Comments on: AMG to go green but stay mean

By: Z06ified

Z06ified — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:42:59 +0000

Yeah, this will be just as Green as a Prius. Give me a break! What exactly is “green” about this? Smaller displacement doesn’t automatically mean better fuel economy and lower emissions. Another car for the hypocrits.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:09:07 +0000

About the 6.2 L thing giving a nod to history. I think Ford did the same thing in the 80′s/90′s with the 5 L Mustangs that were really 4.9′s. (An engine that, in the early 80′s, was struggling to crank out 140hp!)

By: AMGoff

AMGoff — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:45:25 +0000

And if they really wanted to be “green” they’d save some resources and just recycle some of their old designs… MB used to make some truly handsome cars, but they’re new styling direction has made most of their models too plump and too ugly… dare I say – even worse than a Bangle BMW…

By: AMGoff

AMGoff — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:43:12 +0000

Hopefully they’ll stop their long standing tradition of over-estimating their models… it always bugged me when they’d name something a “63″ when it only had a 6.2L engine…

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:42:09 +0000

Diesels would be really awesome, something similar to what Audi has done.

But otherwise, same as what everyone else has asked. Sooner or later, they’ll begin rationing our purchases, just like they’ve already done with rice up here (because of “high demand”)

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:35:51 +0000

How green is 4.0L turbo V8 gonna be? 13 city 20 hwy?

By: K-Factor

K-Factor — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:24:12 +0000

Saving upto 65% of fuel (claimed by FlybridSystems) seems to be a good deal keeping in mind the performance results from the 700HP V-shaped engine.

By: swamprat

swamprat — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:11:17 +0000

Green is retarded.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:22:13 +0000

Everything that is old is new again… turbocharging was all the rage in the late eighties/early nineties as a cheap and quick way to make power. Witness the Chrysler 2.2 liter turbo engines. Turbos then began getting a bad name for engine wear, turbos seizing, oil sludge, bad lag, etc..

Now, engines are virtually lag-free and packed with synthetics. So now who turbos? Acura, BMW, Volvo, Saab, Chevy, Audi/VW, Porsche, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Pontiac and on and on…

By: 928dreamer

928dreamer — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:57:03 +0000

Noooooo………Don’t ditch the 6.2L V8. That is a phenomenal engine. Get rid of those overly complicated twin turbo V12′s and give us a twin turbo 6.2 V8. I am guessing that could put down some serious power.

Green, HA yeah right.

By: stang67

stang67 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:18:00 +0000

I will miss the 6.2 AMG, beautiful motor. are turbos and superchargers good for daily driving. I thought they wear engines out faster due to stress

By: LuckyLou

LuckyLou — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:47:55 +0000

“Green” has just become a retarded marketing tool…so many companies/corporations across the spectrum are entirely full of sh*t these days…it’s the devil’s way now.

By: nitehawk

nitehawk — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:55:29 +0000

LOL ^ agreed…700 HP “GREEN”. thats a little contradictory…

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:01:58 +0000

Oh yeah, a lean, green f*cking 700 horsepower machine. Green compared to what- a Mack truck? Give me a break.

By: Rafa LL

Rafa LL — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:42:45 +0000

Yes it is. And are the big changes that dictates Companies future.
Think they’ll do fine.

By: TOZO

TOZO — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:37:45 +0000

Back to the C32 AMG before we know it? Because it’s a big change going from 62 to 32.