AMG is about to move away from superchargers...
06-22-2003, 11:27 PM
#1
Almost a Member!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, On
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW E39 M5
AMG is about to move away from superchargers...
"AMG is dropping supercharged engines in favour of big-bore V8s"
Scans from CAR magazine, 07/03 edition.
1st page:
2nd page:
Scans from CAR magazine, 07/03 edition.
1st page:
2nd page:
06-23-2003, 01:51 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the post. Totally awsome reading. Makes me want to lease me new 04 E55 for just enough time for the new model to come out. But knowing my luck, I wouldn't time it right and my lease would be up and the new engine would not be ready and I would be stuck.
Thanks. Great article. Answers lots of my questions if it was all true.
amgB
Thanks. Great article. Answers lots of my questions if it was all true.
amgB
06-23-2003, 12:06 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
WOW! 6.3 LITER BIG BORE V8!
Why was this post moved to the SLK32 section? I see no reference to anything remotely R170 in this very good article.
Great, I can look forward to a 2006 W211 E63 instead of a W211 E55 with supercharged 5.5 engine. I think long term reliability of the current kompressors may have something to do with this.
Great, I can look forward to a 2006 W211 E63 instead of a W211 E55 with supercharged 5.5 engine. I think long term reliability of the current kompressors may have something to do with this.
Last edited by E55 KEV; 06-23-2003 at 12:22 PM.
06-23-2003, 12:46 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking about it, don't you think that MB would be crazy to go with this new engine in '06. They just came out with 469hp. And it would only be out on the market for 3 years before bumping it up another 125 hp. How about this idea?
(Just my personal idea)
In '06, they will put the 7G transmission and bumped up the engine to 500hp (current SL). With the new transmission and hp, it would drop the 0-60 time to about 4.0-4.3. Then in the next change to the e-class, drop the 6.3 engine with 600hp to advertise a 4 seconds flat 0-60 time. Remember what they said about the w211, they said 5 second flat to 0-60 was their target. Of course with 600HP, the car would probably break the 4 seconds barrier. (traction of course is the problem)
This of course is just my opinion from a marketing stand point.
amgB
(Just my personal idea)
In '06, they will put the 7G transmission and bumped up the engine to 500hp (current SL). With the new transmission and hp, it would drop the 0-60 time to about 4.0-4.3. Then in the next change to the e-class, drop the 6.3 engine with 600hp to advertise a 4 seconds flat 0-60 time. Remember what they said about the w211, they said 5 second flat to 0-60 was their target. Of course with 600HP, the car would probably break the 4 seconds barrier. (traction of course is the problem)
This of course is just my opinion from a marketing stand point.
amgB
Trending Topics
06-23-2003, 03:05 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 AMG
Originally posted by AMGB
I was thinking about it, don't you think that MB would be crazy to go with this new engine in '06. They just came out with 469hp. And it would only be out on the market for 3 years before bumping it up another 125 hp.
I was thinking about it, don't you think that MB would be crazy to go with this new engine in '06. They just came out with 469hp. And it would only be out on the market for 3 years before bumping it up another 125 hp.
What's crazy is sedans with over 600/700hp, it's just nuts!
But I LOVE IT!!!
Make mine a CLE (4-door "coupe"? What the heck?), with 600+ AMG power.
06-24-2003, 04:58 PM
#11
Almost a Member!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, On
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW E39 M5
Originally posted by Regime|Life
I hope all AMG cars arn't going to be NA. This is just a stupid idea IMO
I mean why make the car heavier when you don't have to?
I hope all AMG cars arn't going to be NA. This is just a stupid idea IMO
I mean why make the car heavier when you don't have to?
Long term reliability and fuel/oil consumption are an issue, it seems.
06-24-2003, 07:29 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rost12
SC'ers are heavy too.
Long term reliability and fuel/oil consumption are an issue, it seems.
SC'ers are heavy too.
Long term reliability and fuel/oil consumption are an issue, it seems.
06-24-2003, 07:52 PM
#13
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Regime|Life
Well sure but for example on the new SLK. I think that a 3.2L V6 supercharged engine will weight less then a 5.5L V8.
Well sure but for example on the new SLK. I think that a 3.2L V6 supercharged engine will weight less then a 5.5L V8.
Anyway, I thought you drive a Volvo, what are you doing here?
06-24-2003, 07:56 PM
#14
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by matt5555
Apples to oranges my friend. A 5.5 liter V8 would not fit in the little SLK.
Anyway, I thought you drive a Volvo, what are you doing here?
Apples to oranges my friend. A 5.5 liter V8 would not fit in the little SLK.
Anyway, I thought you drive a Volvo, what are you doing here?
Did you even SEE the article? The new SLK AMG is suppose to have a 5.5L V8.
Oh and I think you have me mistaken for another person.
06-24-2003, 07:59 PM
#15
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
996 Turbo
Originally posted by matt5555
Apples to oranges my friend. A 5.5 liter V8 would not fit in the little SLK.
Anyway, I thought you drive a Volvo, what are you doing here?
Apples to oranges my friend. A 5.5 liter V8 would not fit in the little SLK.
Anyway, I thought you drive a Volvo, what are you doing here?
I'm confused to why Mercedes would move the CLK to a different engine mid way in 2004 though maybe its a model refresh to make it more agressive looking?
06-24-2003, 08:14 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JamE55
C'mon guys let's keep this clean. I don't wanna have to close this thread!
C'mon guys let's keep this clean. I don't wanna have to close this thread!
Though like I was saying... A supercharger and the intercooler for the SLK weights 55lbs in total. I'm pretty sure the difference between a 3.2L V6 supercharged engine and a 5.5L V8 weight is a LOT....
06-24-2003, 08:44 PM
#18
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Regime|Life
Did you even SEE the article? The new SLK AMG is suppose to have a 5.5L V8.
Oh and I think you have me mistaken for another person.
Did you even SEE the article? The new SLK AMG is suppose to have a 5.5L V8.
Oh and I think you have me mistaken for another person.
06-24-2003, 09:20 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by matt5555
Yes, I read it yesterday. Doesn't your friend have a $10,000 Cdn desk? I'm pretty sure I don't have you confused.
Yes, I read it yesterday. Doesn't your friend have a $10,000 Cdn desk? I'm pretty sure I don't have you confused.
Please AMG for the love of God don't do what American car makers are doing! Bigger engine != Better engine!!
Yes my friend does a that desk. I live 10min away from him walking distance also heh.
Btw who are you? And how do you know me? Better yet what is your other alias on the [H]?
06-24-2003, 11:19 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Regime|Life
Btw who are you? And how do you know me? Better yet what is your other alias on the [H]?
Btw who are you? And how do you know me? Better yet what is your other alias on the [H]?
I don't have a name on that site, however my son does. I don't recall his name however, I'll ask him tommorow.
06-24-2003, 11:24 PM
#22
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by matt5555
I wasn't trying to pick a fight or start anything, fyi.
I don't have a name on that site, however my son does. I don't recall his name however, I'll ask him tommorow.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight or start anything, fyi.
I don't have a name on that site, however my son does. I don't recall his name however, I'll ask him tommorow.
By any chance was his name ovrclkd or something like that?
06-25-2003, 03:52 AM
#24
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sl55 2002
Things like this put me off buying top of the range cars....I don't discard my cars every 2-3 years...I keep them usually 4-5 and frankly if Merc are going to start doing SUPER UPGRADES as part of their mid life upgrades why would I buy the model at the outset!!!
The R129 500SL didn't have a major overhaul or power upgrade in it's 12 year model life...and that's why it was such a great car to own.
Paul
The R129 500SL didn't have a major overhaul or power upgrade in it's 12 year model life...and that's why it was such a great car to own.
Paul
