By on February 21, 2017

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan at Sebring, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

When Mercedes-Benz brought the W201 platform here as the somewhat oddly named 190E 2.3, it was immediately nicknamed the “baby Benz.” The successor to that car, yclept “C-Class” to fit precisely within Daimler-Benz’s new idiot-compatible nomenclature, became known as the “Cheap-Class” at Mercedes-Benz dealerships.

The car you see above, piloted by Danger Girl at Sebring International Raceway in what was not a violation of the Hertz Dream Cars rental agreement, is no longer baby-sized. Nor is it particularly cheap at the as-tested price of just over $74,000. So what is it, exactly?

Well, it’s absurdly powerful; the Pep-Boys-style block “S” at the end of the C63 badge indicates a full 503 horsepower from a twin-turbo 4.0-liter V8. It’s remarkably well-equipped, although there are a few omissions about which one could gripe and I’ll discuss those below. It’s as competent as you’d expect, being the top-spec sedan version of a car that is surprisingly decent even in its poverty-spec, MB-Tex-equipped four-cylinder form.

Most of all, however, the 2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S is a sharp reminder that AMG isn’t what it used to be, for better or for worse.


2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan at Sebring, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

Your humble author has a long association with performance-oriented Benzes. I had a 190E 2.3-16 Cosworth restored in 2005 and ran it in the One Lap of America; that car has just undergone yet another complete restoration at the hands of the fourth owner since I sold it a decade ago. In the years that followed, I spent a lot of time driving various AMG cars from the C43 to the SL65; I also ran a CL55 as a company car about 10 years before Ed Bolian put a couple of bedpans in one and convinced people that he’d set a world record for illegal activity.

The AMG philosophy has always been one focused on straight-line speed and Autobahn prowess, mixed with a healthy dose of luxury. These are not, and have never been, track rats. Even the original 300SEL 6.3 raced by the founders of AMG was more of a straight-line terror than a corner carver.

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan at Sebring interior, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

About 12 years ago, AMG unveiled a bespoke 6.2-liter naturally-aspirated V8 that would find a home in pretty much every style of rear-wheel-drive Benz car, SUV, and G-wagen. If ever there was an engine that could be legitimately accused of possessing a soul, that was the one. It was pure magic from stem to stern, eager to rev and as characterful as it was powerful, finding perhaps its finest expression in the final boomerang-eye variants of the previous-generation SL63, but also capable of turning staid sedans like the E63 into hugely desirable rocketships.

Well, as my future third wife Este Haim likes to say, those days are gone. Now AMG makes do with the twin-turbo 4.0-liter. On paper, it’s more than a match for the outgoing 6.2 naturally-aspirated big-block. Against the stopwatch, it’s a little better, helped considerably by a flat torque curve with plenty of area beneath that “curve.”

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan at Sebring interior driver's side, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

Unfortunately for those of us who care about something besides the spec sheet, however, this new biturbo mill is depressingly, frustratingly anodyne, yet another triumph of engineering over enjoyment. I happen to know this engine can shine in the right application, and I’ll get to that in a bit. In the C63 S sedan, though, it’s a bit so-so, even when you flick the plasti-chrome “mode selector” on the left side of the center console all the way to “Race.”

Between the V8 and the rear wheels, we get the “Speedshift MCT” transmission. It’s best to think of it as the old 7G-Tronic automatic with a computer-controlled wet clutch where the torque converter used to be. This sounds like a half-assed measure but there’s a lot to recommend. Mercedes-Benz genuinely understands how to build a strong planetary-gear transmission; they’re one of the few manufacturers who can engineer one from scratch and have it not fall apart in heavy-duty use. The problem with the wet-clutch hack, if you will, is that you have to treat it with respect. With 6,260 rental miles on the odometer when I picked it up, this C63 S was already showing signs of MCT misery, most notably a reluctance to engage properly from a dead stop.

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan at Sebring interior door trim and controls, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

The base price of the C63 S gets you the Burmester sound system, multi-adjustable front seats, and big steel brakes. It does not get you a power trunk closer, Distronic radar cruise control, ventilated seats, window shades, the cabin air fragrance system, Parktronic, surround view cameras, or many of the other features you’d expect from a full-boat AMG. It’s possible to spend another twelve grand or so to get that stuff, if you want it.

In the resale-friendly triple black of our test car, the C63 S is not particularly handsome or impressive. You can actually get more visual bang for your buck with a CLA 43, which will come with carbon-fiber dive planes, matte paint, and all sorts of other frippery. Of course, that would be ridiculous because the C63 S is a proper, traditional, rear-wheel drive Benz sedan while the CLA 43 is, well, it’s something else entirely.

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan trunk, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

At 187 inches in length, the C63 S is a reasonable size for two adults with luggage or four adults in a pinch. It’s not meant for that stereotypical two-couples-on-the-superhighway-to-Munich scenario unless the couples in question are built to twentieth-century mittel-European blueprints. A six-foot-two driver and a long-legged five-nine girl in the passenger seat won’t leave much room for anybody behind them.

So what’s it like to drive? The best answer is “curiously anticlimactic.” With the mode switch set to “Sport Plus” or above, the power is always ready to kick the tail out from under you and send you TCS-squeaking to triple digits, the tail wagging gently as the rear calipers clip and clop the wheels into compliance with the available grip on the road. If you leave it in Comfort, you’ll have to floor it, count “one one-thousand, two one-thousand” as the MCT wakes up and gets with the program, then the same thing will happen. Ninety-five percent of the time, however, this car is indistinguishable from the Cheap-classes that surround it on the dealership lot.

The flat-bottomed steering wheel is artificially heavy but short on feel in the current German mode. Road noise was surprisingly high in my rental example … I think it might have had a damaged door seal on the driver side. Brakes are strong and firm, maybe a touch abrupt for people who aren’t used to this kind of swept area in a fixed caliper. A/C and heat are both strong and effective, although the auto-stop function causes the A/C to “die” until the engine restarts when you’re stopped at a light or in traffic. There are three center eyeball vents that are fully adjustable; no other brand on the market offers this much control of your HVAC airflow. The automatic-transmission shifter is, to put it mildly, an acquired taste, but the cruise-control lever is the best in the business, offering quick adjustment in 1-mph or 5-mph intervals.

As a track car … well, I can’t say, actually. My rental of the C63 S took me from the MCO airport to Sebring and back. Although I had some exclusive use of Sebring for another project (check my Instagram if you want to learn more), I didn’t actually drive the C63 S at speed on track. We just used it to move people and equipment around. This is good news, because the Hertz Dream Cars program is chock-full of penalties and drama for people who track the cars or abuse them. In my hands, the AMG never saw speeds over 80 mph.

I do happen to have some C63 S track time, but it’s in the coupe, not the sedan. Which brings me to the final point of this review. If you’re thinking about a C63 S sedan, stop thinking about it and start thinking about the C63 S coupe instead. It’s much more handsome, much more focused, and it can be optioned-up into a reasonable facsimile of a DTM race car. Yes, it’s possible to spend $100k on a C63 S coupe, and there are certainly faster cars to be had for that kind of money. But the coupe has a joie de vivre that the sedan utterly lacks. It even sounds better, mostly because with all four windows down there’s no B-pillar to block the exhaust noise. And in my testing during the R&T PCOTY, it was able to match a BMW M4 GTS around a track while offering a superb, luxurious experience on the road.

If you really must have the sedan, then allow me to suggest a better, more characterful way to spend $70,000 on a four-door forced-induction automatic-transmission commuter: the Charger Hellcat. It’s not really that much faster, but it’s a lot more fun. It also has a true sense of its own identity. The C63 S sedan can’t claim the same thing. Is it an old-school successor to the AMG Hammer? Is it the compact sport sedan to end all compact sport sedans? Or is it just the most expensive Cheap-class out there? Until Mercedes-Benz figures out the answer to that question, you’ll want to leave this one in the rental lot where it belongs.

2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan doors open, lighting at night, Image: © 2017 Jack Baruth

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

128 Comments on “Rental Review: 2017 Mercedes-AMG C63 S Sedan...”


  • avatar
    Demon Something

    God, those red lights are awful. Utterly undignified.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    VoGo has been banned. —mods

  • avatar
    VoGo

    I drove a basic C300 last weekend. The interior is decent, but I found the car noisy, the I-4 unrefined, and the entire package boring and too tight. The usual concerns about getting a 4 cylinder and pleather seats for $50K seem appropriate here.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    A hellcat ??? yeah I would want that over this, at every stop light I would have every wanna be racer asking me to race, no thanks, I will take the stealth benz instead and hope that MB quality is a bit over FCA.

    • 0 avatar
      EMedPA

      Given Jack’s report of a cranky transmission at under 7500 miles, Seth, I’d say that’s a pretty vain hope.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I’d take the HellCat. I wouldn’t want to have to trailer the Benz over 300 miles to get to the closest dealership. If you are going to buy a vehicle with questionable durability, might as well get the one with the most service centres.

  • avatar
    Nick 2012

    I’m glad Lexus still has naturally aspirated quad-cam V8s available for purchase. I’d strongly consider one of those before anything with a boosted engine, even if it means I have to waive bye-bye to a C63 at a set of lights.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Clarkson did one of those Lexuses on The Grand Tour episode I was watching the other day. He was in agreement but noted you give up some other stuff (ergonomics, modern infotainment, etc). I haven’t driven either.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      …or wave good by yo anything in the $80,000 range that Lexus is in. It is the slowest and really doesnt compete in the 500 horsepower club.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    “Mercedes-Benz genuinely understands how to build a strong planetary-gear transmission; they’re one of the few manufacturers who can engineer one from scratch and have it not fall apart in heavy-duty use.”

    A conversation some time ago in Stuttgart:

    “You know that thing we do really well?”

    “Oh you mean automatic transmissions that are just about the most reliable thing about the car?”

    “Yea. We’re not making any out of warranty repair money off of that. Let’s stop doing it.”

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      Shortly before that conversation,

      Dieter: “Hans! I ze grosse idea on how ve can save money on ze IMS und charge ze customer ven ze motor goes kersplatten!”

      Hans: “How iz zat, Dieter?”

      Dieter: “Redoose ze bearings from zwei to eins!”

      Hans: “You are ein genius!”

      Later that day…

      “Goodbye Hans! I have just been offered ze screwinourcustomeren job mit Benz”

  • avatar
    ajla

    When is someone putting you in a Quadrifoglio? The Charger is fun but I feel like it plays in a different genre than the C63’s competitive set.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I don’t understand why manufacturers are trying to leave the torque converter behind. It works phenomenally, and any notion of slush can be programmed out with an aggressive lockup schedule. There’s no way to justify this when all the auto transmissions strapped to the 20% more powerful LT4 have regular old torque converters. The automatic transmission has truly come of age.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Well you know these fancy new transmissions get 0.1 better MPG in the EPA cycle… and 0.00000000000001 in the real world.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Since when does the real world count?

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        I know this kind of stuff is cute to say, but new transmissions actually do get better real world gas mileage. 335i got a solid 2-3 MPG real world bump going from the ZF6 to ZF8:

        http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/335i

        Current CVT Maxima gets similar gas mileage to the 15-20 yr old 4AT versions despite literally making 50% more power and weighing more:

        http://www.fuelly.com/car/nissan/maxima

        Similar situations across the board. So transmissions definitely have been a point of demonstrable efficiency improvements. However moving from torque converters to clutches like this has been a mixed bag with no practical benefit.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          Modern autos do better than the old 3 and 4 speed units for sure. I think people just wonder if we are at a point of diminishing returns. I have the 6 in my F150 and it seems to fit it well. I do wonder if a 10 speed will make an appreciable difference. The 6 has been a durable design though and so long as the 10 is as well then why not. Modern electronics can manage the gears well.

          But it is a truck. I still prefer the dual clutch in anything not a truck but I grew up driving manuals and they feel closer to that end of the spectrum versus a true auto. Honestly though I wouldn’t rule either out. I have driven CVTs that fit the car nicely as well.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Perhaps, but a properly done dual clutch set up feels better to me. Properly done being the key.

    • 0 avatar
      DirtRoads

      Prolly ’cause they can sell you parts later. When was the last time you had to replace the torque converter on anything, other than to raise the stall speed because … headers/cam etc?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Maybe not the TC, but I have had plenty of parts fail on modern conventional automatics. The A443 in my Land Cruiser…bombproof, except for those 250 dollar a piece servos (yeah, not truly modern but still). I know plenty of folks that have had other parts fail on newer models. We aren’t talking about a TH400 or C6 here. Plenty of little things go bad that require digging into the trans. I would say the torque convertor is one of the less likely components to fail.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I did have a TC failure once…on a C4 that had “higher than stock” hp going through it. It was repaired which resulted in the 8 inch rear diff blowing apart.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        A car like this, if it proves to be unreliable and problematic, will be in the scrap heap well before its 10th birthday. Planned obsolescence has reached a fever pitch; the Germans build luxury cars just well enough now to last through the warranty period (if that)

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          If it is garbage, sure. But the average age of cars on the road keeps creeping up and by all accounts cars last longer than ever. Yes, cars like this seem to be more difficult (or expensive) to keep going though but If Id bet on getting 10 years out of this easier than something from the back in the day. Even our old Corolla that I grew up in was slap worn out at 9 years and was well on its way to rusting back to mother Earth at that point. Contrast that with our 07 Tucson we just traded at the 10 year mark and it was still reliable and not rusted in spite of numerous upstate NY winters. All it ever got was brakes, timing belts (and water pump at the same time), and a battery. It did need a little front end work but I would have not hesitated to drive it anywhere. My wife just wanted something a little larger and modern.

          • 0 avatar
            EMedPA

            You’re right about the average age of the automotive fleet, Big Al, but based on my completely unscientific survey of what I see on the roads, there isn’t a lot of older German iron left out there. Even the Mark IV Golfs and Jettas are rare on the ground these days.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I doubt that the target demographic for this car is going beyond a 36 month ownership cycle.

      • 0 avatar
        SP

        Hmm, TC replacements in my past include 2004, 2006, and 2010. (All accompanied by full transmission rebuilds.) I guess you could see a trend in that it’s been a while, though the number of data points is small.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick 2012

      I adore the 8-speed ZF gearbox in my whip. It is much smoother around town than the DSG-equipped Jetta TDI I’m beating on until it gets turned into scrap.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      nobody has been able to adequately explain or demonstrate to me how torque converters are “slushy.” we’re not dealing with compressible gas flow here, the fluid will go where the pump pushes it. plus you get the torque multiplication via the stator. Torque converters are far more complex than a simple fluid coupling.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        Up until ~10 or so years ago torque converters could be pretty lackadaisical about locking up, even at speed. American cars were the worst at this. Things have tightened up a good bit though. Even current CVTs feel “tight”.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        The last time I thought of a torque converter automatic as “slushy” was watching a Dynaflow Buick pull out of a parking spot at a classic car show.

        • 0 avatar
          rpn453

          To me, “slushy” always seemed like an apt description of the feeling of engine speed not being directly proportional to vehicle speed in a particular gear as you adjust the throttle. As a teen, it was easy to imagine the torque converter spinning at idle in a fluid bath without producing any real motion, just like the slush machines at convenience stores.

          I actually consider the torque converter to be a benefit over a manual transmission when starting from rest, especially during a hard launch, and even more so on AWD vehicles where you can’t just drop the clutch and modulate wheelspin. It’s not even fun to launch those things as fast as possible on a grippy surface because it feels like you’re taking significant life out of the drivetrain every time. With a torque converter, it feels like the car enjoys the process.

          I find the torque converter effect to be perfectly acceptable on a well-designed automatic transmission, and often overshadowed by the laggy programming of the accelerator pedal and gear selection on modern throttle-by-wire vehicles anyway. Vehicles with fully mechanical throttles and automatic transmissions would typically react instantly to throttle inputs, and give you the lowest possible gear by the time you’ve reached the end of accelerator pedal travel.

          I would be hesitant to buy any vehicle with an automatic transmission that doesn’t have a torque converter. I don’t trust them yet. But I wouldn’t entirely rule one out if it could make it through an extensive test drive without annoying me too much.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I can’t fathom the price of this – 96% the reason for which is the AMG factory applied badges, and most importantly, that 6.2-liter V8.

    Even though that V8 is great, it’s not remotely compelling enough a reason to price this into nosebleed territory (anywhere near 70 large for a large compact-to-small-midsize-sedan with some inherent cheapness and a dimwitted and self-grenading auto transmission is nosebleed territory, and I don’t give a flying sh*t if The Lord personally opened his/her checkbook and bought this Mercedeeeeez-Bennnnzzzz for Janis Joplin).

    Cheap-ish looking interior for anything over remotely near this price – check.
    Handles like a pig around bends and corners – check
    That now infamous syrupy, gloppy steering feel – check
    Idiotic transmission programming and even hard-parts construction – check
    A future, projected reliability record from the pits of Hades – check

    They put a glorious motor in a vessel that can’t reasonably or reliably use 1/2 its potential.

    This sedan has no real purpose or place in this world when better all-around sedans can be had for 60% of the price when nee, and 35% of the price when considering reliability issues, maintenance costs (hello $120 oil changes and $1,400 brake jobs) and depreciation.

    AMG has lost its way, even considering that its prior way was overkill in power (others have caught up at a fraction of the price) and a lack of practicality (others now are more practical), and lack of handling prowess (other similarly powered sedans and coupes have far surpassed AMG in this regard, again, at a discount and with the bonus of better reliability).

  • avatar

    I was thinking about the past gen c63. How was that ? Its now a 40 k ish used buy.

    It is the same pursuit of .01 mpg that got us electric video game steering

  • avatar
    Jean-Pierre Sarti

    let’s face it, the great badges of yesteryear are dead and buried for the most part. i have tuned them out as a result and quite caring.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Seventy-four thousand? For that, you can get a Laguna Seca Blue 330i xDrive wagon with all M Performance boxes checked!

    http://bit.ly/2kHUbKH

    (I’m not saying that’s a better deal—it’s a far, far worse one—but it is possible.)

    I’m wondering what that blank button on the door panel is for?

  • avatar
    chiefmonkey

    The truth stings like a bee, but here it is: Every car Mercedes currently makes is ugly!

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    In front of the seat warmer button…Is that a blank off plate? On a 74,000 dollar car? I would expect better at that price point. Course then again I guess the Germans perfected the “remind you you cheated out on something bit but still.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    Guys ,AMG/ BMW M aren’t modification houses anymore.

    They’re badge engineering departments for squeezing more marginal profit out of gullible rich folks with enthusiast aspirations.

    Frankly ,a loaded Denali pickup sends the same social message to the Joneses and is multiples more practical- and it might actually still run after the warranty expires.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Your argument would be cogent if an AMG or M-BMW designation amounted to a trim package, like a Denali. It amounts to a lot more than that.

      • 0 avatar
        hubcap

        I think what LS1Fan is saying is that there are plenty of buyers who aren’t really interested in the increased performance, but do want to be seen in the top of the range car.

        I think this is one of the reasons for the existence of the C43 AMG and its contemporaries in other vehicle classes.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      “Guys ,AMG/ BMW M aren’t modification houses anymore.”

      And they haven’t been, for decades. You’re very late to the party.

      “They’re badge engineering departments for squeezing more marginal profit out of gullible rich folks with enthusiast aspirations.”

      And what’s wrong with squeezing more profit out of the rich?

      “Frankly ,a loaded Denali pickup sends the same social message to the Joneses and is multiples more practical- and it might actually still run after the warranty expires.”

      Theres so much to unpack here, it’s almost overwhelming.

      For starters, why dump on AMG/M for existing solely to juice profits out of “gullible rich folks” and then suggest a DENALI? What does a Denali do that a loaded Silverado won’t for less?

      Two, practical by what metrics? I’ve never needed to tow anything in nearly 20 years of driving. My Civic or my wife’s Rabbit do fine on most Lowe’s runs, and if we need more we borrow MIL’s minivan or rent/get stuff delivered. For me this is less practical. A crew cab truck won’t fit in my garage and will generally be a PITA to park. It’s gonna guzzle gas. I’ll have to spend more to get a bed cover. Etc.

      Three, when is the last time you ever heard someone cross shopping an AMG/M car with a freaking pickup truck? Are you kidding me man.

      These things offer a unique proposition and by extension good value…. high performance in a practical package. Something you don’t get from a DENALI

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “… being the top-spec sedan version of a car that is surprisingly decent even in its poverty-spec, MB-Tex-equipped four-cylinder form.”

    This. The C-class is a damn fine entry luxury car – far better than the CLA, which costs less in theory, but in practice is optioned up to C-class money about 99.3% of the time.

    The better buy may be the C43. With the Designo interior it’s around $60,000.

    Best interior in class, by a wide margin, and one of the best interiors you can buy, period.

    And, yeah, you can theoretically get a Hellcat for the same money, but you’ll be saddled with that crappy FCA interior. And is the Hellcat’s performance really accessible on the street? I haven’t driven one, but I think we know the answer to that one.

    I’d take the C43.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I think I’d prefer the “normal” C63 in Ace of Base trim for $65K.

      Under $60K I’d be going G80 V8 or something with a Lexus badge.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Let me raise my hand for the for the Hellcat.

      *raises both hands and toots a vuvuzela*

      Haven’t driven one nor a C43 but have driven an SRT Charger and even though it’s kinda heavy it’s a fun car to drive. I’m sure the HC takes that up a few notches.

      Compared to to the 63, I dunno. Butt in seat time would tell the tale.

      I’m one of these guys that likes to get what I want while spending only what I absolutely need to so I do a lot of comparing and contrasting. I’ve always felt that Audi has nice interior design and usually screws them together well. If a more opulent interior was a deciding factor I’d take an A6 in a heartbeat.

      But compared to a C43, I’ll take a Golf R and pocket the difference.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Keep all the AMG, high-power stuff because I won’t ever go near any race track.

    Just gimme a simple E-Class pillarless coupe and I’ll be a very happy man, cruising along all day in the north Cincinnati suburbs!

  • avatar
    319583076

    The future has arrived and everybody hates it. Instead they pine for the good old days that never actually were. Take a look in the mirror because the problem isn’t the world, it’s you.

  • avatar
    dingram01

    OK, I can’t take it anymore. Jack, of all people, “characterful?” Not once, but twice??

    Business schools may do a lot of things well, but they have been murder on the English language. Allow me to illustrate with examples in all caps: “This will IMPACT the bottom line. It’s IMPACTFUL! It’s a CHARACTERFUL way TO DECISION the DIALOG that SPEAKS TO…”

    …oh. Pardon me. I just reflexively threw up. Yes. My desk is now vomitful. Where is my paper towel so that I can make it cleanful?

    Jack, this is your first (known) offense. Next offense carries the penalty of having to include the phrase “it doesn’t get better than that” in your next review. Third offense? I’m going to come to your house and…live there….

    Final point: Hey car designers! Enough with the fake brushed aluminum. It’s ugliful.

  • avatar
    W126

    I thought this car would be awesome, but this review indicates otherwise. I was thinking this would be my next car, but I haven’t test driven it yet. Two things I find off-putting are the stupid, dinky column shifter and the trashy looking glued on faux Ipad on the dashboard. Sadly these features are becoming prevalent. I guess a mouse device on the center console takes precedence over a shifter in modern cars. Looks like they didn’t put the DCT transmission in it because then it would increase performance and cannibalize sales of the AMG GT. Here’s hoping we’ll have some good options when the next M3, M5, and mid engine Corvette come out. Or maybe it’s time to put six figures toward a new 911 GTS.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • StudeDude: I agree with you regarding the effects dirty coolant might have. Which brings me to ask how an engine with...
  • JMII: I think all these luxury / high end SUVs has increased their overall brand awareness. Before people with money...
  • MorrisGray: I like to buy new cars whether my income is $30k or $60k, but I tend to keep them for a while like the...
  • 1500cc: “quick perusal” is an oxymoron /pedant
  • jkross22: To TTAC censors, I apologize in advance. Hey Debbie, go eff yourself. You and the other street walkers...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States