C32 vs C55...who is faster????
... the fact that you made a personal attack on me is evidence to me that i struck a softspot when noting your V6's lameness.... its two inline 3's for cryin out loud.... i could have bought a C32 or a C55 (cash) but since theyre both really fast cars i figured id get in alot more trouble. theres a reason why the C32 is the most wrecked mercedes-amg of all time, large production numbers (comparatively) and alot of power.one interesting peice of info.... the c32 gets
by the c55 on the ring... according to my searches, the c32 is 8:37 and the c55 is 8:22 ouch... also according to my search, i found an old post on MBworld stating that the c43 beats the c32 around hockenheim...
Last edited by SeeKlasse; Sep 5, 2008 at 06:16 PM.

game over
The cost of converting NA engines for FI usually outweighs the returns in performance.
Looking back at amgsc twin charging thread he basically spend $20k to 20K+ on making him hit 500+ tq and i believe 434whp.
Once the LEt turbo kit is done, you can spend $7k on the kit and have 500whp.
If i wanted to drop $20k, i would rather just buy a used e55. There comes a point where the cost to mod isn't worth it and its just better to buy another car just as fast stock.
stock vs stock c55 is faster
modded vs modded $10k and below in mods the c32 is faster.
$20k + in modds the c55 is faster because i'm trading in my c32 for a e55


This thread is dead
Then FIA changed there mind and went to v8's then changed there mind and went to v10's then changed there mind again and went back to v8's with a hybrid electric motor speed boost option.
Using those racing leagues as examples isn't really proof that v8's are the best performance option.
Nascar isn't really a racing series to show performance, there more for entertainment. How much performance are you going to see when the technology in those car's haven't changed in 20yrs and all the cars are exactly the same?
At least FI forces there teams to use new technology to improve performance.
V8's are dead, $5 gas killed it, unless you live in saudia arabia.
... the fact that you made a personal attack on me is evidence to me that i struck a softspot when noting your V6's lameness.... its two inline 3's for cryin out loud.... i could have bought a C32 or a C55 (cash) but since theyre both really fast cars i figured id get in alot more trouble. theres a reason why the C32 is the most wrecked mercedes-amg of all time, large production numbers (comparatively) and alot of power.one interesting peice of info.... the c32 gets
by the c55 on the ring... according to my searches, the c32 is 8:37 and the c55 is 8:22 ouch... also according to my search, i found an old post on MBworld stating that the c43 beats the c32 around hockenheim...

Do you have links to prove your production and wrecked statements? i never heard of this, but i would like to see some facts.
As for the ring time, i think it makes sense that a manufacturer when they produce a new model, would try to make it faster then the previous model.
The ring time is irrelevant for your argument about the v6 being lame since much of the improved time came from the improved suspension on the c55 vs the c32, the added 20 crank hp from the v8 only had a small impact on the actual ring time.
Last edited by TemjinX2; Sep 5, 2008 at 07:09 PM.
I'm not doing another dyno since I'm replacing the motor with a 7.3litre with a Quad Turbo setup soon after I pickup up my bonus at year-end.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
... the fact that you made a personal attack on me is evidence to me that i struck a softspot when noting your V6's lameness.... its two inline 3's for cryin out loud.... i could have bought a C32 or a C55 (cash) but since theyre both really fast cars i figured id get in alot more trouble. theres a reason why the C32 is the most wrecked mercedes-amg of all time, large production numbers (comparatively) and alot of power.one interesting peice of info.... the c32 gets
by the c55 on the ring... according to my searches, the c32 is 8:37 and the c55 is 8:22 ouch... also according to my search, i found an old post on MBworld stating that the c43 beats the c32 around hockenheim...

I'm not doing another dyno since I'm replacing the motor with a 7.3litre with a Quad Turbo setup soon after I pickup up my bonus at year-end.
The biggest change MB/AMG did was significantly improve the handling/steering and added the electronic pseudo LSD when they developed the C55 to make it more competitive with the E46 M3 on a track.
The cost of converting NA engines for FI usually outweighs the returns in performance.
Looking back at amgsc twin charging thread he basically spend $20k to 20K+ on making him hit 500+ tq and i believe 434whp.
Once the LEt turbo kit is done, you can spend $7k on the kit and have 500whp.
If i wanted to drop $20k, i would rather just buy a used e55. There comes a point where the cost to mod isn't worth it and its just better to buy another car just as fast stock.
ssg walker
us army
for the record, i love both cars, the c32 and c55. ive only seen 3 c55's on the street compared to dozens of c32's. i live in the northern atlanta suburbs. ive seen two different bugatti veyrons here, so its not as if people cant afford a c55. i remember driving a c32 when they came out, i was thoroughly impressed and still am.
i like the w209 nose on the c55, i think it looks very sleek!
sorry for impeding on your thread but we go through the same thing over in the c36/43 forum all the time. i was interested in putting the fire out, but it ended up being a flame war!








I guess it's 6 cylinders vs. 6 cylinders
after his HPS supercharger fiasco and missing parts from kleemann kit issue. glad if it's finally running tho. did the cooling issue fixed itself?
