sound 8

When MB brought out the SL63 in 2008 it was quite different to a SL55,
in shape engine and gearbox, can't understand why they called it SL63, with
a 6.2 engine it should have been SL62. And now there is the new SL63 which
looks different, and has a different engine and gearbox. So why call it a SL63
this only serves to confuse
If I have a 2012 SL63 how do people know if it's a 230 or a 231.
An then of course there is the SL65. Other sports car makers usually have
a new name for each car, or just the same model name maybe as a Mk2.
I think the 2008 SL63 was seen as a failure by Mercedes, that's why it was
missing from my book " A history of the SL " the new SL63 I'm sure are
Mercedes saying this is how it should be done.

JumpinJim

I think the 6.2 in general was a failure. It worked in the C class because they came from the na 5.5. Otherwise I consider it a downgrade from the 5.5k.

Rafiki

Wooow the 6.2 was a failure, u don't say,

DCMETRO22Z

OK ...

BMW 325i

Porsche 911

Mercedes S500

Audi A6

ALL makes keep the same names for their car... I don't why it surprises you so much...

JumpinJim

Yep. I've had many AMG engines in many cars from the 32 to the 65 and everything in between. The NA 6.2 was by far the worst powerplant I've experienced in any of them. The 2010 E63 ranks as the worst car I've ever had solely due to the lackluster engine. I didn't keep it long and it actually made me switch brands until the 5.5tt came out. It's also why I would never consider an SLS.

and808

talking about NA 6.2 engine ...
I would say one of the reasons was a MCT transmission, which those days (2008) was unable to deal with high torque delivered - for example - by SL 55. that is way (this is only my guess) a new NA 6.2 popped up.

look why mercedes lanuched an engine with less torque as a succesor of SL 55. the only answer, which comes to my mind was a fancy, new, quick 7-gear gearbox.

JumpinJim

If I recall correctly from way back when, the reason for the switch from the 5.5k to the 6.2 was due to european pedestrian impact standards that said there had to be so much clearance between the top of the engine and the hood. With the blower on top the 5.5k couldn't meet the requirement.

Maverick1975

Ifind this comment to be quite extraordinary. Lacklustre, common you can't be serious.

rocko

Imho, I think the decision to switch from AMG's kompressor to NA was to compete with BMW's M division. One specific AMG model comes to light. Remember when they first released the CLS AMG in 2006? It used the 5.4L Kompressor with the 5g tronic with AMG speed shift. A year later, they changed it to a 6.2 NA with the new 7 speed MCT with speed shift. The 2007 E class AMG also adapted this change. I believe they did this since the E60 BMW M5 when released in 2006 was using a NA high revving V-10 with a 7 speed SMG III gearbox. If I remember correctly from a video that I watched before about the M156, I believe they said that it was the "highest" revving V8 in the market upon release. Hmmm, makes you wonder if these auto companies have spies within each company. Lol

Audi even followed suit with their NA "gallardo" V-10 based engine on their S models. The funny part is now european emmisions and efficiency are more stringent and demanded, that they have no recourse but to switch to twin turbo's to achieve the best of both world's.

I'm not sure who led the big 3 this time in using turbo chargers as far as their performance models are concerned. Was it BMW's M, Audi's Quattro division or Merc's AMG? Oh wait, AMG did with their M275 V-12... and so the cycle begins again. Lol

rocko

One thing I forgot to mention, I saw CNET's review on the 2014 S550. The twin turbo V8 makes 516 lb/ft of torque mated to, that's right, a 7 speed automatic gearbox.

Wouldn't it have been nice if they came out with this gearbox in 2003 for the Kompressor engines? Lol

JumpinJim

Deadly serious. I have nothing but loathing for the 6.2. It was the proverbial roach in your food that makes you turn your nose up at a restaurant. It led me to buy 2 Porsches and I didn't consider AMG a contender at all until the CLS with the 5.5biturbo came out which I snatched up after a test drive. That was a proper AMG engine. The 6.2 was a downgrade from what came before it and far eclipsed by what's come after. Good riddance.

LukasBMW

I think these companies are jumping on the turbo power bandwagon purely for emissions reasons. Governments are demanding higher MPG requirements and therefore even the sports cars and class leading luxury cars need to be just a bit greener.

I highly doubt BMW would ever have gone away from their high revving race inspired ///M engines if not for emissions.

I think that the 6.3 NA engine is a great engine, but it just doesn't work in the heavier cars. The AMG designers wanted to flex their muscles with a NA V8, but came up a bit low on the torque figures. They then wanted to "push the engine and included it across the AMG range. I think it works in the C class, but the difference in torque is more noticeable in the SL/S/CL classes since they are heavier and previously had the supercharged V8 monster that made significantly more torque and about equal horsepower.

If you want pure power and reliability, there isn't much better then a big V8 with a roots type blower. It's a proven design, it's more reliable then turbocharged engines (less complicated), and probably even more reliable then NA race type engines.

I think the only reason AMG went away from the blower was gas mileage.

I think I'd still take a supercharged V8 over a twin turbo V8. Yes, the new TT V8 engines are awesome, but the combination of grunt/bass and whine from my 06 SL55 was just an awesome sound.

DCMETRO22Z

He doesn't like that engine, but what makes you love that engine at the point of having 5 cars with same engine ? Your fleet is awesome, but why not more variety in the engines ?

sprins

I think the 6,2L 63AMG engine is a gem. Especially in the SLS (which I can't afford) with the latest transmission. But also in my CLK63BS it's far better a performance (sportscar) engine than the 55 in my SL55 IMO. The 55 is ideal and comfortable for autobahn cruising and stop and go traffic (and everything in between come to think of it). But the 63 (in the C63, CLK63BS, SLS which I have driven) is just plain Rock & Roll!

None of the cars I have are performance tuned I might add.

over the edge

I think the biggest problem is that the M156 6.2 63 AMG motors was a poor match for the chassis and trans in most vehicles. 4000+ lb heavy luxury cars with little low end torque and stout torque-multiplying converter leads to a pretty poor driving experience. The '09 SL63 was such a disappointment, esp coming from a 55K + traditional 5 speed slushbox in the same car. That old powerplant/trans combo compliments even a 4600+ lb S class well.

I've driven both the CLK63BS and SLS and they are indeed amazing machines to drive but only the SLS is the only NA 62 car that feels seat-of-the-pants-fast, and if you ripped 700+ lbs out of the SL it would be pretty amazing to drive and probably faster yet again

The M113K 55 powertrain is simply an amazingly-versatile combo and a very tough act to follow and we're just starting to get there with M157/MCT.

rune solem

Here's a link to pistonheads Chris Harris test of a sl 63 which he had for an extended time to really test it.

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evol..._sl63_amg.html

I'm often going to pistonhead to check out some of his vids, as he is a very knowledgeable man.

So it's not only doom and gloom.

sound 8

You guys are overlooking one thing,
turbo cars are easy to tune and get big horsepower, impossible on a nat ***
car, although the gearbox on the non turbo 63 was magnificent, better than
the new 63.
Incidently I drove a Ferrari 430 last week, terrible gearbox, horrible exhaust
note, diabolical ride, rattles and shakes, and my 63 would leave it for dead.
Saving grace was it looked beautiful.