Why A Four-Cylinder Mercedes-AMG C63 Might Work After All
If we’d have been forced to place a bet on which German saloon would be last to give up its V8, we’d have put a hopeful coin or two on the Mercedes-AMG C63. It’s a special car to the people who make it, the beacon of a truth car people all know: there’s nothing quite like sticking a big, angry, powerful engine into as small a car as possible.
It gave successive generations of C63 a unique and wonderful identity. When BMW axed the M3’s legendary V8, AMG could have chosen that moment to switch its mighty old 6.2-litre V8 for a six, but instead it powered on with a twin-turbo V8. The C63 being V8-driven is something sacred to certain senior figures at the company – including its boss Tobias Moers, who apparently walked out of the boardroom when the C63’s hybrid four-pot future was decided.
Still, is it really all that bad, or are there glimmers of hope that this might not be such a tragedy? We all have to accept that this is the way the automotive world is going, so let’s look at the positives. First up, it’s efficiency. The number one reason I hear people give for not buying something with a truly meaty engine is fuel economy. They lust after a Subaru WRX STI, but they actually drive a diesel eco-box. Hell, I’m guilty of this exact sin at the moment because I do a whole heap of motorway miles and there’s no point sitting at 70mph(ish) in something that drinks like a fish.
So, then, the idea of a 500bhp+ compact super-saloon that could also dance around the 40mpg (UK) mark has to be a good thing for future sales figures. If the nagging doubts over direct running costs are mitigated, that’s one big hurdle cleared. Maybe we’ll be able to look at the future C63 as a car we could actually own and run one day.
Handling is another potential gain area. Dropping a V8 into a smallish saloon does create a bit of an imbalance in terms of weight distribution and finesse. In fairness to AMG, that brutish, slidey quality was always part of its identity. While the contemporary M3s of yesteryear usually won the comparison tests for being a sweeter drive overall, the lairy C63 always threw the giggle-o-meter to maximum.
Moving to four cylinders and a compact electric drivetrain gives the engineers the chance to move the centre of gravity downwards and rearwards. Early reports suggest the C63 will use a ‘self-charging’ hybrid setup like a traditional Prius, with a tiny 0.9kWh battery for short-range EV potential without the weight penalties of plug-in hybrids. The overall weight change might not be much, and it could be better located to make it much harder for BMW to claim any kind of handling win.
Now let’s get philosophical. The world is going digital, hard. The growth of e-sports is all the barometer you need to show you that more young people than ever are placing technology at the front of what they want from and enjoy in life. To this young generation, a massive, analogue V8 probably feels like a relic of the 20th century. Maybe they just don’t engage with it the way CTzens do.
The next C63 will be tech-forward. It will use clever hybrid technology to lead its appeal to a generation addicted to Fortnite and Call of Duty. Electric power boosts and EV modes are becoming the stuff people like to boast about, after all. The way things are going it just wouldn’t make sense to go old-school with the C63’s identity, and we can see why a change of approach might work.
Lastly, there’s the fact that the M139 engine, which will be taken from the new A45, isn’t actually a duff unit. Sure, it’s a four-pot and doesn’t create the aural magic AMG is known for, but it’s surprisingly natural-feeling and mimics the power delivery of normal aspiration pretty well. It even revs to 7200rpm. Let’s not forget the current version coughs up 415bhp, either. It’s not going to wheeze.
AMG has to be careful. Porsche’s Cayman and Boxster 718 are suffering enduring image problems after dropping to four cylinders. They’re fundamentally less characterful than before and buyers know it. A C63 with half the cylinders sounds like a recipe for alienating the fanbase in a similar way, unless Mercedes and AMG can come up with just the right marketing strategy to tempt a totally new kind of buyer. They’ve got positives to work with, so we’ll see how they handle them.
Comments
If you ignore the triggered snowflakes and look at the facts, it will have way more pros than cons;
more compact engine allows for a shorter wheelbase which will make the car more agile, engine can also be set further back to aid with weight distribution
the engine will be lighter, maybe even half the weight of the current V8
the engine uses less fuel, puts out fewer emissions which will lower fuel, tax and insurance costs
4 cylinder engines are nicer to work on for most jobs (mechanic’s perspective)
hybrid system allows for better low end torque
if it’s a 600+ hp engine, it will be making over 300hp/ltr which is Mazda 787b territory of specific output
Cons
it doesn’t sound as good
63 name went from signifying 6.3l to 4.0 tt to 2.0, could be considered misleading
engine lifespan may be reduced by the smaller engine making way more power / under more stress
For once, i’m actually interested in something Mercedes is making. (it’ll probably be ugly af though, if they follow their tradition.)
I should also add that Volvo have been doing similar stuff for years, and they make some of the nicest performance saloons you can buy. It’d be cool if this upcoming 63 was also twincharged, like a T5.
Not everyone with valid crticism is a “triggered snowflake” as you put it.
But sure, lets look at some facts.
The M139 engine used in the A45 weighs 160kg dry, the M177 V8 around 200kgs. Now add in the battery, wiring and electric motor and the weight benefit is lost very quickly.
With the Hybrid setup you also run into another dilemma: The engine will be heavily dependant on hybrid boost to get beyond 500hp and remove turbolag, so once the battery runs dry youre essentially left with a 400 something hp, turbo laggy 4 cylinder engine which is obviously not ideal.
To counter this you can either put a large heavy battery in to make sure the boost is also available when youre going flat out a little longer, or you stick to a small battery meaning the boost is lost very quickly.
Not an ideal scenario for a C63 in both cases, and i doubt many costumers are really worried about fuel costs.
Anyways, im not sold on this project at all but we will see where it goes.
[DELETED]
I think this is going to be a similiar situation to the DTM touring car series. They were N/A V8 powered for ages, but this season they made the switch to 2.0l I4 turbo engines. Of course a lot of hardcore fans were instantly against it once the rumours surfaced (I myself was sceptical if it was going to work out), but after the first race it became clear that the cars are now lighter, faster and even louder than ever before, which is ultimately to everybody’s benefit.
loud=/=good
The day that American muscle cars start dropping their V8s is the day it all ends….
In a way, they started doing that in the 80’s with the Buick Grand National.
But they have, you can have the Mustang with a 2.3 Turbo i4
CT, we understand you get bunch of money from MB, but stop praising their naughtiest decisions in the car enthusiast world.
1 - Fuel economy is good only on paper, because we all know that at highway speeds, it’s better a bigger engine at low revs, let’s just look at the C7 manual hitting 30 mpg on the highway with his NA V8. Fuel economy tests only cover a minimal fraction of them at full motorway speed.
2 - Comparing this downgrade to the discontinuation of M3 V8 is the is just plain bs. We all know that M division tuned 6 bangers for their whole life while AMG did the same with V8. You can put your useless 4 pot in any FWD car, not in a car that HAS the setup to get an I6 or V8.
3 - Are you seriously talking about weight distribution in a 1700kg car?
4 - To me AMG buried itself with this decision, BMW M and Alfa Giulia will keep their 6 pots, so what are we talking about?
What evidence do you have of this?
1 - on motorways, a 4-cylinder hybrid will have a medium-power petrol engine and a medium power electric engine working in co-op. The problem with full electric is that they’re inefficient for motorway journeys, the problem with ICE is they’re (relatively) inefficient at low speeds, combine the two, you have best of both world. A Toyota Prius or a Hyundai Ioniq can drive 1000kms without refueling, and you can bet that a hybrid C63 can too. The reason the C7 can hit 30mpgs is because Chevrolet has fitted its engine with a system that turns off half of its cylinders to improve fuel economy.
2 - They mentioned the discontinuation of BMW’s V8 because a 3.0-litre L6 is definitely smaller than than a 4.0-litre V8. Along with that, the whole purpose of BMW’s M-performance line-up is raw driving experience, which can be best obtained with an N/A engine. They gave that up when they made the F80.
3 - just because a car weighs 1700kg doesn’t mean you can’t distribute weight. Along with that, they didn’t mention weight distribution, they talked about centre of mass. Considering the batteries will most likely be mounted on the bottom of the car, it’ll definitely have a lower centre of mass.
4 - On the contrary. Especially in the European market, these are more likely to sell than BMW’s full ICE-powered cars, considering the appeal of hybrids and electric cars in EU governments. Quite frankly; if you want a big, burly, shouty V8 in a Mercedes saloon/estate, get the E63.
I get it. Seeing a car known for its big engine get a new gen with a small, more eco-friendly line-up hurts. no-one wants to see it happen. Heck, I died a little inside even when I found out that Mazda was making an EV. I too prefer the age of raw, unfiltered, naturally aspirated glory of the big V8s and V12s, but with creatures like Greta Thunberg, we have no say in a change towards smaller 4-cylinders with electric engines paired to them, or even electric engines working on their own. It’s best to see the benefits of “the engines of the future” (I gagged a little while typing that) and remember the engines that once were acceptable, but aren’t anymore.
1 - No, assuming gearing is the same, every engine is at the same RPM for given road speed. 30 (I’m guessing US?) mpg = 7.85 L/100km at a highway cruise is terrible fuel economy, and that’s in a slippery low slung coupe. If you look at urban economy figures it will swing even more in a smaller engines favor.
2 - If anything BMW’s change to a turbo I6 was more dramatic as the M division always vowed (E30 homologation aside) to never used a turbocharged engine as it apparently was a barrier to driver engagement. It was also the first time in history that the M3’s engine had been shrunk, and as a combination of those things many enthusiasts initially felt the M division had betrayed them. In comparison the AMG back catalog features several I4 engines, so this is not new ground for them. Just because you can fit a larger engine doesn’t mean you should.
3 - Yes, because the heavier a vehicle is the more important it is how that weight is distributed. A heavy vehicle with poor weight distribution is a boat, a light vehicle with poor weight distribution is still responsive because there’s less mass to move about.
4 - BMW had to heavily rework their I6 and the Alfa V6 is a near new engine, Audi also developed two new 6 pot performance engines. It just makes sense in the long run for MB to skip the 6 pot fight where it’s competitors are already well set up and established and make sure it is in prime position for the next generation of performance cars.
People who only read the title
DiNg DoNg YoU’rE oPiNiOn iS wRoNg
fuск оff
They should axe the name C63 if they go to that route, the “63” badge means v8 so for me they should let it mean that and not dilute it with a 2 liter turbo. Just name it something else and that’s it…. At least that’s how I see it if that path is inevitable 🤷🏻♂️
they should just axe AMG in this case
Stupid EU, you ruin everything.
V8 > feul economy
50 smiles per gallon > 50 miles per gallon
if you can afford a 63 you can afford to fuel it
It used to be my top 1st favorite car, after they dropped that 6.2 V8 my feelings started to fade a bit, but still that 4 liter V8 TT is amazing.
I hope they will not ditch the 4.0 V8. And If they do they have no reason to call it a C63. They might call it C20 lol.
For some reason I feel like this is the first step to give the C class a FWD platform.