Consider that the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG is nowhere near as quick as the 2010 Porsche Panamera Turbo and you might be disappointed. With four doors and a power figure beginning with the number five, the E63 should be capable of a toe-to-toe showdown with the sedan from Stuttgart, right? But it's not even close, because the Porsche is 0.7 second quicker in the quarter-mile and embarrasses the Benz to 60 mph by a merciless 1.1 seconds.
Porschephiles, however, would do well to rethink their number-loving zealotry for a moment. The Panamera is certainly impressive, but it will never cover itself in glory by means of a big, honkin' powerslide or even a measly burnout — ever. The Porsche, in all its stiff-collared precision, is to tire smoking what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is to jokes about inflation.
The big Benz, however, is happy to oblige with both powerslides and burnouts. In fact, tire smoking is an AMG specialty, a dynamic ability in brilliant contrast to the otherwise civilized Mercedes-Benz ethos. Accordingly, the E63 will smoke its tires with enough grace to make you forget all about the whipping you'll take on the Internet's numerous bench-racing forums about the Panamera's edge in speed. Plus the E63 AMG is also about $45,000 less costly than the Porsche and it doesn't look like an overstuffed 911, both big perks in the ass-hauling-sedan-for-grown-ups market.
For these reasons and many more, the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG can never be called a disappointment.
What You Get
First of all you get the legacy of four-door speed that is part of the AMG birthright, something that can be traced through the previous-generation E63 AMG, the E55 AMG and the 500E-based E60 AMG before that and dates back all the way to the 1986 AMG Hammer — the machine that is largely responsible for this whole fast sedan thing in the first place. That the Mercedes is comfortable here is an understatement. That it's more comfortable than a Porsche? Well, that's obvious.
The defining component that ties all of the above sedans together is a big, honest V8 power plant under the hood. In the case of the current E63 it's the same AMG-built, DOHC 6.2-liter V8 used in the previous-generation E63. Here, however, a new alternator and low-friction coating for the cylinder walls help pump up power output from 507 horsepower to 518 hp at 6,800 rpm. Torque is rated at 465 pound-feet at 5,200 rpm.
The big change, however, is the elimination of the torque converter in the Benz's transmission. For 2010 the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG assumes use of the seven-speed automatic from the SL63, which features a conventional clutch pack in an oil bath to perform very smooth shifts in just 100 milliseconds, and it proves more responsive (not to mention more lightweight) than a traditional automatic with a torque converter.
With well-managed power, dead-flat cornering and rear-drive character, the 2010 E63 AMG is, well, fun.
Further updates have been made to the E63's suspension. In place of the air spring suspension at all four corners, the 2010 E63 has traditional coil springs up front and retains the air springs only in the rear. A track that is 2.2 inches wider accommodates both a wider tire and a redesigned hub carrier that provides more negative camber and thus more cornering grip.
It Works
All these changes transform the Mercedes E-Class. We found in the 2010 AMG E63 the same dynamic character that is rapidly seeping into every AMG product. This is a large sedan with genuinely stellar handling; it asks to be driven and is supremely engaging in the act. And it's far more than the above changes might lead you to believe.
The details include a quick 14:1 steering ratio, making the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG far livelier than its E-Class brethren. Some 11 sensors also monitor everything from steering angle to ride height. Three-stage damping control and a Sport mode that loosens the stability control's hold on the car's dynamics also go a long way into helping this sophisticated, carefully managed chassis get in sync with the intentions of its driver.
We felt it first on a narrow mountain road where we had also driven the previous-generation E63. Truthfully, any sort of E-Class is too big for this road. It's a place where Mazda's MX-5 is at home and anything larger than a Porsche 911 is an exercise in frustration. This was largely the case with the previous E63 AMG, which wasn't hard to control, but also wasn't fun. Now, however, we are having fun as the new E63 AMG seems to shrink around us, delivering precise, positively awesome steering matched with remarkable chassis control and, of course, oceans of power.
Big cars don't work like this. The only other exception is the Panamera, which is unnervingly fast on any road. But it's also sterile, and this Benz is not. With well-managed power delivery, a dead-flat cornering attitude and textbook rear-drive character, the 2010 E63 AMG is, well, fun. You can credit the AMG engineers, who clearly understand the chassis dynamics that are required when you're driving hard.
Makes the Numbers
Among the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG's many intelligently refocused components is the transmission, which is perfectly suited to the multifaceted role it must play in a car as fast yet comfortable as this one. There are four shift modes (C, S, S+ and Manual), which can be selected by a knob at the front of the center console. Each provides progressively quicker shifts and more aggressive throttle response. (Actually, S+ and Manual mode offer the same performance, but in Manual mode the driver must undertake the shifting duties via the shift paddles on the steering wheel.)
The transmission control knob also incorporates a position labeled RS, for "Race Start." It's the mode we used to record a 12.7-second pass through the quarter-mile at 112.4 mph. The mark of 60 mph arrives in 4.6 seconds from a standstill (4.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip).
We suspect that most E63 owners will only bother with the launch control routine as a "hey, watch this!" feature for interested passengers since it's fairly cumbersome to activate. With the appropriate stability and transmission modes selected, the driver must confirm "Race Start" mode by first tapping the upshift paddle and then flooring the throttle. The engine then revs to 4,000 rpm and it's a matter of releasing the brake pedal to set things in motion.
The clutch pack then feeds power to the rear wheels at an optimized rate. We were able to record a quarter-mile time only a few hundredths of a second slower than the launch control by simply wooding the throttle in the start-up default settings — including fully engaged traction control. In other words, there's not a lot of thinking required to achieve optimum performance from this car — something we've always appreciated about AMG sedans in general.
The tranny's manual mode will hold gears on command to the redline without producing any unplanned upshifts. Downshifts are accompanied by an accurate rev-matched blip of the throttle. And when you don't want to think about shifting, the seven-speed transmission will neatly transform itself into something that will deliver the creamy-smooth shifts demanded by guys who prefer land yachts, not performance sedans.
Stopping from 60 mph requires 114 feet and feels utterly effortless, a function of 14.2-inch rotors, six-piston calipers in front and four-piston calipers in the rear.
Big, Wonderful Rear-Wheel Drive
It was no surprise when our impressions of the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63's handling ability were verified by a run through the slalom test in 68.8 mph, a performance almost identical to the last BMW M5 we tested, which managed 68.9 mph.
Never before have we wanted so badly to leave crossed-up black marks around the skid pad as we did in the E63. Apply the throttle and dial in the steering at the same time and the E63 rotates around the eight barking cylinders under its hood as predictably as the Earth does around the sun. But because we're trained professionals we didn't do so until after we'd coaxed optimum grip from the car on the skid pad, some 0.90g. Not bad in a 4,341-pound sedan.
And this is without the optional AMG Performance package, which includes a stiffer suspension and a limited-slip differential.
Wrapping It Up
With the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, Mercedes has thought of everything from self-dimming bi-xenon headlights to a soft yet supportive driver seat that has a massage feature. Unfortunately, everything also includes a blind-spot warning that's far too wary and conservative for traffic in a city as dense with traffic as Los Angeles, as we were continually assaulted by audible warnings during routine lane changes. Fortunately, it can be disabled.
Our test car includes $2,800 worth of carbon-fiber trim, a $1,070 panorama sunroof, $2,250 forged-aluminum 19-inch wheels, plus the $2,900 Driver Assist package, which includes adaptive cruise control, autonomous braking and the blind-spot warning feature. This car also has the $4,900 Premium package that bundles the COMAND system with voice activation and the fancy seat and headlamps mentioned earlier.
Tally it up with the $875 destination fee and unavoidable $1,700 gas-guzzler tax and this 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG comes to $102,245. For this sum you get enough space to comfortably move four large adults, enough handling ability to stun many smaller cars and enough power to move your soul.
And though the Porsche Panamera might be quicker, it isn't anywhere near as cool.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
thecubanratio says:
09:36 PM, 01/19/2010
@1487
How about you read both MotorTrend and CarandDriver's articles comparing the E63 to the CTS-V. Both have first-hand experience with both cars (unlike you, me, and the overwhelming majority of us) and both ranked the E63 1st in their comparison tests. Coincidence? I think not.
audirs5 says:
12:57 PM, 01/11/2010
this mb e63 amg can do 0-60mph in 4.6 without rollout and it has 500+hp, if audi S5 uses rollout it can do 0-60mph in 4.6 with only 354 hp.Audi is the power and the FSI,TFSI is the gun.
jan43 says:
05:21 PM, 01/06/2010
This factualy article is very interesting
1487 says:
12:27 PM, 01/04/2010
We are talking about the E63 and a competitor. I dont think anyone is talking about the CTS-V for the sake of mentioning the name repeatedly. Other E63 competitors were mentioned as well. I think its pretty common for key competitors to be mentioned when discussing a new model. Didn't realize that was a violation of policy.
sylvia says:
10:10 AM, 01/04/2010
This artilce is about MB. If you wish to discuss GM or Cadillac, do so in an article ABOUT GM or Cadillac. If you are unable to stay on-topic, you risk losing the ability to post here.
1487 says:
06:32 AM, 01/04/2010
AJT:
I'm a believer in objectivity. If you are not than it would be hard for you to understand my point. The CTS delivers the same or better performance than the E63 for $30k less, thus its the better buy if you are looking for this type of car. I mean really its not even debatable. You can say "I would buy the MB no matter how much more it costs because I don't like Cadillacs" which is IL's stance but on the merits the E63 isnt better. It delivers the same performance of the CTS-V about 2 years later and delivers it for tens of thousands more- that's not a winner.
Mercedes:
Do you have any specific details on the inferiority of the CTS' build quality? Any gaps you compared specifically? You keep making statements that you and I both know cant be quantified but you make them as if they are fact. YOu continue to suggest that the MB is build to a much higher standard but no details are provided. PLEASE enlighten me. Did you compare hood to fender tolerances? Interior panel tolerances? Do tell.
Please dont suggest that I've ever said the E63 isnt a great car. Every $100k sedan is a "great car" so lets not go there. I have said something VERY simple that you continue to talk around- the CTS-V delivers the same performance and 90% of the features for $30k less and thus there is NO reason I would ever get the E63. In fact, unless you are a devoted MB fan there is really is no reason to pay the premium. You are unable to give me objective, quantifiable areas in which an owner would suffer if he chose the CTS-V and saved over 30 grand. Sure he would miss out on having a 3 pointed star on the hood but I don't count that as a compromise.
You are absolutely WRONG about which cars GM benchmarked. From the time the CTS-V was introduced the M5 was mentioned as a target. Bob Lutz said before the 2008 car was introduced that the goal was to beat the M5 in performance. You are implying that the E63 has to cost as much as it does because of the materials and engineering needed to make the car. That is a crock. The car costs that much because its made in Germany and because of exchange rates- it has little to do with the level of engineering prowess required to design the vehicle relative to the CTS-V. IN fact, the car barely outperforms the old one and has the same engine so the idea that its so well engineered and constructed that is has to cost over $100k is absurd.
Again, you are WRONG about which cars are competitors for the CTS. MT JUST did a comparison in which the CTS was compared to the E350, 530, XF, etc. In size and weight its on par with those cars. Its cheaper than most of them (though not much cheaper than Japanese rivals) but its still in that same class in terms of size, hp, features and performance. The CTS is priced IN BETWEEN the small and midsize German cars. It starts at $37k vs about $31l-$32k for the 3 series and C class. It does not fit into the size/price formula established by the Germans so you are wasting time trying to tell me it "only" competes with the C class. Even if its priced like a C class it still delivers E63 performance for $60k so I don't see your point.
AJT123 says:
03:30 PM, 12/31/2009
1487-
Why are you taking it personally that people like the E63 over the Caddy? What's it to you? Why do you care so much? I suppose I could spend hours explaining to people why a Mercedes-Benz is a better car than a Cadillac, but I realize that there are different strokes for different folks.
mercedesfan says:
09:03 AM, 12/31/2009
@1487,
Why do you think I can't give the CTS-V any credit? The only two things I have said that I find issue with are the styling and the ride quality (I only find issue with the build quality in comparison with the E-Class, on its own the CTS-V is a stunner). Styling is purely subjective so I haven't emphasized that point, and I never said ride quality was "punishing", just not quite as good as the Benz. I think the Caddy suspension is more versatile, but the particular CTS-V I drove rode more stiffly than the E63 I drove (also, the CTS-V uses different suspension calibration than other GM models and is intrinsically stiffer so comparisons aren't really possible). Just because my username is what it is doesn't mean I hate the Cadillac and love the E63. If the Cadillac had been more spacious I might have seriously considered it. I truly think it is a great car. I wish you could admit the same about the Benz.
Also, if you are an engineer with experience in the design process you know that cost considerations rule everything. You don't choose competitors based on the size of the product (the marketing department does that), you choose on price. Your product is going to have a particular MSRP (which is a function of raw materials costs, development costs, product lifecycle, maintenance costs, etc) and you need to benchmark other products with a similar MSRP because those are going to be what consumers directly cross-shop. Luxury products distort this understanding a bit, but the basic theory still applies. Does that mean GM didn't also benchmark the E63 and M5. Heck no, the company is smart and benchmarked the performance of those two as well to widen their market, but it is likely that Cadillac will steal more sales form M3 and C63 buyers than it will M5 and E63 buyers. Debate it all you want, but most people outside of enthusiast-realm don't consider the CTS a competitor with the E-Class and 5-Series because of the price difference. People buying the mid-size entrants are typically older business-professionals with little plan of ever "track-daying" their cars and a desire for spaciousness and luxury. CTS-V owners, on the other hand, are like M3 owners: typcially younger, more performance focused, and with plans to drive their cars hard. Besides, Cadillac already has the softer STS-V to compete directly with the E63 and M5 from a price perspective. That is what gave them the freedom to make the CTS-V the precision instrument it is.
1487 says:
06:05 AM, 12/31/2009
"1487: No doubt you have some valid points however I still maintain that the CTS-V should not be mentioned in every article that comes up about a car. I do believe you're a bit bias towards teh CTS-V but that is my opinion and you are more than welcome to disagree with me. I mean its a great car and all but it's irrelevant because this is not a comparison review and that's my point. "
Whether a car is benchmark is a function of the competition. This is a general car review site so I'm perplexed as to why you think its inappropriate to mention the competition. I'm sure the M5 and E63 were mentioned as targets (mostly M5 since it was the best) when the CTS-V was reviewed so there is no reason not to expect the CTS-V and XF-R to be mentioned when establishing the merits of the E63. What a car is "worth" is based on what the car offers and how the competition is priced. I mean we might as well say a camry is worth is $50k if we are just going to act like each car exists in a vacuum with no competition. If you are going to say with confidence the E63 is worth $100k you need to back that up by establishing why its far superior to a car that performs better for $60k. It's that simple.
"Possibly the price issue stems from that new F1-style transmission they put in? Maybe?"
It stems from more profit built into the car. The 2010 model barely outperforms the last gen E63 and the engine only got basic changes to get 11 more hp. The new tranny is noteworthy as are the expensive, optional CC brakes but that's about it. The performance gains over the old model do not justify the price hike and I think the old car looked better.
"With that said, if I had the money to spend on one car that I like best I would buy an E63 or an M5 because I like those best of the midsize performance sedans, I guess partly because i'm German and enjoy the way they drive for me (plus I have previous experience with both brands)."
At least you are honest. I'm not German, have no allegiance to MB or BMW and I don't enjoy being overcharged by 20% just for a badge so it would be CTS-V for me.
hunter312 says:
11:30 PM, 12/30/2009
1487: No doubt you have some valid points however I still maintain that the CTS-V should not be mentioned in every article that comes up about a car. I do believe you're a bit bias towards teh CTS-V but that is my opinion and you are more than welcome to disagree with me. I mean its a great car and all but it's irrelevant because this is not a comparison review and that's my point. Sure the mention of the Panamera should also not have been put in so that is a flaw on the writer's part, but I take this review as purely a review of the Mercedes.
Yes, price is an issue. However, it's tradition I guess. I mean this car stems from the 1986 AMG Hammer based on the 300E which has been featured on the main website as recently as today, and if you look at what it cost to customize that car, well it was even more expensive back then and expensive in general - so in comparison this car is technically a bargain for a Mercedes. Possibly the price issue stems from that new F1-style transmission they put in? Maybe?
In any case the main point, and one that I think that we have all overlooked, is that AMG have once again built a "FUN" Mercedes (mentioned in this article) that has been missing since the 300E and 500E. And I think THAT is the most important point of all. That it's price is not as great as the CTS-V is something I cannot deny, but I still think the car is worth the money. With that said, if I had the money to spend on one car that I like best I would buy an E63 or an M5 because I like those best of the midsize performance sedans, I guess partly because i'm German and enjoy the way they drive for me (plus I have previous experience with both brands). If I had extra money i'd look into a CTS-V (with a manual of course). That is my preference and i'm sure it is probably the other way around for you.