jleclair10

may recall, Mercedes' performance division, AMG, recently put up the white flag on the speed wars. This basically means that they are now looking for more efficiency rather than more brute horsepower. Their previous focus on power came at the expense of fuel economy, natürlich. How will the efficiency shift play out? AMG is welcoming direct injection and Stop & Start (micro hybrid) systems, which will be installed in all 2010 models, two years earlier than expected. The new piezo-electric injectors are the same as the ones fitted to the BlueEfficiency models. Thanks to these technologies and weight reduction, AMG expects to reduce fuel consumption by 30 percent without losing any character at all. Diesels and hybrids will also become part of the offering soon.[Source: Le Blog Auto]
AMG: Direct injection and Stop&Start in 2010 originally appeared on AutoblogGreen on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

mrtesting

I posted this article a while back, but now that its confirmed, I cannot wait to see the 2010 AMG models.

STALKER

Nice.
Any news if the tranny from the SL63 will be making its way to the C63?

jleclair10

No news on the tranny but I did hear daytime running lights will be making its way onto the scene.

Sincity

So that should kill the GG tax? My definition of not losing any character is retaining that awesome exhaust on the C63.

DaGS1800

I’m happy I purchased an 09 then, I don’t care what they say but the car will not be exactly the same with these so called “improvements”. If the C63 was made on the basis of producing brute power and performance, these changes are not focused on improving anything towards performance which may indirectly alter other areas of the vehicles original attributes...

These changes could be minor, such as exhaust note; however I prefer the original which did not focus on things such as fuel consumption rather than pure performance, just my opinion...

“My definition of not losing any character is retaining that awesome exhaust on the C63.”
-Couldn’t agree with your more

The reason we purchase these vehicles and spend more of our hard earned money on the C63 rather than a C300 is for the power and performance, not for more “efficiency”

However, if these do NOT alter or change any original attributes than I guess they serve a purpose, but if the improvements increase the price of the vehicle that would be a critical mistake on MB’s part.

If you are worried about GG tax than you’re looking at the WRONG car, or even TYPE of car…

BTW Don’t we already have daytime running lights? I am almost positive my car does, I’m too lazy to go check right at the moment….

yooker

I think you're all confusing the term efficiency. Efficieny simply means that you are able to maximize the use of every unit of energy provided.

Wouldn't it be better if the C63 was able to provide the same amount of power with less fuel consumption or more power with same fuel consumption? All manufacturers and racing teams strive to achieve efficiency in their vehicles because it provides the best performance. For example, look at the 2008 F1 cars, notice all those specifically placed winglets that direct airflow around the car at specific angles and speeds? They are aiming for efficieny to give them a competitive edge. Notice how the fastest sprinters or swimmers always look the smoothest? That's because they are able to fully utilize their chemical energy and transform it into mechcanical motion. By maximizing their efficiency, they are able to provide more output than other competitors and thus gain an advantage.

DaGS1800

You are over generalizing and just defining the word "efficiency".

What you said was true, However...These "efficient improvements" are not aimed at performance, YES they do have benefits, but I believe not necessarily in the enthusiast's interest. These changes can result in altering some "attributes" (such as exhaust sound for example) from the original C63 that some of us may appreciate most... We will never know until its release…

I would not be complaining about an airflow adjustment which improves the "efficiency" of the how our cars receive air for our engine, as in the example with the F1 cars. That is not the case in this situation...

AMGC60-3

I am looking at this new fuel injection system as a positive, MB has been using it on certain powerplants on certain models for a couple of years now on euro spec cars.Not only will the car become more "fuel efficient" but also have a boost in hp.It is already said that the new E class sedan and coupe AMG 63 will be bumped up from 507 ps to 525 ps.That more than less tells me that in 2010 or 2011 the W204 model C63 may reach the 470 ps area? This will produce a more "efficient and powerfull" C63 tacked along with the new MCT tranny, all I can say is Oh yea bring it on!! Look at this as a positive and not a negative.

Lew L

Direct injection was a big improvement on the 911. Weight reduction is always a good thing.

TA-9FF

You can be efficient without sacrificing performance.

Porsche 911 Turbo's are efficient, and they can still **** the pants off drivers with their massive performance.

Hans Delbruck

If the 2010 C63 gets direct injection -- WOW. I will be envious. DI = HP!

AMG has said the 6.2l will get DI, I just didn't think it would come this soon. Maybe they will let the new E Class have it first.

DaGS1800

If this increases BHP then hell yeah I am all for it... I didn’t say that it would "sacrifice" performance, because if it did I highly doubt MB would do it. But I just hope it doesn’t change things like the exhaust sound... And my point was that most people do not buy this car or a 911 turbo because of how efficient it is...

jtdominate

DI should be a good thing. Just feels like something that the auto mfg and engineers have known about but didn't feel the need to pass on to the consumer because they didn't have too. The articles I've read about the improvements on the Porsche 911 and Cayman are very respectable and the argument makes engineering makes sense....less weight more efficient engines translates into more fuel efficient cars without sacrificing performance.

Apparently the 2010 Audi S5 is losing it's V8 in favor of a twin-turbo six that's supposed to match the 8's performance. I remember about 10-15 years ago when a turbo was a bad thing and conjured up visions of sagging performance and costly repairs. I know technology plays a big role but sooner or later they'll be able to get the same exhaust note from a turbo 6 that current 8's produce. Not to be a skeptic but just make you wonder how much of this they haven't already hashed out and just wait for some form of regulation to offer what are essentially "marginal" technological improvements that the auto journalists hail as the second coming.

DaGS1800

Wow I didnt hear about Audi removing the V8 in the S5. Bad call IMO, now its not even in the same league/class as the M3 and C63. Do you have any info on the RS5 comming out, will that have a V8 or V6, it would be a shame if it doesnt have a monster V8...

yooker

A GTR or Turbo has a 6 cylinder turbo, I don't see anything wrong with a turbo engine, they are lighter and more fuel efficient as well. Also they are both faster than the C63.

1st amg

Any type of six cylinder, turbocharges, supercharged or NA will never sound like a big V8, I personally would not even look at any car as an option to buy if it didnt have a hulking 8 cylinder, my honest opinion only.

g.smiley

I suppose a small car like a Turbo (and to some extent the GTR) can get away with having a small engine with turbos. However, a large Mercedes just needs a big V8.

TA-9FF

Audi has been making way too many bad calls with replacing most of it's V8 line with these wimpy V6TT's.

IMO, it's fine tinkering with a V8 to make it efficient, (and without sacrificing it's performance figures, and exhaust notes) but it's quite another to ditch the V8 entirely for a V6TT.

"No replacement for displacement" just comes to mind.

Talk about one hell of a downgrade for RS4 enthusiasts.

yooker

Well maybe Mercedes should think of weight reduction in their future vehicles instead of adding weight and trying to counter it with more power. Why can't they make the C63 weigh something closer to 3000lb instead of 3900lb. Weight is never an asset to a car's performance.

TA-9FF

That would only mean:

1.) No more really comfy leather seats. (Seats are heavy as hell by themselves.)
2.) Bye bye Multi-media Sat-Nav system. (That's heavy too.)
3.) HVAC system should be an option, like on Lotus Elise's. (Air conditioning draws too much power, and it's heavy as well.)
4.) Back seats? Who needs them?
5.) Heavy use of carbon fiber on just about every panel. Great for saving weight, but expect the car to cost $20k more.

I'm fine with the way the C63 is. It's a luxury, track-ready muscle car, which is what it was designed to be.

If they ever make a C63 Black Series, then weight reduction and deletion of certain options would be expected and required.

-michael-

The most disturding thing for me is the hybrid system that MB decided to install 2 year earlier. Maybe they were planning to do some R&D during those 2 years? I also think that a bigger amount of equipment will give extra weight. Just my thoughts.

Regarding Audi RS series: I have a friend in Moscow, Russia who had a 2001 rs4 (bi-turbo v6) and a 2006 rs4 (v8). He bought the 06 one without even testdriving it, brand new, just when it came out in Russia for about 100000 euros (Russian pricing) and boy he was so disappoited. He hated every inch of that car but mostly he hated the V8 engine. His dad had Audi A8 4.2l V8 at that time and my friend said that they (A8 and RS4 v8) were just the same, heavy (although RS4 had an aluminium engine which was very light), not sharp, "lazy" and not turbo (in terms of feeling) . He sold the 06 RS4 with very low milege, bought a used 01 RS4 (he sold the first one he had) took it to MTM (tuning company in germany) (456hp/crank and 580Nm torque) and he is still enjoying it as a weekend driver. He has several friend that are RS4 ethusiasts and they all have the 2001 RS4s and all they are loving their turbo engines. Also there are only 6060 RS4 with a turbo engine and they were all made in 2001 (kinda makes the special).

TA-9FF

That's a matter of opinion. The V8 is N/A and produces 420 stock. I'm sure with MTM tuning, it'll produce more than the old V6TT could.

I'm sure lots of AMG C-Class owners will attest that the 2001 C43 AMG is "better than" the 2009 C63 AMG. Same great lineage, but both completely different approaches. That doesn't mean that one is better than the other, they're simply just different. It depends on what character you're wanting in a car.

Your friend just simply likes the feel of his old 2001 RS4 better, doesn't mean he can whip the pants off a modded 2006 one.

Just my $0.02.

-michael-

I agree with you.
It is a matter of choice.
He had both cars so he had a choice when both were stock. And it he prefered turbo. I have never seen someone who would upgrade to a new version of some car model and then degrade back.
All I has trying to say in the previous post - is that the new Audi move on the turbo engines can actually exite the RS4 enthusiasts.

PS I also agree with you on post #21

Star & Laurel

From what I hear 2010 models will be the same motor as 2009. Direct injection and other efficiency items are on their way just not 2010 for US. Not yet.