oldgixxer

Yes,but noticed nothing at all.Dealer actually replaced them at the last service&thought they were missing form the factory

Ted Baldwin

............you are still missing the point. Here is your ealier quote.
......here is your current quote.

.........The thread is about which one is faster between the C63 and the E63.

........are we on the same page so far?

.......ok, now the fact that your E63 ran 12.1 secs in the quoter mile has absolutely nothing to do with conversation......EXCEPT IF THAT RESULT IS TYPICAL FOR MOST E63's. You get the logic? The mid portion of the bell shaped curve? Math 101. Got it? Infact, no single C63 need ever achieve a 12.1 sec 1/4 mile for the C63's to be considered faster than the E63's. All that needs to happen is for most C63's to be to right of the bell shaped curve as compared to the E63's. The extremes of the curve to the right and to the left will be thrown out....hence your 12.1 sec result will not count and DerekFSU's 13.6 secs for his E63 will not count either.

.........This would be the same as the owner of the fastest stock W211 E55 arguing that E63's would have to run a mid 11sec 1/4 mile time for the E63's to be considered as fast as the E55's.............except of course if the 11.5 sec mark is typical for most E55's.......which it is not. Your car running an impressive 12.1 secs in the quatermile contributes nothing to the conversation as to which car is likely to be faster, C63's or E63's? I think you get my point.

Ted

oldgixxer

No ted,explain it to me in a lil bit more sarcastic way if possible.
So whats your brilliantly sharp,witty&logical explanation of MB_Forever running 12.2's? Is that waaaaayyyyyy offfffff yer frickin bell curve?
1000's of E63's havent been down the track like the 1000's of E55's that have been raced since the E55 came out in 03.
Maybe I'm the norm at 12.1-12.2 and enuff people haven't been taking their 63's to the track&gotten good runs.Did that ever occur to you?

So ted,you tell me since you know all:Which is faster/quicker,the C63 or E63??????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????C63? Fine you win. C63 FTMFW

Learn how to spell "quarter" please or at the very least use spell check.

anthony d

hey ted, answer me this. at an nhra event (top fuel, funny car, pro stock, etc...), are the winners determined by the average of their 1/4 mile times? no, the winners are determined by the fastest time. so, your logic is flawed and incorrect.

take the fastest e55, e63, c63, sl65, whatever, and that is how you determine which car is faster, not by your precious "bell curve" and basic mathematics. who cares about the average car and how fast it is? no one. oldgixxer has the fastest stock e63, enzom has the fastest stock e55. so which car is faster now? come on, i know you are smart enough to figure that one out.. thats right! the e55.

so as of now, the e55 is faster than tha e63, which i don't think anyone on this site will debate. when a stock c63 runs a faster time than oldgixxer's 12.12, then, and only then, will the c63 be considered faster.

and once again, we are only talking about 1/4 mile times here ted. road course results will be much different, so the e63 might very well be faster than the e55 on a road course, and the c63 might put both of them to shame on a road course, but we are not discussing that right now, we are talking about which car is potentially faster in the 1/4 mile.

no one cares about or recognizes average times, only overall fastest times.

sack5000

Your serve, Ted.

Zod

No offense to any one, but law of averages is what you take here to be consistent.

When you look at 40 cars all of which run lets say 13sec 1/4 mile, but only 2 of them run 12.5 that is not the norm and those two do not represent the majority its simple, this applies to everything not just cars, when you want to make a statement of faster/talker/ fatter/smarter etc.

And to the people stating i have fastest times in the world...you have fastest times on dragtimes, which is mostly US based no? (correct me if i am wrong)?
So this claim is only based on the people who look at it or use it.
Also does drag times actually look at your engine bay/ fuel tank mixing/ tires/ track you use (as it is preped the best) etc to determine one is true to the statement/ claim they make, other then the time slip?

Some may run faster times, but not report it, some might have completely smashed records in other countries, but you wouldn't know, for the same reasons they wouldn't know about yours, they do not look at it, or are unaware of it.

For a world record title it needs to be a specific event at a venue all participants participate and are inspected at, while been judged accordingly held on a global scale.

Kinda like WWF been called world wrestling federation when it was only US based (again correct me if i am wrong)

no bashing here just looking at it realistically

anthony d

did you even read my post before quoting it? the law of averages has nothing to do with a car being considered faster. yes, averages has to do with being more consistent, we all know that, however it doesn't change the fact that if one car goes 11.5, and another car goes 12.0, the 11.5 car is ultimately faster. say 2 e63's go to the track (like we will have on monday at the track rental), and one goes 11.99 and the other goes 12.00. which one is faster? how about an e55 that goes 11.58 and the e63 that went 11.99? once again, it has nothing to do with averages when you are trying to find out which car has the potential to be ultimately faster.

the fact that while the averages may show something different, good drivers with good conditions show the potential of the car. using your own example of the 40 cars that run 13 second 1/4 miles, and only 2 run 12.5's. the 12.5 runs are the ones that count, since those show the potential of the car, which is what we are comparing here. we are not talking about driving ability, which will affect 1/4 mile times, we are talking about the potential of a car to be faster than another car, and the only way to tell that is to see what the car is ultimately capable of.

and that has nothing to do with averages.

oldgixxer

Lizard

I saw this and it reminds me of when the E63 came out and the owner of E55 were making all the arguments they could trying to prove/show that their car is still faster even though all the specs and magazine reviews may not have supported their position.
From an outsider perspective, it appears that the establishment will always have a hard time accept change/defeat. of course no one want to easily admits that their car is not a sgood as that new one, especially one that is supposed to be a lower class in the family, and is cheaper in price.
I supposed the argument will be settled once a couple of c63 are in and are ran at the track.

oldgixxer

Your missing the point entirely.For the 17th time: if the C63 is faster we need to see timeslips to prove it.
I could care less if its a better car then the E55/63 or whatever.I like my E class.I had 2(two) C class vehicles a C55&the wife had a C240 4matic.I did not fit comfortably in them.I do not fit comfortably in the new C class either.I don't follow the "establishment" thinking I spent more on my E so therefore it MUST be better.
If the C63 indeed has the SAME hp as the E63,and weighs 300lbs LESS (and is able to hook at the line) then yes,it will be faster/quicker then the other 63 AMG's.
If you recall,the '07 E63 was supposed to destroy the E55,all the magazines said so(so it MUST be true then)but alas,what happened?Right,it didn't happen.It was a disapointment....
BUTas of 3/09/08 nobody on this forum has taken a C63 to the track&lined up against an E63 so AGAIN my point is:it's all benchracing until you ACTUALLY RUN ONE DOWN THE 1/4MI
This is ridiculous already

norb

You know what, the owner of the E63 and the owner of the C63 are both winners. As both are freaking awesome cars.

Zod

Hmm i still think the argument is flowed sorry
unless both cars are at the same track at the same time with same drivers, same factory/engine builder/ same options tires rims one can not conclude a true result to which you can say A is faster then B unless you take an avrg.


and disregard to avrges is silly because it shows what the majority run and going by your statement i should then say momhhah E55 runs 11.6 stock! ....in reality it doesn't because not many have recorded such time ( and yes i know they are not always right, but neither have mags or MB recorded such times !

I can quote an HP figure for a company that mods benzs lets say 650HP for E55!
Does that mean all cars will get that number?
lets say that was a one off and all the rest that have the same mods only get 620HP?

ITs like saying yes a Z06 smokes all from a dig because it gets 3.7 0-06 stock !
where in reality one will find it really hard to to even hook up on normal roads...

one offs are cool and nice and you should be happy if you achieve such a thing, but in the real world consistency and avrgs hold and thats how you sell and buy products not on one offs
potential of the car argument has many many factors

and yes i can see the argument stating until a C63 runs on a track it has no time slip...problem is MB has already run this car in many testing environments and are well aware of what it can get when they post their marketing figures and will most likely post an avrg or close enough.

i guess they can under quote what they can actually achieve, but if the car under achieves what they quote on a large Scale, then they have a serious problem.

360_iti

This is a tough call. I think both Ted and Oldgixxer do have a point. This is not about the C63 vs E63 anymore. But it’s about the comparison method between two similar objects. Which one to use: best case scenario vs. average.
Half of the comparisons in the world use best case scenario, most of them are for marketing purposes. For example: if you go to expedia.com and compare multiple hotel rates, or airfares, they always use “starting at” price, which in this case, is the best case scenario.
The rest use average measurement, for example mpg numbers, rainfall index, temperature, etc.
Like I said, this is a tough call, I don’t know which method to use.

SolidGranite

I agree, this is a tough one to call.

Something easy to compare against would be the magazine performance tests. When C/D says the 0-60 on the E63 is 4.3sec (guess) they take the car and do several runs with it. My guess is somewhere around 10 or so... Whatever the best time is that they get, then that is the published time. It's not an average of the 10 runs...

Just my .02.

Either way, I wish we could have a civilized discussion and be a bit more friendly to each other. We are all here for the same reason.. Passion for cars. Who cares about spelling mistakes!

oldgixxer

Not to stir the pot,but a stock E63 is now in the 11's,and another stock E63 ran a string of 12.1's yesterday as well

360_iti

Haha I noticed that you've changed your sig !!

Zod

congrats

SolidGranite

How many miles on your 63? That is an impressive time and I know when the 55 came out nobody was faster than 12.3 or 12.4.

crazeazn

yall need to stop racing on the internet and enjoy your fine cars. seriously.

oldgixxer

Just turned 11,600 today

anthony d

that thing is getting old, i think you should give it to me.

ESIX3POWER

Where do you get your information from ? E63 is 4.2 in the 0-60 and I have not seen 3.9 for the C63 any where. Please show us. Thank you.

Andy7oaks

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st+page-3.html

Regards

Andy