on www.mercedes-amg.com the cls63 is listed now and on the right you can open a pdf file of amg products which give specs on the cls55 to compare to. According to those comparisons, the cls63 is .2 sec faster 0-100km, however, the gas mileage is better on the cls55!!! ! I didn't think it could get any worse! haha.

I like the new steering wheel but i'm not sure if i like the IWC looking instrument guages when compared to ours.

I was hoping they would just change the rotor so when we did brakes, we could just put the new composite rotors on our 55's, but the new rotors are 6 piston compared to the 55's 8 piston brakes. interesting.

 

And you can configure one on the German Mercedes site.


http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/...nger_cars.html


 click the "konfigurator"

 

The "performance diagram" on the Mercedes-AMG site is incorrect. It is showing over 700NM torque above 2,000 rpm. The new engine has max torque of 630 at 5,600 rpm.

I would not be surprised if the stock 63 is a (very) tiny bit faster than the stock 55, mainly because the lower torque of the new motor will produce less wheel spin from standstill. But the 55 does has more performance potential that can be unlocked with ECU, pulley, headers, etc. Any major enhancement to the 63 engine, which is probably already maxed out by AMG, will trash the transmission. I'm curious to see what the pricing on the 63 will be, and what (if any) new options / trim / colors will be available. Unless it ends up a lot cheaper than the 55 -- which I think is very unlikely -- I'm very glad I got the 55!

As for the changes we know about...

The gauge cluster seems to be a step back on the 63. Not enough difference from the CLS500/550, plus I'm accustomed to the AMG backlit red on white. As for the brakes, the 55 has incredible stopping power already so not sure what there is to gain at least with normal driving. I don't love the new wheels either, likely the USA version will come with 19" rather than the 18" wheels. I still think 20" wheels are the right size for the 219.

The fuel economy is interesting. I think it shows the wisdom of forced induction. While some may consider F/I "cheating", it is interesting that a blown 5.5L, 3 valve per cylinder, SOHC engine can be more efficient than a larger displacement, N/A 6.2L engine with 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC... and two extra gears also.

Things are different with the CLS500 versus CLS550. Fuel economy stays about the same, but there is a LOT of extra power with the new engine. The CLS550 will really hurt resale on the CLS500 and may even detract a bit from the AMG models. For many 300hp is not enough, 380-390 is fine, 450-500 is great but overkill.

My plan is to max out the 55 and ride it hard for 4 years or so, by then I hope MBZ offers the CLS (maybe with a facelift or minor redesign) with a biturbo V12 or V8. 4WD or at least LSD is needed too - MBZ needs to take a hint from Audi on this one. More power won't affect acceleration much if it just spins the wheels. The COMAND system and user controls need some improvement too... coming from a Lexus SC430 the ergonomics are a major step backward, although the drivetrain and design are vastly better.

 

I can't believe mercedes didn't put abc on the cls 55 or e55. wtf?? i guess they are trying to help sales of the clk 63 by putting the abc on it. I was hoping the e and cls would get it, would really help with handling.

 

The performance diagram is correct, you did not read the graph properly.

The gridlines were placed for the horsepower rating, on the left. You have to understand that when placing numbers on two axis that you are not going to have a proper flow with the same gridlines of the originally suited axis.

What I'm saying in plain english is the numbers dont correspond to the lines you see (if you look closely), you seem to think the do and thats why you are misreading the graph.



P.S. As far as the fuel economy, forced induction is going to win everyday over naturally aspirated...this shouldn't come as a surprise.

It's funny that you say
"But the 55 does has more performance potential that can be unlocked with ECU, pulley, headers, etc. Any major enhancement to the 63 engine, which is probably already maxed out by AMG, will trash the transmission."

That cracks me up. First, you seem to forget that AMG's job with mercedes is to safely max out its engines...what do you think you have in your 55? It's a modified engine, modified to the point that it will still have mercedes reliablity. If a little toying with the ECU and pully were no big deal, dont you think AMG would have thought of it before Kleeman or anyone else? Then you say that this engine is probably already maxed out....you think that AMG is building a naturally aspirated engine and that they plan on keeping it that way??? Do some reading and you will find that AMG-Mercedes is getting away from superchargers and looking toward turbochargers. What should that tell us? That they are going to make their new engines weak and unable to handle the future support of a turbocharger? hahaha. Finally though, I will say that the EASE of enhancement of the 55 is much better...but thats about as far as you can take it because any modest performance enhancement is going to significantly hurt its reliability.

 

shaba230 - ekovalsky made a perfectly good observation concerning the "Almost Maxed Out" state of tune the new 63 N/A Motor is in from MB. If you had been around here a little longer you would have realized that ekovalsky was referring to the 63 Motor in N/A tune and not the future TT version of the 63 motor. ekovalsky was referring to the fact that there is not reasonably priced 150 HP of after market tuning in the N/A 63 Motor like there is for the 55K Motor. The after market might come up with 50 to 60 HP for the N/A 63 Motor for a reasonable amount of $$$ after that it is going to take major $$$$$$ and the Motor will not have the MB tractability that is expected from the AMG Cars.

It goes with out saying that the lower end of the 63 Motor is up to the task of TT Tuning in the future, if MB is headed in that direction. All of us on this Forum know and have been talking about the future TT version of the 63 Motor for some time now and clearly understand what MB must do to create the AMG quality and reliability that we all have come to expect.


I for one, think ekovalsky made some valid points. So, Sir, back off on the attitude and show some respect!! - Bob So,

 

Shaba230,

The graph you posted (which is now on the Mercedes-AMG site) is not the one that was there a day or two ago when I visited. While the curves themselves are the same, previously the blue numbers (Nm scale) were shifted downwards, such that the 700 was located where the 500 currently is, i.e. the Y-axis labelling for torque had incorrectly showed 700Nm available at 2000hz. Point is that MBZ updated the graph since it was initially posted, alas I don't have a screencap of the previous one.

I do know how to interpret these graphs, and studied them at length for the F/I 5.5L V8 (CLS, E, SL, S) and N/A 6.2L V8 (ML63, which has been on the site for a while now). Along with the torque handling of the 5sp versus 7sp, the graphs were part of my decision to go with the 55. Now if I lived in a place where driving much over 100mph wouldn't land me the slammer, I may have waited for the 63. Here in Arizona, my excitement lies primarily in the 10mph - 90mph range, and the clutched/supercharged V8 with its massive torque is very sweet.

Fuel economy is better than expected so far too, particularly since I've been doing some hard driving. Having the clutch disengage the supercharger when not needed probably keeps the mileage better than the 6.2L V8.

 

eko is correct. when i originally posted it, the graph was accurate but the labeling was incorrect. it was fixed.

it appears that the composite front rotors are the same size as the cls55's front rotors. i wonder if we can put them on our cars to save a bit of rotational weight or if they changed the offset and we are stuck w/ our heavier rotors.

 

....this thing makes more torque from 2000 rpm to redline than an M5 at its peak, and over 100 lb-ft more than the NA 5.5L motor at its peak.

Translation: couple this with a seven-speed, and this thing is going to be a screamer up high. Sub-80 mph acceleration won't be hugely different, but up high it'll kick some serious butt. It'll be very interesting to see tested 0-xxx times for this baby!

 

It definitely kicks the *** of the BMW V10 based on numbers. And on two less cylinders.

Also I like 100% potential available all the time. No programming special modes and pressing buttons when I'm ready to have some fun. Just have an impulse and nail it!