2020 Mercedes-AMG GT 63

The starting price of the base Mercedes-AMG GT 63 is a lofty $140,250. On top of that, you have to keep aside another $995 for destination charges, as well as an additional $1,000 for gas guzzler tax. This buys you a 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 with a nine-speed auto sending 577 horsepower to all four 19-inch wheels. Opting for the top-of-the-range model, the GT 63 S, earns you the same setup but with 630 hp and 664 lb-ft - 74 more torques than the base version musters. Power is sent to 20-inch wheels as standard, and you have the option of a carbon fiber roof. Before adding charges, taxes, and options, the GT 63 S starts at $161,200. Getting carried away with the options is an expensive affair, and can cost over $210,000 for a fully loaded model, so be selective if you're considering a purchase.

The GT 63 is equipped with AMG Sport suspension with adaptive airbags, allowing it to switch between a comfortable and compliant ride that cossets passengers in comfort and stiffens when more dynamism is required. Although this system has its faults in other AMG products, where it seems one-dimensional and far too harsh, the GT 63 is remarkably different, managing to be good enough to drive daily. Small bumps are hardly noticeable, with bigger ones doing little to unsettle the car. However, thanks to a front-biased weight distribution setup, the GT 63 can understeer on the limit. Even so, a bit of practice will teach you that momentum and well-timed brake and throttle modulation can go a long way to remedying the situation. Speaking of the brakes, they are excellent, with good pedal feel and no jerky responses.

Impressively for a vehicle of this size and weight, when you're not at the absolute limit, the steering is direct and well-weighted. In fact, it's better than in some dedicated sports cars. That said, we still don't like the comfort mode's overly-assisted setup, but that's what buyers prefer and there's little that is likely to change about this. One of the inclusions in this model that makes us - and the myriad of AMG fans - giddy with excitement is the option to switch to a drift mode. Although the process is a little complicated, once activated you have no power on the front axle and no traction control. Being able to drift a behemoth like this, something that is meant first and foremost to be a stylish and comfortable car, is something the enthusiast will never tire of, even if the cost of rear rubber bankrupts said individual.

As a practical four-door coupe, the GT 63 is remarkably spacious in the cabin, but uncompromising in the trunk. Lacking the ability to fold the rear seats completely, it can be hard to justify this as an all-rounder. However, as a vehicle to take four occupants from one corner of the country to the other in supreme comfort and at blistering pace, the GT 63 is exceptional. Its engine is a little thirsty, and the best safety equipment is reserved for an expensive options package, but few cars can handle the way this one does, battle tricky weather conditions, and be a blast to drive every day as well as on the rare occasion that rubber meets race track. Its looks can be polarizing, sure, but the design is not as heinous as some rivals. Overall, despite its foibles, this is an impressive and exhilarating machine that we'd be more than happy to use every single day. So, how about it, Mercedes?

Both variants of the GT 63 are phenomenal performers and are capable of astonishing acceleration. With the 0-60 times between the two models separated by just two-tenths of a second and top speed also barely any different, we'd opt for the base model. Of course, the power delivery between zero and the top speed will be more intense in the S model, but the regular GT 63's 577 hp is more than enough for public roads, and this isn't a car you're likely to take to the track often, if ever. By saving $20,000-odd on the list price, you can spec massaging front seats, heated rear seats, heated front armrests, and a heated steering wheel, as well as ventilated front seats and the Driver Assistance package with its safety and driver aids - all without coming close to the GT 63 S model's starting price. It's a no-brainer really.

Both the Porsche Panamera Turbo and the AMG GT 63 are oddly-styled four-door coupes with 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 engines, all-wheel-drive, and automatic gearboxes. However, despite Porsche being the supposedly sportier brand, it has a considerable power deficit, with 550 hp and just 567 lb-ft of torque compared to the base GT 63's 577 and 590. Nevertheless, it gets from 0-60 mph just one-tenth of a second slower and has considerably better fuel economy figures of 18/25/21 mpg versus the AMG's 15/20/17. It also has a bigger gas tank, meaning more range, and with a 17.6 cubic-foot trunk versus the Merc's 12.7, you can fit more stuff. You can also fold the rear seats to expand the Porsche's cargo capacity to 47.3 cubes, something the GT 63 can't really do. As a usable, practical car, the Panamera is far better, but if you're buying this car based on emotion, the styling, interior beauty, and smile-inducing drift mode of the Merc will likely sway you towards the GT 63.

If you like the way the GT 63 drives but can't stomach its looks, price, or lack of practicality, the E63 wagon is for you. This wagon only comes as an S model, which means you get a whopping 603 hp from the same engine, drivetrain, and gearbox. No, it's not as much as the GT 63 S, but the E63 S comes in a much prettier package. It also has 35 cubic feet of storage with the seats up, more than double what the GT 63 can manage, and with the wagon's rear seats folded, that expands to 64 cubes. You also get more headroom and legroom, both in front and at the back, as well as most of the same features and options that the GT 63 has access to. All this makes for a pretty compelling case, but here's the real kicker: the E63 S wagon costs just $111,750 - nearly 30 grand less than the GT 63 starts at. For something that can really hustle, carry all your stuff, and ferry up to five people in comfort, there's almost nothing that comes close - not from Affalterbach anyway.