RE: New Mercedes-AMG G63 launched as a hybrid
Discussion
NomduJour said:
They are the Emperor’s New Clothes, there is literally no reason for them to have the underpinnings of an ‘80s pickup other than Mercedes didn’t know what else to do to keep it pretend “authentic”.
Or it's because they know what their audience wants. The fact that Mercedes sell so many of them suggests that there was every reason to follow the direction that they did. The 2018-on cars are also significantly different to the older model. That said, while the old car was deeply flawed in many ways, it also had bags of character and was extremely likeable as a result.I would take a G-class over a Defender any day of the week. The Mercedes is a masterclass in keeping the bits that made the old car special, while making it modern enough to live with.
Jon_S_Rally said:
Or it's because they know what their audience wants. The fact that Mercedes sell so many of them suggests that there was every reason to follow the direction that they did. The 2018-on cars are also significantly different to the older model. That said, while the old car was deeply flawed in many ways, it also had bags of character and was extremely likeable as a result.
I would take a G-class over a Defender any day of the week. The Mercedes is a masterclass in keeping the bits that made the old car special, while making it modern enough to live with.
Their audience want them because of the (very dubious) image. You cannot engineer-in character by designing a new car to be wilfully worse than it should be. I would take a G-class over a Defender any day of the week. The Mercedes is a masterclass in keeping the bits that made the old car special, while making it modern enough to live with.
Why does a car which will never, ever have any commercial use need to be so compromised by the underpinnings of an old pickup? There is absolutely no benefit to it. Is it to remind Russian gangsters of the old Lada days or something?
They are embarrassing and entirely inauthentic.
NomduJour said:
You cannot engineer-in character by designing a new car to be wilfully worse than it should be.
I don't see that designed the new(er) versions to wilfully worse than it should be. On the contrary they have made evolutionary improvements to each new version - independent front suspension, improved ergonomics and reduced NVH. However they've kept the bits that gave the older versions their justified tough/luxurious reputation - good off-road ability (locking diffs all round), excellent visibility, enormous presence, relatively compact dimensions and more than adequate performance.It's not like that it's Mercedes only full size 4 wheel drive that they offer - there's plenty others in their range that will go faster/be more economical, etc, if you really don't like the image/utility.
The fact that they seem to sell well (given the alternatives) means that they're giving the punters what they want.
NomduJour said:
Their audience want them because of the (very dubious) image. You cannot engineer-in character by designing a new car to be wilfully worse than it should be.
Why does a car which will never, ever have any commercial use need to be so compromised by the underpinnings of an old pickup? There is absolutely no benefit to it. Is it to remind Russian gangsters of the old Lada days or something?
They are embarrassing and entirely inauthentic.
"Worse" is entirely subjective when it comes to people's individual preferences. Yes, they could have made further changes to the car, but that would have taken it further away from what has made it so successful. Part of the appeal of the G-Class is it's slightly old-fashioned nature. You could say that the MX-5 reviewed elsewhere on this site is "willfully worse" because Mazda stubbornly refuse to fit a turbocharged engine, instead sticking to the 2.0-litre unit, even though a down-sized, turbocharged motor could make the car faster, more tractable and more economical. They don't do that because it is not part of the character or essence of the car. Many MX-5 buyers like the simple nature of the format, just as many G-Class buyers like the old-fashioned features of their cars. Why does a car which will never, ever have any commercial use need to be so compromised by the underpinnings of an old pickup? There is absolutely no benefit to it. Is it to remind Russian gangsters of the old Lada days or something?
They are embarrassing and entirely inauthentic.
A couple of years ago, I borrowed a Fiesta ST from a good friend. I had it a couple of weeks, so it was a good opportunity to make a back-to-back comparison with the Clio 197 I owned at the time. In reality, the Fiesta was a "better" car in almost every way. It was more economical, the engine was more versatile, the seats were more comfortable, and it was far better equipped. However, if I wanted to go out for a spirited drive, I would have taken the Clio every time. When I was driving for the sheer fun of it, it just had that extra sparkle, despite it's objective flaws compared to the Ford.
The point is, cars (and in particular luxury cars) are not purely objective purchases. People buy them because they like them, or because they evoke a certain response. Manufacturers engineer cars to elicit those responses all the time, be it by choosing certain ride attributes, or a certain exhaust tone, or any number of other things. It may not even the "best" solution but, if it meets the needs or wants of the customers, it may still be the right solution from a commercial perspective.
The fact that you resorted to remarks about Russian gangsters suggests that this car bothers you, or at least the choices of people that buy them bothers you. If you want something to be embarrassed about, it should probably be that. Different people like different things, so choice is a good thing.
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Wednesday 27th March 11:22
The tyres and wheels are perfect for where most owners are going be using them most of the time - on the road. You don't wear wellies or stout walking boots for general getting about, unless you need to. If you do need to take your 4x4 properly off-road you would fit an all-terrain or mud tyre. Like Clarkson did to the newly released Discovery when he took it up the mountain in Sutherland.
You would use what is appropriate for the conditions.
You would use what is appropriate for the conditions.
NomduJour said:
NGK210 said:
for their honesty
They are the Emperor’s New Clothes, there is literally no reason for them to have the underpinnings of an ‘80s pickup other than Mercedes didn’t know what else to do to keep it pretend “authentic”. Perhaps it’s time to accept the pros and cons of ladder-frame chassis in off-roader applications, and that engineers from Mercedes, Toyota and Lexus disagree with you.
Jon_S_Rally said:
"Worse" is entirely subjective when it comes to people's individual preferences. Yes, they could have made further changes to the car, but that would have taken it further away from what has made it so successful. Part of the appeal of the G-Class is it's slightly old-fashioned nature. You could say that the MX-5 reviewed elsewhere on this site is "willfully worse" because Mazda stubbornly refuse to fit a turbocharged engine, instead sticking to the 2.0-litre unit, even though a down-sized, turbocharged motor could make the car faster, more tractable and more economical. They don't do that because it is not part of the character or essence of the car. Many MX-5 buyers like the simple nature of the format, just as many G-Class buyers like the old-fashioned features of their cars.
If you genuinely think that most G63 owners like them because of “the old-fashioned features”, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you. Just buy an old W460. None of these are ever (ever) used for any sort of work or commercial use, so why would anyone who actually thinks about it want a car which is worse at being a car than it should be? Sticking a £200k car on the same sort of underpinnings as a pickup is not the same thing as deciding you want to stick with the characteristics of a NA engine.Jon_S_Rally said:
The fact that you resorted to remarks about Russian gangsters suggests that this car bothers you, or at least the choices of people that buy them bothers you. If you want something to be embarrassed about, it should probably be that. Different people like different things, so choice is a good thing
I understand entirely why the kind of people you don’t want to sit next to at dinner buy them. No issues with subjective choices, either - but trying to justify its design and engineering on any kind of pragmatic basis is nonsensical. It’s a completely cynical car.
NGK210 said:
IIRC, you express similar views in Land Cruiser threads.
Perhaps it’s time to accept the pros and cons of ladder-frame chassis in off-roader applications, and that engineers from Mercedes, Toyota and Lexus disagree with you
I don’t mind Land Cruisers, they clearly have their place. What are the exact benefits of a separate chassis in a passenger car, other than cost and simplicity? Are they the same benefits as a live front axle (which engineers from Mercedes, Toyota and Lexus have all given up on)? Perhaps it’s time to accept the pros and cons of ladder-frame chassis in off-roader applications, and that engineers from Mercedes, Toyota and Lexus disagree with you
NomduJour said:
I don’t mind Land Cruisers, they clearly have their place. What are the exact benefits of a separate chassis in a passenger car, other than cost and simplicity? Are they the same benefits as a live front axle (which engineers from Mercedes, Toyota and Lexus have all given up on)?
Fair point. But strip away its owners’ actual usage / needs – ie, retro 4x4 hotrod vibe, pimpmobile, penis extension, sturdy family wagon, etc – and we’re left with the G-class’s core raison d'etre: off-roading. For which a ladder chassis is arguably the best solution.
If cynical cost-cutting and simplicity were Merc’s prime objective, it’d be cheaper to use the GLS, or similar, monocoque dressed in G-wagen-style body panels?
In essence, that’s what’s happened to the AMG GT – goodbye bespoke front-mid-engine trans-axle loveliness; hello reskinned SL.
By all accounts, the new SL-based AMG GT doesn’t steer as sweetly – AWD accepted – as its forebear. Would a GLS-based G-class off-road as well as its (apparently) anachronistic forefather? Probably not. YMMV
Not sure if we'll get them over here but they do non AMG line versions of the 450d and 500 sans the big wheels, chrome bits and body coloured kits, you can spec wheels as small as 18" I think on those, the range starts at €122k euros in Germany or £105k.
I'd take a 450d with 18" and chunky tyres with a check cloth interior in a dark flat green.
I'd take a 450d with 18" and chunky tyres with a check cloth interior in a dark flat green.
Edited by Wills2 on Thursday 28th March 10:33
NomduJour said:
If you genuinely think that most G63 owners like them because of “the old-fashioned features”, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you. Just buy an old W460. None of these are ever (ever) used for any sort of work or commercial use, so why would anyone who actually thinks about it want a car which is worse at being a car than it should be? Sticking a £200k car on the same sort of underpinnings as a pickup is not the same thing as deciding you want to stick with the characteristics of a NA engine.
Of course that's part of why they buy them. They are a retro-styled, luxury hot rod 4x4. Obviously there are other reasons, such as cost, status etc, but that applies to any other car, especially expensive ones. A W460 would not fulfil that brief, because it isn't a retro-styled, luxury hot rod 4x4, it's just an old utilitarian 4x4. You keep comparing the G-Class to a pick-up, but how many people buy pick-ups and don't use them for commercial purposes? Absolutely loads. They buy them because they want one. The G-Class is a luxury item, and that means the decision to purchase one is not driven purely by logic. If we bought cars based purely on logic, most of these luxury carmakers wouldn't exist, because no one needs a hot-rodded off-roader any more than they need an 800bhp mid-engine supercar. They're about fun, and everyone has a different definition of what that looks like.
NomduJour said:
I understand entirely why the kind of people you don’t want to sit next to at dinner buy them. No issues with subjective choices, either - but trying to justify its design and engineering on any kind of pragmatic basis is nonsensical.
It’s a completely cynical car.
It's not a cynical car, it's a car designed for a specific audience. It sells well, so Mercedes haven't messed with the formula. That is true of hundreds of other cars - manufacturers aim to produce cars that customers want to buy. There is nothing cynical about that, it's just good business. It’s a completely cynical car.
Take the latest C63 as another example. A four-cylinder engine and hybrid system is a more efficient solution than a thumping great V8 but, as I understand it, sales of the four-pot C63 have not been as good as expected, and a lot of customers aren't happy about the change. If Mercedes had made the new C63 "willfully worse" by keeping the V8, or even by fitting some kind of six-pot, there might not have been such pushback from customers. Commercial decisions related to car design and layout are very different to the goal of choosing the best-optimised engineering solution. The challenge is in finding the best compromise to maximise commercial return while offering the best engineering solution.
You can make aspersions about the owners all you want, but the G-Class is a car built to fulfil a certain position in the market, and it clearly does that job very well. You don't have to like it, but trying to make out like all the owners are undesirable, or that there is something wrong with the fact it even exists is, perhaps rather ironically, demonstrating that the cynic here could well be you.
D4rez said:
The transition to EV will kill the new market for the G63. Probably for the best
In Europe maybe, but I suspect there will be demand for a petrol-powered G63 in plenty of other markets for a good while yet.Jon_S_Rally said:
It's not a cynical car, it's a car designed for a specific audience. It sells well, so Mercedes haven't messed with the formula. That is true of hundreds of other cars - manufacturers aim to produce cars that customers want to buy. There is nothing cynical about that, it's just good business.
You can make aspersions about the owners all you want, but the G-Class is a car built to fulfil a certain position in the market, and it clearly does that job very well. You don't have to like it, but trying to make out like all the owners are undesirable, or that there is something wrong with the fact it even exists is, perhaps rather ironically, demonstrating that the cynic here could well be you
How can it not be cynical? You can make aspersions about the owners all you want, but the G-Class is a car built to fulfil a certain position in the market, and it clearly does that job very well. You don't have to like it, but trying to make out like all the owners are undesirable, or that there is something wrong with the fact it even exists is, perhaps rather ironically, demonstrating that the cynic here could well be you
The W460 (an Iranian army runabout, remember) at least had some authenticity, and the idea of an archaic Austrian-German Land Rover with a big V8 was at least a bit silly - but this was an all-new, clean sheet design. It will never have any commercial or military or practical application. It has absolutely no authenticity or integrity whatsoever, it just looks like a bit like the old one - a complete fake.
The only reason it still has a solid axle and a separate chassis and external hinges and and three ‘70s tech diff locks which will never, ever be engaged, is because Mercedes, very cynically, know that it sells because of image and nothing else.
The original had that image because it was once an authentic, honest car built for a purpose. This is an inauthentic, dishonest car built for a purpose - to scam cash from awful people.
NomduJour said:
Jon_S_Rally said:
It's not a cynical car, it's a car designed for a specific audience. It sells well, so Mercedes haven't messed with the formula. That is true of hundreds of other cars - manufacturers aim to produce cars that customers want to buy. There is nothing cynical about that, it's just good business.
You can make aspersions about the owners all you want, but the G-Class is a car built to fulfil a certain position in the market, and it clearly does that job very well. You don't have to like it, but trying to make out like all the owners are undesirable, or that there is something wrong with the fact it even exists is, perhaps rather ironically, demonstrating that the cynic here could well be you
How can it not be cynical? You can make aspersions about the owners all you want, but the G-Class is a car built to fulfil a certain position in the market, and it clearly does that job very well. You don't have to like it, but trying to make out like all the owners are undesirable, or that there is something wrong with the fact it even exists is, perhaps rather ironically, demonstrating that the cynic here could well be you
The W460 (an Iranian army runabout, remember) at least had some authenticity, and the idea of an archaic Austrian-German Land Rover with a big V8 was at least a bit silly - but this was an all-new, clean sheet design. It will never have any commercial or military or practical application. It has absolutely no authenticity or integrity whatsoever, it just looks like a bit like the old one - a complete fake.
The only reason it still has a solid axle and a separate chassis and external hinges and and three ‘70s tech diff locks which will never, ever be engaged, is because Mercedes, very cynically, know that it sells because of image and nothing else.
The original had that image because it was once an authentic, honest car built for a purpose. This is an inauthentic, dishonest car built for a purpose - to scam cash from awful people.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff