CZ55

4.0 Turbo engine sounds more believable than the 5.5 NA for sure. I'm guessing they will change the engine in SLK like they did in E63 as well.



True but I don't think more than 5 percent of the people tune their cars. We are in the crazy minority.

Merc63

I drove the entire Amg line up and if you didn't tell me the new 63s were turbo'd I would have never known.

hhughes1

MPG regulations are dictating the future whether you like it or not. This motor would share some parts with the ( cough cough ) 2.0L 4 cylinder AMG motor in the new small car line. In the Corvette world, everyone is wondering whether the 7.0L is dead with the C7 generation arriving next year. Regarding the W205, the real question is how light will they make it? If it's under 3500 pounds it will be an entirely new driving experience.

Viper98912

Idk what it is, the but a small V8 with twin turbos sounds nicely intriguing to me?

Buttnekid

Sounds like you have driven very little in the way of a modern day, large capacity turboed car (unless what you drove was a truck).

Come over to Aus and take a 4 litre inline six with single turbo for a spin and tell me she does not pull hard to redline (harder as she goes through the range).

A 4 litre single or twin v8 will be awesome, quick revving, no lag, high rpm. Plus most importantly factory low compression will lead to turbo changes and tuning capabilities you just can't get with NA unless you spend big bucks.

However I do understand the point about the 'soul' of a NA V8 hence why I am going from a supercharged 5 litre to the C63 coupe in about 2 weeks....

gthal

I have driven modern turbos.... the BMW 335 as an example. Again, not a lot of lag but NA it is not. Also, it does, in fact, drop torque close to redline and the engine does, in fact, feel like it dies off a bit. This is a very common trait of turbo engines. However, I do agree that the variances are now not as big of a deal... however, anyone who spends a lot of time at the track will still prefer a high revving NA engine to a turbo for good reason. That may be academic in this discussion as AMGs are not generally highly used at the track (with the exception of some here who do) by the majority of owners so a turbo may be preferred for daily use.

Guilty

I don't know about the M157 but when I test drove a CL65 (V12 TT) I more than felt the Turbo lag... faster doesn't mean better.

TonyDriver

I think the bottom line is, we are correct in thinking our vehicles of the future are only going to be constricted by fuel savings and regulations. But majority of us have owned, or have driven a vehicle with the M156. And for the owners, this was part of the reason we fell in love with the car. The sound, the feel and the drive. Moving from this to a 4.0L TT seems to be a big change for the buyer of a C63 AMG. One that might not look appealing at all. It seems the sensible choice to bridge the gap between the two would be the M157. Giving the normally N/A focused driver an experience at F/I, only dropping displacement by .708 cc rather than a quite substantial 2.208cc and having a better economy.

KingOfSiam

I, for one, welcome our new awd c class overlords. Wonder when an awd w205 is coming out?

callmiro

Not gonna happen. They are making a clear delineation within the models, when it comes to powerplants.

Spend $90k + and you get the limitless 5.5 TT

Spend $80k and under and get the smaller powerplants.

It's hard to justify the $160k price tag of the S63, when the C63 had the same powerplant for $70k.

The TT 4.0 will be a monster motor. Look at the power the 2013 S8 makes with a TT 4.0....520hp and 479 lb/ft....stock

and 3.5 0-60!

hhughes1

Agreed 100% The W205 will almost definitely be a faster car but with a different soul. It will probably be tuned to 450hp, but what potential especially if the car is closer to 3500 pounds than 4000.

Fung63

totally understand why MB as well as most if not all manufacturers are going the smaller engine with turbo / supercharger route. but I still cant help but make this comparison

new engines: pumped full of viagara to give its size and power
the M156: naturally hung

i'll take the M156

rory breaker

All of these analogies and fears and stories and limitations and so on/so forth are literally comical.

Every time AMG/M/etc releases something new that is different, fanboys all around the world cry about how their current car will be the "last true ___". "No soul!" Etc etc. Speculation begins about how <insert current car> will be a collectors item, and prices on the used market will shoot through the roof for "true enthusiasts" who want the "last great AMG/M/etc"

Fast forward to the car's release - those same people end up right in line buying one with a few exceptions. Turns out (whodathunkit) that the millions and millions of dollars the manufacturer spends on R&D and identifying what all segments of their market wants actually works. The car turns out to be awesome, all of the chicken little's worries (turbo lag as an example) turn out to be completely irrelevant except for those who want to hang on oh so badly. Those who can accept that the new model is better end up enjoying it with a smile on their face, the minority who choose to be right versus being happy stick with their current rides (that depreciate just the same by the way) and the world keeps on spinning.

Let's just cut to the chase, cut all that stuff out, get excited for the new car, and when you drive it, determine how badass of a ride it really is....or not.

gthal

I fully expect the new car to be better. However, for what I like to do with cars the engine will not be better. Will it be great? Sure, I highly doubt MB will mess that up. Will it be more tunable and potentially much faster? Sure it will but that has never mattered to me (I'm not a stop light racer and get no kicks out of that).

So, you are right that many will flock to the new car and praise its virtues. That doesn't mean the car will have the better engine for some of us.

JumpinJim

Such whiners. It was never going to get the M157, to believe so was a pipe dream as much as an E getting the M279. The 4.0T will be cheap to mod for easy power much more so than the 6.2. I just bought a '13 SLK 55 with the M152 so I'm kinda bummed. I'd much rather have the 4.0T.

rory breaker

So why do you think MB is going to implement some non-linear powerband? Someone mentions the word "turbo" and the "purists" come out of the woodwork with their spiked bats claiming that whatever is new won't address their niche use for the car, as if what you do with it is especially unique somehow.

It's still a 4.0 8 cylinder engine my man. If this were a 1.8L 4 cylinder with a T88 strapped to it, OK, I get it, cause for concern. But before just saying "oh geez Im a road racer and this sucks for road racing" have a little faith...or at least get a little wheel time before jumping to that conclusion

Fung63

relax dude.

we are still a long while away from the w205 C63 rendition. till then, let this forum serve its purpose. there are pros and cons of turbo vs NA.. because one is not absolutely better than the other, there will always be discussions from people from both camps. No need to come in all glory dory.

Most of us have bought MB before.. heck some of us, myself included have been buying MBs for over a decade (multiple decades if you count rest of the family)... obviously MB will be making a car superior to the previous editions.. havent found a car maker to go backwards and still be in business if anything, the technology upgrades and creature comfort improvements will make it worth looking at.

change will come, it's out of our control but let the people say their 2cents...

gthal

Relax man! I never knew someone could get so worked up because someone else prefers NA engines.

The MB turbo will be the best engine ever. I will buy one. I will become an Internet avenger Rory and verbally punish all "purists" going forward. Feel better now?

gthal

Oh stop being such a whiner If you would much rather have the 4.0T then just buy one when available.

rory breaker

Sorry for bringing up a contrasting point of view that challenges factually incorrect generalities. Won't happen again. Focker out!

JumpinJim

I intend to.

gthal

Nothing wrong with a contrasting point of view... just giving you a hard time for the intensity and the disguised insults to those who "think" they like NA engines better.

Ultimately, I do agree that MB and BMW will get their AMG and M engines "right" and even the fanboy purists will convert eventually. It's just too bad there won't be a choice for those who incorrectly want something without a turbo for invalid reasons .... just messing around again

Pickles

Some good points of discussion here, but like I said before, NO-ONE, as yet, (apart from AMG) knows what will be sitting under the "new" C63 bonnet, so I can't see the point in getting "stoked up", until we do?
Cheers, Pickles.

CptSlow

99% of people don't track
99% of people will only ever use these as DD's
99% of people don't ever go above 90mph, ever
99% of people will never run up to redline, because they only use "D"
99% of people won't know the difference, because,
99% of people don't know what engine their car has
99% of WANT more efficient cars

F1 is scheduled to go to F/I is 2014/15. That will be a "bad" track engine?

Sorry, go back to mourning the "good old days".

Nuieve

I never heard once anybody saying after owning a new model for a year or two ''i'd rather have the old model's engine in mine''. I think it's safe to add the following to your list:

99% of people want 6.2L NA engine only because of the sound

Once they get used to the new sound of 4.0T they will never want to go back 6.2 I don't hear many complaints from current 4.6TT owners about missing previous NA engines...