Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB
Compare the Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB. The Mercedes-AMG GT is £86,000 cheaper. The Ferrari 296 GTB is 0.2s quicker to 60mph. The Ferrari 296 GTB is more fuel efficient. Full performance, cost & ownership breakdown.
The Mercedes-AMG GT is priced from £155,000, powered by a 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8, producing 577 hp, with 800 Nm of torque, reaching 0-60 mph in 3.1s, a top speed of 197 mph, sent to the road via rear-wheel drive. The Ferrari 296 GTB is priced from £241,000, powered by a 3.0L V6 Hybrid, producing 819 hp, with 740 Nm of torque, reaching 0-60 mph in 2.9s, a top speed of 205 mph, sent to the road via rear-wheel drive.
The Mercedes-AMG GT offers a 350-litre boot, runs on petrol, returns around 22 mpg, is covered by a 3yr / unlimited mi warranty. The Ferrari 296 GTB offers a 105-litre boot, a usable front boot, runs on petrol hybrid, returns around 35 mpg, is covered by a 7yr / unlimited mi warranty.
On cost of ownership, the Mercedes-AMG GT is £86,000 cheaper than its rival, both require around £1,600 per year in maintenance, the Ferrari 296 GTB is the more fuel-efficient choice, a full tank costs around £85 for the Mercedes-AMG GT and £75 for the Ferrari 296 GTB.
Driving Character: Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB
The Mercedes-AMG GT demonstrates the prowess of a front-mid engine layout, prioritising balance and direct feedback for the enthusiast driver. With 577hp directed to the rear wheels via a mechanical limited-slip differential, the car offers a visceral, involving experience. Steering is sharp and communicative, allowing for precise placement in corner apexes, though the rear-wheel-drive platform demands respect in damp conditions. Acceleration is blistering, with a 3.1-second 0-60mph sprint. While less forgiving than its AWD competitors, the AMG GT rewards committed driving with a dynamic repertoire that remains a benchmark for pure driver engagement within the contemporary supercar class.
The Ferrari 296 GTB redefines mid-engine dynamics by integrating a hybrid system that provides instantaneous torque fill, effectively eliminating turbo lag. The chassis feels remarkably nimble, with the weight added by the battery and electric motor expertly masked by sophisticated suspension tuning. Steering is razor-sharp and communicative, allowing the driver to place the car with immense confidence. While the transition between electric power and the combustion engine is generally seamless, spirited driving reveals a character that demands a precise hand on the throttle to manage the immediate surge of combined hybrid torque.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Ferrari 296 GTB takes our 0-100 driving character grading, 82 against 93. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT: Thunderous AMG V8 with a more usable, GT-focused character than before. For the Ferrari 296 GTB: Sublime hybrid V6 chassis balance, widely rated among the best-handling Ferraris. In outright terms it is 577 hp against 819 — a 242 hp gap — and the Ferrari 296 GTB reaches 60 mph 0.2s sooner.
Interior & Cabin: Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB
Inside, the AMG GT presents a cockpit-like environment dominated by a high transmission tunnel and a wide, driver-centric dashboard. The interior materials are of a high standard, showcasing bespoke AMG instruments and Alcantara detailing. Space is deliberately intimate, reflecting the car’s focused nature rather than grand touring comfort. Visibility is somewhat compromised by the low-slung roofline and thick pillars, yet the driving position is perfectly aligned with the pedals and steering wheel. It is an environment designed to insulate the driver from distractions, keeping the focus squarely on the task of piloting a high-performance machine through demanding roads.
The cabin prioritises driver focus through a high-tech, cockpit-style layout. High-quality carbon fibre and premium leather define the interior, creating an environment that feels both sophisticated and purposeful. The reliance on digital controls and haptic surfaces represents a significant departure from traditional analogue switchgear, which, while offering a modern and clean aesthetic, may feel less tactile for enthusiasts accustomed to physical buttons. Visibility is typical of a mid-engine exotic, with the digital instrument cluster providing all necessary telemetry without overwhelming the driver, successfully balancing technological advancement with essential driver-focused ergonomics.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT takes our 0-100 interior & cabin grading, 84 against 78. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT: Genuinely usable 2+2 cabin with strong build quality. For the Ferrari 296 GTB: Driver-focused cabin, though haptic controls polarise reviewers.
Daily Usability: Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB
Usability in the AMG GT is naturally restricted by its performance-oriented design. The front trunk provides a 260-litre storage area, adequate for light travel but far from comprehensive for extended road trips. The suspension is remarkably firm even in Comfort mode, which can result in an unsettled ride on poor surfaces or urban speed bumps. Ingress and egress require a degree of physical dexterity, given the low ride height and sculpted seats. While the car can manage city errands, its primary habitat remains the open road where its performance credentials can be exercised without the constraints of suburban infrastructure.
For a mid-engine supercar, the 296 GTB is surprisingly well-adapted to urban living, thanks in large part to its EV-only mode. Being able to creep silently through residential areas provides a level of refinement rarely found in this segment. The compact dimensions make it relatively easy to place on narrower roads, though the car’s very low ground clearance demands constant vigilance against steep driveways and deep kerbs. While rear visibility is admittedly restricted, the car handles the realities of city traffic with far more grace than its V8-powered predecessors.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT takes our 0-100 daily usability grading, 72 against 68. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT: More practical than the previous 2-seat GT thanks to rear seats. For the Ferrari 296 GTB: More usable daily than a 12Cilindri, with some EV-only running. that means 350 litres of boot space against 105, plus a usable front boot in the Ferrari 296 GTB, and everyday running costs that favour the Ferrari 296 GTB at the pumps.
Ownership: Mercedes-AMG GT vs Ferrari 296 GTB
Owning an AMG GT is an investment in the traditional, high-performance V8 heritage of the brand. Residual values remain strong, bolstered by consistent demand from enthusiasts who prize the V8 character. Servicing is handled through the robust Mercedes dealer network, ensuring that specialists are always within reach, though owners must prepare for high costs associated with performance-grade brakes and tyres. Annual maintenance of £1,600 is standard for the class. Insurance costs reflect the car’s high performance and the complexity of its mechanical components, yet the model remains a prized inclusion in the garages of those who value pure engagement.
Ferrari’s support network ensures that owning a 296 GTB remains a premium, discreet experience. The 7-year warranty and inclusive service plan are critical components that bolster confidence in a powertrain that incorporates significant hybrid complexity. While long-term durability regarding the electrical system remains less battle-tested than that of traditional internal combustion models, the brand's commitment to the longevity of the platform provides peace of mind. Running costs are competitive for the supercar class, and the high-tech appeal ensures it remains a desirable prospect on the secondary market.
Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Ferrari 296 GTB takes our 0-100 ownership grading, 68 against 70. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT: Backed by Mercedes-AMG's established V8 reliability record. For the Ferrari 296 GTB: Strong demand and Ferrari's modern reliability improvements. On the wallet the two diverge at £155,000 versus £241,000 — a £86,000 difference, with annual maintenance of £1,600 against £0, and warranty cover of 3yr / unlimited mi versus 7yr / unlimited mi.