Video: 2010 Mercedes E63 AMG Pumps Some Iron
Features 525 hp and 465 lb-ft of torque
Add a Comment
Login
Comments (27)
What a sound, i love it. I think it will be a amazing car with nice options
April 14, 2009 9:43 am
Still not convinced that it's going to have enough power to compete with the RS6 and upcoming M5. Granted the RS6 is far too fat for its own good, but what if BMW decide to drop the V8TT from the X5M/X6M into the new 5? Over 400kW and nearly 700Nm, plus the 5 has always been lighter than the E, this won't stand a chance against the M5... Perhaps AMG will come up with a Black Series as a proper competitor to the M5/RS6...
April 14, 2009 9:54 am
Well, the previous generation E63 had the same as the M5 (which is around 1.83 tonnes). Subsequently, they have pretty much the same power to weight ratio. This is where the RS6 comes into it. It weighs 200 kg more than both the M5 and E63, but it has around more power. This means, it ends up having the same power to weight ratio as the E63 and M5. However, in a track situation, lugging around that amount of extra weight in and out of corners certainly won't help it. I can see the RS6 being the slowest of the three.
The rest comes down to how the new M5 is powered and its weight, but it probably wn't be hugely different from the current M5. The new E63 doesn't look as though it weighs alot less, but its weight is most likely slightly less than the old E63.
Also, I can't really see the new M5 having more than 550 bhp. BMW will no doubt bank on weight saving and using new technology to make the M5 faster. Quite an interesting match is brewing up here!
April 14, 2009 12:21 pm
I can definitely see BMW dropping the new V8TT into the M5, because as well as being powerful enough to utterly bowl their main rival, the E63, over it saves them the millions and millions of Euros it would take to create a new engine. It makes perfect business sense, really, and that's what auto manufacturers are - businesses.
April 14, 2009 1:15 pm
First they supercharged...and BMW whined over and over that it was a low tech trick needed by less sophisticated engines...then AMG created the 6.3 (6.2 liter) V8 which outperform BMW's V10...the whining continues... In the near future AMG will no doubt add twin-turbocharging to it's engines and has stated it will work on maximizing efficiency and reducing weight. AMG/MB will add twin-turbochargers to the 6.3 V8 or the 4.5 V8 in the near future and then BMW and Audi will be clearly seen in the rear view mirror only...
April 14, 2009 10:19 am
I wonder why Merc didn't fit the SLS engine (6.3 571 hp) on their new AMG versions?
April 14, 2009 11:08 am
The reason is simple. AMG clearly has a strategy for this situation. Cleverly, they have decided not to go for an forced aspiration. I think there game plan is to wait and see what BMW comes up with, and get the sales in with the current E63. Once the BMW is released, and a verdict is reached whether the E63 needs morme power, they will add a turbo or two onto the current 6.2 litre V8, or just up the horsepower of the V8 without any extra additions.
April 14, 2009 12:25 pm
will there b an E65 AMG, or is the 65 badge just fot the CL, SL and S phatcats?
April 14, 2009 11:17 am
The "65" notation has traditionally been reserved for those vehicles originally available in "600" flavour with the V12. So, it stands to reason the E-class will not get the V12 treatment by Mercedes or AMG.
However, tuners like Brabus, almost certainly will put the V12 into the E-class.
April 14, 2009 12:28 pm
V12s (65) are for Flagship models...the SLS engine is the same AMG V8 6.3 (6.2 litre) engine...tuned to a higher output...certain versions will also be twin-turbocharged... I think I just heard someone (Tom43) start crying...
April 14, 2009 11:30 am
Guys each of these cars is really not in competition, RS6, M5, E63. They each appeal to a different crowd, the audi is for the younger new rich person living somewhere with rough winters. The M5 is for someone that will sacrifice ride comfort for track performance, and the E63 is for the guy that is now too old to drive the RS6 or M5 and needs some comfort. Sure mercedes could of put a supercharger on the 6.2L and got over 600hp, or dropped in the SLS engine, or hell why not the Zonda R engine with 750hp. But would that really have sold more cars?
April 14, 2009 12:12 pm
It's not as fast as Jaguar's XFR aswell, the Jag does a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, Car And Driver reviewed it recently and found Jaguar had been very conservative with their figures. If you don't believe, here is the review below,
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2010_jaguar_xfr_short_take_road_test
April 14, 2009 6:29 pm
We've already discussed this, lol. The E63 is simple the better overall package. It has comfort, massive speed, and its so much more cooler than the boring XFR.
April 14, 2009 10:07 pm
It used to be owned by Ford, up until around 2008, if I remember correctly. It is currently owned by Tata.
April 15, 2009 9:43 am
and who cares if the XFR can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds... it's just ugly.. i don't wanna drive this freak out... makes the driver look 25 years older...
April 15, 2009 1:54 am
This cars back looks like a kia or a hundai, to simple and ugly as hell, the previous E63 looked better, as far as performance it will no doubt be better, and as far as jaguar, the new XFR is way better looking then this car i have driven the supercharged XF and i would take that car over any E class, much better looking in my opinion. and this to all the people that are arguing, everyone has their own taste, if we all agreed on a E class then BMW, Audi,Jaguar etc. wouldnt exist. and this is a war whatever of the 4 cars u get max two years later there is gonna be a better one from the competition
April 15, 2009 5:47 pm
one more thing E class front headlights look like were made by the same guy that designed the lexus GS a few years ago.
April 15, 2009 5:48 pm









