superswiss

Yes, BMW has ended all engine production in Germany. They have completely relocated the production of combustion engines to Steyr in Austria and Hams Hall in the UK. Munich is only gonna produce electric powertrains moving forward.

Wolfman

The article stated that the S68 engine is manufactured in Austria. There are several engine variants on that one including the XM

MalibuScott

4343 lbs.

Res ipsa loquitur.

descartesfool

That's just sad. My 2016 GT-S has a curb weight of 3677 lbs per a Car and Driver track sheet when they actually measured the same car back in 2015. Front weight came in at 1746 lbs while rear weight was 1931 lbs. That comes out to a 47.5% front weight and a 52.5 % rear weight, making it a true front mid-engine car, providing fabulous traction out of corners. The front to rear weight balance is one of the primary factors making the original car such a great handling car, along with the much lower weight.

New one at 4343 lbs is a whopping 666 lbs heavier than an actual magazine measured weight. That is simply incredible. What a porker vs the original. Anyone trying to track the new car is going to be sad.

ChargedMB

My conclusion is that the Gen 2 will be a great car.
However, a completely different GT for a completely different crowd.

I'm sure Mercedes will sell many of these since the target audience is wider than Gen 1's. E/S coupe, M4, M8, 911 (non GT) buyers will love the AWD, 2+2 seating, and luxury focus. I think we (Gen 1 owners) were left out of the equation. Hopefully AMG make the "Racing" trim aimed for us. Unironically the perfect R/Black Series edition will be what the Gen 1 was: RWD, lighter weight, Mid front engine, closer 50/50 weight distribution with rear transaxle, dry sump. I doubt they will go that far.

In an interesting twist, this car seems like a worthy replacement for my 23 C63S coupe lol.

superswiss

As I've said earlier, the new GT is more true to its name. It's an actual grand tourer, where the original GT was more of a GT racer. The question is what they gonna do for the successor of the GT R or even the BS. It's gonna have to go on a rapid diet to become a track car. The new GT is much more appealing to me personally as a road car. This is largely why I opted for the 2019 C63S coupe instead. I wanted a GT coupe for the road, not a track car that is ok on the road and turns out most GT customers think like me. AMG said the new GT is the way it is because of customer feedback. Customers wanted an actual useable GT for the road, not a track car.

Wolfman

Agreed. This will not be a track monster ever. Unlikely to even become a Black Series model.

But it is actually a very good looking, well driving/sounding car that will fit the desires of many AMG buyers of which most will not care about weight.
Technology cannot undo the laws of physics but can blur them quite well.

W205C43PFL

Will be interesting indeed, if they go through the same weight management procedure ("training/diet program") the GT2 Pro went through except it will never be road legal. Hopefully the future of AMG GT is exciting.

descartesfool

It turns out that Ferrari actually knows how to make a proper modern 2+2 GT that is not a total porker like the new AMG. The Ferrari Roma has a 612 HP twin-turbo V8, and Sport Auto magazine from France weighed one they tested at 1662 kg, which is 3664 lbs (Ferrari published kerb weight is 1570 kg or 3461 lbs). That measured weight is just 13 lbs under the weight measured by Car and Driver for my GT-S. The Roma is even a bit wider and longer than the GT-S, and it has a proper trunk.

Aston Martin has gone the same direction as Mercedes, with Car and Driver estimating the curb weight of the new DB12 at 4100 lbs (or more).

The last time I was at my Mercedes dealer, he showed me the new 2+2 SL and asked me if I was interested. I said no, not at all. He asked me why and I said it was just overly heavy and I did not consider the new platform to be a sports car. I also told him I have ordered a new Ferrari Roma which I am expecting to arrive this spring. It will make a great companion to my GT-S which I plan on keeping a long time.

superswiss

Couple of thoughts I guess. The Ferrari Roma is at least $100k more than the GT will be. Lightweight materials such as carbon fiber cost money. The Roma also doesn't have the additional weight of an AWD system and it is well known to struggle putting the 612 hp on the road. It's too light in the rear. While I live in a dry climate, so AWD is of little use to me, many GT customers asked for AWD, so they can use the car year-round. The Roma is a dry climate/summer car only. Then there are all the haptic buttons around the steering wheel that are way worse than the ones in recent AMGs and the Infotainment system let's just say has the temperament of an Italian. If I remember correctly, if you wanna use CarPlay you can't have a tach at the same time.

AMG 17GT

Either way it’s prophetic, high HP petro V8s are on short on life…

descartesfool

I have a Nissan GT-R for an AWD car, which has a snow mode although I have never driven it in the snow. It has actual usable rear seats for small children unlike the ones in the SL I saw which are rather useless, as you would have to cut off your legs to use those. The salesladies at my Mercedes dealer were actually laughing about that for the SL in their showroom when we talked about it. The Nissan GT-R has always been considered a heavy car, but in fact it has a curb weight between 3850 to 3950 lbs depending on the year and model. With the new GT at 4343 lbs, the Nissan weighs between 400 to 500 lbs less. The Nissan has a much larger and more useful trunk than the one in the SL I saw. So how can Mercedes have designed such a heavy car? Agreed it might be a fine GT for those who like that type of car, but I am sad that the AMG guys have lost the soul their fabulous sports car.

Higgs Boson

will be a hard pass for me on this one, just like their new C63. going in the opposite direction from me.

superswiss

I definitely hear you. I myself am wondering where that weight is coming from. My '19 C63S coupe has useable rear seats, same 9 speed MCT transmission, e-locking rear differential and essentially the same engine, just a lower power output and weighs a smidge over 4000 lbs with the standard pano roof. AWD doesn't add 300 lbs and while the overall dimensions are larger, the occupants certainly don't' benefit from it, so it is kind of a mystery.

EDIT: One thing, though, I just realized we have to factor in. EU weight figures include a 165 lbs driver. US weight figures don't include a driver, although sometimes they do.

benzbell

Since we are talking a GT car and not a track car. Weight unless extremely heavy proportionately speaking which the GT is not would most likely not be felt by most anyways considering the ethos of a GT car. Of course you'll get a bit less gas mileage but the upside is better crash protection and a more "solid" feeling ride and comfort over the long haul. The AMG GT line with the long bonnet offers superior frontal crash protection which is important to me.

MalibuScott

The other manufacturer who knows how to make appropriately weighted cars is Mercedes Benz. Exhibit A: The AMG GT and variants, circa 2014-2023.

A few changes are all that were needed to make it the perfect grand touring car: A more supple suspension. A rear camera displaying on the rear view mirror. And HUD.

Instead, the powers that be turned it into another overladen pig, needing near miraculous electronic wizardry to make it feel like it "only" weighs 3900 lbs. But physics cannot be fooled at the limits.

(BMW seems to be following Mercedes, but trying to outdo the Stuttgart cars in the ugly department. At that BMW is succeeding.)

benzbell

Realistically, how many people are driving these cars at the limit? I suspect hardly any, as does MB. Successful multi billion dollar corporations usually know what their customers want in certain segments. Of course it's not a one size fits all, hence the discussion.

Orcbolg

I don't compare cars to the Nissan GT-R, often, due to the weight and my lack of interest in such a heavy sports car. I'd never have thought to compare them, before now, but after seeing your comparison, I'm even more shocked by the absurd weight gain of the SL and new GT.

I don't need to drive these cars at their limits, to feel the differences in weight, I can easily feel the difference just screwing around on twisty back roads. A 4k+ pound sports car will almost certainly never occupy a spot in my garage.

kcirm

I've actually been pleasantly surprised by the backseat of the SL. I've had around 7 guest sit in the back seat since I've owned it. The height of the guests ranged from 5'2 to 6'1. The 6'1 person was my colleague that I drove back from the bar. With the top down & and the 6'3 person in front of him with knees almost touching the dashboard, he rated his comfort 4/10. The 5'2 person was behind me as we were four, and she rated her comfort at a 6/10 for a 20-minute drive with the top down. I've recently driven a 5'4 person with the top-up (winter time), with a 5'6 person in the front passenger and about 14 birthday balloons crammed on the rear driver side. She said that she was completely fine. Of course, she had to have her legs in a V, but she was at a solid 7/10. As she said: "I wouldn't want to do a road trip to [city that is 3 hours away], but my legs have some space, and my head doesn't touch the ceiling. My back is very straight up, though". This was after a 30-minute drive. I'd like to note that everyone I drove in a "compromised position" which is the rear and/or front seats jacked up (including myself) are under 30. Maybe as age goes up, the tolerance for discomfort would go down. Ultimately, I can 100% say that these seats are highly useful in a pickle and are useable to move people. Generally, the most uncomfortable person when they are all used is actually myself. I would rate driving the car with the seat jacked up to make space for my passengers a good 3/10 (I am 5"11). Once again, I'm way closer to being 20 than 30, so I assume my body can handle it better.

W205C43PFL

Thanks for your mini review, I guess the surprise was due to we all coming in with a low expectation as we see it as yet another copy of the 911 seat layout. So when the seat is more practical or useful, rommier than we thought, we are surprised.

Reason why I don't set high expectations anymore with stuff like this , if we come in with low expectations at least we can be more impressed about something when it exceeds our expectations than get disappointed as a result of having high expectations. Same applies to dealerships (in my experience).

kcirm

Absolutely! When doing a lot of digging, the GT 63 E has two things going for it

1. If you remember the OG videos on pre-release SL, Mercedes had a video with the barebones SL chassis where they talked about its design and composition/ One thing they used is this "modular" design that they had to make to take into account expansion into the E Performance world. As far as I am aware, this is the ONLY chassis Mercedes purpose-built to be a hybrid. The C class is derived from the old generation with a few upgrades, the GT4DR chassis is the GT4DR chassis and the S class chassis is actually similar to to the gens. In addition to chassis, the C Class, GT4DR and S Class run on MRA II, MRA I and MRA Large respectively. Even the SUVs are on MHA. Only the SL and the new GT are modern cars that will stick to the MSA architecture. With this we have a significant chance of seeing a better application of the powertrain. Possibly less weight gain than in the other cars as well.

2. Time. We've seen test mules of the SL 63 E Performance for over a year now, and a GT 63 E Performance Concept (more like a prototype) was openly showed back in September. We know Mercedes is taking their time with this one, because frankly, they don't have to rush. The SL was already a great car but now the GT simply quicks butt. If they take their time to make a great "third time's the charm" we're in for a good time.

The ideal would be a mix of a lot of things. Considering this was a 260KG add-on to the GT4DR, if we could see a curb weight decrease of the GT of 100 KG+, a possible decrease of the hybrid system due to better integration (lets say 20KG), pump a set of CCB which are 50KG lighter if I recall, you could be looking at getting a 200HP+ HP for something like 90 KG of penalty. This would be around 2050KG. Add a quick tune (we've seen the SL go from 585 to 721 HP with a stage 1), and we're looking at 980HP. Although still heavy, considering how excellently the GT drives this would be a pretty clean combination

W205C43PFL

Solid advice, let's hope AMG take what you mentioned into consideration.

kcirm

There seems to be some traction on this topic. Mercedes just unveiled their SL63 E performance.

Although I'd have to double check, it seems the weight gain is 450lb fully fueled. That's already 200lb better than GT63e, so it seems that Mercedes was indeed not bluffing when they talked about their improvements to the chassis and platform.

If you add the 100lbs saved from CCB, you'd be looking at around 330lb added The ideal add on would be 200lb with CCB, so there's a little work to be done here if they want to make it work for the GT. But honestly, 153lb doesn't sound too far off.

Some chassis change here, some carbon fiber there, some sound detening removed here, some newer lighter mbux computer here, some lighter AMG sport seats there...who knows.

If they can get this to be real, they might as well make it a GTR with the M178 instead of the M177. Higher HP to get it to that 900HP mark, lower center of gravity (+ battery pack at the back giving it some more back balance), dry sum, slightly higher rpm. I'm wet dreaming at this point

We'll see how things pan out but that "poor man's SF90" proposition is looking alive for now.

W205C43PFL

Appreciate you commenting with your analysis on this.

MalibuScott

Extra weight is extra weight, no matter how well you package it. The battery pack weight may lower the center of gravity, but extra weight will still be felt in cornering.

As I have long commented, you can't fool or repeal the laws of physics.