What are the differences between the two or is it just a name change of the same thing? I see an evolution of the 7 speed torque convertor transmission in the W222 S65.....

 

Supposedly minor differences in shift speed, the real difference is the AMG MCTs vs the torque converters.

 

I think I'm the minority of opinion here, but I actually love and understand the MCT transmission in the 63's. It's brilliant. Perhaps the TCT of the late model S65 is to get as close as possible to the performance and dynamic feel of the MCT without the roughness and jerkiness that comes with it.

 

The 65 had to stick with the torque converters as it would destroy the clutches in the MCT.

 

You are not the only one, forum member superswiss too love it.

 

The truth about why they don't use the MCT with the V12 comes down to 3 things, packaging, smoothness, and power curves. The clutch in the MCT is more than capable of handling the torque.
Packaging: The V12 is longer so there's less space to fit a longer transmission in the same space.
Smoothness: I think this is self explanatory. I had a S600 and now have a 18 S63; I would have hated the MCT in my S600, terrible match.
Power Curves: The gear ratios in the MCT transmissions work best at higher RPM's, the V12 delivers the most power at much lower RPM's and torque decreases at higher RPM's, at the exact spot where TTV8's deliver the most power, especially torque.

 

The V12 Maybach uses the 9 speed transmission package. The 9 speed is only rated for 900N-M (664ft-lb) of torque unlike the 7sp which is rated for 1,000n-m (738ft-lb.) The Maybach V12 is now limited to 664ft-lb, the peak HP remains the same at 621. The extra two gears likely result in the same performance. The C&D testers saw the 1/4 mile in 11.9sec @120mph. Pretty good for a 5300lb car with no electric assist.

 

IMHO the MCT was a strange design choice. The ZF 8 speed (developed at the same time as the MCT) offers more ratios, the same (or better) torque handling, equally fast shifts and none of the janky low speed manners of the MCT. All the other big euro car makers went with the ZF, as did Stellantis to sit behind the beastly Hemi v8 variants.

I have gotten used to it, but every time I am in my buddy's Jag F-Type R, I am reminded how much better overall the ZF is.

 

It's a bit difficult to find good information on the older 7-speed transmissions. They've been known by different names. As far as I know the 7G SPEEDSHIFT is the earliest AMG version and it's basically the same 7G as in the regular models, but with a more sporty tuning. It dates back before the MCT. The TCT is the successor. Still using a torque converter, but overall faster shifts and even more sporty. The MCT as said ditched the torque converter in favor of a clutch pack for a more direct response and feel. One key aspect of using a clutch is that it is lighter than a torque converter, so it has less inertia. The result is essentially equivalent to using lightweight flywheels in performance cars. Makes for a more responsive and more rev happy powertrain, but it can be jerky if you don't modulate the throttle properly. Extreme cases of this type of setup are cars like the 911 S/T with their superlight clutch that you can easily burn out if you don't know what you are doing. Makes for an awesome driving experience, but starting off the line and slow driving takes some finesse.

Same goes for the MCT. If you drive the MCT like a regular AT, you will be disappointed. You'll have to drive it more like an MT, which is personally exactly what I want having driven MTs for over 20 years. I actually drive mostly in manual mode, at least 90% of the time. Having said that, the 7-MCT is not very good. It's laggy, especially in manual mode. The 9-MCT is much better. I didn't like the 7-MCT coming from MTs and responsive DCTs, but as said above, I'm one who loves the 9-MCT. Even more than many DCTs, because as opposed to a DCT, the MCT can quickly skip gears. DCTs are only fast and enjoyable if shifting sequentially and the next gear has been correctly pre-selected. Out of sequence shifts are slow and clunky, whereas the 9-MCT drops as many as 5 gears in a fraction of a second.

The ZF is often brought up in these discussions, but the ZF as all torque converter transmissions is numb and dull. Yes, a torque converter is smoother than the MCT in the daily low speed grunt and stop&go traffic. I've been saying for a while, that the AMG 63s aren't really city and commuter cars. I don't do daily driving or commuting with mine, but with proper throttle modulation or using DISTRONIC it is plenty smooth. Just takes a bit more attention to what you are doing. I frequently drive my wife's torque converter automatic for an errand that I have to do by car, simply because it requires less thinking. A big reason I own an AMG is because AMG still understands that a torque converter dulls the driving experience. If you want a commuter car, there are other cars for that, including perhaps the watered down performance models with the ZF from other brands. They all try to make up for it. BMW has gone back to the drawing board multiple times with the ZF in their M models, because the feel and experience just wasn't there and engineered fake feedback into it to try to trick drivers into thinking it shifts more like a DCT, but it's all mostly fake kicks in the back and such.