S-Class Coupe or AMG GT?
09-10-2014, 03:08 AM
#1
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of 10,000 lakes
Posts: 9,984
Received 3,171 Likes
on
1,977 Posts
AMG GTC Roadster, E63s Ed.1, M8 Comp. Coupe
S-Class Coupe or AMG GT?
Now that the AMG GT is public, I am leaning towards that car. Just stunning and very fast...
Here is a picture gallery (in German, sorry)
http://www.autobild.de/bilder/merced...713.html#bild1
Here is a picture gallery (in German, sorry)
http://www.autobild.de/bilder/merced...713.html#bild1
09-10-2014, 08:07 AM
#3
Member
A very sexy looking car. Reminds me of BMW's Z8 from the early 2000's.
I agree with you Lovin - the dash is beautifully crafted and the large video panel looks out of place - like an afterthought...
I agree with you Lovin - the dash is beautifully crafted and the large video panel looks out of place - like an afterthought...
09-10-2014, 09:03 AM
#4
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of 10,000 lakes
Posts: 9,984
Received 3,171 Likes
on
1,977 Posts
AMG GTC Roadster, E63s Ed.1, M8 Comp. Coupe
Don't care for the floating screen either.
Interestingly, in the all German car mags, these screens are considered better than the old ones. More modern look, better ergonomic position and safer to use. Go figure...
Interestingly, in the all German car mags, these screens are considered better than the old ones. More modern look, better ergonomic position and safer to use. Go figure...
09-10-2014, 01:50 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 289 Likes
on
202 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
They really are. Once you drive or sit in a newer Benz with it, like the new C you will realize why the placed it there like that. It really becomes handy really quickly.
M
M
09-10-2014, 06:20 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
IMO, 65 Coupe likely far more dynamically addictive on public roads....
GT has inadequate tq (as did SLS and NA 63) for fast, moderately busy fwys
Chassis set-ups optimized for smooth, fairly flat tracks (even on light cars) often yield less confidence inspiring precision/stability in mountain twisties w/bumps, camber changes, undulations, damp spots in AM coastal fog, tight/blind curves&oncoming cars, etc than a well-calibrated ABC/MBC, proper tires (e.g. Conti SC5), forged wheels, CCB, etc: for me, 3600lb SLS was less enjoyable in twisties driving than last-gen (>'11) 5000lb CL65....and far less enjoyable on same roads vs 4200lb '14 SL65 w/CCB
DCT (and MCT, PDK, etc) have dubious reliability w/known episodes of failing at-speed/in-traffic....and annoying jerkiness/hesitation in <35MPH urban/suburban routine driving
Wouldn't want to test safety of any small hatchback esp if rear-ended: have no need for rear seats of S65 but view them (along w/trunk structure) as critical part of my crumple zone esp if rear-ended, a reasonable scenario in sudden deceleration on busy, fast urban fwys
Prefer 65 engine/exhaust music (as heard from driver's perspective in a closed car) vs that of any other car (8 or 12 cyl), at any speed/accel band....for me, those Burmeister speakers, MagicSkyRoofs, etc are interesting industrial art but haven't used any car's infotainment/sunroof in ages since driving AMGs (why pollute aural pleasure of those phenomenal engines/exhausts/downshift blips, etc w/lesser music/noise?)
GT has inadequate tq (as did SLS and NA 63) for fast, moderately busy fwys
Chassis set-ups optimized for smooth, fairly flat tracks (even on light cars) often yield less confidence inspiring precision/stability in mountain twisties w/bumps, camber changes, undulations, damp spots in AM coastal fog, tight/blind curves&oncoming cars, etc than a well-calibrated ABC/MBC, proper tires (e.g. Conti SC5), forged wheels, CCB, etc: for me, 3600lb SLS was less enjoyable in twisties driving than last-gen (>'11) 5000lb CL65....and far less enjoyable on same roads vs 4200lb '14 SL65 w/CCB
DCT (and MCT, PDK, etc) have dubious reliability w/known episodes of failing at-speed/in-traffic....and annoying jerkiness/hesitation in <35MPH urban/suburban routine driving
Wouldn't want to test safety of any small hatchback esp if rear-ended: have no need for rear seats of S65 but view them (along w/trunk structure) as critical part of my crumple zone esp if rear-ended, a reasonable scenario in sudden deceleration on busy, fast urban fwys
Prefer 65 engine/exhaust music (as heard from driver's perspective in a closed car) vs that of any other car (8 or 12 cyl), at any speed/accel band....for me, those Burmeister speakers, MagicSkyRoofs, etc are interesting industrial art but haven't used any car's infotainment/sunroof in ages since driving AMGs (why pollute aural pleasure of those phenomenal engines/exhausts/downshift blips, etc w/lesser music/noise?)
09-10-2014, 06:28 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
I can see how this can be a cost saving measure at the lower margins.
Trending Topics
09-10-2014, 10:11 PM
#8
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of 10,000 lakes
Posts: 9,984
Received 3,171 Likes
on
1,977 Posts
AMG GTC Roadster, E63s Ed.1, M8 Comp. Coupe
IMO, 65 Coupe likely far more dynamically addictive on public roads....
GT has inadequate tq (as did SLS and NA 63) for fast, moderately busy fwys
Chassis set-ups optimized for smooth, fairly flat tracks (even on light cars) often yield less confidence inspiring precision/stability in mountain twisties w/bumps, camber changes, undulations, damp spots in AM coastal fog, tight/blind curves&oncoming cars, etc than a well-calibrated ABC/MBC, proper tires (e.g. Conti SC5), forged wheels, CCB, etc: for me, 3600lb SLS was less enjoyable in twisties driving than last-gen (>'11) 5000lb CL65....and far less enjoyable on same roads vs 4200lb '14 SL65 w/CCB
DCT (and MCT, PDK, etc) have dubious reliability w/known episodes of failing at-speed/in-traffic....and annoying jerkiness/hesitation in <35MPH urban/suburban routine driving
Wouldn't want to test safety of any small hatchback esp if rear-ended: have no need for rear seats of S65 but view them (along w/trunk structure) as critical part of my crumple zone esp if rear-ended, a reasonable scenario in sudden deceleration on busy, fast urban fwys
Prefer 65 engine/exhaust music (as heard from driver's perspective in a closed car) vs that of any other car (8 or 12 cyl), at any speed/accel band....for me, those Burmeister speakers, MagicSkyRoofs, etc are interesting industrial art but haven't used any car's infotainment/sunroof in ages since driving AMGs (why pollute aural pleasure of those phenomenal engines/exhausts/downshift blips, etc w/lesser music/noise?)
GT has inadequate tq (as did SLS and NA 63) for fast, moderately busy fwys
Chassis set-ups optimized for smooth, fairly flat tracks (even on light cars) often yield less confidence inspiring precision/stability in mountain twisties w/bumps, camber changes, undulations, damp spots in AM coastal fog, tight/blind curves&oncoming cars, etc than a well-calibrated ABC/MBC, proper tires (e.g. Conti SC5), forged wheels, CCB, etc: for me, 3600lb SLS was less enjoyable in twisties driving than last-gen (>'11) 5000lb CL65....and far less enjoyable on same roads vs 4200lb '14 SL65 w/CCB
DCT (and MCT, PDK, etc) have dubious reliability w/known episodes of failing at-speed/in-traffic....and annoying jerkiness/hesitation in <35MPH urban/suburban routine driving
Wouldn't want to test safety of any small hatchback esp if rear-ended: have no need for rear seats of S65 but view them (along w/trunk structure) as critical part of my crumple zone esp if rear-ended, a reasonable scenario in sudden deceleration on busy, fast urban fwys
Prefer 65 engine/exhaust music (as heard from driver's perspective in a closed car) vs that of any other car (8 or 12 cyl), at any speed/accel band....for me, those Burmeister speakers, MagicSkyRoofs, etc are interesting industrial art but haven't used any car's infotainment/sunroof in ages since driving AMGs (why pollute aural pleasure of those phenomenal engines/exhausts/downshift blips, etc w/lesser music/noise?)
Speed-wise, the GT-S will beat any S-Class and in terms of dynamics, the suspension settings appear far more elaborate; there are now dynamic engine/transmission mounts (a la Porsche), different lock differential settings, etc. so I hope the car will better than prior MB's
Unlike the old SLS, this is a TT engine which should be easily tunable for more torque as well.
I do share your concerns about the DCT. They say it's completely reworked, but who knows...
I have been thoroughly impressed with the new S and more so with the coupe. My wife was clear that she was done with sedans (no kids, doesn't like big boats and we only drive them in the winter time anyways).
So it will be a coupe to replace the BMW and I am thinking about the S Class coupe or the GT. Am torn because the S-Class has so much to like but I like the sound/speed of the GT.
A test drive would easily tell but this will have to be ordered before I'll have a chance to drive one.
09-14-2014, 08:44 PM
#9
Super Member
Both are beautiful, very good choice wish I were in ur shoes but honestly I would probably go SClass Coupe because it will be supported by MB just as the s class sedan. The AMG GT on the other hand will be an exotic edition and looks similar to a Porsche so it's really a hard decision.
09-15-2014, 04:29 AM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
S Class Coupe would be my choice
