Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63

Compare the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is £10,000 cheaper. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is 0.4s quicker to 60mph. The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is more fuel efficient. Full performance, cost & ownership breakdown.

The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is priced from £155,000, powered by a 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8, producing 577 hp, with 800 Nm of torque, reaching 0-62 mph in 3.2 s, a top speed of 196 mph, sent to the road via all-wheel drive. The Mercedes-AMG SL 63 is priced from £165,000, powered by a 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8, producing 577 hp, with 800 Nm of torque, reaching 0-62 mph in 3.6 s, a top speed of 196 mph, sent to the road via all-wheel drive.

The Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe offers a 321-litre boot, runs on petrol, returns around 22 mpg, is covered by a 3 years / unlimited miles (original UK new-car cover) warranty. The Mercedes-AMG SL 63 offers a 213-litre boot, runs on petrol, returns around 21.9 mpg (WLTP combined), is covered by a 3 years / unlimited miles (original UK new-car cover) warranty.

On cost of ownership, the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is £10,000 cheaper than its rival, the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 costs less in annual maintenance (£1,600 versus £1,500), the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe is the more fuel-efficient choice, the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe has 70 L fuel tank, the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 has 70 L fuel tank.

Driving Character: Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63

The C192 AMG GT63 Coupe uses a 430 kW twin-turbo 4.0-litre V8, delivering 800 Nm through AMG Performance 4MATIC+ all-wheel drive and a nine-speed MCT transmission. Active rear-wheel steering and active roll control support its chassis. The manufacturer quotes 3.2 seconds from 0 to 100 km/h; this must not be presented as a 0-60 mph measurement.

The Mercedes-AMG SL 63 transitions the lineage toward a sophisticated grand tourer profile, prioritising compliance over the surgical precision of its predecessor. The 4.0-litre twin-turbo V8 delivers a relentless surge of torque, managed by an all-wheel-drive system that ensures composure in challenging UK conditions. While the AMG Active Ride Control suspension offers remarkable poise for a heavy convertible, the steering feel remains somewhat insulated compared to pure sports cars. It excels as a high-speed cruiser rather than a track-day weapon, favouring long-distance refinement and effortless pace over the frantic, razor-sharp feedback once associated with the AMG brand.

Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — AMG 4.0L bi-turbo V8; exceptional throttle response and emotional delivery; the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 — SL 63 AWD with active rear steering; more dynamic than SL predecessors. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG Performance 4MATIC+ all-wheel drive, active rear-wheel steering and active roll control support the C192 chassis. For the Mercedes-AMG SL 63: 577hp V8 with characteristic AMG torque delivery across the rev range. In outright terms it is 577 hp against 577 — a 0 hp gap — and the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe reaches 60 mph 0.4s sooner.

Interior & Cabin: Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63

The C192 cabin combines a digital instrument display with an 11.9-inch portrait central touchscreen running MBUX. AMG sports seats are standard; Performance seats are optional. The optional rear seats create a 2+2 layout rather than full-size rear passenger accommodation.

Inside, the SL 63 feels thoroughly modern, dominated by a portrait-oriented MUX interface that dictates the cabin aesthetic. The digital cockpit is crisp, though the heavy reliance on touch-sensitive surfaces can feel counterintuitive when pressing on. Material quality is excellent, with high-grade leathers and metals, yet the ergonomics are compromised by the vestigial rear seats, which serve more as shelf space than viable seating. It lacks the intimate, driver-focused cocoon of the previous AMG GT, opting instead for a broad, open-air cockpit design that prioritises perceived luxury and connectivity over raw, tactile immersion.

Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — Long bonnet, short tail design creates distinct, dramatic driving environment; the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 — Soft-top roadster with genuine 2+2 rear seats returned to SL range. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG sports seats are standard; Performance seats are optional. For the Mercedes-AMG SL 63: MBUX Hyperscreen available; most technology-forward SL interior ever.

Daily Usability: Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63

The C192 has a rear luggage compartment accessed through a large hatch. The manufacturer lists 321 litres, expanding to 675 litres with the applicable rear-seat configuration. The optional 2+2 layout is intended for rear occupants up to 1.50 metres tall.

Daily utility is remarkably improved, largely due to the transition to a fully variable fabric roof that saves significant boot space and lowers the centre of gravity. The 213-litre capacity remains tight, though it accommodates soft luggage better than the old hard-top systems. Parking remains a chore; the wide, low-slung bodywork requires cautious navigation through tight urban gaps, and the extensive bonnet length demands foresight. Nevertheless, the sophisticated suspension tuning allows it to soak up poorly maintained road surfaces with grace, making it a viable, albeit thirsty, companion for regular motorway commutes and long-distance touring.

Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — The C192 has a 321-litre luggage compartment, expanding to 675 litres with the applicable rear-seat configuration.; the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 — Roof mechanism reliable and rapid; usable as open-top grand tourer. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: Comfort mode genuinely softens the GT for road use. For the Mercedes-AMG SL 63: AWD enables year-round use in all climates; better versatility than predecessors. that means 321 litres of boot space against 213, and everyday running costs that favour the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe at the pumps.

Ownership: Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe vs Mercedes-AMG SL 63

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.

Ownership is bolstered by the vast, well-integrated Mercedes-Benz dealer network, which provides consistent support for the complex AMG powertrain. Maintenance costs are steep, with annual services reflecting the performance-oriented nature of the twin-turbo V8, and the intricate soft-top mechanism introduces a long-term servicing variable that owners must anticipate. While depreciation is generally mitigated by the enduring prestige of the SL moniker, the market is competitive. Reliability is generally predictable, provided the rigid servicing intervals are respected, ensuring the complex electronics and drivetrain remain within optimal operating parameters throughout the ownership period.

Head-to-head, the division is clear: the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe — Mercedes dealer network comprehensive; AMG GT well-supported globally; the Mercedes-AMG SL 63 — Mercedes SL has decades of reliability history; latest generation expected to continue. Characteristic of the Mercedes-AMG GT 63 4MATIC+ Coupe: AMG GT has strong used market demand; values hold well. For the Mercedes-AMG SL 63: Broad dealer network and long-running support programmes. On the wallet the two diverge at £155,000 versus £165,000 — a £10,000 difference, with annual maintenance of £1,600 against £1,500.

More comparisons to explore