[Phatcat]

Slower than the M5 on the straight but faster on track. More expensive than the M5, is it worth it? For me no.

[TTHURACAN]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Slower than the M5 on the straight but faster on track. More expensive than the M5, is it worth it? For me no.

According to the chart above, it is slightly quicker in the straights than the M5 CP but slower than the 720S(what isn’t lol).

As for the laptimes, if the M5 were running 315mm SC2s on 11.5” rear rims + SC2 fronts, it would improve laptimes considerably over stock ....

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by TTHURACAN

According to the chart above, it is slightly quicker in the straights than the M5 CP but slower than the 720S(what isn’t lol).

As for the laptimes, if the M5 were running 315mm SC2s on 11.5” rear rims + SC2 fronts, it would improve laptimes considerably over stock ....

The previous tests with the GT have shown it quite slow - no quicker than the E63S. I am surprised how quick and fast this particular car is...

[brad850csi]

Originally Posted by TTHURACAN

According to the chart above, it is slightly quicker in the straights than the M5 CP but slower than the 720S(what isn’t lol).

As for the laptimes, if the M5 were running 315mm SC2s on 11.5” rear rims + SC2 fronts, it would improve laptimes considerably over stock ....

I was thinking that too when I saw what tyres it had. The difficult part is how do you define a fair approach to this, make everyone run the same Tyre, but then if the car isn’t available from the factory with sport cups then that makes no sense. Or does BMW make it an option on the M5 like they did the M3 and M4 CS?

[TTHURACAN]

Originally Posted by brad850csi

I was thinking that too when I saw what tyres it had. The difficult part is how do you define a fair approach to this, make everyone run the same Tyre, but then if the car isn’t available from the factory with sport cups then that makes no sense. Or does BMW make it an option on the M5 like they did the M3 and M4 CS?

There is no option on the M5 checklist to add SC2s. The SC2s have better traction in the dry than the stock M5 tires but they are not as good in the wet.... still kind of important in an awd sports sedan...

[TTHURACAN]

Originally Posted by vtknight

The previous tests with the GT have shown it quite slow - no quicker than the E63S. I am surprised how quick and fast this particular car is...

Lol, are you thinking its a ringer? It’s not the first time a manufacturer does that. Do you think the AMG is quicker in most areas by virtue its’ SC2s?

[norbtx]

Not for me, I think it looks hideous. The M5 is a stealth Qship, which I love. If you’re going to make compromises with a cramped rear seat might as well get the AMG Coupe.

[onfireX5]

If it was as quick as the 720S in the 1/4 YES. Only 0.10 quicker than the F90. NO.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by TTHURACAN

Lol, are you thinking its a ringer? It’s not the first time a manufacturer does that. Do you think the AMG is quicker in most areas by virtue its’ SC2s?

I don't know...I just remember seeing another test where it ran a low 11 - like an 11.3. I will have to revisit the weights of each car...

EDIT: The AMG GT63S is heavier - 3.3 KG/PS versus 3.0 KG/PS for the F90 CP. This is knowing that at least officially - the MB far out torques the F90...(750 to 900 Nm).
That said - the Panamera with 680 PS and 850 Nm - at 3.4 KG/PS was slower than the F90 CP...

[Phatcat]

Originally Posted by TTHURACAN

According to the chart above, it is slightly quicker in the straights than the M5 CP but slower than the 720S(what isn't lol).

As for the laptimes, if the M5 were running 315mm SC2s on 11.5" rear rims + SC2 fronts, it would improve laptimes considerably over stock ....

I only look at 0-300km/h that's why I said it was slower than M5. But I guess in the US these cars are limited around 155 miles/h so you guys look at lower speeds. I routinely take my F10 up to 290-300 km/h so I care more about 200-300 km/h.

[Rk-d]

This car is ugly as hell. I'm sorry - I'd never buy something this hideous looking, regardless of performance.

[brad850csi]

Originally Posted by vtknight

I don't know...I just remember seeing another test where it ran a low 11 - like an 11.3. I will have to revisit the weights of each car...

EDIT: The AMG GT63S is heavier - 3.3 KG/PS versus 3.0 KG/PS for the F90 CP. This is knowing that at least officially - the MB far out torques the F90...(750 to 900 Nm).
That said - the Panamera with 680 PS and 850 Nm - at 3.4 KG/PS was slower than the F90 CP...

I know that with your history of cars and drag racing you're already aware of this, but half of that difference will completely disappear when someone is flooring it and taking the car to the redline in each gear, there we are talking about torque to the wheels which is where the similar power figures result in similar acceleration levels. On the other hand, if you're at 3000rpm in both cars next to each other, the GT63 will pull ahead quite comfortably.

[brad850csi]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

I only look at 0-300km/h that's why I said it was slower than M5. But I guess in the US these cars are limited around 155 miles/h so you guys look at lower speeds. I routinely take my F10 up to 290-300 km/h so I care more about 200-300 km/h.

Because the police don't care about an M5 going fast where you are?

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by brad850csi

I know that with your history of cars and drag racing you're already aware of this, but half of that difference will completely disappear when someone is flooring it and taking the car to the redline in each gear, there we are talking about torque to the wheels which is where the similar power figures result in similar acceleration levels. On the other hand, if you're at 3000rpm in both cars next to each other, the GT63 will pull ahead quite comfortably.

Being fair - it isn't about flooring the car or redline - it is about power to weight, traction, aero/Cd, power under the curve etc - but your point about torque is valid from a roll. The F90 CP is the better power to weight - and as usual - hoping the Reviewers got it right on launch - and pending the tire vs tire of each car as this is a dig race - I don't see the F90 losing all that often. But - - - the cars are close enough that losing isn't some unbelievable condition. The Reviewers say they ran 10.94 - which is almost my best ET (10.93) with the F90 CP - at 206 KM/hr I believe (127.1 MPH). My first summertime on a hot day MPH were 127.5 MPH. My best - Fall - MPH was 129.5 MPH. I don't know the temps or DA here - but I am also not too sure about this. Also because the regular two-door AMG GT has not proven to be a 10 second car either.

Anyways - Spring/Summer will hopefully bring one to my neighborhood and I will test if possible.

[Tewie]

M5 just looks better.

[Quickburn7]

Originally Posted by vtknight

Being fair - it isn't about flooring the car or redline - it is about power to weight, traction, aero/Cd, power under the curve etc - but your point about torque is valid from a roll. The F90 CP is the better power to weight - and as usual - hoping the Reviewers got it right on launch - and pending the tire vs tire of each car as this is a dig race - I don't see the F90 losing all that often. But - - - the cars are close enough that losing isn't some unbelievable condition. The Reviewers say they ran 10.94 - which is almost my best ET (10.93) with the F90 CP - at 206 KM/hr I believe (127.1 MPH). My first summertime on a hot day MPH were 127.5 MPH. My best - Fall - MPH was 129.5 MPH. I don't know the temps or DA here - but I am also not too sure about this. Also because the regular two-door AMG GT has not proven to be a 10 second car either.

Anyways - Spring/Summer will hopefully bring one to my neighborhood and I will test if possible.

They just announced pricing: $160k starting price. That's a lot of money for this car! Rather pick up an M8 GC comp when they come out.

[CarlosM4]

I think it is an awesome car. Personally it is exceedingly beautiful inside&outside. Not sure it is worth the price though. Here in Brazil they are asking for R$1.2mil, the equivalent of about $310k. It is nearly $120k more than the M5, and I don't see that price difference translated in big enough difference between the cars.

[Vic55]

Originally Posted by Quickburn7

They just announced pricing: $160k starting price. That's a lot of money for this car! Rather pick up an M8 GC comp when they come out.

I wont get into all the minutia of the performance differences between the two- its going to be negligible at best IMHO... but the 160 is the top of the monroney and after just destination and standard taxes it will be around 165k and thats for a flat car with zero and I mean zero on it.

Our M5's non CE are at 103k and I dont know anyone here who got that bare of a car. I would estimate that with the average options on the GTS AMG car we will see pricing circa the higher 170's to mid 180's and I had guessed that almost half a year ago. Clearly this car will have to speak to someone or be in limited production because it could fall into the bad graces like the Panny Turbo from a pricing perspective. There are just too many options that are cheaper in this segment. Its not a full size luxo speed barge like an S63 AMG either and those buyers dont care about what a track time says.

[Quickburn7]

Originally Posted by Vic55

I wont get into all the minutia of the performance differences between the two- its going to be negligible at best IMHO... but the 160 is the top of the monroney and after just destination and standard taxes it will be around 165k and thats for a flat car with zero and I mean zero on it.

Our M5's non CE are at 103k and I dont know anyone here who got that bare of a car. I would estimate that with the average options on the GT AMG car we will see pricing circa the higher 170's to mid 180's and I had guessed that almost half a year ago. Clearly this car will have to speak to someone or be in limited production because it could fall into the bad graces like the Panny Turbo from a pricing perspective. There are just too many options that are cheaper in this segment. Its not a full size luxo speed barge like an S63 AMG either and those buyers dont care about what a track time says. And all this is about the GT 63 not the GT 63S which has an opening base price of 182k

I agree way too much money however GT63 is $138k and gt63s is $160k and I rather have the Panamera Turbo fit, finish and even depreciation as these things won't lease well

[BwoodBMW]

Saw the car in person at the LA auto show. Interior looked good but exterior was truly horrendous looking. If I was a Benz guy I'd take an E63s over this all day long. They'll sell em though... seems like lots of folks here in LA love dropping $160k+ on benzes. Look at prices on The AMG s class convertibles, it's shocking. And I see those cars around here every single day.

[Punitive]

Mercedes has perfected recycling components and creating models/second tier AMG sub-brands. The new CLS is a dud when they had an opportunity to use this or proven E63S packaging with cutting edge design the CLS was traditionally known for and arguably had an existing clientele. They create this thing to go after the Panamera. Hell, I can't even keep with how many variants the GT coupe has now confuse it further with a sedan. Will there be a Pro version of this lol.

[Wolfman64]

Originally Posted by vtknight

The previous tests with the GT have shown it quite slow - no quicker than the E63S. I am surprised how quick and fast this particular car is...

To be fair, that car hasn't been tested comprehensively and will likely be a very fast and competent car. MB is also not known for ringers.

I expect that Sportauto will have this car quickly on the ring to compare to AMG's measured run. Although that may be in spring.

That said, this car is not attractive to my eyes and completely overpriced.