• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

This is your new, cuddlier Mercedes-AMG GT Coupe

I’m glad they’ve retained the look, but the slightly softer styling and relatively shorter nose takes away a title of the drama of the original GT. If customers asked for back seats and room for a bike in the boot then they weren’t typical original GT owners - more to do with consolidating the flagship S-Coupe, S-Cabriolet, SL, GT-Coupe and GT-Roadster models, and competing with the 911 I’d say. Still it’s a lovely car.
 
The extra luggage space is remarkable. That’ll be ready for the ePerformance model, to accommodate the battery pack and motor. Shame that they’ve lost the transaxle, inevitable though in order to make it a 2+2 and hybrid - it would be needed to achieve eitherl, but a miracle of packaging to achieve both. Stunning interior. Seats really ought to be bigger if they’re going to have them.

Whilst it’s a less special car than the GT, it is certainly going to be a more usable and less intimidating car to drive and to live with. You have to be quite hard core to what the kids call “daily” a GT or SLS, ie use it for anything and everything all year round because it’s like driving an exceptionally fast, lightweight World War II pillbox. I know of someone who does though and drives it in deep snow.

Handsome car. One day, when the numbers come in.
 
del320 said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Mat Watson @ Carwow review - not obsequious and far more informative.

I'd buy one... :thumb:
Click to expand...

Mr Watson is wonderful. Should have had the Top Gear job a long time ago IMO. 👍
 
Estimated list for the 55 £140k

rising to £170K for the 63.

So the 63 is competing almost directly with the 911 Turbo (£159K) / Turbo S (£180K)- Tough market to crack.

I'd previously ruled out cars of this nature as I don't really want multiple cars, or A to A cars that are only really any good on a sunny weekend drive to the pub and back.

I like to get people/stuff in my cars and genuinely use them, hence I ended up with a breadwagon. A little oddball. But I've managed 10,000 miles in it in 11 months. Compared to the 29,000 miles I managed in my SL in 7 years.

I once looked at an Audi R8 and figured you could get little more than a soft bag in the frunk and not much else. So the 2+2 component of these will likely open them up to more potential customers.

The big question though is how many people would buy one over a 911, particularly a 911 turbo?
 
Last edited:
Red C220 said:
Estimated list for the 55 £140k

rising to £170K for the 63.

So the 63 is competing almost directly with the 911 Turbo (£159K) / Turbo S (£180K)- Tough market to crack.

I'd previously ruled out cars of this nature as I don't really want multiple cars, or A to A cars that are only really any good on a sunny weekend drive to the pub and back.

I like to get people/stuff in my cars and genuinely use them, hence I ended up with a breadwagon. A little oddball. But I've managed 10,000 miles in it in 11 months. Compared to the 29,000 miles I managed in my SL in 7 years.

I once looked at an Audi R8 and figured you could get little more than a soft bag in the frunk and not much else. So the 2+2 component of these will likely open them up to more potential customers.

The big question though is how many people would buy one over a 911, particularly a 911 turbo?
Click to expand...
Whilst the previous generation GT had only two seats, it’s natural competitor was the 911, with the 991/2 Turbo/S (or GT 3) being the natural competitors for the AMG GT C (or GT R).

It’s tempting to think the 991/2 Turbo/S sold in much greater numbers because the 911 generally sells in much larger volumes, however Turbo S tend to be a relatively small proportion.
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
Whilst the previous generation GT had only two seats, it’s natural competitor was the 911, with the 991/2 Turbo/S (or GT 3) being the natural competitors for the AMG GT C (or GT R).

It’s tempting to think the 991/2 Turbo/S sold in much greater numbers because the 911 generally sells in much larger volumes, however Turbo S tend to be a relatively small proportion.
Click to expand...
I see no downside to it being a 2+2 even if it just creates more useable bag space.

It makes sense. MB's range had got a bit muddled with the SL and AMG GT kind of treading on each other toes.

The thing that's always made MB's at that price a tough sell vs competitors though is lack of customisation. It's mainly a UK market thing. They really don't offer/market the Designo boutique here like they do on the continent. You've rellay got to dig and push and then be prepared to open your chequebook to huge option costs.

That's a lot more straightforward not only with brands like Porsche (exclusive) but Audi and BMW. The any colour you like as long it's black interior option (maybe one or two other options) and every car has to have privacy glass is kind of tollerable on volume models but when you're parting with the thick end of £200K you'd like a degree of customisation that's either not forthcoming or a bit of chore/fight to get.

This has always been the big downfall of the "65" range. It's buyer would look at that and then think, I can buy a Bentley instead. It's like off the peg/Made to Measure vs Bespoke, but the price is almost the same.
 
Red C220 said:
I see no downside to it being a 2+2 even if it just creates more useable bag space.
Click to expand...
The main downside is that fhe gearbox is now the wrong place, which will affect the lovely front-rear weight distribution.

Having back seats is a bonus, especially for those with children between say and 12 years old, otherwise they’re not much use.

How useful they are depends upon whether there are other cars available - most GT owners will have a few to choose from.

Almost all cars will be better at carrying rear seat passengers, so it would make more sense to take a different car.

If I really wanted a super sports car to seat four people, a GTC4 Lusso for the same money would make much more sense.

The new GT will be a great car, and much more usable than the car it replaces. The trade off is a bit less “specialness” though.
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
The main downside is that fhe gearbox is now the wrong place, which will affect the lovely front-rear weight distribution.

Having back seats is a bonus, especially for those with children between say and 12 years old, otherwise they’re not much use.

How useful they are depends upon whether there are other cars available - most GT owners will have a few to choose from.

Almost all cars will be better at carrying rear seat passengers, so it would make more sense to take a different car.

If I really wanted a super sports car to seat four people, a GTC4 Lusso for the same money would make much more sense.

The new GT will be a great car, and much more usable than the car it replaces. The trade off is a bit less “specialness” though.
Click to expand...

Why is the gearbox no longer in the right place? Is it not a transaxle on this?

Surely it can't be that much of a problem considering the 911, it's main competitor, has it's entire engine and gearbox in entirely the wrong place without detriment.

As for the Lusso, well yes, that's how I ended up in an FF, for that reason. F12 was my first choice, but it was a two seater so I'd realistically need another car, which is what I was trying to avoid, so FF it was. There's now nowhere really to go from there, it's about as good as it gets for me, so it's staying a while (Not as keen on the Lusso).
 
Red C220 said:
Why is the gearbox no longer in the right place? Is it not a transaxle on this?
Click to expand...
No it’s between the knees, no longer a transaxle. It will be fine, that’s where it is for the vast majority of cars, just a little more normal and a little less special.

The implications won’t be felt by 99% of owners, 99% of the time, especially given that it’s now four wheel drive, and there will be a motor and battery back there soon.
 
Much prefer the previous AMG GT.

this one is trying way too hard:
  • the enormous mouth is completely disproportionate to the rest of the face
  • the headlights look like they have come from an MG SUV
  • the rear lights and rear end try to ape the Ferrari Roma, but without the style, elegance or sensuality
  • the rear wing is plain ugly and even Halfords would do a better job
interior is generic MB screens somehow plonked and squashed into an ageing SLS based interior - think Hollywood stars refusing to age gracefully with stretched taut faces, wearing far too many pieces of jewellery

this is a sports car done on the cheap .. rehashed, reheated and completely overcooked
 
Ouch!

I’m certainly no expert on these but it doesn’t look that bad to me. I guess when you’re spending £140-170k you get to be quite particular though :)

I’d take one in a few years time with low miles for £40k though 😀 👌
 
I like this revised version but also like the current version. The early models are around £50k upwards so makes them a tempting proposition. However, when venturing over the £100k mark I’d be in an FF all day long.
 
Yeah me too.....I think it looks good and at the risk of being banned I always thought the "old"one was a slightly miss-proportioned, slightly caricatured car with too much front in relation to the rest. But since I've never wanted a two seat car it's never a problem I will have to deal with.*

*Ferrari F40 aside if my numbers come up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

U
AMG GTR rear wings
Replies
10
Views
512
UKGTC
U
U
New owner
Replies
18
Views
838
donshl
D
Engadine
AMG GT 63 vs Brabus C63S
Replies
17
Views
2K
Bobby Dazzler
Bobby Dazzler
U
AMG GT V8 down pipe upgrades
Replies
3
Views
481
Bobby Dazzler
Bobby Dazzler
noogieman
AMG petrol cap - cool but pricey!
2
Replies
26
Views
873
HappytalkAgain
HappytalkAgain
Back
Top Bottom