Quote:
Originally Posted by clar
I know what AMG has done with the C63 is nothing short of fireworks stuffs, but whenever i think of the 6.3 litre capacity, the awesomeness dwindles a little. I know some say AMG "chose" a different path. They have always chosen a different path to M and never quite managing to match. They had to go all the way to 6.3 to better the M3 in the straights. I have not driven the AMG and prob will like it if i do, but as an arm chair critic, the S65's sophistication and cutting edge tech takes the cake for me. I don't give a rat's ass whether it's made by hand or machine. I will take a machine made marvel of an engine over a handmade piece of crap any day of the week including weekends and holidays. (not saying the 6.3 is crappy)
|
AMG engines are large in displacement as the aim is large torque. That only comes from displacement or FI. The S65 isn't about huge torque at any RPM. I actually do believe it is just a different direction for the engines. No doubt the S65 is a sophisticated engine and is a marvel. So is the AMG. The AMG engine is as bullet proof as the S65. The engine revs as freely. The difference is redline and displacement. The S65 needs a high red line to develop its power due to smaller displacement. The AMG engine doesn't need as high of a redline (although it is still relatively high regardless) due to its displacement. Both are very technical, very capable and very well regarded power plants.
Saying that you take pride in the sophistication of the S65 is no different than someone taking pride in the AMG being built to some extent by hand (or at least moreso than other engines). Bottom line is they BOTH perform exceptionally well and which engine someone likes comes down to a few things... 1) personal preference to approach (redline/displacement), 2) whether you prefer big torque or high rev racing feel, 3) whether you are blinded by either BMW or MB marketing and are a fanboy of one or the other.