C.R.Y. said:
im trying to say that a heavy luxury car should have more torque rather than hp. the old supercharged v8 was the better engine. because it had plenty of torque down low. way more than the new engine does. the new engine has more hp, but less torque down low. the e55 made 516lbft at 2650rpms. now the e63 has 465lbft (less torque) at higher rpms (around 5000rpms). it might be fun to drive overall, but it would be more practical to have more torque.
I see what you're saying, but this is the point I am trying to make with this specific engine: 465 lb.-ft is PLENTY. Yes, it is less than 516 lb.-ft, but it can still make the car move. I've driven various V-8 powered Mercedes cars, and I can honestly say that no one should really complain about the lower torque rating, especially after driving one. While I have never driven a Benz with the new AMG motor, I have no doubt in my mind that it still has enough torque to blow your mind. It will be more fun and exciting to drive, as you said, but it will be faster in every measurable aspect of performance. In addition, the new engine will actually be lighter due to its construction of lighter materials and a lack of a supercharger. Every little bit helps, and despite the dip in torque, the car overall should be lighter, the increased top end should work some new wonders and the new transmission should be more efficient and make better use of the engine's power delivery while putting out fewer emissions and getting increased gas mileage.
C.R.Y. said:
its like an evo. you (deeznutz) have one so you should be able to relate. would you rather have a turbocharged 4 cylinder that has 289lbft from 3500rpms or a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder that puts out 320hp, but only has 250lbft at 6000rpms? im sure youd pick the turbocharged motor right? i know id pick the turbo motor.
Once again, I understand what you're saying, but there are too many factors. If the older AMG motor was
turbocharged, then I'd probably favor it since turbochargers are pretty much superior to superchargers. The reason why AMG didn't use forced induction was because this is their first engine completely developed independent of Mercedes' engineers. In addition, there are rumors of them testing a twin-turbo version of that same motor, so don't be surprised if that engine pops up in the future as the uber AMG V-8. In the past, AMG just took existing Mercedes motors, strengthened them for forced induction and added blowers since it was the easiest route. Look at the C32 (basically the 3.2-liter 3-valve V-6 boosted to 349 hp), E55/CLS55/CL55/SL55/S55 (basically the 5.0-liter 3-valve V-8 bored to 5.4 liters and boosted to 469/493 hp, depending on tune) and CL65/SL65/S65 (basically the 5.5-liter 3-valve V-12 bored to 6.0 liters and boosted to 604 hp). Only now have they started making engines on their own the proper way (4 valves per cylinder, fully variable valve timing, 2-stage intake manifold, friction-reducing cylinder coating, 11.3:1 compression ratio, racecar-style crankcase with closed-deck bedplate, etc.). Keep in mind that the 3-valve heads were used in previous Mercedes motors due to emissions regulations and technology at the time.
But back to the Evo comment, I completely understand what you're saying, but there isn't really a right answer. If you took both motors and applied them to my car, then yes, the current engine would be the proper choice since the turbo would help power delivery and make use of the AWD with its greater, more readily-available torque. Higher-revving motors that scream weren't meant to be used in AWD applications, unless the engine is just that torquey for its application (such as the Lamborghini units). But in a lighter FWD/RWD application, like something along the lines of a Honda S2000 or Lotus Elise, the naturally aspirated motor you described would be the better choice. It really depends on what the car is going to be doing. But in all honesty, what matters at the end of the day is the numbers you put out not just on the dyno, but on the drag strip, track, slalom, etc.
