Jons95c36amg

Car&Driver did 3.9sec 0-60 and 12.3 @116 in the 1/4! C63

Zod

juicy he is going by previous knowledge

ALL the 55k engines gave the same power, but are advertised differently SL/S/CL been the highest on paper E/CLS been lower
dyno / races have shown they are all the same, with some people stating that th E (claimed to be the lightest won)

Now apply this to the 63 family and what will you get? a C63 with the same engine and weighs less then all!
So that is his estimated guess

We can all speculate, but until it gets put on a dyno we can not be sure but mags have already given some results to speculate about

kip

I know, I was referring to the new C, that was an opinnion, now maybe a fact even...

crazeazn

these kinds of arguments and in-fighting deters new members from joining.

horsepower/torque, weight, gearing, aerodynamics all play importance for some of you magazine racers on here. If i remember correctly a heavier E55 wagon could turn a better time than the sedan b/c the rear weight put down the power 'better.' until somebody actually puts both on the track on the same day stop arguing with each other....its inane and silly.

Quicksilver500

I think its funny that no one has brought up insurance issues. I think that the w204 with 500hp would be a really dangerous car from an insurance standpoint (which for most of us dangerous car= fun car), 65's are dangerous even if you know what your doing. Those v12's just laugh at traction control, its really easy to get into trouble really quick. OEM's always have to be worried about safety for the general public, they are usually dumb, and will try really hard to kill themselves in your car.

Its silly to argue about power, if the engines are mechanically the same, they can be made to make the same power, its just electronics. But from reading about the new 6.3's it may be a while before they can make more than power from the engine N/A. Traction is your issue at the end of the day, thats going to determine all of your times. And its most likely why the C is detuned, because no traction makes big brother mad.

-Mike

Hakk403

Insults on intelligence dealt out with improper grammar is hilarious.

oldgixxer

Shouldn't the "is" be "are" instead?

Hakk403

Yes it should be.

Rafal

I agree. This week I drove several AMG cars at an AMG drive day on the
3.7 mi Mt Panorama circuit in Bathurst, Australia. Much to my surprise the E63 felt the most solid out of all the cars: CLS63, C63, CL63, CLK 63, SLK55.The C63 did seem to steer around the tight bends better, even permitting mid-corner correction without "ploughing" out in a straight line. On the 1.2mi main straight the E63 got up to150mph but the C63 only managed 145mph. Those additional 68HP at top end did make a difference. I am no fan of E63, still preferring my E55, but I was a little disappointed, after all the hype, with the C63.
It is still only a C-class, with cheap looking interior, a pair of great track seats which will not accommodate a majority of Americans and a nice steering wheel. As a daily driver, it is nowhere near as nice a car as E55 or E63.
Since most Americans value straight line speed over handling, any advantage C63 might have over E63 will be wasted.

iku

hm.. a slk63? lol

Rafal

You got me, you eagle-eye, you! SLK 55 it is ! Is that the extent of your contribution, a "LOL"?

iku

nah, just a friendly reminder

AMGTestDriverNJ

I feel like I know who you are, or at the very least you know a couple of my boys up in Englewood. Do you know Drew who works over at Star Motoring, or Rallo or Jun with the stage 3 E55? Do you go to those Edgewater meets I feel like that is where I know you from. Maybe you Christian Varas also? Send me a PM I'm not able to send you 1.

oldgixxer

I think that dude was banned

AMG215

get a 2006 s65 you can find one for around 90k .

Hans Delbruck

Dang this is an old thread.

But I'd like to take this opportunity to say the new E63 looks incredible.

AMG215

yes it does and i think it kills the m5 the e55 beat the m5 but the new e63 kills it