C63 AMG (W204) 2008 - 2015
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

M177 Engine

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 10-09-2013, 05:30 AM
  #26  
Super Member
 
tfthach13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
'09 C63
Originally Posted by zibby43
AMG is stealing away more potential M customers than ever by producing more balanced cars.

I believe that is the path they should stay on. Please AMG, leave behind the reputation that AMG cars are merely straight-line brutes that fall apart on the twisty roads.
They pretty much have to. With new EPA emission regulations, bigger (heavier) engines with gobs of displacement is no longer an option. Shedding off weight seems to be the new direction that car markers are going towards. I feel if MB can shave significant weight off the AMGs, they will be at least on par, if not better than, BMWs M-line. Weight has always been the downfall of AMG when compared to M-division.

What I would really like to see in the new AMG C-class is moderate to heavy use of carbon fiber construction; not just the bits (diffuser, spoiler, lip, etc.) but body and chassis. I'm sure they can justify the pricing with carbon fiber, since it's prevalent in the market already. Wouldn't cost too much to produce.
Old 10-09-2013, 05:37 AM
  #27  
Super Member
 
tfthach13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
'09 C63
Originally Posted by Maverick1975
Ditto, that combination is just off the charts for low down torque
I actually find it funny that some current owners are looking forward to ditching their current C63s in place for the new proposed TT W205 engines, when they can S/C their cars for pretty much less than purchasing the new one, and gain a stronger performer than the new model. I guess people just like new and shiny things.
Old 10-09-2013, 12:42 PM
  #28  
Member
 
forcefed6.4ford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On a oil lease cracking rock to recover glorious sour oil
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Modded 2010 Harley Edition F-450 and a '13 S5
A turbo will make more power than a S/C any day of the week. Just consider the parasitic power loss alone.

Anyone that would have a s/c car over a turbo charged car has never been in a turbo'd car that has proper turbo sizing.
Old 10-09-2013, 10:34 PM
  #29  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
roadtalontsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,121
Received 298 Likes on 191 Posts
10 C six trizzle
6.2L vs 4.0L thats quite a bit of displacement loss as well. The new motor definately wont suck down gas like the current model probably close to 30mpg highway 20mpg city vs 15-22mpg on the 63 lol. The 5.5L turbo's dont really have any lag but still dont compare to a blown 63's torque in the idle-2krpm range. they also dont pull as hard as a 63 in the top end 5k+ but its not exactly fair to compare a factory tt 5.5L direct injected to 6.2L aftermarket tuned and supercharged. muchless something 1.5L smaller. Theres alot of differences to compare the two. ultimately usually turbo motors are built much stronger and detuned heavily tuned in stock form. Im all for turbos but for a daily driver where your in lower rpm blowers do the job better for instant go.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: M177 Engine



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:24 PM.