Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

  • 🚗 Your People Are Here. Get In.

    The internet is full of car content. This is the community.

    Cheers & Gears has been bringing enthusiasts together since 2001. Join the conversation, show off your garage, and find your people.

  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    By Drew Dowdell •

    Rumorpile - AMG C63 To Lose V8 in Favor of Four-Cylinder Hybrid

      ... No more V8 rumble, but still lots of torque...

    Rumor has it that the next AMG C63 will be the first of a number of models to ditch their V8 in favor of 4-cylinder hybrid power. According to Autocar, the C63 could also lose a rear-wheel drive option, going instead with standard all-wheel drive. 

    The engine would be an electrified version of the new M139 turbocharged 2.0-liter.  In it's most powerful current form, it is the most powerful 4-cylinder in production anywhere putting out 416 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque, and that's without any electric boosting.  The engine was engineered to be mounted transversely or longitudinally and also with an eye on hybridization.

    For the C63, the M139 engine would adopt a 48 volt starter motor similar to the one used in the CLS 53 4Matic.  On that car, the motor provides an additional 22 hp and 184 lb-ft of torque, however in the C63, it would be tuned for even more power to reach up to a total system horsepower over 500. 

    One main advantage to this setup would be a significant reduction in weight over the front axle.  Additionally, the engine/motor combination has a lower center of gravity, that would be expected to improve handling and control. 

    Moving the C63 to a hybrid powertrain is consistent with Mercedes' desire to reduce fleet CO2 emissions.

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    smk4565

    This will be interesting and a gamble if they go this route.  I don’t know if people want to pay $90k for a turbo 4 hybrid.  I think if they use the inline 6 with electric boost for over 500 hp then no one would complain because it is sill 6 cylinders and smoother.  Could pay off if the C63 is a 500 hp car getting 30 mpg.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ocnblu
    4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    a 500 hp car getting 30 mpg

    Even if that becomes true on paper... it will never happen at the same time.  And V8 noise is nirvana to a car enthusiast.  Anything less is just... less.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    riviera74
    2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Even if that becomes true on paper... it will never happen at the same time.  And V8 noise is nirvana to a car enthusiast.  Anything less is just... less.

    Is an I6 a joke by comparison?  That is what MB/AMG should do instead.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    12 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Is an I6 a joke by comparison?  That is what MB/AMG should do instead.

    Isn't BMW's M3/4 an inline 6 again? 

    Just went to their site and yes, it is an I6 again. 

    I'm not a huge fan of any 6 cylinder noise but it is worlds better than any I4. 

    I6 isn't terrible but it is no V8. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Maybe MB and BMW are about to flip roles of leadership in engines. :)

     

    I don't know. They're all going to be turbo 4's and turbo inline 6's, I believe. Every top model engine in this class is pretty spectacular from the TT3.6 in the former ATS-V to the TT4.0 V8 in the Mercedes. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    smk4565

    V8s are dying every year, and Mercedes is usually a trendsetter not a holder on.   Porsche Boxster/Cayman are 4 cylinder only now and they are still fast.  We will probably see a 4 cylinder is a volume engine of full size crossovers in the next few years.  It is just how it goes.  

    Personally I’d rather see an inline six C63, but we don’t know what they will come up with.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    22 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    V8s are dying every year, and Mercedes is usually a trendsetter not a holder on.   Porsche Boxster/Cayman are 4 cylinder only now and they are still fast.  We will probably see a 4 cylinder is a volume engine of full size crossovers in the next few years.  It is just how it goes.  

    Personally I’d rather see an inline six C63, but we don’t know what they will come up with.

    Not the whole 718 lineup is 4-cylinder-only. Only the two lowest trims. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272
    23 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    V8s are dying every year, and Mercedes is usually a trendsetter not a holder on.   Porsche Boxster/Cayman are 4 cylinder only now and they are still fast.  We will probably see a 4 cylinder is a volume engine of full size crossovers in the next few years.  It is just how it goes.  

    Personally I’d rather see an inline six C63, but we don’t know what they will come up with.

    “Not a holder on”? Is that why they hung on to that V12 for so long (something you were singing praises over not too long ago)?

    • Agree 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    smk4565
    6 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

    “Not a holder on”? Is that why they hung on to that V12 for so long (something you were singing praises over not too long ago)?

    That engine had a longer than usual run from them, due to customer demand.  They could have killed the V12 five years ago but I think it is good that they kept it as an option.  That didn’t stop them from introducing new V8s, since that V12 went into service AMG had the 5.4 supercharged V8, the 6.3 V8, 5.5 liter bi-turbo and the current 4.0 bi-turbo.  They kept moving forward.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272
    19 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    That engine had a longer than usual run from them, due to customer demand.  They could have killed the V12 five years ago but I think it is good that they kept it as an option.  That didn’t stop them from introducing new V8s, since that V12 went into service AMG had the 5.4 supercharged V8, the 6.3 V8, 5.5 liter bi-turbo and the current 4.0 bi-turbo.  They kept moving forward.

    “Demand”. Whatever excuse floats that hollow boat. 
     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1
    On 10/17/2019 at 12:53 PM, ccap41 said:

    Extreme disappointment. 

    Thought you were a fan of the small displacement engines? :D  

    On 10/11/2019 at 10:23 AM, ccap41 said:

    I'm not sure why people are still afraid of a smaller displacement turbo engine. 

    Do you remember stating that 10 days ago about the 2.7T in the Silverado that I don't agree with GM for using in it? 

    Edited by USA-1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41
    18 hours ago, USA-1 said:

    Thought you were a fan of the small displacement engines? :D  

    Do you remember stating that 10 days ago about the 2.7T in the Silverado that I don't agree with GM for using in it? 

    I don't care about the displacement and fear of it blowing up on me or not being able to handle the duties it's designed for. 

    I just love AMG V8's more than most anything else. 

    If you were honest and simply said, "I just want to hear a V8" rather than trying to say the 2.7T can't do truck things, I'd understand. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1
    2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    I don't care about the displacement and fear of it blowing up on me or not being able to handle the duties it's designed for. 

    I just love AMG V8's more than most anything else. 

    If you were honest and simply said, "I just want to hear a V8" rather than trying to say the 2.7T can't do truck things, I'd understand. 

     
    Oh I was honest and said exactly what I thought. I never stated that the 2.7T would blow up in the Silverado. I stated that it has to work too hard to pull the weight of a full-size truck, just like the Ford EB engines and they get lack luster fuel mileage because of that. Turbos and the torture they go through are enough in a car, but in a full-size truck is a whole nother level of torture. I do love the sound of both of my LS V8's and I stated that as well :D
    Edited by USA-1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1
    1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

    Yeah, turbos have never been designed for serious truck work, have they? 

    Peterbuilt.jpg

    Ha now you're way out in the weeds dude. And talk about a large displacement turbo diesel engine. I'm talking about a very small displacement 2.7T gas I4 in a 6k lb pickup truck, not a tractor trailer with a huge 12L turbo diesel I6. I think you're smart enough to get that. Again, "No Replacement for Displacement".

    16 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Point made about turbos/trucks.... but of course the vehicle pictured also has a massive displacement engine. My brother has an older 6-cyl Mack and it’s a 632 CI.

    Exactly! Apples to Oranges...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ccap41

    Massive displacement engine that only has to move ...ohhhh 80,000lbs... 

    12L engine is roughly 4.4 times the displacement of a 2.7L engine.

    2.7L engine in a 5,000 lb truck

    12L in a 20,000 lb truck

    The ratio isn't all that far off. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1

    Apples and Oranges...huge tractor trailer turbo Diesel that was specifically designed to haul 10's of thousands of lbs. to a 4 banger turbo Gasoline full-size pickup truck that wasn't really designed to haul anything other than it's own two axles. That's why GM makes DMax diesels for all of their trucks Colorado, 1500 and 2500/3500, 4500/5500. The 2.7T gasser is strictly offered to appease the EPA, even GM engineers know it's ridiculous.  

    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 Independent Automotive Journalism

    25 years of honest automotive coverage — because someone has to do it.

    Cheers & Gears has never been filtered by manufacturer relationships or driven by algorithm. Just real people, real opinions, and a genuine love of cars. Subscribers keep the lights on and get an ad-light experience starting at $2.25/month.*

    View subscription options

    *A small number of ads feature member-exclusive coupon deals and will still appear.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      Does anyone know of or have any experience with cardboard wardrobe boxes made for moving? The ones from Home Depot are not that good.  With the metal hanger rod extended across the top, it does not prevent torsion in the box and the folding side flap, which is meant to give you a look into the box, is flimsy ... and if you even put small things on top of this tall box, it tends to sink in. Someone out there has to have some good solid wardrobe boxes in their available inventory of moving supplies. Help and ideas, please ...
    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      Some of these famous buildings are hideous, some are interesting with decent parts to them, and a rare few are really nice. The hideous ones include the newer architecture building at University of Washington, Wurster Hall (also architecture) at UC Berkeley, and perhaps the Salk Institute in San Diego.  These buildings are cold and soul sucking, so they're hard to be in.  They also come from a fairly ugly (on various levels) sixties and seventies granola period. One of these buildings would be a "hybrid" and it's fine.  That would be Campbell Hall (again ... architecture) at the University of Virginia, which is definitely brutalist reinforced concrete at the first taller level or two, with an exposed waffle slab at levels above you.  However, they soften it up by using brick on the upper floors' exterior, as well as lower floor to ceiling heights.  The one brutalist gem would have to be the main library at University of California San Diego.  They definitely did not do this to reduce costs because it's a complicated building.  However, it's probably a nice space to be inside because of the floor to ceiling windows all around. It's just that there was a wave of putting up these buildings on West Coast campuses, surrounded by eucalyptus or fir and hemlock, and it was usually at hippieish campuses and their atmospheres don't gel with me.
    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      Happy Mother's Day to the mothers in our lives - family, friends, coworkers  She came to mind, so I looked for a gif on her.  She is originally from Buffalo!  Most people have doubles.  I don't think she does. Happy Sunday.
    • G. David Felt
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      Having looked at all the images online, I have to say that the interior and exterior other than the color which I like is a let down and I would even say for a Luxury brand looks cheap.
    • G. David Felt
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      Due to my tradeshow season, do not have the time till June to do any writeups, but Lexus has released their Luxury version 3 row SUV EV that Toyota released as the Highlander and Subaru also has. Clearly not connected to the ICE Spindale grill or as many of us called the Predator mouth. https://pressroom.lexus.com/all-electric-three-row-luxury-the-all-new-2027-lexus-tz/ The press release says 300 miles of range on Select Grade. Look at the fine print, this is a sea level level road, anything else is 250 to 280 miles of range. FAILURE Lexus / Toyota along with the 400V system.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • 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

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

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