to the V8 or new Merc.

akashzimzimma

82 posts

58 months

samoht said:
The appeal of these cars was a special engine in a relatively compact, not too heavy package. This one appears to lose that at both ends - an inline four-pot and over two tonnes in weight.

I'd be interested to see what fuel economy this actually achieves at, say, a nice 200 km/h autobahn cruise.

I slightly wonder why they didn't put a couple of electric motors on the front - that would give you 4WD, torque vectoring and perhaps greater regeneration traction. When you're losing the old car's USP, it makes sense to me to add something new instead.
It has 4 matic + plus rear axle torque vectoring.

Its Just Adz

11,696 posts

190 months

I haven't read all 16 pages (still on page 1), but over 2200kg with a driver, 2.0 engine and external loudspeakers?

Never have I wanted an AMG less.

J4CKO

37,352 posts

181 months

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
J4CKO said:
If your reject it out of hand based on cylinder count and sound, especially as nobody has heard the new one
Do you think it'll sound any different to effectively the same engine fitted to the A45/CLA45 etc?
Not massively, as its the same basic unit, but it will have a different exhaust, tuning and a few other things, not sure what A45's sound like and whether its a big let down.

The sound is important but I am not going to rule anything in or out solely on it, main issue is, for me I could only afford an older V8 anyway, so not a problem. I have a 4 cyl car and do enjoy it, but the engine suits the car, and I appreciate in this case, maybe not so much.

But then, as posted above, 190 Evo, that was apparently allright with 4 cylinders, the E30 M3 was, the Lancia Integrale etc etc.

I do think it gets a bit "Rain Man" in here when things change !

zestyfesty

187 posts

80 months

Have always admired the bombastic thuggery of a C63, even if it’s not my kind of car. A friend firing up his car in the garage at a party one night and giving it a rev, the walls shaking, everyone laughing and spilling their beers. C63 is all about theatre and that M156 V8 was at the heart of that experience. Can’t see many current owners going for this, given how many lauded that V8. That this new car emulates the old girl with a synthesised reproduction of its engine note says it all really.

Fastdruid

7,821 posts

133 months

Its Just Adz said:
I haven't read all 16 pages (still on page 1), but over 2200kg with a driver, 2.0 engine and external loudspeakers?

Never have I wanted an AMG less.
To be slightly fair I would assume that is the EU (1230/2012/EEC) weight measurement which does at least mean it includes both driver and 90% fuel in that 2111Kg.

  • "the mass of the vehicle, with its fuel tank(s) filled to at least 90 % of its or their capacity/ies, including the mass of the driver, of the fuel and liquids, fitted with the standard equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and, when they are fitted, the mass of the bodywork, the cabin, the coupling and the spare wheel(s) as well as the tools"
Note also that there are big differences (legally) between how cars curb weights are measured in different countries, for example in the US the legislation states that the curb weight should include options that are expected to be installed in more than 1/3rd of vehicles. So as an example they would list the weight for the automatic even though the manual version might be 40Kg lighter. Equally the older EU standard didn't included the driver (and may not included spare wheel etc if it's an option). So always be wary when comparing weights.

otolith

49,244 posts

185 months

Wab1974uk said:
Because for most people Petrol is still far more convenient the Electric. It's ready to go whenever you need, and if it running low on petrol, it take 5 minutes to fill up and off you go.

Was in Glenriding the other week. Carpark with 2 charge points. One had a car charging (no doubt went off for a walk) while the Golf that tried to use the other couldn't, as it wasn't working.

And just because some people love EV's, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them.
Yes, I was looking at it from a driving point of view. If you are wedded to being able to fill it with petrol, that's fair enough. It's a hideously complex workaround to enable that, and it seems unlikely that many people buying a car this expensive can't afford somewhere to park and charge it, but there will always be some edge cases.

TyrannosauRoss Lex

31,231 posts

193 months

J4CKO said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
J4CKO said:
If your reject it out of hand based on cylinder count and sound, especially as nobody has heard the new one
Do you think it'll sound any different to effectively the same engine fitted to the A45/CLA45 etc?
Not massively, as its the same basic unit, but it will have a different exhaust, tuning and a few other things, not sure what A45's sound like and whether its a big let down.

The sound is important but I am not going to rule anything in or out solely on it, main issue is, for me I could only afford an older V8 anyway, so not a problem. I have a 4 cyl car and do enjoy it, but the engine suits the car, and I appreciate in this case, maybe not so much.

But then, as posted above, 190 Evo, that was apparently allright with 4 cylinders, the E30 M3 was, the Lancia Integrale etc etc.

I do think it gets a bit "Rain Man" in here when things change !
See, I always think the 4 cylinder in the E30 M3 is its weakest point, much prefer a 6 cylinder, personally smile

Derventio

978 posts

79 months

Further to my previous post, all the following performance cars had four cylinder engines and in all honesty, I'd be happy to own any one of them. Not one of them really suffered as a result of only having a quartet of cylinders.

If Mercedes could just make it sound like a tuned BDA on a Welsh Rally stage, I'm in.






DMZ

592 posts

141 months

Given all the predictable complaining about a 4-cyl AMG, I’m surprised they didn’t use a six cylinder engine. It’d be like an Artura or 296 GTB then in concept. I’m fairly sure those cars stack up well against their turbo V8 forebears.

Mouse Rat

1,480 posts

73 months

biggbn said:
Dombilano said:
biggbn said:
It would be interesting to know how many of the posters who are complaining about the weight and the four pot would even notice if they drove it and hadn't been told? Would the performance, the 'piped' music and the occasion 'fool' them?
You'd notice the weight the first corner you approached at 70mph
You might, how many really would? The handling of some properly heavy cars is astonishing nowadays.
When I test drove a C63 cab last year I noticed it was heavy in the first corner under breaking. Checked the weight after at 1.9 tons!

wpa1975

4,305 posts

95 months

DMZ said:
Given all the predictable complaining about a 4-cyl AMG, I’m surprised they didn’t use a six cylinder engine. It’d be like an Artura or 296 GTB then in concept. I’m fairly sure those cars stack up well against their turbo V8 forebears.
Just thinking the same, turbo v6 would have been a better option

AmyRichardson

312 posts

23 months

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
See, I always think the 4 cylinder in the E30 M3 is its weakest point, much prefer a 6 cylinder, personally smile
325i - the thinking man's M3 (apparently...)

The E190 2.5-16 isn't analogous to the new C63, it's sub-A-class today. The W124 is directed comparable, and the thought of putting a 4' in that couldn't have been further from AMG's thoughts.

TyrannosauRoss Lex

31,231 posts

193 months

AmyRichardson said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
See, I always think the 4 cylinder in the E30 M3 is its weakest point, much prefer a 6 cylinder, personally smile
325i - the thinking man's M3 (apparently...)

The E190 2.5-16 isn't analogous to the new C63, it's sub-A-class today. The W124 is directed comparable, and the thought of putting a 4' in that couldn't have been further from AMG's thoughts.
The 190E was the equivalent C Class, the W124 was the E Class.

otolith

49,244 posts

185 months

Derventio said:
Further to my previous post, all the following performance cars had four cylinder engines and in all honesty, I'd be happy to own any one of them. Not one of them really suffered as a result of only having a quartet of cylinders.
All of them not much more than half the weight of this and with the lightness of the powertrain contributing to what made them good - and with the raucous nature of the engines not detracting from the character of the car (though it's fair to say that the Esprit was always considered a bit second class in the engine department compared to the Italians, and the coarseness of the Ford lump was a criticism at the time).

cerb4.5lee

23,920 posts

161 months

AmyRichardson said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
See, I always think the 4 cylinder in the E30 M3 is its weakest point, much prefer a 6 cylinder, personally smile
325i - the thinking man's M3 (apparently...)
I have always been like that too. I've lusted after an E30 325i for as long as I can remember. Whereas the E30 M3 never did much for me in comparison. I'm a big fan of the E36 M3 though.

Sandpit Steve

6,852 posts

55 months

cerb4.5lee said:
J4CKO said:
Oh, and maybe stack a few C63's away whilst you can still get one for 15/20 grand...
You definitely could be onto something here! thumbup

It would be nice to have the money to stockpile a few of them, because I'm certain that you will make money on them in the long term.
The run-out 507 models are already up at £35-40k, the standard ones are going to be going up soon if they’re in decent shape. There’s no way that 6.2 engine isn’t a bona-fide classic, when all we can get new are electric stboxes.

Julian Scott

43 posts

5 months

pSyCoSiS said:
I really wanted to hate this when I first heard about them putting in a 4 pot. However, I am rather impressed by what they have come up with.

Yes it will lack the 'soul' of the V8 models - you can replace the satisfaction extra displacement gives, especially the sound and character.

However, fk me! The stats - 680 BHP - 3.4 secs to 60, you really are in almost hyper car territory there.

I think these look great too - especially the wagon. Still not convinced by the rear styling of the saloon. But the overall package does look decent.

Enjoy the big engines whilst you can still buy them - this is the way things are ultimately going.
I agree, except it isn't 680BHP apart from the first 10 seconds. Then it's 476bhp with a limited boost option up to about 580bhp, which in a 2.1 tonne car, will likely be slower than a 500bhp 1700/1800kg M3/RS4

DMZ

592 posts

141 months

I know we can only look at metrics now and complain about cylinders and weight and 680hp not being available all the time etc but I guess real deal is how this engine will perform. I expect exceptional throttle response in like whip crack manner that you wouldn’t experience in other cars but the question really is if they have created a crescendo of power further up the redline to scare the crap out of drivers or if it has the usual boring-ish flat torque curve of a turbo engine or maybe fading torque as the electric motor run out of puff at higher speeds. Given that the electric motor has a two-speed transmission I would imagine the car will pull very strongly in higher speeds also. If they have managed to create a unique feeling strong engine character I think the rest won’t really matter. Time will tell.