# More power and TORQUE than an M5...



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

....did Paul make the right choice or did he have to wait for an E63 AMG with 514 bhp and 465lb/ft torque?

http://supercarnews.com/cars/mercedes-benz/e63-amg/Mercedes-Benz_E63_AMG

This car is amazing. The M5 has over 100 lb/ft less torque that this AMG.

They were comparing the two in this week's Autocar as well.


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Well the M5 looks better and i doub't it will break as often.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I personally prefer the looks of the Mercedes.


----------



## dj c225 (Nov 3, 2004)

You are one jealous man! :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

dj c225 said:


> You are one jealous man! :lol:


Where does this come from? I have an over Â£50k brand new Porsche coming...why should I be jealous? :roll:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> > You are one jealous man! :lol:
> ...


Because my M5 is more expensive & faster than your Coxster & my willy is bigger as well. :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > dj c225 said:
> ...


I have to agree to the first point! No argument about this.

But unless you post a picture of the second, I seriously doubt you!! Maybe we could PM a picture of each other's willy for comparison! :lol: :lol:

Anyway, you didn't make a comment regarding this new MB engine! Don't you like it?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> ....did Paul make the right choice or did he have to wait for an E63 AMG with 514 bhp and 465lb/ft torque?
> 
> http://supercarnews.com/cars/mercedes-benz/e63-amg/Mercedes-Benz_E63_AMG
> 
> ...


Yep & no. The E Class is not a car i'd want as i don't like the looks, being far too subtle for such a performance car. However the engine in the Merc is meant to be a peach & IIRC the 1st N/A AMG block for quite some time.

Bear in mind though that it's got 2 less cylinders yet 1300CC more than an M5 so not a perfect engine balance by the experts suggestions, being nearly 1litre per cylinder against 500cc per cylinder in the M5.

I have no problem even if the E63 is quicker, as i know the M5 will handle better & stop quicker as AMG's are known for their excellent straight line speed, but poor handling & poor braking. As for stats, my M5 is now just under 550BHP & the torque is not far behind that of the AMG after the DMS work.

It's a nice car but not where my Â£70K would go. The CLS63 AMG that's due soon is a car i'd quite fancy owning as i love the looks of the CLS, however i'd not be trading my M5 in for a Merc.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


V, even the slightest thought of you viewing a picture of my c0ck is enough to turn my stomach & cause abdominal convulsions :lol: :wink:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > W7 PMC said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I will ask one of your many girlfriends then for testimonies! Just give me some numbers please! :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

The AMG 6.3 looks to be a monsterous engine. Big torque and revvability.
Oh and same designer as the Porsche Carrera GT unit, so good credentials.

CLK, E class, SL, CLS - and someone is bound to shoe horn it into the SLK.

I applaud MB.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

vlastan said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> > You are one jealous man! :lol:
> ...


Why the need to tell us the cost? - What's the relevance of the price?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

ronin said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > dj c225 said:
> ...


Because this was the allegation...that I am jealous that I cannot afford a half decent car.

But everyone knows how much a Cayman S costs...so I was re-inforcing the obvious to the Italian guy.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Maybe he was insinuating that you are jealous because you can ONLY afford a 50k car.

A man that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing perhaps?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Kell said:


> Maybe he was insinuating that you are jealous because you can ONLY afford a 50k car.
> 
> A man that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing perhaps?


I could afford a more expensive car, but following my affordability calculator that I shared with you last year, it meant that I didn't want to go overboard with the finance.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


I would not be able to sleep at night if i subjected even my least favourite ex-girlfriend to contact from you :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> The AMG 6.3 looks to be a monsterous engine. Big torque and revvability.
> Oh and same designer as the Porsche Carrera GT unit, so good credentials.
> 
> CLK, E class, SL, CLS - and someone is bound to shoe horn it into the SLK.
> ...


Agreed, the one thing you can't fault is AMG engines, they are sublime & worthy of consideration. In my mind it's just a shame they are Mercedes as it would be far better to have them associated with say Audi 8)


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > The AMG 6.3 looks to be a monsterous engine. Big torque and revvability.
> ...


This is life. It doesn't matter if a great engine is in an Audi or Mercedes. Both brands are premium German manufacturers and both should be considered when making a decision.

But what I am thinking is...what is next? Will the next M5 and AMG delivering 600 bhp and 550 lb/ft torque...Ferraris will be underpowered.

Autocar had two great reviews this week if you are interested. GT3 vs M6 and M5 vs AMG 6.3. Also a small section about GT3 vs 997 Turbo. It finally had an article about the great features of the new TT.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


I don't think any of the features of the new TT could be considered "great", could they?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > W7 PMC said:
> ...


Oh, I dont know the Mkii pictured elsewhere on the forum in mid metallic blue and grey plastic/leather interior, looks _really_ classy.

Only the metallic beige with beige interior could out class it (in Eastbourne) :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


May have to get a copy of AutoCar then.

One thing that grates me is stupid tests & surely the M6 vs GT3 is absurd. One is a GT style cruiser that's quick but hardly a track meister (neither is the M5) & the other would kill most cars round a track. If their testing the crusing abilities then the M6 should walk it. Still the M5 vs Merc sounds like a good test so i'll be reading that with interest.


----------



## raysman (May 12, 2006)

gt3vm6 thats because the engine is in the right place eh w7 lol


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

raysman said:


> gt3vm6 thats because the engine is in the right place eh w7 lol


No. I think you'll find the M6 engine is in the right place, being up front. The GT3 engine is also in the right place for that car, being in the back. Don't see how that's a head to head test arguement :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

The article was saying that the GT3 is a civilised car these days compared to the previous GT3. It is still a hardcore track car, but also very good to be used on a day to day basis.

It also mentions that between the GT3 and the 997T the author would take the Turbo for daily driving.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> The article was saying that the GT3 is a civilised car these days compared to the previous GT3. It is still a hardcore track car, but also very good to be used on a day to day basis.
> 
> It also mentions that between the GT3 and the 997T the author would take the Turbo for daily driving.


Totally agree with that, but then i would :roll: :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > The article was saying that the GT3 is a civilised car these days compared to the previous GT3. It is still a hardcore track car, but also very good to be used on a day to day basis.
> ...


Funny that Vlastan, I just re-read it and made a different interpretation:

Quote:

_<<whereas i'd always ahave taken a 996 turboover the equivalent GT3 - even accounting for occasion track use - the table are turned with the 997 version..........it has a spread of talents unmatched by any other performance car. And that includes other 911s>>_

On comparability with M6 (which was on price point and all round capability road and track), it concludes:

_<<But the telling moments in the GT3 are on the road. We all know Porsche can make a fast invigorarating track car. But I just didn't credit how amenable the GT3 could be as everyday transport. And that alone makes the Â£80K BMW charges for the M6 questionable. Pare it back to Â£65 and teh M6 would be an incredibly appealing, cost effective super coupe. But at GT3 money it is cruelly exposed, and ruthlessly dismissed.>>_

:wink:


----------



## dj c225 (Nov 3, 2004)

vlastan said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> > You are one jealous man! :lol:
> ...


Its just the way you continuously dig at Paul be it about the 535, m5 or 997 :lol:

Anyhow back on topic, I think the engine is great power wise and torque wise and they have avoided the use of superchargers! but the Merc looks shite, like a cigar box!? I prefer the look of the E60 M5 and the ///_M_ branding.


----------

