Every so often, an automaker will drop a product that’s mildly perplexing. The Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet and the BMW 3 Series GT immediately spring to mind, and now there’s another one. Mercedes-AMG has dropped a four-cylinder engine into its GT sports coupe to create the Mercedes-AMG GT 43, and although it sounds like a lease special, the spec sheet tells a slightly different story.
If you’re wondering what the hell happened here, let me catch you up to speed. The AMG GT is no longer a Glasgow-smiling spine-snapping axe murderer of a sports car. It’s now based on the SL cabriolet, as a second-generation model seeks broader appeal. In this transformation, AMG’s coupe becomes less GT (racing car class prefix) and more GT (coupe for golfists). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because even though we all loved the old AMG GT, the sort of people who can afford a six-figure Mercedes coupe might not want something so ruthless. However, don’t confuse softer with slow.
With 416 horsepower and 369 lb.-ft. of torque on tap, the Mercedes-AMG GT 43 promises genuine performance. With a claimed zero-to-60 mph dash time of 4.5 seconds and a top speed of 174 mph, it’s able to put down some properly impressive figures that make it competitive against the Lexus LC 500 in a straight-line grudge match. Not bad for what should be the least expensive AMG GT in the range. Make no mistake, a debadged AMG GT 43 can still be flexed for the ‘gram, except the M139 isn’t some tax break special.
This two-liter four-banger is the same engine found in the AMG CLA 45 S, a peaky unit reminiscent of old boosted tuner cars. Instead of adopting the modern turbocharged four-cylinder engine way of making grunt down low, torque in this thing peaks between 3,250 rpm and 5,000 rpm, meaning this engine should reward being kept on the boil. I’ve driven a CLA 45 with this mill and found that you do need to work to extract the most out of this engine because it’s completely asleep when off boost. If that characteristic carries over to the AMG GT 43, it will definitely be a car for people who know what they’re doing.[/caption]
Oh, and then there’s the weight reduction. This four-banger takes 250 pounds off of the car compared to the V8 models, dropping curb weight below 4,000 pounds and likely shifting the weight bias rearward due to the bulk of that weight coming off the nose of the vehicle. What’s more, the AMG GT 43 is rear-wheel-drive, a departure from V8 models’ all-wheel-drive traction. The stats are promising for involvement, but will buyers accept the four-banger’s tradeoffs?
Who is the Mercedes-AMG GT 43 for? On the face of it, this four-cylinder coupe seems like it may have too few cylinders for AMG diehards and Jaguar F-Type owners, while also having a peakier powerband than many sports car dilettantes are used to.
It’s a little heavy for current Porsche 911 owners, and not as promising of a total sensory experience as a Lexus LC 500. While there’s likely a market for the AMG GT 43 in markets taxed by carbon dioxide emissions or displacement or the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, what would an American buyer look like? Answers on a postcard, please.
(Photo credits: Mercedes-AMG)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The V8-Powered 2024 Mercedes-AMG GT Is The Rebirth Of The Original SLC
-
Mercedes-AMG Lops Half The Cylinders Off Of The SL
-
The New 402-Horsepower Mercedes-AMG C43 Looks Great Provided You Don’t Load It Up With Options
-
The 671-Horsepower Mercedes-AMG C63 S E Performance Is Powerful But So Heavy
-
The New 603-Horsepower Mercedes-AMG E 53 Hybrid Makes A Lot Of Sense, Even If Its Name Doesn’t
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
There is a market for the “one notch below the mostest”, both financially and from an insurance standpoint.
This exact car? Not for me. But the idea of a $100,000 four-cylinder is not something I am necessarily opposed to.
First thing I hear is that this is a hand grenade with the pin pulled. I won’t disagree, but I don’t think there are a lot of engines these days that are high-performance and reliable. It seems to me that the last long term test cars from Car and Driver to have catastrophic engine failure were the 2022 CTS-V5 and the 2014 ZO6. In my personal fleet, aside from an ND MX-5 and an old Alfa, I am 100% turbocharged with a combined 850,000 miles and have never suffered a turbo failure or an engine failure.
Second thing is the sound. I have a bias on this because I have spent a lot of time in communities where Harley’s and people with unmuffled V-8s all want you to appreciate the sound of their cars. As a result, I have come to despise the sound of V-8s to the extent that I have seriously looked a Chevy SS, a CTS-V5 or an E63S wagon (even to the extent of getting wife-approval on each of these), and ultimately decided against them because I cannot tolerate the sound of a V-8. Our world is getting increasingly congested, and no one needs to listen to my car. Inside the cabin, I do appreciate an engine note as an audible cue as to how fast I am going (or when to shift in an MT). But aside from an I-6 (or quirky engines like a VR-6, inline 5, or flat 6), most engines are just noise-feedback to me. As long as it isn’t objectionable sounding like a Toyota Tacoma V6 at 5000 rpm, Toyota Sienna, of Chevy Malibu, I don’t care how many cylinders are under the hood.
Some people mention this as a “compliance engine”. It goes beyond compliance. I, for one, will pay more for an engine that is efficient. There is a portion of the population that believes in environmental responsibility even for our high-performance cars. At the same time, I am skeptical that these 100+ hp/liter engines are more efficient than their higher-displacement alternatives.
A final observation is from rental fleets. I sort of appreciated the old 3.8L and 3.5L Impalas, but I really dislike the 4-cylinder evolution. Ford rental Explorers have gone from the 3.5 Ecoboost to an uninspiring 2.0L turbo that has totally zapped any joy that could have been derived from this family hauler. But recently National has put a bunch of Audis in their fleet with the EA288. In the past three months, I’ve driven an A3, A6, Q7, and just last week logged 650 miles in a A4. These are not $100,000 cars, but I was surprised that the 2.0 in those bigger cars worked as well as they did. These cars went a long way to quelling my previous (negative) experience with small engines in heavy cars.
poseurs, you’re ride has arrived
So I fully understand that as one of the “poors” who will never own one, my thoughts are of no concern to my betters but I have a few ideas.
First, for the likely buyers I’m guessing leases are going to be the big driver for these but also those that want an AMG but are more worried about the badge than the actual mechanical realities.
Second, a reduced price for still solid power, rwd, and an engine with a more interesting power/torque curve, sounds fun to someone that likes driving. I like it when boost can wait more than 50rpm from idle to hit. Even slow turbos feel fast/more exciting when you have to wait a tick, so something that hits 60 in the mid 4’s should be a blast when it all comes on song.
Lolno
Sorry y’all but a car like this wants 8-12 cyl and not a buzz box with that kind of torque curve. If you want an angry smaller engine just get a Parsh.
Excuse me, did I just read that a V8 GT weighs over 4000lb? For a two seat car? I shouldn’t expect any better from 2024 Mercedes, but that is literally double what a two seat car should weigh.
My ’88 SL weighs a hair under that. MBs aren’t light.
Obligatory:
4-cyl AMG?
Me: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!(Although I’ll take a 4-cyl AMC Eagle!)
Why would I buy this when for the same price I can have a Nori Green LC500 and cruise off into the sunset?
It is a tough call….
Nori Green is awesome, but that Copper Crest looks pretty great too. So does the blue.
Because although this isn’t an excessively good looking car, it’s positively beautiful next to an LC500.
Out of all the takes in the world this is certainly one of them
So it’s basically a Porsche 912.
If I could afford it, I’d be totally happy with this as a grand touring cruiser. The older I get, the less enthused I am about monster power, and the more I want “enough” power and decent efficiency in an attractive package. But then I’m weird and I want the LC500h, instead of the V8.
Yes officer. That’s him right there! The guy who wants a hybrid LC500 instead of the V8!
Por que no los dos? Give me true V8 hybrid that gets 40mpg around town and unleashes monster noises in the canyons while I hoon it at *speed redacted*
The hybrid LC uses a V6, not a V8. I think it’s the eternal Toyota 3.5 liter that’s been in everything. Certainly tried and true but not exactly soul stirring.
My comment was more a development request to the folks at Toyota, who are almost certainly trawling the Autopian comment section for my product planning advice. I like parallel hybrids and I like naturally aspirated V8s, and I can’t imagine putting those things together is an impossibility for Toyota.
Fellow LC500h preferer!