AMG_Power

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...cls63-amg.html

amgme

0-60 in 4.1 seconds.... not bad at all and a qtr mile in 12.6 is respectable. don't know what happened to the earlier e63's. they weren't performing that great. bad batch or this one has more miles on the odometer? plus the cls weighs more than the e and it churned out better numbers than initial e63 numbers. interesting.

MHK

At least now I know the bench mark I need to meet!

Dogshine

is that european cls63 sitting on 18's like the e does? if so, that will net a slightly faster time, as the e55 is slightly faster than the cls55 due to the 19's.

TopGun32

finally a 63 engine at mid 12's

Great car and I will hopefully own one sometime soon.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

I've always found C&D numbers to be in the same range of optimism as ClayJ's stable of supercars.

Thericker

Car & Driver= Explain how they get the new CLS63 w/inferior TORQUE to beat the old CLS55 to 0-60mph? As I've allways thought most magizines are BS...

AMG_Power

bfnnrgn

I never trust magazines. It's too easy for manufacturers to cherry pick what they give them so that the acticles give the outcome they want. These figures they have aren't consistent with any results actual owners are getting from vehicles bought off of showroom floors.

MercedesFTW

Haha...so there are people who say...I'll reserve judgement on the 63s untill a Car Mag tests them. And then there are people who say this magazines are BS. (So how come everyone is so ga-ga over the 335i? Most of the praise is from Car & Driver and the likes!).

Anyways, I liked the write up.

vb26

I don't understand if according to Car and Driver:

"The 6.2-liter V-8 makes 507 horsepower in the CLS, up from 469 hp in the old CLS55 AMG. Torque is down, though, from 516 pound-feet to 465 lb-ft. More power usually results in better top-end performance, whereas more torque normally means quicker mid-range and off-the-line acceleration."

then how could this be:
"The CLS63 gets to 60 mph from rest in a blistering 4.1 seconds, a tenth quicker than the CLS55, but is identical otherwise up to 120 mph and shares a 12.6-second quarter-mile time."

CLS 63 beat CLS 55 - 0 to 60

bfnnrgn

I never said anything about waiting for magazines. Don't trust them, never have. Too many have been caught with thier hands in the cookie jar or manufacturers gaming the game with hand picked or tweaked products not indicative of what's found in the marketplace. I prefer independant owner reviews. Even those are harder to come by these days with viral marketing through paid shills.

Thericker

This is what I'm trying to say in my original post, flat-out BS!

Thericker

russjr

traded my modded 55 for the new 63 and have NO regrets whatsoever - and when you factor in heat-soak, to which all sc engines are subject, you find the 63 in general, and in the summer particular, a faster car.

the m5, nice though it is, entails too many compromises to rank above the new 63's.

E63AMG

I agree that magazines are not to be trusted. However, it is equally foolish to place great trust in the statements made by owners or others posting in here. Even you, bnfnrgn, on a similar topic (speed of E63 owner's cars vs M5) posted inaccurate information 2 days ago. https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/166828-new-e63-amg-vs-new-m5.html

Your perception that the 63s are slow may end up being proved correct. However, even now there really haven't been many data points to compare from actual owners on good tracks. I assume that the better magazines all use the proper atmospheric correction factors, which most owners do not when reporting their times. As more and more data come in, we will get a cross check on reality. This article is merely one of those reference points.

PS: I would like to announce to Mercedes I have not yet received my check. Please send it immediately, or I will be forced to retract all the good things I have said.

MercedesFTW

LOL@E63AMG

bnfnrgn, my post was not directed at you. I was just merely pointed out how differently people view the idea of "how fast" a car is.

bfnnrgn

Yes, I made an error. I did not see the one E63 time in the middle of the M5s. I wasn't paying attention to the middle, only the top and bottom and I was going off of memory. The M5 still had the faster time though, just not all of the runs. Trap speed was definatly higher and there was a stock E55 trap that bested the E63s. It's only one example but that's all we have now. The other 63s didn't show up at the other track event held some weeks later and other than that all we have is Darren's runs. We need more runs but no one else has taken thiers to the track that we know of.

Germancar1

This is hilarious. Why would Car and Driver purposely put the CLS63 over the CLS55 in 0-60 times if they found the opposite to be true? What do they gain by this. Before you say because of Mercedes' advertising money and what not, remember that they ranked the CLS55 last in a comparo with the M5 and STS-V a little while back. If all this BS about being paid off were true Mercedes would have stopped advertising and what not with C&D after that test don't you think. Maybe some need to accept that C&D has professional drivers that know how to get the most out of a car upon launch. This is really sad how "55" owners feel the need to belittle the "63" cars and when the professionals get better numbers it is BS. Really sad, pitiful actually. Just face it, on this particular day the CLS63 proved to be faster. Deal with it.

M

E63AMG

bfnnrgn, I salute you. Next time, it will be my error and you can correct me.

medici78

The numbers do seem odd but, for all you guys calling BS, they did have accurate numbers for the E55 and CLS55. If anything, the performance seems to be what M-B has promised all along. It's only slightly better than their numbers for the CLS55, as it should be for crying out loud. Besides, we all know that under ideal conditions, the 55 cars can pull better than a 12.6 1/4 mile time.

2MANYCARS

Magazines lie, plain and simple. If you want realistic and conservative numbers, use edmunds.com

kip

Sorry, but I agree! Why would MB make a slower new car? Odd philosophy dont you think!

E63AMG

Its interesting you mention Edmunds. When they tested the E63, they said the factory E63 0-60 time quote (4.3 secs) was probably conservative.

I simply consider this another data point.

hatem

i dont think that one magazines review or shootout is a valid or reliable source of info.

especially car & driver.

my quetion is which one sounds better?

According to top gear the cls 55 makes the second best noise after the new AM vantage and beating the ferrari 430 in 3rd place.