Motor Trend just reviewed the GT63s and gave the car a glowing report. The article claims that it was the quickest 4 door ever tested in their Lightning Lap shootout shredding all of its competitors--presumably referring to the F90 BMW M5 and the W213 E63s which by the way were separated by .1 of a second for a single lap of VIR in prior Lightning Lap shootouts-virtually a dead heat. The 2019 Lightning Lap issue doesn't come out until November so we will have to wait for a month or more to see how fast the GT63 lapped VIR. The article also notes a 2.9 0-60 which is the same time they reported for the E63s (MT uses a 1-foot rollout when reporting 0-60). From other reports it appears that the GT63s has the same harsh suspension that the E63s has and its infotainment system is arguably worse than the E63s' since there is no dial to adjust settings just touch pads. The GT63s has 27 more HP than the E63s but the GT weighs almost 200lbs more. The GT63s has 7.46 hp/lb vs the E63s at 7.45 hp/lb so while the GT has more gross HP it has almost the exact same power to weight ratio as the E63s. Other than 4 wheel steering which understandably improves handling and hence lap times how much better is the GT than the E, if at all? Has anyone seen any real world side by side performance testing of the 2 cars. 0-60, 1/4 mile or lapping race courses head to head-- I have not--I suspect that Mercedes doesn't want to sanction such comparisons because the cars are pretty evenly matched and any such comparo would further depress already disappointing sales of the GT63s which costs $50,000-60,000 more than the E63s. For that kind of money differential, regardless of your preference looks-wise (in my view it is debatable which looks better) I would want a meaningful increase in performance over the E63s. Thoughts?

 

Possible typo in hp/lb text? Did you mean 7.6 lb/hp for the E63s rather than 4.6? Also pounds and HP should be swapped in the text.

At 4700 lb and 603 hp I'm calculating 7.8 lb/hp, which is a slightly higher poundage to hp ratio.

But your point is taken, the extra 27 hp isn't really enough to move the needle significantly compared to the E63s.

 

Remember too that our E63S engines are underrated, although I suppose so is the GT63's.

 

For the E63s I meant 7.45 lb/hp (4497lbs/603hp=7.45 lbs/hp) and for the GT63 the ratio is 4700lb/630hp =7.46 lbs/hp. So the 2 cars have almost identical power to weight ratios.

 

That 27hp ended up to be enough to go faster by 0.3s in 1/4mile. And 0.5 in 62-124

 

The GT63 definitely performs better then the E63 but I wouldn't consider it significantly better. However, being 50% more in cost vs 5% (estimate) improvement in performance does not make sense for me. Especially because I personally find the styling hideous.

 

By all accounts the GT63 is a much better handling car. I don't think 0-60 time is what will separate these cars. I think AMG just improved the steering, balance and overall dynamics beyond what is possible in what is still expected to be a luxury/family car (any E-class). I'm sure one would be a blast to drive but for a daily driver or road trip car I suspect the compromises of the E63S are worth it.

 

I really wanted the GT63S for my new "daily" but was not blown away by it's performance vs E or M5 and thoroughly disappointed by the mediocre ride and lack of compliance on Chicago's horrible roads.
Back seat is also useless and in the end I cancelled my order.
Went the safe and proven route with the S63.

 

I thought the gt63 had a pretty decent back seat. I am 6'4" and fit back there very comfortably after adjusting the front seats for my preferred driving position (pretty far back).

The car just isn't for me, aside from the monoblocks (which apparently aren't for anyone else). I would 100% go with an s63 every time.

 

GT63 has a decent back seat but nothing even close to my ‘19 s63 seats—not even close! Absolutely love my S63.

 

The general consensus is that you get 5% more car/performance for 50% more money.

 

I DO like the panamericana grill though. Gotta be worth at least $50k, right?

 

Personal taste. I am not a fan of the GT63 grill. If the current grill were an option for 1 or 2 $k I'd pay money to have my current grill. But of course not the extra 50% surcharge for the rest of the car . . . ;-)

 

Outside yes. Inside no. So do you care more about what others see, or what you see.

 

Probably both at this price point. There’s no absolute measure of what is good looking so if you like it you like it, but I wouldn’t spend $200k on a car I think doesn’t look the part. That’s just me.

 

Definitely concerned with what I see. Can’t say I’m concerned with what other people see. I do approach my car facing it (I don’t walk up to it backwards) so I see the exterior all the time. Also, the saying goes, if you don’t look back when you walk away from your car, you probably bought the wrong car. I’d say exterior styling is just as important, if not more, than interior for most people. Did you not care what color your car was when you bought your car? Or what wheels you optioned? I’m pretty sure you cared a lot.

 

Great video -- I think Carfection sums it up perfectly. Before pulling the trigger on my E63s (after a lot of hand wringing in trying to decide between the E63s and the F90 M5Comp) news of the GT63s broke. This news stopped me in my tracks because I thought that if it was going to be mind blowingly better than the E63s I had to have it. I spent a month researching it and got to see one at a car show. Reports came back that it wasn't really more fun or even more dramatic than the E. I also wasn't blown away by the looks and I felt that the GT63 cockpit wasn't as comfortable as the E63 cockpit. I was even hoping that the GT63 would have the MBUX infotainment system--it doesn't. It just didn't differentiate itself enough to justify the wait or the price. Last but not least there was something about the E63s being an E class Mercedes on steroids that I felt was compelling--on first blush nothing special but mash the accelerator in S+ or RM in loud mode and hold on--very appealing. The GT63 has none of that sleeper character--it looks like it should be fast and dramatic. If the GT63s provided a new and unparalleled Super Saloon" experience I could have easily lived without the sleeper character of the E63s--but it didn't provide any of that- so I finalized my order for the E and was happy with the decision and the fact that I am $40,000 richer to boot.

 

It’s hard not to see it as a repackaged CLS63 that they can charge a large premium for, since the can say it’s a true no nonsense AMG (that’s still built on an E chassis, clearly as the video states it’s more an E class than a GT or SLS). I think the business planners looked at what Porsche charges for top tier Panamera and thought they had a missed opportunity. So with a little bit of interior modification, some rebadging and a ton of marketing they think they can get a piece of the $180-200k sedan pie. Them denying the current gen CLS the AMG treatment, the hand built V8 that is, only highlights the gap they’re intentionally leaving in their lineup.

Which is a shame for us since the original CLS basically created the four door coupe genre, and both first and second gen AMGs have been very popular enthusiast cars.

 

Also, using the E53 vs E63 as an example, the E63 costs 32% more than the E53. However, you get about 30% more power and about 25% better performance. To me, this is significant and justifies the cost difference.

 

Yeah, but - are you figuring in the EQ Boost additionals?
On the E53 that is.
ALMOST makes up for having a couple of cylinders less.....

 

Well, just in terms of acceleration, Car and Driver tested both the E53 and E63, 0 to 60. E53 was 4.1 seconds (I’m sure it was utilizing as much of the EQ Boost as it could) vs 3 seconds flat for the E63S. This is a 30.9% difference. Personally, I would not consider that “almost”, it’s quite significant.

 

I was racing a Chiron the other day in my S63.
I ALMOST won to 60 since I LOST by only one second...........

 

The pricing is just crazy.

 

I find the exterior hideous as well. Personally I think it's an ugly car, could care less about the inside or it's performance. I'd go S63 or E63 all day over this.

 

Agreed but in two years or so they will be half the price....