Autocar road test - Mercedes AMG GT R
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/sets/72157683651604015/with/34187002840/
Mercedes-Benz AMG GT R specs
| Car type | Coupe |
| Curb weight | 1554-1650 kg (3426-3638 lbs) |
| Dimensions | 4.55 m (179 in) long, 1.94 m (76 in) wide, 1.29 m (51 in) high |
| Wheelbase | 2.63 m (104 in) |
| Power / weight | 364 ps (359 bhp) / t |
| Torque / weight | 436 Nm (321 lb-ft) / t |
| Introduced | 2017 |
| Origin country | Germany |
| Average fuel consumption | 16.1-14.5 l/100 km (15-16 mpg US / 18-19 mpg UK) |
| Price in Europe | €165,410 - €195,430 |
| Noise @ idle | 53 dB |
| Noise @ 100 kph | 71 dB |
| Noise @ 130 kph | 73 dB |
| Views | 13.6k |
| Submitted by | hostboy |
Performance
| Top speed | 318 kph (198 mph) |
| 0 - 40 kph | 1.3 s |
| 0 - 50 kph | 1.4 s |
| 0 - 100 kph | 3.2 s |
| 0 - 130 kph | 4.7 s |
| 0 - 150 kph | 6.1 s |
| 0 - 160 kph | 6.6 s |
| 0 - 200 kph | 9.8 s |
| 0 - 40 mph | 2.2 s |
| 0 - 50 mph | 2.9 s |
| 0 - 70 mph | 4.3 s |
| 0 - 110 mph | 8.6 s |
| 0 - 130 mph | 11.8 s |
| 0 - 140 mph | 13.8 s |
| 0 - 150 mph | 16.3 s |
| 0 - 160 mph | 19.3 s |
| 0 - 170 mph | 23.4 s |
| Est. 1/8 mile | 7.3 s @ 103.1 mph |
| 1/4 mile | 11.0 s |
| Est. 1/2 mile | 17.7 s @ 150.4 mph |
| Est. 1 mile | 29.0 s @ 170.3 mph |
| 1000 m | 19.9 s |
| 60 - 100 kph (4) | 2.4 s |
| 60 - 100 kph (5) | 3.1 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (5) | 3.0 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (6) | 3.8 s |
| 80 - 120 kph (7) | 5.1 s |
| 80 - 120 kph | 1.9 s |
| Est. 100 - 200 kph | 7.7 s |
| 50 kph - 0 | 9 m (29 ft) |
| 100 kph - 0 | 31 m (101 ft) |
| 140 kph - 0 | 66 m (215 ft) |
| 200 kph - 0 | 122 m (399 ft) |
| 30 mph - 0 | 8 m (25 ft) |
| 50 mph - 0 | 21 m (68 ft) |
| 70 mph - 0 | 41 m (136 ft) |
| 18m slalom | 73.2 kph (45.5 mph) |
| 36m slalom | 146.0 kph (90.7 mph) |
Powertrain
| Engine type | V8 Twin Turbo |
| Displacement | 4.0 l (243 ci / 3982 cc) |
| Power | 585 ps (577 bhp / 430 kw) @ 6250 rpm |
| Torque | 700 Nm (516 lb-ft) @ 1750 rpm |
| Power / liter | 147 ps (145 hp) |
| Efficiency | 39 PS per l/100 km |
| Power / €5000 | 17 ps |
| Transmission | 7-speed SPEEDSHIFT (dual-clutch) |
| Layout | front engine, rear wheel drive |
Laptimes 8
| Track | Driver | Time |
|---|---|---|
| Autocar Dry Handling Track | 1:08.30 | |
| Autocar Wet Handling Track | 1:15.60 | |
| Contidrom (3.8 km) | 1:26.46 | |
| Hockenheim Short | 1:06.40 | |
| Nürburgring GP (3.7 km) | 1:35.10 | |
| Nürburgring Nordschleife | Christian Gebhardt | 7:10.92 |
| Sachsenring | 1:29.98 | |
| Top Gear Track | The Stig | 1:16.00 |
AMG GT R rivals
More Mercedes-Benz cars 348
fakekillerfour 2m ago
Dave 2m ago
cosimo 3m ago
it has over 585 bs german advertised numbers, and knowing amg and their press cars it's nothing new, which puts it in the cheaters list of 2017 with german uber cars with lower power than what you expect or try to bs yourself that it can deliver without too much power.
who knows if amg engineers tuned it down to make it look like it has less than 680hp on the dyno!
the weight is also doubtful with 2wd config with given bs power vs other lap times with less weight and higher power.
DeDe 3m ago
Sachsenring in 1:29.98 min :)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/albums/72157680514768171
DeDe 3m ago
Contidrom: 1:26.46 min
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/albums/72157680070924630
hostboy 4m ago
This car has the same standing kilometer time as GenteMotori's Bugatti EB110 GT from the 1990s. But the Bugatti completed its 400m run in 11.4 seconds. The Bugatti is even less powerful and also heavier and has a manual transmission. If the AMG is underrated by power, then by this logic, the old Bugatti is far more underrated.
Imarobot151534 5m ago
I dislike supercars and I hate 'road going' race cars, yet I'm in love with the amg gtr and it's not even out yet.
If I had the money for a super car, this would be it.
Any predictions on the lap time at laguna seca?
tøs 7m ago
It wasmt the same driver so its irrlevant the 7:13 by sport auto.. Horst van is shit vs crish and Christaian!!
Good gamer 7m ago
No it wasn't a standing start .If it was standing start,I don't see why sport auto wouldn't mention it.
BR2+ 7m ago
Correct me if im wrong, But wasnt that 918 7:13 time done with a standing start with one lap? Or am i thinking of a different test?
Also, The GTS has impressive times because it has WAAAAY more power then advertised, Mercedes on average out of all German cars would top the list for more power then its competitors bhp numbers, This prolly has 675LT power figures..
FastestLaps 7m ago
Regular AMG GT S had some impressive acceleration times for a two wheel drive. I wonder what this will do in magazine tests!
racingisinmyblood 7m ago
Wow. AMG GT R Laptime Nordschleife 7.10,92 min by Sport Auto, Driver Christian Gebhardt
dddd 9m ago
It seems that most cars with turbo engines that are currently produced have more power than it is advertised...
Its a pity that Ferrari (seemingly) is not one of them : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthread.php?75833-Powerhaus-Performance-gets-another-74-whp-from-a-Ferrari-488-GTB-with-their-Stage-I-dyno-tuned-ECU-flash
528 WHP is a horrid number for a Ferrari 488... It SEEMS that this car is 50-60 hp down on power !
Have you guys seen more optimistic dyno test of 488 ?
manone 9m ago
15% for rear wheel drive is just an approximate estimate. the rear differential losses alone (it is the place with greatest power loss) could be anything between 6 to 10%, giving a potential 4% lower figure from that estimate.
The old F10 M5... rwd. so 522/0.85 = 618.8hp.
522whp/0.85=614.1hp,
522whp/0.9=590hp.
claimed power is 553hp+5%=580hp
thus that particular m5 "could" between 10-35hp overpowered. that is illegal, but not a game changer in performances as you claimed. especially since we have to factor in variables such as dyno induced errors and kind of gasoline. We are definitely not talking about 15-20% power gain over claimed figures+tolerances, unlike the case for german press cars.
another sample with 91oct and akrapovic exaust system ran 519whp.
saxy 9m ago
Firstly, the usually REAR wheel drive is 15% loss, and AWD is 20% loss. Automatics are always worst than Manuals. 10% are for FWD cars. Side note, Tesla electric motors half almost no loss at all, hence why 532hp can bring a 2 ton machine to the 1/4 mile in 11 seconds.
The non S version is rear wheel drive only.
And I'm not sure you have done your math right either. drive train loss of 15% does NOT mean you take the whp x 115%. It should be whp / 0.85 or whp/ 0.8. In this case, 636hp, or 676hp.
The old F10 M5... rwd. so 522/0.85 = 618.8hp.
claimed is like 555hp? how is that not overpowered?
