2010 Mercedes E63 AMG Unleashed

6.3-liter V8 boasting 518bhp

Add a Comment

Comments (107)

 andy andy
what a monster..but i still refer BMW M5, BMW knows how to play this game..lets see new series 5 and M5 coming out
March 31, 2009 6:36 pm
 Stroodlesjnr Stroodlesjnr
Two of the best but as far as their electrics go......
May 2, 2009 10:27 pm
 bpab.ua bpab.ua
OMG..this is my new dream
March 31, 2009 6:38 pm
 designerr designerr
i love it..............better foglamp than normal version
March 31, 2009 6:53 pm
 afterace2 afterace2
true, and a center console stick! This version hcorrects everything that was wrong with the normal one. This car is wicked sick!
March 31, 2009 9:07 pm
 Renegade Renegade
Another great car from AMG.......yawn...
March 31, 2009 7:03 pm
 ap ap
great car. if they must use running lamps (which I think are terrible)they should use these running lamps from the AMG versions on the standard E class instead of those stupid angled ones.
March 31, 2009 7:28 pm
Now we're talking... Standard Mercs don't have any appeal anymore...only the AMG versions or Sport packs with "AMG" body kits look any decent. MB must know this fact and are probably having alot of fun selling the extra cost "AMG" body kits. In my home market the C Class comes standard with the AMG appearance pack (except the wheels...the Elegance trim has 16 inch wheels with an "AMG" body kit...how retarded is that?) Atleast the real AMG cars have a different body kit now. The old W203 AMG cars really suffered because there was little difference in appearance between a normal C Class with the sports pack and a real AMG car expect the badges, brakes, and exhausts.
March 31, 2009 7:30 pm
 wjaprep wjaprep
this car is entirely just to sexy. I love te fog lights on it, or DRLs (which i think is a stupid idea for us Americans) because the ones on the normal E class look silly, Id rather have these or the double oval ones, the "L" shaped ones are stupid. Dnt get me wrng, i like the normal E class, but this car is stupid sexy. omg, and the gear shift is in the correct place? win.
March 31, 2009 7:46 pm
 Andres2007 Andres2007
It'd be my second favorite in the segment. I'd still take the cheaper CTS-V. But wow, very sophisticated and good-looking.
March 31, 2009 8:43 pm
 NardoW12 NardoW12
Good car but the tiny square shaped exhausts ruins everything
March 31, 2009 9:39 pm
 surubutna surubutna
Crap engines: MB 6.3 518hp BMW 5.0 507hp What i meane is that with less 1.3cc the bmw engine has only less 11hp, imagine what a bmw engine with 6.3 could do =D
March 31, 2009 11:36 pm
 BENZian BENZian
...the Benz engine is a V8 the BMW M5 is a V10...evidently the BMW V10 is weak...
April 1, 2009 3:27 am
 atleast500hp atleast500hp
The AMG puts out a stack more torque, sometimes peak power isn't the only true indication of performance.
April 1, 2009 4:00 am
 ShinyG ShinyG
@benzian: so you're saying the more cylinders you have the more power? Dude, read some physics! Having more cylinders means more friction inside an engine, i.e. less power!
April 1, 2009 5:37 am
 Windtalker01 Windtalker01
I think current M5 is using V10 engine.
April 1, 2009 7:15 am
 madness madness
no, not 1.3cc less, 1300cc less.
April 1, 2009 9:36 am
 scratchy996 scratchy996
horsepower gives you top speed , torque gives you acceleration. Top speed is limited to 250 km/h , much of the hp is wasted , i'll take more Torque over horsepower , especially on a heavy car like this
April 1, 2009 9:48 am
 Joe_Limon Joe_Limon
Gear ratios give you everything, a car with 200hp and 100ft/lbs of torque will accelerate just as fast as a car with 200hp and 250ft/lbs of torque. If you have them both hit their respective redlines at the same speed that is. What is nice about lower torque engines is that you generally get a larger range of peak torque.
April 1, 2009 2:15 pm
 Zero Zero
To the OP's original statement, yes, the 6.2 litre engine is larger than the 5.0 litre engine in the M5, but I highly doubt AMG engineers have exploited the full potential of this engine. BMW probably haven't either, but it stands to reason that a 6.2 litre engine will deliver more power and torque than a 5.0 litre, even with the slight difference in cylinder count. The reason as to why Mercedes AMG haven't gone all out is probably because they don't want too much power. Remember the mad dog that is the C63; which was massively fast, but had alot of trouble getting 450 bhp nailed to the floor!
April 1, 2009 4:34 pm
 zeitgeist_md zeitgeist_md
Unlike Audi, which needs even years to introduce the RS model (RS6, RS5...), Merc is quick to introduce the AMG version, which helps it to own the market advantage. The E63 AMG looks good, especially its front.
March 31, 2009 11:45 pm
 scratchy996 scratchy996
Audi's RS department is made of 5 guys , an intern , a janitor and a schnauzer.
April 1, 2009 9:51 am
 nendor nendor
Well when i saw topgear C63 was way faster than the M3
April 1, 2009 12:39 am
 carbonsigma carbonsigma
6.2L V8 vs. 4.0L V8. Go figure.
April 1, 2009 4:21 am
 Targa_Florio Targa_Florio
In straight line yes, but on the Ascari racetrack the BMW M3 smashed both the C63 AMG's and the previous RS4's lap times...
April 1, 2009 6:01 am
 Windtalker01 Windtalker01
Yes, C63 is faster in the strange line, but it also much slower than M3 if going round the corner. Beside, if you watch Topgear closely, C63 not only lost to M3 in the lap time and it is less controllable. So that mean all the engine power is wasted if the chassis is not good!!
April 1, 2009 7:25 am
 boyke69 boyke69
"An axe murderer with headlights"
April 1, 2009 12:37 pm
 eltoro11 eltoro11
Am I the ONLY one that thinks the front looks atrocious??? Really, that looks horrible..
April 1, 2009 1:02 am
 fattychrisbmw fattychrisbmw
does not look aggressive enough and not too much difference from regular E... still the same LED, just different position...
April 1, 2009 1:32 am
 RS5 RS5
At least it has LED DRLs, which are not found in any production BMW as of now. And 'does not look aggressive enough'? It's called a conservative design that appeals to a wider consumer range. Aggressive designs are what you have the CLS and SL for.
April 3, 2009 2:39 am
 Murcielago2006 Murcielago2006
Beautiful car, front looks nice but the rear lights are a disappointment. Am I the only one who thinks the interior is a serious downgrade from the previous E-Class, it just looks cheap.
April 1, 2009 3:06 am
 wirelesscoyote wirelesscoyote
I think this car look great. Very aggressive at the front and the back i do think it is good looking enough. The E63 is suppose to be subtle, it should still has the elegant look to it. This is what Benz has been doing for the past years. We are not talking about japanese boy racer car here. As for the engine, I think the power is quite enough. The M5 altho has a smaller engine with horsepower that is similar to this new 6.3 AMG unit. However in the BMW you have rev the nuts for that kind of power, which isn't very accessible. Benz has always thought of that, their engine altho bigger, however the power is more accessible, and the torque that it gives when you accelerate from the start and out of the corner, nothing else can give you that. I do like the fact that they have the gear lever back at the center console for the AMG model. Nice job Benz
April 1, 2009 5:50 am
 fattychrisbmw fattychrisbmw
despite not aggressive enough, it looks really good and i like it a lot.. but i just hope i had the wow feeling like i did when C63 came out...
April 1, 2009 5:54 am
 phobos phobos
awesome..i bet the AMG engineers have done something magical on the handling..because the C63 IS BIG LEAP from the C55..can't wait
April 1, 2009 6:36 am
 Kalos Kalos
Benzinian or whatever. The M5 has a V10 engine and iexpected car lovers to know this owing to it's wins in the international engine awards. BMW uses V12 only in the 7 series and i think th Rolls.
April 1, 2009 7:10 am
 BENZian BENZian
...and the only thing u need to remember is this...the 6.3AMG engines outperforms BMW's V10...
April 21, 2009 10:21 am
 tumbo tumbo
The RS6 will eat this for breakfast.
April 1, 2009 7:33 am
 michelin901 michelin901
highly doubt it. this car is much lighter and should be faster to 60 and around a track. the rs6 is even slower to 60 than a c63 but faster at high speeds. audi have a tradition of bringing their rs cars at a much later wronger time.
April 1, 2009 8:59 am
 tumbo tumbo
The RS6 have done times of 4.1 seconds to 100km/h. You tell me one test when the C63 was faster then the RS6 sedan/limo?
April 1, 2009 10:01 am
 michelin901 michelin901
go to drivers-republic.com and check out the comparison. i was talking abt the avant which is slower to 60. the c is much lighter and faster to 60 after which the rs6 is faster. the sedan may prbbly be on par with the c. try to understand the fact that the rs6 is the heaviest of the lot. were talking about twin turbos,AWD whereas this c63, the e63 and the m5 are N/A, RWD and easily my choices to choose from and will also 'eat' the rs6 on the track.
April 1, 2009 12:52 pm
 Zero Zero
michelin901's correct on this one. The RS6 weighs around 2 tonnes, whereas the E63 and M5 weigh 200 kgs less. Thats a massive advantage for handling and acceleration. The RS6 is massively fast in a straight, but around a track it will struggle against the E63 and M5, due to their added nimbleness.
April 1, 2009 4:42 pm
 caraddicted caraddicted
-RS6: 5.2l v10 ,twin turbo,571bhp -E63: 6.3l v8 naturally aspirated,518bhp -M5: 5.0l v10 naturally aspirated,507bhp *next m5 may use twinturbo V8 4.4L with more than 550bhp
April 1, 2009 7:45 am
 scratchy996 scratchy996
horsepower is irrelevant when the top speed is limited to 250 km/h , handling and torque is what matters for these cars.
April 1, 2009 9:55 am
view more comments