Force Induction on a C63
06-07-2008, 12:43 AM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Force Induction on a C63
I was wondering if there is enough room for a supercharger, turbo charger or perhaps bi-turbo in the C63?
I need to know to help decide on my next car, right now it's a close call between GT-R and C63 and Nissan is ahead
I need to know to help decide on my next car, right now it's a close call between GT-R and C63 and Nissan is ahead
06-07-2008, 01:16 AM
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-07-2008, 01:27 AM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG
As far as supercharging C63 sure... if you have enough $$$ you can do it!
06-07-2008, 05:36 AM
#5
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: orange county NY
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55(sold)'05 E55(sold)'06 911C4S(sold)'06 ML350 '06 CLS55(sold),buncha slo bikes
The search button is a wonderful tool,wouldn't you agree?
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/204861-supercharger-amg-63s-m156.html
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/204861-supercharger-amg-63s-m156.html
06-07-2008, 11:37 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 C63 (Coming Soon)
Stupid question and comment. These are two totally different cars. Don't compare apples and oranges. Most people can't even hang with a stock C63, let alone one with forced induction.
Go read the July 08 C&D for some more insight on the new GTR. "Nissan aimed for Ferrari and hits somewhere between an M3 and a 911." "Excessive road noise; strange transmission clunks; rough one-to-two shift; can feel too wide, heavy, and big." Don't get me wrong, the Nissan @ 3900 lbs will be a formidable car, but nothing like a C63. The M3 gets ranked in at #1 in this comparison, Nissan GTR #2, and Porsche 997 Turbo #3. Among one of the reasons they probably didn't throw the C63 into the mix is because its got 4 doors.
Although I strayed way off topic, there is no need to put forced induction on a hand-built AMG motor. The **** is bananas already son.
Go read the July 08 C&D for some more insight on the new GTR. "Nissan aimed for Ferrari and hits somewhere between an M3 and a 911." "Excessive road noise; strange transmission clunks; rough one-to-two shift; can feel too wide, heavy, and big." Don't get me wrong, the Nissan @ 3900 lbs will be a formidable car, but nothing like a C63. The M3 gets ranked in at #1 in this comparison, Nissan GTR #2, and Porsche 997 Turbo #3. Among one of the reasons they probably didn't throw the C63 into the mix is because its got 4 doors.
Although I strayed way off topic, there is no need to put forced induction on a hand-built AMG motor. The **** is bananas already son.
Last edited by Arctic White; 06-07-2008 at 11:41 AM.
Trending Topics
06-07-2008, 05:50 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Stupid question and comment. These are two totally different cars. Don't compare apples and oranges. Most people can't even hang with a stock C63, let alone one with forced induction.
Go read the July 08 C&D for some more insight on the new GTR. "Nissan aimed for Ferrari and hits somewhere between an M3 and a 911." "Excessive road noise; strange transmission clunks; rough one-to-two shift; can feel too wide, heavy, and big." Don't get me wrong, the Nissan @ 3900 lbs will be a formidable car, but nothing like a C63. The M3 gets ranked in at #1 in this comparison, Nissan GTR #2, and Porsche 997 Turbo #3. Among one of the reasons they probably didn't throw the C63 into the mix is because its got 4 doors.
Although I strayed way off topic, there is no need to put forced induction on a hand-built AMG motor. The **** is bananas already son.
Go read the July 08 C&D for some more insight on the new GTR. "Nissan aimed for Ferrari and hits somewhere between an M3 and a 911." "Excessive road noise; strange transmission clunks; rough one-to-two shift; can feel too wide, heavy, and big." Don't get me wrong, the Nissan @ 3900 lbs will be a formidable car, but nothing like a C63. The M3 gets ranked in at #1 in this comparison, Nissan GTR #2, and Porsche 997 Turbo #3. Among one of the reasons they probably didn't throw the C63 into the mix is because its got 4 doors.
Although I strayed way off topic, there is no need to put forced induction on a hand-built AMG motor. The **** is bananas already son.
If you are not thinking about force inducting your C63 that's fine, that doesn't mean others aren't. Look at C55 owners on this forum. if I had a C55 first mod I would get is a supercharger. Too much power is never enough. And I bet you within a few months people will start putting blowers on a C63.
Last edited by kindafast; 06-07-2008 at 06:00 PM.
06-07-2008, 06:13 PM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG
I'm not comparing them. I asked a simple question. I don't plan to buy a new car RIGHT now. They are both my dream cars and I was thinking if you could supercharge or put a turbo on a C63 it would be even with a stock GTR in a straight line.
If you are not thinking about force inducting your C63 that's fine, that doesn't mean others aren't. Look at C55 owners on this forum. if I had a C55 first mod I would get is a supercharger. Too much power is never enough. And I bet you within a few months people will start putting blowers on a C63.
If you are not thinking about force inducting your C63 that's fine, that doesn't mean others aren't. Look at C55 owners on this forum. if I had a C55 first mod I would get is a supercharger. Too much power is never enough. And I bet you within a few months people will start putting blowers on a C63.
06-07-2008, 06:20 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary/Helsinki
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1994 E320
Do yourself a favour and don't read it.
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/221457/c-...911-turbo-lol/
Here you go:
http://forums.beyond.ca/st/221457/c-...911-turbo-lol/
Here you go:
Originally posted by rage2
I'll do a translation of the article (the BMW part).
In this group of radical cars, the M3 emerged quickly as the voice of reason. The extremist voices of the Porsche and the GT-R are just not present in the M3. It never shouts, utters complaints, or makes any unbecoming demands. Road and tire noise are subdued, the fabric-covered seats are perfect, and there is a back seat and a real trunk. But even with those attributes, the M3 doesn’t skimp on supercar performance. It just happens to be dressed in a polished and practical package.
Translation: The M3's pretty boring, but I'll wrap it around some bull**** to make it look awesome.
Even without the optional adjustable electronic dampers, our M3 test car displayed a better ride-and-handling compromise than either the 911 or the GT-R. Handling, both on the track and public roads, matched the GT-R in our individual scoring. But the M3 goes about its business differently. The GT-R steamrolls the tarmac into submission in an eerie sort of way; the M3 allows the driver to use the car as an instrument. Not many cars can play the road—the car world has more fakers than a middle-school band concert.
Translation: The last gen M3, we accepted the rough ride because it gave us great handling. But now that BMW have softened up, we'll spin it so it's a positive and bash the harder rides of the other cars.
As one test driver put it, “The M3 is the car that the driver has the most control over.” Oversteer, understeer, and neutrality are all on the M3’s résumé, but they’re dependent on the driver’s inputs. The chassis has no surprises, no snap reactions, no bad habits—even midcorner bumps are sopped up without drama. Strong brakes have excellent initial bite and didn’t fade even after many, many laps. The BMW’s lap time lagged 1.5 seconds behind the 911 Turbo’s, but that translates to an average speed throughout the lap that was only 0.3 mph slower than the far more powerful Porsche. Thus the BMW, though suffocated by the thin air at 4200 feet, managed to make up most of the difference by cornering faster.
Translation: The BMW is so underpowered I can't get it to do stupid stuff! The GT-R kicked my ***, so I'll just compare to the 911.
Unlike the heavyweights, the BMW feels smaller the harder it is driven. Part of that feel is due to light steering, but the importance of having the lowest mass and the narrowest width also plays a huge role.
Translation: We used to ***** out all the AMG cars for light steering, but now that our *********** have that problem, well... it's no longer a problem!
It is immediately obvious (especially at altitude) that the M3 isn’t as quick as its turbocharged competition, but 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds is nothing to scoff at, either (other M3s we’ve tested have been slightly quicker). A naturally aspirated 4.0-liter V-8 can’t deliver the massive torque of the blown sixes, but the M3 delivers its 414 horsepower in a linear and consistent manner from idle to its 8300-rpm redline. No lurching, no drama, no sudden explosions of boost. And the sound the BMW V-8 makes is due a Grammy. It’s a V-8 note not often heard outside racetracks, while the Nissan and the Porsche both sound as though they could wear a Dyson label.
Translation: zZzZzZzZ
If you’ll overlook the now cliché complaints about the iDrive control system and the car’s light steering, the M3 didn’t draw any negative words in its logbook. And the iDrive gripe is easily solved by not ordering the $2100 optional navigation system.
Translation: If you ignore all the problems, we have no problems! What a concept!
Seriously, what a ****ed up review haha.
I'll do a translation of the article (the BMW part).
In this group of radical cars, the M3 emerged quickly as the voice of reason. The extremist voices of the Porsche and the GT-R are just not present in the M3. It never shouts, utters complaints, or makes any unbecoming demands. Road and tire noise are subdued, the fabric-covered seats are perfect, and there is a back seat and a real trunk. But even with those attributes, the M3 doesn’t skimp on supercar performance. It just happens to be dressed in a polished and practical package.
Translation: The M3's pretty boring, but I'll wrap it around some bull**** to make it look awesome.
Even without the optional adjustable electronic dampers, our M3 test car displayed a better ride-and-handling compromise than either the 911 or the GT-R. Handling, both on the track and public roads, matched the GT-R in our individual scoring. But the M3 goes about its business differently. The GT-R steamrolls the tarmac into submission in an eerie sort of way; the M3 allows the driver to use the car as an instrument. Not many cars can play the road—the car world has more fakers than a middle-school band concert.
Translation: The last gen M3, we accepted the rough ride because it gave us great handling. But now that BMW have softened up, we'll spin it so it's a positive and bash the harder rides of the other cars.
As one test driver put it, “The M3 is the car that the driver has the most control over.” Oversteer, understeer, and neutrality are all on the M3’s résumé, but they’re dependent on the driver’s inputs. The chassis has no surprises, no snap reactions, no bad habits—even midcorner bumps are sopped up without drama. Strong brakes have excellent initial bite and didn’t fade even after many, many laps. The BMW’s lap time lagged 1.5 seconds behind the 911 Turbo’s, but that translates to an average speed throughout the lap that was only 0.3 mph slower than the far more powerful Porsche. Thus the BMW, though suffocated by the thin air at 4200 feet, managed to make up most of the difference by cornering faster.
Translation: The BMW is so underpowered I can't get it to do stupid stuff! The GT-R kicked my ***, so I'll just compare to the 911.
Unlike the heavyweights, the BMW feels smaller the harder it is driven. Part of that feel is due to light steering, but the importance of having the lowest mass and the narrowest width also plays a huge role.
Translation: We used to ***** out all the AMG cars for light steering, but now that our *********** have that problem, well... it's no longer a problem!
It is immediately obvious (especially at altitude) that the M3 isn’t as quick as its turbocharged competition, but 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds is nothing to scoff at, either (other M3s we’ve tested have been slightly quicker). A naturally aspirated 4.0-liter V-8 can’t deliver the massive torque of the blown sixes, but the M3 delivers its 414 horsepower in a linear and consistent manner from idle to its 8300-rpm redline. No lurching, no drama, no sudden explosions of boost. And the sound the BMW V-8 makes is due a Grammy. It’s a V-8 note not often heard outside racetracks, while the Nissan and the Porsche both sound as though they could wear a Dyson label.
Translation: zZzZzZzZ
If you’ll overlook the now cliché complaints about the iDrive control system and the car’s light steering, the M3 didn’t draw any negative words in its logbook. And the iDrive gripe is easily solved by not ordering the $2100 optional navigation system.
Translation: If you ignore all the problems, we have no problems! What a concept!
Seriously, what a ****ed up review haha.
06-07-2008, 06:23 PM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
I'm not comparing them. I asked a simple question. I don't plan to buy a new car RIGHT now."] They are both my dream cars and I was thinking if you could supercharge or put a turbo on a C63 it would be even with a stock GTR in a straight line.
If you are not thinking about force inducting your C63 that's fine, that doesn't mean others aren't. Look at C55 owners on this forum. if I had a C55 first mod I would get is a supercharger. Too much power is never enough. And I bet you within a few months people will start putting blowers on a C63.
If you are not thinking about force inducting your C63 that's fine, that doesn't mean others aren't. Look at C55 owners on this forum. if I had a C55 first mod I would get is a supercharger. Too much power is never enough. And I bet you within a few months people will start putting blowers on a C63.
Last edited by Thericker; 06-07-2008 at 06:30 PM.
06-07-2008, 07:49 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: orange county NY
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'05 C55(sold)'05 E55(sold)'06 911C4S(sold)'06 ML350 '06 CLS55(sold),buncha slo bikes
Bolting a supercharger on a C55 is not nearly as consequential as doing the same to a 6.2l drivetrain&thats why you will not see plenty of C63 owners doing that in a few months
06-08-2008, 10:01 AM
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
regardless if it can be done or not, there are many people out there that will ask the question. And to top it off have the money to do it also. I know i would do it if I had a huge disposable income. SO all the people that say it is fast enough, need to stay in the their lil secluded world. Without people that wanted to make things faster or dream of it, we wouldn't be here today with V12 twin turbo charged S class's or even a Veyron and the V8 C63.
For those that want more power, more speed, I applaud you, however do it correctly, and do nothing half-arsed. You'll never need to explain yourself to some internet jockey either that assumes they are the authority.
For those that want more power, more speed, I applaud you, however do it correctly, and do nothing half-arsed. You'll never need to explain yourself to some internet jockey either that assumes they are the authority.
06-08-2008, 02:47 PM
#15
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 C63 (Coming Soon)
No need to get upset. The C&D article is pretty weak anyways (agreed). The comparison doesn't make much sense to me, and there is also further discussion around this in another thread on this forum (sorry no link). Ultimately, there aren't too many Forced Induction setups for the new NA motors. The Nissan is a pig (3900 lbs), so don't write off the C63 based on some of the articles out there claiming the outrageous performance of the new GT-R.
I don't live in a 'secluded' world where I think everything is fast enough (LOL). As far as a little C63, I think Benz did a pretty good job in terms of the powerplant for this application. That was the intention of my comment about the car already being fast enough.
To answer your INITAL QUESTION...you can put a supercharger or a turbo on pretty much anything out there. You can always make room for forced induction if you really want to do it. Best of luck in your decision!
Don't forget about the new Z06!
I don't live in a 'secluded' world where I think everything is fast enough (LOL). As far as a little C63, I think Benz did a pretty good job in terms of the powerplant for this application. That was the intention of my comment about the car already being fast enough.
To answer your INITAL QUESTION...you can put a supercharger or a turbo on pretty much anything out there. You can always make room for forced induction if you really want to do it. Best of luck in your decision!
Don't forget about the new Z06!
06-08-2008, 07:12 PM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
the Z06... my good friend is Chuck, Charlie, and Lance Mallett of Mallettcars.com i know what is possible with the Z06... however, I would still do the MB...
06-08-2008, 08:43 PM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: United Snakes of America
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
German
06-08-2008, 09:08 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to get upset. The C&D article is pretty weak anyways (agreed). The comparison doesn't make much sense to me, and there is also further discussion around this in another thread on this forum (sorry no link). Ultimately, there aren't too many Forced Induction setups for the new NA motors. The Nissan is a pig (3900 lbs), so don't write off the C63 based on some of the articles out there claiming the outrageous performance of the new GT-R.
Don't forget about the new Z06!
Don't forget about the new Z06!
The GTR has no competition from MB or BMW, sorry!
06-08-2008, 10:04 PM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
06-09-2008, 03:16 AM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Plenty of Mag's ran STOCK 2004-08 SL600's in the 1/4 @ 11.90-12.50 @ 116-118 mph
The production GTR appears quite average and very beatable in the 1/4 mile at least
Edmunds tested the 2008 C63 and got 12.5 @ 113.7 mph
Dragtimes has a listing of a STOCK C63....
Stock 2008 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG 1/4 mile Drag Racing & trap speed Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG
Quick Search:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.310
1/4 Mile MPH: 116.010
1/8 Mile ET: 0.000
1/8 Mile MPH: 0.000
0-60 Foot ET: 0.000
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Mercedes-Benz
Car Model: C63 AMG
Car Type:
Car Year: 2008
Driver: NA
E-Mail: Private
Videos: C63-AMG Videos
Quick Search:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.310
1/4 Mile MPH: 116.010
1/8 Mile ET: 0.000
1/8 Mile MPH: 0.000
0-60 Foot ET: 0.000
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Mercedes-Benz
Car Model: C63 AMG
Car Type:
Car Year: 2008
Driver: NA
E-Mail: Private
Videos: C63-AMG Videos
Seems like the new Nissan GTR aint all that...
Last edited by Thericker; 06-09-2008 at 07:18 AM.
06-09-2008, 03:35 AM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the ring results, but the new C&D tested the Nissan GTR, & it ran a 12.1 @ a pathetic 115 TRAP speed, nothing like the pre-production suped up version running 125+ traps & 480 rwhp on the dyno.
The production GTR appears quite average and very beatable in the 1/4 mile at least
Edmunds tested the 2008 C63 and got 12.5 @ 113.7 mph
Dragtimes has a listing of a STOCK C63....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like the new Nissan GTR aint all that...
The production GTR appears quite average and very beatable in the 1/4 mile at least
Edmunds tested the 2008 C63 and got 12.5 @ 113.7 mph
Dragtimes has a listing of a STOCK C63....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like the new Nissan GTR aint all that...
but since you do, the GTR still beats it!
Plus the GTR is heavier and has a smaller engine...so what's your point?
06-09-2008, 04:34 AM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
The test results speak for themselves in the 1/4 mile...
I don't know about the Ring results, but the new C&D tested the Nissan GTR, & it ran a 12.1 @ a pathetic 115 TRAP speed, nothing like the pre-production suped up version running 125+ traps & 480 rwhp on the dyno.
The production GTR appears quite average and very beatable in the 1/4 mile at least
C&D tested 2008 Nissan GTR 12.1 @ 115. mph
Edmunds tested the 2008 C63 and got 12.5 @ 113.7 mph
Dragtimes has a bone stock C63 it ran 12.31 @ 116.010 mph
Stock 2008 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG 1/4 mile Drag Racing & trap speed Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG
Quick Search:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.310
1/4 Mile MPH: 116.010
1/8 Mile ET: 0.000
1/8 Mile MPH: 0.000
0-60 Foot ET: 0.000
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Mercedes-Benz
Car Model: C63 AMG
Car Type:
Car Year: 2008
Driver: NA
E-Mail: Private
Videos: C63-AMG Videos
Quick Search:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.310
1/4 Mile MPH: 116.010
1/8 Mile ET: 0.000
1/8 Mile MPH: 0.000
0-60 Foot ET: 0.000
Temperature F: 0.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Mercedes-Benz
Car Model: C63 AMG
Car Type:
Car Year: 2008
Driver: NA
E-Mail: Private
Videos: C63-AMG Videos
Seems like the new Nissan GTR aint all that...
The C63 is just a few runs away of running 12.10-11.9xx since it already ran 12.31 @ 116.010 the trap speed is 1+ mph faster than the overly hyped up GTR...
How can you say
Last edited by Thericker; 06-09-2008 at 05:38 AM.
06-09-2008, 06:38 AM
#24
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly, the C63 lost
Originally Posted by The production GTR appears quite average and very [SIZE="4"
beatable in the 1/4 mile at least[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Last edited by celsius; 06-09-2008 at 06:45 AM.
06-09-2008, 07:40 AM
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
no offense, I rather have the C63 over the Jap racer. The GTR can try all day to pretend it is a quality vehicle, no where near the build quality of the MB... shiet most of the guys trying for the GTR are balding 28 year olds trying to score an 18 year old hooker... c'mon... show me the quality, I haven't even seen an infinity that was build close to the standards of a Benz.... Let alone a Nissan
