Thursday 21st April 2011

Mercedes E63 AMG Gets New Engine

5.5-litre biturbo V8 unveiled at New York show

---

By far the most important bit of any car...

The E63 AMG is dead - Long live the E63 AMG. The AMG version of the Mercedes E-class is the latest hot Mercedes to get a heart transplant, and the new twin-turbo 5.5-litre V8 model has been unveiled at the New York motor show.

Out has gone the much-loved naturally aspirated 6208cc V8 (currently being enjoyed in C63 AMG form by our very own Chris-R) to be replaced by the 5.5-litre biturbo V8 that also serves in the S63 and CLS63 AMGs.

The new car, says Mercedes, is 22 per cent more efficient than the old naturally aspirated model, probably thanks in no small part to a new stop-start system that's been added to the Speedshift MCT seven-speed transmission.

The vital statistics for the new E63 AMG are 518bhp and 516lb ft of torque, or 550bhp and 590lb ft with the optional AMG Performance Package. 0-60mph therefore arrives in 4.4secs or 4.3secs, depending on the power level, while the top speed is electronically limited to either 155mph or 186mph.

Other changes to the car are minimal. Mercedes does say that it has 'significantly upgraded' the interior, but as far as we can work out this extends only to a new modishly flattened three-spoke wheel with aluminium shift paddles and a three-dimensional full-colour TFT display in the centre of the speedometer...

[Mr Whippy]

Bit naff when you consider a decade ago the 55AMG was making ~ 500bhp and similar torque.

It makes you wonder how good AMG could get a new NA 6.2 V8, or a new 5.5 supercharged engine with respect to efficiency and cleanliness... at least that way they would keep a bit of instant response character to their AMG engines.

Dave

[bobbylondonuk]

So they took the supercharger out of the 5.5 and replaced it with twin turbos????

[rix]

Awesome! That's serious pub talk to say that your car was limited to 180+!

I know it's now prevalent in loads of marques but it really is quite annoying when the model designation doesn't relate to the engine capacity!

[eg Watermelon]

I think they should make a 'non-bling' pack option...or SE-Spec AMG which resembles a piddling E200d yet still has the engine, oh and delete badge option ticked too! Would make a very interesting Q-car...

[Chris-R]

rix said:

Awesome! That's serious pub talk to say that your car was limited to 180+!

Even better when you get to say it (almost) to a couple of coppers who are admiring the brand new PistonHeads C63 while filling up their van at Leicester Forest East:

Me: "Don't worry officers, it's speed limited."
Them: Oh yes?
Me "To 174mph..."

I drove away carefully!

[george h]

Will it sound as good as the 6.2 though?

[Fetchez la vache]

Chris-R said:

Even better when you get to say it (almost) to a couple of coppers who are admiring the brand new PistonHeads C63 while filling up their van at Leicester Forest East:

Me: "Don't worry officers, it's speed limited."
Them: Oh yes?
Me "To 174mph..."

I drove away carefully!

lol!

[Dagnut]

Mr Whippy said:

Bit naff when you consider a decade ago the 55AMG was making ~ 500bhp and similar torque.

It makes you wonder how good AMG could get a new NA 6.2 V8, or a new 5.5 supercharged engine with respect to efficiency and cleanliness... at least that way they would keep a bit of instant response character to their AMG engines.

Dave

Superchargers are not as efficient as they use engine power( I'm sure you know that) but they also effect throttle response, they eliminate lag but the throttle response still isn't as sharp as an N/A

[kambites]

Dagnut said:

Superchargers ... also effect throttle response, they eliminate lag but the throttle response still isn't as sharp as an N/A

Presumably only in so far as they have a heavier rotating mass than a N/A engine, so it's much like having a heavier flywheel?

[Dagnut]

kambites said:

Dagnut said:

Superchargers ... also effect throttle response, they eliminate lag but the throttle response still isn't as sharp as an N/A

Presumably only in so far as they have a heavier rotating mass than a N/A engine, so it's much like having a heavier flywheel?

Yeah simple as that really just down to mechanical losses..I'm no mechanical expert but!!! Only going I what I have read etc, I am open to correction hand discussion,not trying to contradict anyone....

[E21_Ross]

i know figures aren't the be all and end all, but can someone tell me why, with an extra 1.1 litres over the new M5 have they only got similar power and torque figures? 25% more capacity yet no extra oomph? in fact, only the performance pack almost matches the power but has a little more torque, the standard is 40bhp down.

[Dagnut]

E21_Ross said:

i know figures aren't the be all and end all, but can someone tell me why, with an extra 1.1 litres over the new M5 have they only got similar power and torque figures? 25% more capacity yet no extra oomph? in fact, only the performance pack almost matches the power but has a little more torque, the standard is 40bhp down.

I don't think the capacity really matters any more, it's all about efficiency now...so if they are using extra displacement but the weighth of the engine and efficiency are comparable ..whats the difference?..I'm sure if the ignore C02 regs and mileage were ignored, that engine could pump out 700bhp easily

[GroundEffect]

0-60 in 4.3 seconds for an exec saloon is frankly frightening.

[RobertDB7V12]

GroundEffect said:

0-60 in 4.3 seconds for an exec saloon is frankly frightening.

Even better in an estate car, our old E55 is pretty potty for 2.3 tons,and these things have 50% more poke!

[Luca Brasi]

george h said:

Will it sound as good as the 6.2 though?

I wouldn't say as good but still pretty good for a TT engine.

[nutcase]

Just think though, there are benefits to forced induction. Namely, pick one of these up in a few years time for say 40k and then a quick trip down to DMS for a remap, what, 620BHP ish?

[wackojacko]

V.nice.

[130R]

Another masterpiece of an engine bites the dust in the name of emissions.

[Mr Whippy]

nutcase said:

Just think though, there are benefits to forced induction. Namely, pick one of these up in a few years time for say 40k and then a quick trip down to DMS for a remap, what, 620BHP ish?

RS6 with biturbo V8 can do similar for lots less money and loads more capability to use it

Dave

[Johnboy Mac]

E21_Ross said:

i know figures aren't the be all and end all, but can someone tell me why, with an extra 1.1 litres over the new M5 have they only got similar power and torque figures? 25% more capacity yet no extra oomph? in fact, only the performance pack almost matches the power but has a little more torque, the standard is 40bhp down.

Not sure but it might be worth looking at the torque spread of both engines over their respective rev ranges and mpg figures too. Maybe this might explain the difference between both engines?