The "Newly Introduced Car That I'm Really Feeling Right Now" Thread....

DeeezNuuuts83

DeeezNuuuts83

New Member
#42
#42
^ You need to stop posting links to every single article from autoblog. And while you might have been "thinking" about getting one, I seriously doubt you'd be getting one anytime soon.
 
DeeezNuuuts83

DeeezNuuuts83

New Member
#51
#51
^ I'm sure people will buy it. Porsche is trying to tap into the market created and supplied by the Mercedes-Benz CLS. But based on the picture in the link you provided, it doesn't look very sleek from that angle.

Personally, I think Mercedes has got Porsche beat. Knowing Porsche, I'm sure that the car will be a little better at handling, but the people who buy these cars aren't really too much into superior handling, as a car like the CLS has always been regarded as more of a fashion statement than anything else, which is true, though it does have the performance to back it up. But the reason why I said what I did about Mercedes is because the Porsche won't be out for at least another two or so years, plus I'm sure the next CLS won't be too far behind in terms of release. Also, in cars as hefty as these, smaller and higher-revving units aren't the best for moving that kind of weight, so I feel the CLS's 381 hp 5.5-liter V-8 is much torquer than the ~400 hp 4.8-liter V-8 in the Porsche, so the CLS will get up to speed with much more ease. I'm sure whichever turbocharged motor ends up in the Panamera tuned to ~520 hp will also have torque expected from a turbocharged engine (probably more than AMG's 6.2-liter V-8), but such a top-of-the-line model accounts for a much smaller percentage of sales. And let's not forget that AMG has been doing quite a bit of testing with a twin-turbo version of their V-8 as well.
 
D

dillaxx

New Member
#53
#53
in the link there are other shots of the car... look the bottom right...

i never understood why AMG would put the turbos into the higher models of a lineup.. for example a CL55 might have a super where as a 65 would have a turbo..... it makes no difference to me, i understand there's a huge power surge, but why alternate it like that for the top to models of a model lineup....

im not that great with the mechanics of the engine like you deez, so really what you're saying is goin over my head.. haha, but dont bother explaining... i understand porsche is just trying to spread out in the market.....

still, i dont know how porsche enthusiasts will react to this... some didnt really like the idea of the cayenne a couple years ago...
 
DeeezNuuuts83

DeeezNuuuts83

New Member
#54
#54
^ Turbos are generally more capable of putting out the best numbers than superchargers, when tuned correctly. When it comes to performance cars that have forced induction, the best applications always have turbos... Veyron, 911 Turbo, 911 Turbo GT2, Bentley Continental GT, Evo, STI and even American's own Solstice GXP (which puts out the highest specific power output out of all cars GM has ever produced).

Regarding the older supercharged V-8s in older AMGs, those engines have been replaced by their all-new naturally aspirated 6.2-liter. It's not that the engine was bad or anything, it was just time for something modern and dnew, as the 55 was a dated, older Mercedes V-8 that was given some boost. It's not that AMG purposely alternated the use of a supercharger and turbochargers, it's just that those were the better choices for the given applications, considering power output and cost.

Regarding the questions around the Cayenne upon its release, it's just that there wasn't really a need for it. You could get something similar in the VW Toureag (which does share some parts) for a lot cheaper, or if you're just into luxury SUVs, you could get a Range Rover, Mercedes G-Class, etc.
 
C

C.R.Y.

Active Member
#55
#55
dilla said:
in the link there are other shots of the car... look the bottom right...

i never understood why AMG would put the turbos into the higher models of a lineup.. for example a CL55 might have a super where as a 65 would have a turbo..... it makes no difference to me, i understand there's a huge power surge, but why alternate it like that for the top to models of a model lineup....
Click to expand...

its not just the amgs. the 600s also have them. but turbos when done correctly can give a wonderful torque curve. while also providing great top end. a supercharger can do both well, but will require more boost to make the same power, because of parasitic powerloss. cause they run off of a pulley.a supercharger also runs full time, which is good for response but bad cause thats more wear and tear when u dont need the boost. turbos stay in vacuum when u are cruising, which means youre not getting boost. when u need the boost a little more gas will get you positive boost.
 
DeeezNuuuts83

DeeezNuuuts83

New Member
#57
#57
^ The twin-turbo V-12 in the 600 (493 hp, 590 lb.-ft) and 65 AMG (604-612 hp, 738 lb.-ft) is based on an older engine and was introduced before the 63. It didn't need forced induction, but being based on an older Mercedes V-12 platform (SOHC, 3 valves per cylinder), it didn't have impressive firepower for what it was (I think the original V-12 that they used was rated at less than 400 hp), so they added twin-turbos and it just blew everything else out of the water. Like the supercharged V-8 in the 55 AMGs, it's an effortless engine (silly amounts of torque at literally any rpm), but it's less involving thus less exciting to drive, despite its abilities to spin its tires even at freeway speeds. Obviously AMG is trying to increase the fun factor of their offerings, hence the switch to the higher-tech 63 engine with a 7200 rpm redline and the ridiculous suspension tuning of the upcoming C63 using components from the six-figure CLK63 Black Series parts bin.
 
D

dillaxx

New Member
#58
#58
ah gotcha... so the older benz engines were less efficient in the sense that they were bigger but didnt even put out as much power as the new V8's they have out?
 
DeeezNuuuts83

DeeezNuuuts83

New Member
#59
#59
It's a little less accurate to compare them to the new V-8s. For one thing, the "less efficient" engines came out around ten years ago, whereas the newer V-8s (the 5.5-liter V-8 in the 550s and the 6.2-liter V-8 in the 63 AMGs) have an extra decade's worth of technology and research put into them. Also, the reason why the engines got less efficient (even compared to the motors they replaced) was because at some point, Europe was going to implement more stringent emissions regulations (announced in the early- to mid-'90s) and Mercedes knew that their existing engines might not be within those guidelines to be in effect several years later, so they switched from 4-valve heads to 3-valve heads (two intake, one exhaust) that would create fewer emissions... hence why the V-8 model designation went from the 420 to the 430, which had a 0.1-liter bump in displacement but was rated at the EXACT same numbers as the engine it replaced (275 hp, 295 lb.-ft). However, with further research and development, Mercedes overcame their obstacles and switched back to 4-valve heads as they found ways to reduce emissions while improving power.
 
Duke

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#60
#60
Merc's always been giving their AMG's big ass engines to appease the Yankees:p. Something like 70% of their cars (AMG) are sold overseas.

And Deeez' rants hit the nail on the head why most Euro's will never buy an American "performance" machine, a respectful exception made for the 'Vette, which is actually a well tuned machine despite it's stone age technology. Most American performers are heavy, technologically outdated and don't offer the refinement of the competition. They also cost half of what the competition costs, but when you're in the market for a serious car you're not going to cut corners for financial reasons. Most wouldn't, and aren't, anyway. There's also still the little problem that, for Euro standards, most American car makers still seem to think corners aren't important.

Case in point being that GT500. They just bolted a supercharger to a stock 'Stang, gave it some plastic bodykitting and presto!, a "mad and raving" new Mustang. Not exactly. It's just not done to drop 200 extra horsepower in a car and not do anything substantial at all to brakes or suspension.

As a result, most American performers are right back where they started. The '70's. Good looks, good engines and the refinement of a hamburger. The cars are more for bragging rights than for serious drivers.

What you would like to see is one of those big car manufacturers waking up to the 21st century and building a kick ass new American sportscar that does justice to the technological capability of the Yankees. It's not like they can't build quality stuff, for some odd reason in the car market, they don't. They should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 62 (members: 0, guests: 62)
Top