Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Mercedes-AMG to Launch 53 Line Next Year

      Will be debuting at the Detroit Auto Show

    Back in June, we reported in the rumorpile that Mercedes-AMG was planning to launch a new lineup of models with the 53 designation. These models would set themselves apart due to them being equipped with a mild-hybrid setup. The redesigned CLS-Class would be the first model to debut the 53.

    Speaking to Automotive News, Mercedes-AMG boss Tobias Moers confirmed the existence of the 53 and that the CLS would be the first. All 53 models would be powered by a higher-output variant of the new turbocharged 3.0L inline-six paired up with a 48-Volt electrical system. Moers wouldn't say how much power the 53 series will produce but hinted that the AMG variant of the inline-six would produce somewhere in the range of 400 horsepower.

    With the new 53 lineup, the CLS will lose out on having an AMG 63 model. Moers said that would be taken up by a new four-door version of the AMG GT. A concept of this model was shown earlier this year at the Geneva Motor Show.

    More information on the AMG 53 will be announced next month at the Detroit Auto Show.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    If the Inline 6 was so superior, then why did they dump it for a V6

    Probably the same reason they're moving to the I6 configuration. Back then, V8's sold in most every model so a modular design there paid off, economies of scale with V8's. Now that V8's are dying and everything is downsizing a practical move is to move their bulk engines to being modular with each other. Hence, I6-I3. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The reason it got dumped was packaging.  I6 engines are tall and as such they reach maximum displacement for a given engine bay a lot sooner than a V engine.   Where an old I6 might have topped out around 3.5 liters with no room to grow, V engines could get larger even up to including V8s and V10s. 

    Add to that European pedestrian hood crush standards and there was no way MB was going to be able to keep up with the power race.  BMW did it with turbochargers and moving to 4-cylinders.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Yet like flip flopping fish you state this is world best with HP and Torque and now you say we do not know anything. So which is it, world best which seems not to be, marketing BS to just confuse the lemmings buying their products or honestly just pushing the agenda of MB makes best of everything?

    Well.......

    hqdefault.jpg

    We know what the engine does in the Euro S-class, but that isn't an AMG car either.  And I think the overall NVH, gas mileage, power output, etc, all together will make it the best 6 cylinder out there.  Aside from the Mercedes-AMG 1.6 liter bi-turbo V6 with 750 hp.

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    These fake AMG cars aren't real AMG cars either. They're watering down the brand with that crap. 

    Ehhh I think it is a bit of a stretch saying it is THE BEST 6 out there. If you're just talking straight numbers, which it appears so if you're claiming the 1.6 in the hyper car is the best, then the Ford GT's needs to be up there along with the Raptor/Navigator's. That is if you're just talking horsepower and torque, which you likely are. 

    Edited by ccap41
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I mean the ZJ220 had a twin turbo V6 back in the 90's making 542hp.. That's a great reason why you looking strightly at output isn't always good because your I6 Mercedes engines will take a back seat to a nearly 30 year old car.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ZJ220.

    As in Jaguar ZJ220. Production from 1992-1994.

    The concept car and promise was for it to be a 12 cylinder. Many deposits for it. When Jaguar decided for it to be a Twin Turbo V6, many of those deposits were canceled.

    Image result for jaguar xj220

    Pretty little thing. From the front....

     Not so pretty from the back. In my opinion.

    Image result for jaguar xj220 1993

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ahh, the XJ220.   A very low volume supercar with a handbuilt engine.  Not really comparable to M-B's production engines.  (the only ZJ I know was the first gen Grand Cherokee, and I know there was no 220 variation..)

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Ahh, the XJ220.   A very low volume supercar with a handbuilt engine.  Not really comparable to M-B's production engines. 

    Image result for yes yes yes gif

    Very low volume. 224 built. Even a Buick Grand National GNX had more production numbers than that of an XJ220. 

    Handbuilt...could it be a moot point as AMG engines are handbuilt?  Either way, your point will always be valid.  The inline 6 from Mercedes is intended to be mass produced and to be used in a plethora of vehicles. 

    The inline 6 from Mercedes would be akin to the 3.8 liter V6 from Buick or the ecoboosted 3.5 from Ford.  Designed to be mass produced to be used in all sorts of cars, but a special few would be made into something special and put into special halo cars...

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

     

    Handbuilt...could it be a moot point as AMG engines are handbuilt?  Either way, your point will always be valid.  The inline 6 from Mercedes is intended to be mass produced and to be used in a plethora of vehicles.  

    AMGs are mass produced today, though..they build a lot more than 224.  As far as Mercedes last inline 6, it was fairly old when they replaced them in the 90s..they did have some AMG and Brabus variations.    My sister had a '91 300CE w/ the 3.0 I6...not a particularly fast car, but the engine was very smooth and liked to rev.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Bottom line is in a couple years time, ever car magazine will compere the Mercedes E-class or GLE or GLS450, C43 AMG or whatever, to the competitors from Lexus, Cadillac, Jaguar, Audi and BMW, and they will all knock the V6s for how they aren't as refined, and say how the BMW doesn't have the fuel economy of the Benz. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It makes me wonder if the Americans should consider going back to I6 engines and add some boost. They make great truck engines too because they have more journal bearings than a V6 which makes them naturally more durable. In naturally aspirated form, they tend to have better torque delivery than a V, but that's not a hard rule.

    I'd not mind a 3.5 boosted I6 in a Silverado.

    6 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    Bottom line is in a couple years time, ever car magazine will compere the Mercedes E-class or GLE or GLS450, C43 AMG or whatever, to the competitors from Lexus, Cadillac, Jaguar, Audi and BMW, and they will all knock the V6s for how they aren't as refined, and say how the BMW doesn't have the fuel economy of the Benz. 

    I mean, why does C&D or Motortrend hire writers... They just reprint the same review each year and change the snark.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Aren't inline 6s generally too wide for transverse use?  I assume one reason auto makers like V6s is they can work with north-south and transverse configurations.  GM had the Atlas inline engines for trucks and SUVs in the 00's but they are gone...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Aren't inline 6s generally too wide for FWD use?  I assume one reason American car makers like V6s is they can work with north-south and transverse configurations.  GM had the Atlas inline engines for trucks and SUVs in the 00's but they are gone...

    V6 is dying in Mass market cars anyway, so that's less of a consideration anymore. A RWD only I6 could be useful for Cadillac, Camaro, trucks and the RWD SUVs.

    The FWD 3.6 V6 can soldier on in the Impala, Lacrosse, Regal, and big crossovers. XTS is dying. Nothing else FWD still uses it. If Impala and Lacrosse go away... Well....

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Ahh, the XJ220.   A very low volume supercar with a handbuilt engine.  Not really comparable to M-B's production engines.  (the only ZJ I know was the first gen Grand Cherokee, and I know there was no 220 variation..)

    Yeah, my bad on the typing.. 'z' and 'x' are right next to each other... *face palm*

    And I agree. They shouldn't be compared but some like to look strictly at output and say one is superior to the other and this XJ220 has a higher output V6 than the new Mercedes sixes. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    Bottom line is in a couple years time, ever car magazine will compere the Mercedes E-class or GLE or GLS450, C43 AMG or whatever, to the competitors from Lexus, Cadillac, Jaguar, Audi and BMW, and they will all knock the V6s for how they aren't as refined, and say how the BMW doesn't have the fuel economy of the Benz. 

    I wouldn't expect anything else from you. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Image result for facepalm gif

    I just realized I did the same thing...

    X...J220

     

    If a Camaro does  indeed get an inline 6 sometime in the future...

    IF is all Im saying....

    What a strange turn of events it would be...

    I think there is more of a chance it get the Bolt battery technology and powetrain, but that would be for another conversation elsewhere in this website...

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've owned 2 different I-6s; nothing to write home about as far as smoothness went, and no better than V6s in the driveway.
    I'm not against them per say, but I want the reason behind the move to be clear : to cut costs.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Rivian has opened a new 8 stall 350kW fast charger station at Lynnwood mall plus a 9th Handicap fast charge stall. Seems when remote service is being done they are tagged red as two of the units are. They take credit or debit cards on top of if you setup a Rivian app account.  There are now over 100 fast charge stations within a 5 mile radius of where I live.
    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search