6.2 L NA engine VS 5.5 twin turbo
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63 amg
6.2 L NA engine VS 5.5 twin turbo
hey guys wich is better 6.2 from the SLS or 5.5 tt
I just came across this article at inside line. They dynoed a s63 with the new 5.5 twin turbo engine with perf pack with impressive results. Then they compared the 6.2 NA of the sls vs the 5.5 L twin turbo (w perf pack.) see the graph.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...z-s63-amg.html
I sure like my 6.2 and its barking sound especially with the back seat down, but man can you imagine a 5.5 TT in the c63??? or how about a chipped 5.5 TT... 650-700hp at the wheels? but then how would you put that power down?
so wich is better in your opinion 6.2 or 5.5 tt?
I just came across this article at inside line. They dynoed a s63 with the new 5.5 twin turbo engine with perf pack with impressive results. Then they compared the 6.2 NA of the sls vs the 5.5 L twin turbo (w perf pack.) see the graph.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...z-s63-amg.html
I sure like my 6.2 and its barking sound especially with the back seat down, but man can you imagine a 5.5 TT in the c63??? or how about a chipped 5.5 TT... 650-700hp at the wheels? but then how would you put that power down?
so wich is better in your opinion 6.2 or 5.5 tt?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'11 C63, '22 GLS 63, Porsches, M3, M4
hey guys wich is better 6.2 from the SLS or 5.5 tt
I just came across this article at inside line. They dynoed a s63 with the new 5.5 twin turbo engine with perf pack with impressive results. Then they compared the 6.2 NA of the sls vs the 5.5 L twin turbo (w perf pack.) see the graph.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...z-s63-amg.html
I sure like my 6.2 and its barking sound especially with the back seat down, but man can you imagine a 5.5 TT in the c63??? or how about a chipped 5.5 TT... 650-700hp at the wheels? but then how would you put that power down?
so wich is better in your opinion 6.2 or 5.5 tt?
I just came across this article at inside line. They dynoed a s63 with the new 5.5 twin turbo engine with perf pack with impressive results. Then they compared the 6.2 NA of the sls vs the 5.5 L twin turbo (w perf pack.) see the graph.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...z-s63-amg.html
I sure like my 6.2 and its barking sound especially with the back seat down, but man can you imagine a 5.5 TT in the c63??? or how about a chipped 5.5 TT... 650-700hp at the wheels? but then how would you put that power down?
so wich is better in your opinion 6.2 or 5.5 tt?
#6
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
There is a practical HP limit for rear wheel drive.
I believe anything over 600hp in a C class is just not useful in day to day driving. Plus your local gas station better sell rear tires to go with each fill up. :-)
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'11 C63, '22 GLS 63, Porsches, M3, M4
Agreed, though I think the extra torque would help in daily driving, especially when the car is already moving at decent speed (from a stop, ESP already cuts in pretty quickly in the current stock C63).
Trending Topics
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63 amg
if only you could fit some wider rear tires like some 335 series in the back that would be great. problem is that you would need to cut the rear fenders and add some sort of wide body kit.
#9
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
It depends....if you have a tune with about 530hp, believe me there is more than enough torque for daily driving!! I'm hoping the next AMG C has an option for 4wd if we can tune the engine to over 600hp!
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63 amg
the next bmw m5 is supposed to have 4wd available in the future. a c63 with 4wd would be awesome. plus more usefull in winter.
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Let see how the trans hold's up on the 5.5TT, yesterday i was at the driving academy and spoke with a very important person from AMG and he said the MCT trans can handle up to 1000NM thats about 740TQ and to the wheels thats looks like it already maxed. (740tq=607 rwtq)
#13
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
...and in rain too! I drove a new G55 last week and the full throttle take off from standstill was excellant thanks to the 4WD though it slowed down, relatively, as speed picked up. As I drove it I could see the usefulness of 4wd in quick take offs. I can never put my foot down from standstill in the C63 for fear of ESP cutting the power or just smoking the tire with little forward movement. :-) However at highway speeds, the C63 just rules! Need an autobahn!
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63 amg
...and in rain too! I drove a new G55 last week and the full throttle take off from standstill was excellant thanks to the 4WD though it slowed down, relatively, as speed picked up. As I drove it I could see the usefulness of 4wd in quick take offs. I can never put my foot down from standstill in the C63 for fear of ESP cutting the power or just smoking the tire with little forward movement. :-) However at highway speeds, the C63 just rules! Need an autobahn!
#15
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
....and that is the problem I like both worlds for different purposes. I guess ideally it would be best to have both a C63 and G55! Problem solved
#16
Super Member
Ive aready test drove a clk63 5.5 amg and it was pretty awesome. the power was not brutal at all. it was probably the smoothest power delivery that i could possibly imagine. sure, it was fast.....it just didnt feel fast. the 6.2 seemed to have alot more hit to it.
I wish i would have had a little more time in the 5.5 but its kind of a toss up. they are both fast, it just depends on personal preference. I personally like the 6.2's brutality better but the 5.5 is going to be very easy to modify because of the turbos. you could easily make the 5.5 one of the most brutal engines on the road!!!
I wish i would have had a little more time in the 5.5 but its kind of a toss up. they are both fast, it just depends on personal preference. I personally like the 6.2's brutality better but the 5.5 is going to be very easy to modify because of the turbos. you could easily make the 5.5 one of the most brutal engines on the road!!!
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c63 amg
If you heard the newest pagani with the turbo AMG v12 compared to the Zonda NA AMG v12 there is no comparison. The NA screams while the turbo engine well...sounds good. Pretty much like the new Mc Laren V8 turbo.
I just wonder how much more the 5.5 tt weighs compared to the 6.2. I would guess the cylinder walls are thicker because of the boost plus you got the 2 turbos, intercolers and additional piping. So I guess It just has to weigh 40 to 50 pounds more.
Now all the weight goes on the front axle not ideal for handling and weight distribution.
You have to wonder why they didn't put the 5.5 tt in the SLS?
Would a 5.5 tt SLS have been faster AROUND A TRACK than a 6.2 SLS ?
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Having forced induction is a thrill and it's easy to mod. But you have to flog them a bit to make them work like a larger displacement motor as a daily driver. My C63 has the grunt all the time. My 966TT needs the revs kept up to have the same instant punch. As far as sound, a GT3RS sounds better than a turbo. So I'm guessing it will be the same for the 5.5 compared to the 6.3.
Last edited by DuaneC63; 05-15-2011 at 05:50 AM.
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Ive aready test drove a clk63 5.5 amg and it was pretty awesome. the power was not brutal at all. it was probably the smoothest power delivery that i could possibly imagine. sure, it was fast.....it just didnt feel fast. the 6.2 seemed to have alot more hit to it.
I wish i would have had a little more time in the 5.5 but its kind of a toss up. they are both fast, it just depends on personal preference. I personally like the 6.2's brutality better but the 5.5 is going to be very easy to modify because of the turbos. you could easily make the 5.5 one of the most brutal engines on the road!!!
I wish i would have had a little more time in the 5.5 but its kind of a toss up. they are both fast, it just depends on personal preference. I personally like the 6.2's brutality better but the 5.5 is going to be very easy to modify because of the turbos. you could easily make the 5.5 one of the most brutal engines on the road!!!
I would too take the 5.5 TT, but we won't see that one in the C-class, with the exception of the BS perhaps. Madness
#23
Having forced induction is a thrill and it's easy to mod. But you have to flog them a bit to make them work like a larger displacement motor as a daily driver. My C63 has the grunt all the time. My 966TT needs the revs kept up to have the same instant punch. As far as sound, a GT3RS sounds better than a turbo. So I'm guessing it will be the same for the 5.5 compared to the 6.3.
#24
Having forced induction is a thrill and it's easy to mod. But you have to flog them a bit to make them work like a larger displacement motor as a daily driver. My C63 has the grunt all the time. My 966TT needs the revs kept up to have the same instant punch. As far as sound, a GT3RS sounds better than a turbo. So I'm guessing it will be the same for the 5.5 compared to the 6.3.
Man , you should listen a turbo at WOT with Sport+ enabled and then edit your post
I agree that at idle and low rpm the sound is just like any other car
I wonder how the new GT3 RS 4.0 sounds