Close

Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    396
    Rep Points
    -16.3
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No

    Motor Trend: 2015 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG to Get 4.0L Twin-Turbo V-8

    http://www.motortrend.com/

    We Hear: 2015 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG to Get 4.0L Twin-Turbo V-8

    By Edward A. Sanchez | January 19, 2014 |
    8


    6 New stories published within the last 24 hours
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlargeGo To Gallery

    Research This Vehicle:
    Select Year 2015201420132012Select Year



    Select Make Select Make



    Select Model Select Model











    The engine downsizing trend is in full-force throughout the automotive world, and no market segment is immune. Even the traditionally big-inch full-size truckClick here to enlarge segment got shook up with the announcement of an available 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine. Although explicitly performance-related vehicles have not been affected to the same extent as mainstream vehicles, they are not immune. AutoExpress is reporting that the 2015 C63 AMG will get a major engineClick here to enlarge downsizing from its current 6.2 naturally-aspirated liters, to a 4.0-liter twin-turbocharged V-8.The German brands have long since abandoned the practice of decklid numerology being a literal description of engine displacement, and although the C63 appellation will probably continue, it will be applied to a significantly smaller engine. AutoExpress estimates the output of the downsized AMG bent-eight to be between 450 to 500 horsepower with the available Performance Pack.In terms of specifics on the new engine, AMG product chief Tobias Moers only coyly said, "You are now familiar with our 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine? Well, you can imagine what happens when you put two of those together." Reading between-the-lines, the new AMG V-8 could have a flat-plane crank, which makes for optimal exhaust-pulse phasing for turbochargers, but results in a flat exhaust note that sounds similar to a four-cylinder. AMG V-8s, including the recent 5.5-liter twin-turbo, have always had a burbly exhaust note that comes with a cross-plane crank. But if such a configuration makes for optimal performance, we could learn to love the new sound of AMG performance.Source: AutoExpress




    Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/1401_we_he...#ixzz2r15peSTV

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No

    W205 C63 12 months away as 2015 model - 4.0 liter M177/M178 twin turbo V8 engine 'confirmed'

    AutoExpress quoted head of AMG Tobias Moers recently which in a way confirms what we already knew. The upcoming W205 C63 AMG which is expected to debut late this year will have twin turbo V8 power courtesy of a direct injected 4.0 liter V8 with 450-500 horsepower. The quote from Moers is as follows, "You are now familiar with our 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine? Well you can imagine what happens when you put two of those together."

    Click here to enlarge

    You may recall BenzBoost reported that the new motor would be a 4.0 liter V8 last year and in one of those reports stated the M177 would have more in common with the M270/M274 four cylinder engine family than it would with the M157 V8 currently used in the new 63 AMG models. The M133 in the new 45 AMG's is based on that four-cylinder engine family.

    One should not expect double the output of say a CLA45 AMG as that would put the C63 at 710 horsepower. One should expect the C63 to hit 710 horsepower with tuning relatively easily though unless Mercedes really undersizes the stock turbos. Regardless, the W205 C63 AMG is going to have plenty of tuning potential.

    To get a preview of the motor, check out the BenzBoost report from last year showing what one should expect out of the new M177 V8 motor. The motor will have Mercedes CAMTRONIC which is an answer to BMW's VALVETRONIC and have top mounted turbos. Basically it will be two M270/M274 four-cylinder engines put together resulting in a top mount turbo configuration. This likely will allow even easier and likely larger turbocharger upgrades than the M157 due to the turbos not being confined to a location with little room. Additionally, the shorter manifolds should reduce lag in a similar manner to the BMW N63/S63 design.

    It's interesting to see how far behind on this topic the mainstream automotive media is but it is nice that AMG has publicly commented on the 4.0 liter motor and what the basis for it will be.

    Source

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    If they don't call it the C55 I will be a bit upset. I can see why the new 63s are called as such, given that German companies have a tendency for referring to the engine in terms of absolute power levels, not pure displacement. E23 745i, etc. But calling the new one a C63 would be a bit silly, and I really hope they don't do that. Or maybe C60. That's got an interesting ring to it.

    Either way, I'm really excited for this engine. Its going to be a monster right out of the box, and if it takes extra boost like the S63, 700+ crank hp should be a walk in the park. That plus weight loss and RWD should make this thing a serious worry for the M3/4 and whatever Audi is planning on at the moment.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    If they don't call it the C55 I will be a bit upset.
    Calling it a C55 makes a lot of sense but the problem is they think Americans are stupid. Many will see C55 and think it's a step back to the C63 because the numbers are lower.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Calling it a C55 makes a lot of sense but the problem is they think Americans are stupid. Many will see C55 and think it's a step back to the C63 because the numbers are smaller.
    True...and they might be right. This is why we can't have nice things.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    NICE! Honestly, this is gonna be badass.. The M3/M4 engine disappointed me, we all got a taste of the I6 direct injected turbo engines from bmw for over 6 years! Give us something new bmw! Sucks.

    They didnt call the 2014 a E55, this for sure wont be either.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    The S55 at least is a step up from the N55/N54 IMO.

    I find this motor far more exciting though.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5soko Click here to enlarge
    They didnt call the 2014 a E55
    But it didn't have 5.5 liter of displacement...

    They can't call this a C40 after already doing the 45's. Additionally, 55 makes the most sense since the C63 is no longer sharing the E63 motor.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The S55 at least is a step up from the N55/N54 IMO.

    I find this motor far more exciting though.



    But it didn't have 5.5 liter of displacement...

    They can't call this a C40 after already doing the 45's. Additionally, 55 makes the most sense since the C63 is no longer sharing the E63 motor.
    I wrote that wrong... What i meant to say was, they didnt call the 2014 E63 a E55..
    ///M5 LCI
    "It's like the F10 is the 911 Turbo to the E60's GT3" -Pistonheads (M5 feature)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5soko Click here to enlarge
    I wrote that wrong... What i meant to say was, they didnt call the 2014 E63 a E55..
    It still made sense and the answer as well as the answer as to why.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It still made sense and the answer as well as the answer as to why.
    2014 E63 being a 5.5L would think the old E55 badge would be back.. Makes no sense...
    ///M5 LCI
    "It's like the F10 is the 911 Turbo to the E60's GT3" -Pistonheads (M5 feature)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5soko Click here to enlarge
    2014 E63 being a 5.5L would think the old E55 badge would be back.. Makes no sense...
    Oh I see what you mean with the M157. Yeah the reasoning by Mercedes was that whole people would think it would be a step back and since the hp and torque was up they decided to keep the numbers.

    The thing is with the C and E no longer sharing the motor it's going to get pretty odd now.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Oh I see what you mean with the M157. Yeah the reasoning by Mercedes was that whole people would think it would be a step back and since the hp and torque was up they decided to keep the numbers.

    The thing is with the C and E no longer sharing the motor it's going to get pretty odd now.
    Yea, benz is taking a page from BMW now and making different AMG engines for diff model cars, instead of throwing that 6.3L in everything!
    ///M5 LCI
    "It's like the F10 is the 911 Turbo to the E60's GT3" -Pistonheads (M5 feature)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5soko Click here to enlarge
    Yea, benz is taking a page from BMW now and making different AMG engines for diff model cars, instead of throwing that 6.3L in everything!
    It's not that as much as it is the C-Class with the M157 would just be absurd and they need a lighter motor for the GT sports car. Additionally, the M177 likely can now go in the SLK too.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    80
    Rep Points
    87.9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Oh I see what you mean with the M157. Yeah the reasoning by Mercedes was that whole people would think it would be a step back and since the hp and torque was up they decided to keep the numbers.

    The thing is with the C and E no longer sharing the motor it's going to get pretty odd now.
    Precisely.............that's kinda what I've noticed with the numbers. At some point MB decided to let the 63 be more an indication of the power levels than actual displacement.

    Of course, to that some might say what about the supercharged 5.5s from the early/mid 2000s E55s, for instance, that the 63 replaced? It had similar numbers. Again, the thought process evolved.

    And while we're on the topic of the M156 and AMG 63s' nomenclature, uh, short of gas mileage numbers that don't live up to today's CAFE standards.............was it really that bad to put 'em in all AMGs? Considering it can upgraded to M159 SLS levels, that is, around 620 hp/480 lb.ft.? Bring it on, dawg.

    Also, considering that it was International Performance Engine of the Year in 2009 and 2010, only to be replaced by a Ferrari V8 (2011) and the Berlinetta's V12 (2012)? Answer me that.

    I say we stop being dumbasses, start drilling for more of our own frickin crude, drop gas prices back to January 2009 levels ($1.80 - $1.90) or less, and bring back the damn M156 and M159. Not that $3.50-4.00 a gallon ever scared me; spent too many years in Europe, so wake me when it hits $10/gallon. (About $5 after most of my fellow Americans will $#@!in & moanin, thereby dropping prices right back down. Hah!)

    But I digress. Back to the M156.

    It is the world's and my favorite DTM engine for the street, but way more nasty @ 6.2 liters vs. 4.0 limited displacement in the DTM. Can't wait to drive it later today. I mean, come on.............370 lb.-ft. @ 2000 rpm? Just over 400 @ 3000? Yo, it idles @ 900-950!! Nasty beast.

    Last, but not least, on the new 4.0? My preference is clearly the 6.3, but if the 4.0 (or 5.5 for that matter) sounds right.....like "propa" AMG V8, pulls way way harder, yet can extract even more power and gets better gas mileage?

    I'll get over it. Might be crazy, but I ain't stupid.

    He gone!
    Click here to enlarge

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,958
    Rep Points
    2,641.0
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    bro, do u even stick shift? Click here to enlarge c63 would be so $#@!ing nasty if it was offered in manual , i would own one for sure
    09 6AT 335i Coupe M-Sport - SOLD
    Current - 16 Jeep Wrangler - Few Mods
    Looking for a n54 project e90/e82

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,116
    Rep Points
    962.7
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Bozo954 Click here to enlarge
    Precisely.............that's kinda what I've noticed with the numbers. At some point MB decided to let the 63 be more an indication of the power levels than actual displacement.

    Of course, to that some might say what about the supercharged 5.5s from the early/mid 2000s E55s, for instance, that the 63 replaced? It had similar numbers. Again, the thought process evolved.

    And while we're on the topic of the M156 and AMG 63s' nomenclature, uh, short of gas mileage numbers that don't live up to today's CAFE standards.............was it really that bad to put 'em in all AMGs? Considering it can upgraded to M159 SLS levels, that is, around 620 hp/480 lb.ft.? Bring it on, dawg.

    Also, considering that it was International Performance Engine of the Year in 2009 and 2010, only to be replaced by a Ferrari V8 (2011) and the Berlinetta's V12 (2012)? Answer me that.

    I say we stop being dumbasses, start drilling for more of our own frickin crude, drop gas prices back to January 2009 levels ($1.80 - $1.90) or less, and bring back the damn M156 and M159. Not that $3.50-4.00 a gallon ever scared me; spent too many years in Europe, so wake me when it hits $10/gallon. (About $5 after most of my fellow Americans will $#@!in & moanin, thereby dropping prices right back down. Hah!)

    But I digress. Back to the M156.

    It is the world's and my favorite DTM engine for the street, but way more nasty @ 6.2 liters vs. 4.0 limited displacement in the DTM. Can't wait to drive it later today. I mean, come on.............370 lb.-ft. @ 2000 rpm? Just over 400 @ 3000? Yo, it idles @ 900-950!! Nasty beast.

    Last, but not least, on the new 4.0? My preference is clearly the 6.3, but if the 4.0 (or 5.5 for that matter) sounds right.....like "propa" AMG V8, pulls way way harder, yet can extract even more power and gets better gas mileage?

    I'll get over it. Might be crazy, but I ain't stupid.

    He gone!
    Lmao great post ! But really the m156 is a beast N/A when properly uncorked ! Really the only engine that can compare is the ls7 and other exotics for straight out N/A power. The s65 was a great motor for Motorsport but for the street the m156 takes the cake. Great throttle response, big torque everywhere, high redline for a big displacement motor and that sound !!

    I'm sure AMG will get this motor sounding right though can't be better then a n/a 11.3 compression v8. Power wise potential from bolt ons will most likely destroy the m156 we've seen what the 2.0 has done in the 45 with 400 hp with a stage 1 piggyback. If they use the same range of turbos this thing will be an absolute monster combined with lighter weight and a better chassis don't be surprised if this thing is considerably faster in everyway then the w204 c63. It's evolution it's supposed to get better from what they've learned in the 7+ years since it's been released. I wasn't considering this as a next car but the rwd announcement put it back in the running. I wouldn't mind if they kept the MCT as long as they figure out that stupid paddle delay. We shall see once everything is official and tested all speculation until then but it looks good

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Bozo954 Click here to enlarge
    Precisely.............that's kinda what I've noticed with the numbers. At some point MB decided to let the 63 be more an indication of the power levels than actual displacement.

    Of course, to that some might say what about the supercharged 5.5s from the early/mid 2000s E55s, for instance, that the 63 replaced? It had similar numbers. Again, the thought process evolved.

    And while we're on the topic of the M156 and AMG 63s' nomenclature, uh, short of gas mileage numbers that don't live up to today's CAFE standards.............was it really that bad to put 'em in all AMGs? Considering it can upgraded to M159 SLS levels, that is, around 620 hp/480 lb.ft.? Bring it on, dawg.

    Also, considering that it was International Performance Engine of the Year in 2009 and 2010, only to be replaced by a Ferrari V8 (2011) and the Berlinetta's V12 (2012)? Answer me that.

    I say we stop being dumbasses, start drilling for more of our own frickin crude, drop gas prices back to January 2009 levels ($1.80 - $1.90) or less, and bring back the damn M156 and M159. Not that $3.50-4.00 a gallon ever scared me; spent too many years in Europe, so wake me when it hits $10/gallon. (About $5 after most of my fellow Americans will $#@!in & moanin, thereby dropping prices right back down. Hah!)

    But I digress. Back to the M156.

    It is the world's and my favorite DTM engine for the street, but way more nasty @ 6.2 liters vs. 4.0 limited displacement in the DTM. Can't wait to drive it later today. I mean, come on.............370 lb.-ft. @ 2000 rpm? Just over 400 @ 3000? Yo, it idles @ 900-950!! Nasty beast.

    Last, but not least, on the new 4.0? My preference is clearly the 6.3, but if the 4.0 (or 5.5 for that matter) sounds right.....like "propa" AMG V8, pulls way way harder, yet can extract even more power and gets better gas mileage?

    I'll get over it. Might be crazy, but I ain't stupid.

    He gone!
    I hate to break it to you but the DTM 4.0 liter V8 has nothing in common with the M156 street motor other than being a V8. DTM is German Nascar.

    I agree the M156 is awesome.

    This M177 has a ton of potential to be great too.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •