@mortensenvick5711 Yeah we know ... and Still You ain't 💩 Boy stop .. it's a shame a 10 year old car can still take you ... Bro you ain't that fast Homie ... talking like you're Porsche twin turbo speed 😆 and the S in AMG S stands for So 😆 🤣
Just bought a 2012 E63, love that back end stepping out when I want it to. It sounds and drives amazingly well, it is a huge step up over my E55, which I loved.
+Kevin Metz Yes, 2005 with DynoComp headers, ECU upgrade and some other goodies. Great car, I was lucky enough to put about 70,000 miles on it, ran a few tracks like Road Atlanta. So much fun.
First of all, people buying this car will most likely not be doing burnouts and drifts with it. At least the majority of the people who will get it. Second, AWD is more safe and faster, but also Stronger than rear wheel or 2 wheel drive. Especially when it comes to the colder parts of Europe or the rainier parts of europe, or anywhere else. So it's actually a good thing that these cars are getting AWD. I live in Sweden and you NEED AWD to be able to have safe travels in the winter. I welcome it! You can manage without, but it feels much more safe with an AWD. Especially if you have a heavy 4 door sedan, and probably a family.
RWD in winter is the best option. Just put two, three 100 lb. sand bags in the trunk for traction! If you get stuck on ice, open one of the bags and place sand on the sides that are spinning.
No doubt awd is better for winter, all things considered. WAY better than any RWD. But you gotta realize this awd system is not for winter, its very rear biased and likely on summer tires so it's really just for launches and sport driving.
Mr. TAMW what? I literally said top speed not acceleration and the scat pack does 0-60 in 4.2 (used a scat pack on the street with regular tires) so I am almost certain that “4.5” average is incorrect
It will. We never thought an SUV would hit 0-60 in the 4 secs until the Posrche and Mercedes came out with one. This car is a new frontier and will set standards for newer vehicle.
Yes, the GTR is truly an amazing car. The engine is hand built by one man just like the AMG engines. The new 2014 E63S comes close at 3.2 0-60 but all the luxury component weigh it down. If you ever are in the market for a good convertible though look at a 3-5 year old SL, good price, little depreciation, great quality and fun to drive when you aren't going 175. My big worry with the GTR is going to Jail for speeding.
I just wish cars where not reviewed for how you can powder slide a turn or how they preform on a track. How about how they perform in real life, like on normal roads? I can never find real life reviews on cars like these and end up having to drive them to see if they fit in my real life. Not just my track life.
What you don't understand is that the E63 has AWD, which makes a huge difference when measuring 0-60. 0-60 is a measurement of traction, not power. The CTS-V has 551 lb-ft of torque going to the rear wheels, you can spin the wheels all the way THROUGH 60 MPH, leaving a huge smoky cloud in your wake. Despite that, it still does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. When you remove traction from the equation, the CTS-V does 0-60 faster than the E63. Why? Torque and weight. Let's see if you can understand that.
Wow, the first hands on drive video review of the E63 and all people do is whine whine whine. GREAT review Basem - this is your best so far that I've seen.
Great review, absolutely love the car, and intend to get the wagon version. Best sleeper on the planet. I also really enjoyed Mr. Wasef's review; don't know why there is all this hate... Keep it up!
I take issue with the statement that Americans can't build cars. I am American and I work for Mercedes Benz in the US. We build ML, GL and R Class cars that are well made and sell worldwide. These cars are all American built. They are German engineered. American built. The E63 AMG is a great car.
what kind of a reviw is this? We got it the first 10 times you said it, it's tail happy, ok, what about the creature comforts? How is it as a daily driver?
Mercedes AMG is always conservative about their performance numbers so if they say 3.5 sec 0-60 then it's probably at least 2-3 tenths faster.. those are sub- 458 and SLS numbers in a stock Sedan, crazy. Catch up time for BMW once again...
There is a saying that 'If you take care of the car then the car will take care of you' My BMW has been reliable since when I bought it because I treat it with respect except for maintenance every year.
100% agree, and the E class has pedigree, history too. Its not a marketing experiment to try to give Caddy a sporty reputation, the AMG E class cars already have that reputation.
Idk why people have so much disbelief because look at the R35, that's a damn near 2 ton car with 545hp and AWD and it takes 2.8sec to get to 60 and a high 10 sec 1/4. Mind you this car weighs almost 4,000lbs. Theres not a doubt in my mind that this thing can do the claimed numbers.
This is the perfect AMG sedan. Power no longer evaporates in smoke but rather catapults the car forward once and again whilst drifting whenever you want to. Nice review but you outta improve your drifting skills, js.
That's funny. Real funny. Because the majority of car journalists say that Cadillac is a definite alternative to the comparable Mercedes and BMW, so much in fact, that the new ATS has been recommended over cars such as the BMW 3 Series and the Mercedes C class. And that's only the start of Cadillac, wait for the new CTS, and upcoming flagship. Oh yeah, and Tesla. They basically make the best car in the world.
Turns out they had to downplay the actual power of the engine - I've got a RWD one and stuck it on the dyno (stock ) and it had 630hp and 850nm after it had over 35k miles on it. The best part is how good the ride quality it, it's sublime
0-60 is a function of traction. AWD gets you faster 0-60 times, even if the car is slower. The CTS-V can easily pull off low 3-second 0-60 times if it has drag slicks on it.
Actually, I'd say that the new frontier was pioneered by the new Audi RS6, which was the first estate from the three major germans to do 0-62mph in under 4.0 seconds. I am not saying that this car will not do 0-60mph in the 3 bracket, just that other cars before can also do it.
when its classed as a total revamp, yes there is. Look at companies like range rover, audi, jaguar, especially BMW, and see the monumental changes they are making to their cars (for the better)
this car does not have a single clutch gearbox, but a conventional automatic transmission with a torque converter! big difference.. though it matches a mercedes much better than let's say a m5 - despite the fact it is the 'sports-version' of the e-class.
I didn't say the handling was bad, I said it was WORSE. Because it is. The CTS-V is sharper, it has better chassis tuning, better suspension, sharper steering, better responsiveness. You would know that if you had actually driven one, which you haven't. Mercedes are squishier, they're more for poseurs and less for real driving enthusiasts. You buy a Mercedes if you care about what other people think of you, not because you love driving. You want to drive, you buy the driver's car, the CTS-V.
Thanks for the info, i understand what you mean. So if the above machine also had drag slicks on it, would it beat once again? im just impressed , awd is heavier but merc pulled it off with balancing the weight and im guessing some systems ...
I'm not sold on the handling entirely because the car keeps crossing the center line of the road in the hands of a professional. LOL (recall or driver training?) Great Video guys, love the car. How much room does it have in the interior; are you 6' tall Basem? Thanks again.
Who said anything about driving around town with drag slicks on? The point I was making is that you can't use 0-60 times as a measurement of performance. Cars with AWD will always get better 0-60 times because of superior traction. Traction has absolutely nothing to do with how fast a car is. In the real world, the E63 is not any faster than the CTS-V, and it doesn't handle any better either. It does cost over $40k more though.
Yes, the original 2008 GT-R does 0-60 in 3.2secs with launch control enabled. So yeah, same territory. But the new 2013/2014 GT-R models do 0-60 in 2.7secs!
I knew you would say that, everyone on the internet can just claim that they have or have not done something. I find it hard to believe that you have driven a CTS-V, a C-class AMG, an M3 and/or an RS4 on the limit and then thought the CTS-V was the better car.
You completely missed the point. AWD is only a benefit from a STOP. Does AWD help you if you're already going 45 MPH? No. ANd I didn't say the E63 wasn't faster 0-60, I said 0-60 is a measurement of traction, not performance. That's because it is. Do you think an E63 is going to win from a roll, when traction isn't a factor? If your definition of "faster" is "only from a stop", you're going to need to rethink that definition. And who said anything about a Veyron? Oh, you did.
MRC is one thing it has over the Germans, but it's a lot more than that. The V's steering is better, the ride is better, the handling is better, the chassis is better, the brakes are better. I would want a manual transmission regardless of cost, even if I bought an M5 I'd want a manual. Have you ever sat in a CTS-V? It's all leather and wood in there, with alcantara on the steering wheel. The V is not a Camaro, and you should probably understand that.
How am I wrong? MT says it does 0-60 in 4 seconds. The CTS-V does it in 3.9. The C63 does 12.4 @ 114.8, the CTS-V does 12 flat @ 119. You may be biased against the CTS-V, but the C63 is NOT faster. Not even close. Hell, people have even gotten high 11s in CTS-Vs, completely bone stock on stock tires. Try to remember that the C63 is a little bit lighter than the CTS-V, but it's down 75 HP and a staggering 108 lb-ft of torque compared to the V. In a head to head race, the CTS-V eats it alive.
Getting 'all Audi' with all wheel drive, like 'countless lambotghinis'?!! Name one of the countless lambotghinis that were 4 wheel drive before Audi took over
What makes you think I haven't driven German cars? Also the IS-F is a luxury sport sedan, the Camaro is a 2-door sports car. Completely different genres, so why are you comparing them directly? Have you ever driven a CTS-V? You haven't experienced smooth and precise yet. Everybody agrees that the CTS-V has better steering, better handling and better driving feel than the M5 does.
Because it has AWD. The CTS-V does it in 3.9 seconds with 551 lb-ft of torque going to just the rear wheels, tires exploding in smoke the whole way. Seriously, what are you people not getting about the fact that 0-60 only shows you how much traction you have? It has nothing to do with how fast the car is. When you put drag slicks on a CTS-V to eliminate the traction problem, it does 3.5 seconds easy. 0-60 is about traction, not speed.
@Vernon Price I'm the new manager of GM's Internet marketing team. I'm paying you $5000 for the excellent comments you've written. Now everyone will think that Mercedes and Ford muscle cars are crap, thanks to you.congratulations and I thank you once again for your tremendous effort.
