Mercedes AMG-C63

[BlackC55]

^^Agree pretty much with that. ^^

May be a challenge to fit aftermarket front pipes to the turbos though (possibly my next mod), due to their positioning in the middle of the V? Still, I'm sure someone will manage to work it out. Probably Weistec.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...FAMG-55-V8-biturbo-engine-7.jpg.html;1024;768

 

[def90cars]

Stupidity.

Wow, wide arches on an AMG (that isn't black series)!
Never thought I'd see the day!

With the M and the RS having wide arches, the AMG has always felt "short changed" to me, styling wise. Not any more!

C63s always had wider front arches

 

[V12]

How is your 320???? or is it a 300?


Anyway the 6.3 was in recognition of the 40th Anniversary of the SEL... the C63 was not first.

It had to be relative to the power.

65s are more powerful than 63s which were more powerful than the 55s

Which in order are 6.0, 6,3 and 5.4 anyway.

600s were 5.4 too

Anyway I think C63 is recognised as a desirable car like an M3 or RS4... we wait to see if the change to M4 will be confusing....

My car has a 3.2.

I'm just making the point that the badge used to denote engine displacement, not power. Marketing idiots ruin everything.

In the R107 SL, the 420SL from 1985 onwards was faster than the previous 450SL...no badge change was necessary.
I guess mercedes have made the choice for the badge to reflect power but it's not even an accurate badge anyway. Call the AMG C class the C50 because it puts out around 500bhp or call it C40 because it reflects the engine capacity.
Lower numbers must mean a backwards step, surely

 

[daveenty]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...FAMG-55-V8-biturbo-engine-7.jpg.html;1024;768

But that's the 5.5 Bi Turbo Olly, as in the E Class and others. The C Class apparently has a 4.0 V8 with a "Hot Turbo" configuration, meaning that the turbos live in the middle of the V formation, or so I was led to believe.

 

[BenzedUP]

But that's the 5.5 Bi Turbo Olly, as in the E Class and others. The C Class apparently has a 4.0 V8 with a "Hot Turbo" configuration, meaning that the turbos live in the middle of the V formation, or so I was led to believe.

They've copied that from the BMW F10 M5 and the M6.

 

[V12]

They've copied that from the BMW F10 M5 and the M6.

Yes, when they announced the engine I thought that and found this which was an interesting read :

AutoZine Technical School

This is also brief but interesting http://www.autoevolution.com/news/mercedes-amg-s-m178-engine-versus-audi-s-40-tfsi-plus-82487.html

 

[PhilT]

Really don't like it at all, the rear just looks wrong and the lights look like they asked a baby were to place them. The grill on the top front sits too high and far forward. I wouldn't swap mine for it but I can see the tuning potential with the new turbo engine even if the sound wont be there.

 

[Vazza]

Any news on when orders open/UK pricing yet?

 

[paulshep69]

Any news on when orders open/UK pricing yet?

Orders open in October, first cars delivered early next year apparently - according to this:

New Mercedes-AMG C63 revealed

 

[Rashman]

Interior looks nice.
Not won over by the looks of it, externally.

I am not like the rear lights on the saloon at all!

I am also not impressed with their attention to detail when putting these pictures together.

I can't believe that none of them noticed the ill-matching shut lines I have circled in red :fail

 

[Rashman]

And I think Alps will have a thing or two to say about the ride height of the C63s estate

 

[C240Sport97]

I can't believe that none of them noticed the ill-matching shut lines I have circled in red :fail

probably pre production models

 

[Abdul]

C63s always had wider front arches

That's the problem on all C63's inc the new one imo, great looking front end with the wider arches but the rear arches just look utterly pants as they're left stock.

 

[def90cars]

That's the problem on all C63's inc the new one imo, great looking front end with the wider arches but the rear arches just look utterly pants as they're left stock.

Rear arches would required a body shell change - very expensive.
Front arches (wings) are bolt on - cheaper to do.

 

[swesty]

cant wait to see one in the flesh, pictures never do cars justice

 

[rajsb89]

Thats one cool looking estate.

 

[Abb]

Guess I am in the minority too. Don't think it has any redeeming features externally, interior looks nice and am sure the engine is great, but to look at...no, no, no! Styling dept definitely needs to have a word with themselves.

 

[regbuser]

a much more attractive rear quarter:

 

[V12]

a much more attractive rear quarter:

Each to their own.

 

[rsk21]

I don't mind how it looks nor how the Audi A4 nor the 3 series wagon look .

To be honest it's just another generic mid-sized saloon/estate but surely one doesn't buy these cars based on how they look ?

In fact I remember thinking when I had my C63 wagon that duller and more "normal" it looked the better