E63 vs the C63
09-11-2007, 06:44 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
Last edited by TMC M5; 09-11-2007 at 06:55 PM.
09-14-2007, 05:57 AM
#52
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: LA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C230KSS 6spd
if you have enough money to already have an s4 and then UPGRADE to another car, personally i think you might as well go to a racing school and learn how to drive (somewhat) properly. its no use having a fast car then overcompensating and wrapping it around a tree. or more importantly hitting someone else.
Last edited by charl1exbr0wn; 09-14-2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason: grammatical errors
09-14-2007, 12:02 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
If you read a recent article on this board about the C63, product engineer clearly states that the C63 has small air boxes and a different ECU map.
Getting this car back to 500+hp will not a problem.
Reducing weight on a E or CLS is a problem.
Last edited by TopGun32; 09-14-2007 at 12:06 PM.
09-14-2007, 12:13 PM
#54
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary/Helsinki
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1994 E320
OK. I think I just misunderstood what you meant. Sorry, I thought what you meant by "past" was a few years ago, instead of prior W203 era.
But looks like E-class sales are closing the gap and it actually outsold W203 last year. It'll be interesting to see the numbers for next year with the new W204 in the picture.
But looks like E-class sales are closing the gap and it actually outsold W203 last year. It'll be interesting to see the numbers for next year with the new W204 in the picture.
09-25-2007, 04:17 AM
#55
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Ok, my Dad just traded in his E55 for an E63 amg and I must say it is an awesome vehicle!
I have a Audi S4 and I'm looking to trade it in for an AMG but I want something different than what my Dad has but I want to be just as fast if not faster! Also, I have a friend that has a bmw M5 and a neighbor that has a audi RS4 so obviously I want to be faster than both of them.
Is the new C63 the way to go and keep up with the "Jones" and not be in the $90K price range? Is it faster than the E63, M5 or RS4? Should I go and get my name on the waiting list at Mercedes?
I have a Audi S4 and I'm looking to trade it in for an AMG but I want something different than what my Dad has but I want to be just as fast if not faster! Also, I have a friend that has a bmw M5 and a neighbor that has a audi RS4 so obviously I want to be faster than both of them.
Is the new C63 the way to go and keep up with the "Jones" and not be in the $90K price range? Is it faster than the E63, M5 or RS4? Should I go and get my name on the waiting list at Mercedes?
09-25-2007, 05:36 AM
#56
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 BMW X5 4.8is and 2005 C55 AMG
09-30-2007, 12:14 PM
#57
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Ford Mustang GT
I can't figure out why this is so complicated for people to figure out. If you have 2 cars, one considerably larger (the E AMG) with the exact same 6.3 liter engine, the smaller car (C AMG) is going to beat the sh*t out of the larger car every single time. The ONLY reason the C63 shows lower horsepower numbers is because Mercedes slightly crippled and detuned the 6.3 in the C, which can be easily fixed with a chip. Lol I can't believe there are 2 pages of responses debating a simple concept like this. Same engine, smaller car, C63 WILL be faster. Oh and all that BS about status and C versus E cars. It has nothing to do with status, it has to do with size. The only difference now between a C and an E is SIZE and that by the way is the basis for increasing letters, not status but SIZE. *rolls his eyes* Mercedes people really are more about status than car knowledge. By the way, does anybody actually like driving a bigger car if you're a sports car enthusiast? That's why I'd take the C63 even if you GAVE me an E AMG. The reason a C AMG can have an identical engine as an E AMG is because I'm sure only you less than well endowed people who use your Mercedes as a status symbol think that somehow an E is God compared to a C, where Mercedes just thinks its a bigger car.
Last edited by C63AMG2B; 09-30-2007 at 12:18 PM.
09-30-2007, 01:48 PM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lotus Elise SLK55
I can't figure out why this is so complicated for people to figure out. If you have 2 cars, one considerably larger (the E AMG) with the exact same 6.3 liter engine, the smaller car (C AMG) is going to beat the sh*t out of the larger car every single time. The ONLY reason the C63 shows lower horsepower numbers is because Mercedes slightly crippled and detuned the 6.3 in the C, which can be easily fixed with a chip. Lol I can't believe there are 2 pages of responses debating a simple concept like this. Same engine, smaller car, C63 WILL be faster. Oh and all that BS about status and C versus E cars. It has nothing to do with status, it has to do with size. The only difference now between a C and an E is SIZE and that by the way is the basis for increasing letters, not status but SIZE. *rolls his eyes* Mercedes people really are more about status than car knowledge. By the way, does anybody actually like driving a bigger car if you're a sports car enthusiast? That's why I'd take the C63 even if you GAVE me an E AMG. The reason a C AMG can have an identical engine as an E AMG is because I'm sure only you less than well endowed people who use your Mercedes as a status symbol think that somehow an E is God compared to a C, where Mercedes just thinks its a bigger car.
Just look at C&D test of a CLK63 Convertible, which is heavier than C63. It did 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and 1/4 mile at 12.5 @ 116mph in their test, while E63 was slower and did 12.6 @ 115mph in their test. Because C63 is lighter than CLK63 Convertible, you can assume its faster or at least just as fast.
Finally, C55 was a mid 13 second car, while E55 was a mid 12 second car. You paid more for E55 and you got a huge performance advantage, which is how it should be. With C63 and E63, Mercedes made them both mid 12 second cars with C63 having advantage due to it being lighter. Why Mercedes would upgrade C class's performance and keep the E class's performance the same (or less) is beyond me
09-30-2007, 05:42 PM
#59
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SC
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'07 CLS63 AMG, '08 S550, '09 GL450 w/appearance pkg., ('06 BMW '04 M3, '01 Boxster S - ALL SOLD)
09-30-2007, 06:31 PM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
How sad
. And here I thought the Orange County was all about spoiled rich kids living the "image".
Here's the way I see it. Dad worked hard to earn his E63. So did the neighbors. Before you feel the need to be better than Dad, try out-working him to earn your own E or C or whatever you want. And, it is not "obvious" why you have to be faster than Dad (when he is paying for the car in the first place) or the neighbors/friends.
Hopefully, by the time you earn it, you will have matured to the point you don't suffer from odd form of P-nis envy.
. And here I thought the Orange County was all about spoiled rich kids living the "image".Here's the way I see it. Dad worked hard to earn his E63. So did the neighbors. Before you feel the need to be better than Dad, try out-working him to earn your own E or C or whatever you want. And, it is not "obvious" why you have to be faster than Dad (when he is paying for the car in the first place) or the neighbors/friends.
Hopefully, by the time you earn it, you will have matured to the point you don't suffer from odd form of P-nis envy.
Las Vegas is pretty bad, all the new money made in the real estate. Mix that with the gambling and I'd say that some people there are worse than some in Orange County.
09-30-2007, 06:32 PM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d..._cabrio_ts.pdf
Ok...the links are both Car & Driver test summary sheets that they have on their websites for the E63 and CLK63 (the cabriolet...not the Black Series).
The E63 weighs in at over 4,300lbs and the CLK63 comes in at a little over 4,100lbs. The CLK63 reported pumps out 32hp less at 475hp, with the same torque rating as the E63. You will notice that the CLK63 pretty much walks away from the E63 above 60mph. The E63 was even tested in cooler weather (18 degrees cooler) than the CLK63. It should also be noted that the Black Series CLK63 didn't really test much better than this Cabriolet.
The C63 reportedly weighs in at only 3,800lbs (we'll see) and pumps out 450hp/443lb-ft of torque. The 25hp (22lbs-ft torque) deficit to the CLK63 isn't much when you are talking about pushing 300lbs fewer. The C63's 57hp/22lb-ft of torque are not as significant when looking at the 500lbs differential. The C63's relative torque advantage is further bolstered by the apparent use of the 2.82 gearing from the Black Series (versus the 2.65 gearing employed by the CLK63 and E63). When you factor all this, you will have a car capable of 4.2-4.3 0-60 times and one capable of sub-10 second runs to 100mph and mid-12's in the 1/4 mile.
Tom
Thanks for posting this..
The temperature was not as much as a factor in testing as was the drop in barometric pressure. This may really have skewed the comparison. I find it BEYOND BELIEF that Density Air calculations are not done and listed during such tests.
The E63 was run at a 1300 ft disadvantage due to the severly low barometric pressure.
Doing an SAE correction for the acceleration the E63 is .2 faster than the CLK 63. This puts both cars at sea level or a barometer of 29.92.
E63 is faster and tuning the 63 engine is much more difficult than the 55 engine it replaced. The 63 is proving to be a huge tuner challenge.
Last edited by juicee63; 09-30-2007 at 06:44 PM.
09-30-2007, 06:50 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
He is 100% right. C63 will be faster than E63 simply because its lighter and has the same exact engine and power output.
Just look at C&D test of a CLK63 Convertible, which is heavier than C63. It did 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and 1/4 mile at 12.5 @ 116mph in their test, while E63 was slower and did 12.6 @ 115mph in their test. Because C63 is lighter than CLK63 Convertible, you can assume its faster or at least just as fast.
Finally, C55 was a mid 13 second car, while E55 was a mid 12 second car. You paid more for E55 and you got a huge performance advantage, which is how it should be. With C63 and E63, Mercedes made them both mid 12 second cars with C63 having advantage due to it being lighter. Why Mercedes would upgrade C class's performance and keep the E class's performance the same (or less) is beyond me
engine is the same, but it is detuned, and it will cost some serious coin to bring it up to 514 bhp. Same prob we are having getting the current 63's to 525-550. Tuners have had 12 months and still we have not seen one 63 dyno at more than 440 to the wheel. why? The ECU tune(software) has accomplished very very minimal gains if any at all. Nobody has the map, the ecu map that will easily accomplish 50 hp?
Last edited by juicee63; 09-30-2007 at 06:52 PM.
09-30-2007, 08:08 PM
#63
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cls 63 amg, 2006 Bmw M6
And why not? The C63 has 457 Horses at 443 ft lb torque.
The E63 has 507 horsepower at 465 ft lb torque.
Sure the E class may weigh more but according to some stats I read, the E has a slightly better weight to power distribution ratio than the lighter more nimble C.
The C63 weighs 3650 lbs curb. The E63 is at around 4100 lbs curb.
My bet is still on the E. And why would Mercedes make the cheaper lower class of competition C faster than the higher E?
The E63 has 507 horsepower at 465 ft lb torque.
Sure the E class may weigh more but according to some stats I read, the E has a slightly better weight to power distribution ratio than the lighter more nimble C.
The C63 weighs 3650 lbs curb. The E63 is at around 4100 lbs curb.
My bet is still on the E. And why would Mercedes make the cheaper lower class of competition C faster than the higher E?
That is how it is possible for the "lowly C" to be faster than E.....TEMPORARILY.
Last edited by caliboy; 09-30-2007 at 11:50 PM.
09-30-2007, 10:27 PM
#64
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Ford Mustang GT
Lol. This has to be the funniest thread I've ever read in a car forum. All the elitist idiots trying to protect their investments who probably don't know a damn think about cars but for the fact that they own a frickin E or CLK class AMG which they believe gives them some true identity and value in life. Hahaha Learn about frickin cars and the driving experience you wish to get when you think about cars and not the fact that a modified version of a "lowly" C class is as fast or faster than your E class. Because let me tell you something, if that is your basis for car selection and value in your life, your pretty much a worthless sack of sh*t the next time a S class AMG or SLK drives by your pathetic E or CLK class. The bottom line is the higher letters mean very little more and should mean very little more to anyone without an identity crisis than the SIZE of the vehicle. And with all due respect to E AMG owners I wouldn't take or want a larger AMG sports sedan because no amount of horsepower can make up for a supercar sedan that's too big. I cannot for the life of me figure out how stupid Mercedes owners must be not to know that if you have identical displacement 6.3 liter V8s in two cars, the smaller one is going to be faster. And that's not a threat to E owners unless you think that your car somehow is your identity. And if you do, ill just laugh at your car next time someone passes you in an S55. All I can say to you is that I sincerely hope you bought your E class AMG for some tangible reason like you needed a bigger car and not because it is $30,000 more and that gives you identity that is taken away by a faster
C class AMG, because that would make you a pathetic little fool with identity issues who seeks status through material objects rather than looking for the ideal driving experience. If status was the main ridiculous reason you chose the E class AMG then I particularly sorry for you because you spent $30,000 more for a larger uglier car than the new C63 which is subjectively the same speed or slower with the exact same engine. And anybody who is a true supercar sports sedan fan would want a lighter smaller car.
C class AMG, because that would make you a pathetic little fool with identity issues who seeks status through material objects rather than looking for the ideal driving experience. If status was the main ridiculous reason you chose the E class AMG then I particularly sorry for you because you spent $30,000 more for a larger uglier car than the new C63 which is subjectively the same speed or slower with the exact same engine. And anybody who is a true supercar sports sedan fan would want a lighter smaller car.
Last edited by C63AMG2B; 09-30-2007 at 10:58 PM.
09-30-2007, 11:35 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 Cayenne Turbo
Lol. This has to be the funniest thread I've ever read in a car forum. All the elitist idiots trying to protect their investments who probably don't know a damn think about cars but for the fact that they own a frickin E or CLK class AMG which they believe gives them some true identity and value in life. Hahaha Learn about frickin cars and the driving experience you wish to get when you think about cars and not the fact that a modified version of a "lowly" C class is as fast or faster than your E class. Because let me tell you something, if that is your basis for car selection and value in your life, your pretty much a worthless sack of sh*t the next time a S class AMG or SLK drives by your pathetic E or CLK class. The bottom line is the higher letters mean very little more and should mean very little more to anyone without an identity crisis than the SIZE of the vehicle. And with all due respect to E AMG owners I wouldn't take or want a larger AMG sports sedan because no amount of horsepower can make up for a supercar sedan that's too big. I cannot for the life of me figure out how stupid Mercedes owners must be not to know that if you have identical displacement 6.3 liter V8s in two cars, the smaller one is going to be faster. And that's not a threat to E owners unless you think that your car somehow is your identity. And if you do, ill just laugh at your car next time someone passes you in an S55. All I can say to you is that I sincerely hope you bought your E class AMG for some tangible reason like you needed a bigger car and not because it is $30,000 more and that gives you identity that is taken away by a faster
C class AMG, because that would make you a pathetic little fool with identity issues who seeks status through material objects rather than looking for the ideal driving experience. If status was the main ridiculous reason you chose the E class AMG then I particularly sorry for you because you spent $30,000 more for a larger uglier car than the new C63 which is subjectively the same speed or slower with the exact same engine. And anybody who is a true supercar sports sedan fan would want a lighter smaller car.
C class AMG, because that would make you a pathetic little fool with identity issues who seeks status through material objects rather than looking for the ideal driving experience. If status was the main ridiculous reason you chose the E class AMG then I particularly sorry for you because you spent $30,000 more for a larger uglier car than the new C63 which is subjectively the same speed or slower with the exact same engine. And anybody who is a true supercar sports sedan fan would want a lighter smaller car.
I don't quite get your hostility.
If this is the "funniest thread I've ever read in a car forum" than this must be the first one you've been to.
The E class is a higher end automobile than the C.
And like every other car maker, minus VW, Mercedes doesn't like to compete with itself. That said the C63 is German automotive buy of the year, IMO.
10-01-2007, 12:03 AM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lotus Elise SLK55
engine is the same, but it is detuned, and it will cost some serious coin to bring it up to 514 bhp. Same prob we are having getting the current 63's to 525-550. Tuners have had 12 months and still we have not seen one 63 dyno at more than 440 to the wheel. why? The ECU tune(software) has accomplished very very minimal gains if any at all. Nobody has the map, the ecu map that will easily accomplish 50 hp?
1. The "detuning" of 55 models is BS, this is a fact. Didn't we already see that both SL55 and E55 dyno around 435whp stock when E55 is supposed to have 469hp and SL55 is supposed to have 510hp. In many cases, stock E55 actually dyno higher than SL55.
2. All 63 Models run the same times in the 1/4 mile even though there is supposed to be a difference in power. CLK63 Black Series and CLK63 Convertible are supposed to have a difference in power and yet accelerate at nearly identical rate, with CLK63 Convertible actually being slightly faster. Now please explain to me how a CLK with less power and more weight is able to match and exceed performance of a CLK with more power and less weight.
CLK63 Convertible (detuned) = 0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 9.5, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph
CLK63 Black Series = 0-60 in 4.1, 0-100 in 9.6, 1/4 mile in 12.4 @ 115mph
I really don't see any evidence that proves there is any "detuning" going on. I would bet you 1000$ that if you'd strap a C63 and E63 on the same dyno, the same day, they will put down nearly identical whp. The only reason Mercedes quotes lower hp numbers on C63 is to make E/CLS/S63 owners feel better
Last edited by Addicted2Speed; 10-01-2007 at 12:05 AM.
10-01-2007, 01:17 AM
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
O.K., here is my question for you. Why do you believe so strongly that C63 is "detuned". I personally see two strong reasons not to believe the whole "detuning" thing.
1. The "detuning" of 55 models is BS, this is a fact. Didn't we already see that both SL55 and E55 dyno around 435whp stock when E55 is supposed to have 469hp and SL55 is supposed to have 510hp. In many cases, stock E55 actually dyno higher than SL55.
2. All 63 Models run the same times in the 1/4 mile even though there is supposed to be a difference in power. CLK63 Black Series and CLK63 Convertible are supposed to have a difference in power and yet accelerate at nearly identical rate, with CLK63 Convertible actually being slightly faster. Now please explain to me how a CLK with less power and more weight is able to match and exceed performance of a CLK with more power and less weight.
CLK63 Convertible (detuned) = 0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 9.5, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph
CLK63 Black Series = 0-60 in 4.1, 0-100 in 9.6, 1/4 mile in 12.4 @ 115mph
I really don't see any evidence that proves there is any "detuning" going on. I would bet you 1000$ that if you'd strap a C63 and E63 on the same dyno, the same day, they will put down nearly identical whp. The only reason Mercedes quotes lower hp numbers on C63 is to make E/CLS/S63 owners feel better
1. The "detuning" of 55 models is BS, this is a fact. Didn't we already see that both SL55 and E55 dyno around 435whp stock when E55 is supposed to have 469hp and SL55 is supposed to have 510hp. In many cases, stock E55 actually dyno higher than SL55.
2. All 63 Models run the same times in the 1/4 mile even though there is supposed to be a difference in power. CLK63 Black Series and CLK63 Convertible are supposed to have a difference in power and yet accelerate at nearly identical rate, with CLK63 Convertible actually being slightly faster. Now please explain to me how a CLK with less power and more weight is able to match and exceed performance of a CLK with more power and less weight.
CLK63 Convertible (detuned) = 0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 9.5, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph
CLK63 Black Series = 0-60 in 4.1, 0-100 in 9.6, 1/4 mile in 12.4 @ 115mph
I really don't see any evidence that proves there is any "detuning" going on. I would bet you 1000$ that if you'd strap a C63 and E63 on the same dyno, the same day, they will put down nearly identical whp. The only reason Mercedes quotes lower hp numbers on C63 is to make E/CLS/S63 owners feel better
No way in hell the 63 engine in the C63 will produce the same HP as the 63 motor in the E63 or CLS 63 or S63 or any other chasis. Speculating this engine is going to dyno at the same output as the other 63 models is silly.
I love the car, I love it.. I would buy the C63 in a second to track it. Its speed is not due to HP but to weight. And yes losing 600 lbs will make this car every bit as fast as the other 63 models. You get this engine to give you back the lost 50 hp and WOW!!! The C63 will dyno stock likely around 375 hp and will likely keep up just fine stock.
10-01-2007, 02:08 AM
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
O.K., here is my question for you. Why do you believe so strongly that C63 is "detuned". I personally see two strong reasons not to believe the whole "detuning" thing.
1. The "detuning" of 55 models is BS, this is a fact. Didn't we already see that both SL55 and E55 dyno around 435whp stock when E55 is supposed to have 469hp and SL55 is supposed to have 510hp. In many cases, stock E55 actually dyno higher than SL55.
2. All 63 Models run the same times in the 1/4 mile even though there is supposed to be a difference in power. CLK63 Black Series and CLK63 Convertible are supposed to have a difference in power and yet accelerate at nearly identical rate, with CLK63 Convertible actually being slightly faster. Now please explain to me how a CLK with less power and more weight is able to match and exceed performance of a CLK with more power and less weight.
I really don't see any evidence that proves there is any "detuning" going on. I would bet you 1000$ that if you'd strap a C63 and E63 on the same dyno, the same day, they will put down nearly identical whp. The only reason Mercedes quotes lower hp numbers on C63 is to make E/CLS/S63 owners feel better
1. The "detuning" of 55 models is BS, this is a fact. Didn't we already see that both SL55 and E55 dyno around 435whp stock when E55 is supposed to have 469hp and SL55 is supposed to have 510hp. In many cases, stock E55 actually dyno higher than SL55.
2. All 63 Models run the same times in the 1/4 mile even though there is supposed to be a difference in power. CLK63 Black Series and CLK63 Convertible are supposed to have a difference in power and yet accelerate at nearly identical rate, with CLK63 Convertible actually being slightly faster. Now please explain to me how a CLK with less power and more weight is able to match and exceed performance of a CLK with more power and less weight.
CLK63 Convertible (detuned) = 0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 9.5, 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 116mph
CLK63 Black Series = 0-60 in 4.1, 0-100 in 9.6, 1/4 mile in 12.4 @ 115mph
CLK63 Black Series = 0-60 in 4.1, 0-100 in 9.6, 1/4 mile in 12.4 @ 115mph
BS 12.4@116
CLK 63 12.5@115
also test conditions, where were the test and when, time date and locale?
I see the test of the E63 vs CLK 63 were at different tracks and different times of the year. Test the cars, same day same track.
Last edited by juicee63; 10-01-2007 at 02:13 AM.
10-02-2007, 10:54 PM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island & Hong Kong
Posts: 1,264
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20+ to list......
Guys, I really don't think MB would get itself into trouble by detuning the C63's performance, just too much hassle and money to go thorugh it. It's all about marketing strategy, and as some of you had put it, most MB buyers don't know heck about cars, they only care about the numbers on papers. I am 99.9% sure that the C63 will put down identical numbers as the E/CLS/CL/S 63s out there.
It's never easy to get the best bang to the buck modification for a N/A engine, I wouldn't be surprised if them tuners release some kind of cam/valvetrain package or stroker kit to really unleash the power within.
It's never easy to get the best bang to the buck modification for a N/A engine, I wouldn't be surprised if them tuners release some kind of cam/valvetrain package or stroker kit to really unleash the power within.
10-02-2007, 11:05 PM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Guys, I really don't think MB would get itself into trouble by detuning the C63's performance, just too much hassle and money to go thorugh it. It's all about marketing strategy, and as some of you had put it, most MB buyers don't know heck about cars, they only care about the numbers on papers. I am 99.9% sure that the C63 will put down identical numbers as the E/CLS/CL/S 63s out there.
It's never easy to get the best bang to the buck modification for a N/A engine, I wouldn't be surprised if them tuners release some kind of cam/valvetrain package or stroker kit to really unleash the power within.
It's never easy to get the best bang to the buck modification for a N/A engine, I wouldn't be surprised if them tuners release some kind of cam/valvetrain package or stroker kit to really unleash the power within.
10-03-2007, 12:05 AM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
The more restrictive pipes necessitated by the more cramped quarters is the cause of some of this. Headers may be able to buy some HP back and will almost certainly be needed if ECU changes are to have much effect.
10-03-2007, 04:45 AM
#72
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Hey Guys posts like this show how people don't understand MB's past models. When the C32 came out........ the W210 E55 was king of MB 0-60 in claimed 5.4 secs while the new W203 body style AMG came out as new and claimed 0-60 in 4.9 sec. BUT the w210 was about to be replaced by the W211 E55 monster. SO GUESS WHAT LADIES AND GENTS FOR A SHORT TIME about 1 YEAR to be exact the LOWLY C CLASS AMG C32 WAS THE FASTEST AMG PRODUCTION CAR MB MADE FROM 2002-2003.. SO the same thing is going to happen here the C63 will in fact be on par or slightly faster than the E63 FOR A SHORT TIME TILL THE NEW E CLASS AMG COMES OUT.
That is how it is possible for the "lowly C" to be faster than E.....TEMPORARILY.
That is how it is possible for the "lowly C" to be faster than E.....TEMPORARILY.
03-14-2008, 06:21 PM
#73
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SD
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
03-14-2008, 06:49 PM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
This is just pure speculation based on... well nothing, an opinnion maybe. While we have no evidence to prove otherwise, I rely on the manufacturers claims. When the C63 is tested by the same automags as the E 63, then we will see who really is the king, until then the debate here is just silly. I am, however, not saying that the C63 will be slower, I am just saying that lets wait and see. And if the HP given would be just for marketing purposes, why give the CLK more power than the C??? And if the C63 truly is as fast as people speculate here, and the new car TAX will drop here in Finland (as we all hope will hapen this year) it just might also be an alternative for me. I hope tests come out soon, but so far I have just seen first drives and impressions.
To answer why they gave the CLK more ponies well you just have to look at the MSRP. The CLK55 priced closer to the E55k than to the C32/55.
03-14-2008, 09:11 PM
#75
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future C63
It also looks like several of you earlier posters hit these numbers dead on for the C63.
0-60 C63 (4.1) M5 (4.3) E63 (4.3)
0-100 C63 (9.8) M5 (10.0) E63 (10.1)
1/4 Mile C63 (12.5) M5 (12.7) E63 (12.7)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html
Last edited by C63ForMe; 03-14-2008 at 09:48 PM.
