C63 VS CTS-V
08-31-2009, 11:16 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
No way the CTSV is making 600 WHP with a pulley and a tune. Im not saying its impossible to get 600 WHP out of the V im just saying your going to need to do more than that.
For 600WHP your talking about taking the CTSV up to 750HP. Thats a 200HP gain from a pulley and a tune? I think not..
Either way, The C63 is already keeping up with the CTSV and its NA. Put a supercharger on the C63 and forget it.
For 600WHP your talking about taking the CTSV up to 750HP. Thats a 200HP gain from a pulley and a tune? I think not..
Either way, The C63 is already keeping up with the CTSV and its NA. Put a supercharger on the C63 and forget it.
615whp 608wtq though. Only on 11.5psi.
EDIT: Bone stock he put down 470whp, so 145whp gain or about 170hp fwhp gain using 15 percent loss.
Here is the thread.
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...-dyno-run.html
Last edited by Nachtsturm; 08-31-2009 at 11:23 AM.
03-26-2010, 11:50 PM
#27
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a V owner I can tell you obviously that the manual/stickshift v's are much better at getting higher #'s from lack of drivetrain loss. Oh and now we got a guy thats porting the blower. That gets you 45rwph AT 3psi less !
03-27-2010, 07:42 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
The CTS-V is a faster car stock for stock. I almost pulled the trigger on one and got the C63 instead for many reasons.
1. GM quality. MB is better.
2. Supercharged vs NA. NA is so much better.
3. Money. CTSV 58K WITH employee discount. C63. 52,200.
4. Performance. ECU flash and you are as fast as a CTSV.
5. Appeal. People turn to look at a MB. Not so much for a caddy.
6. Looks. The C63 is a much better looking car.
7. The exhaust note. The C63 sounds SOOOO much better. less whine more motor. Hence the NA.
The couple of places that makes the CTSV better in my opinion is its faster and its bigger. The C63 is a small car. Also the CTSV interior is really nice. Much flashier than a C63. Cost. If you need new rotors on a CTSV it will cost you $800 for 4. It will cost you $3600 on the MB.
Just FYI: The C63 goes 0-60 in 4.3 not 3.9. The CTSV does it in 4.2. The C63 does the 1/4 in 12.3. The CTSV in 12.2. The CTSV will do the twisties better.
If I was buying strictly a track car? Hmmm... Still tough choice but I might go with the CTSV and debage her.
1. GM quality. MB is better.
2. Supercharged vs NA. NA is so much better.
3. Money. CTSV 58K WITH employee discount. C63. 52,200.
4. Performance. ECU flash and you are as fast as a CTSV.
5. Appeal. People turn to look at a MB. Not so much for a caddy.
6. Looks. The C63 is a much better looking car.
7. The exhaust note. The C63 sounds SOOOO much better. less whine more motor. Hence the NA.
The couple of places that makes the CTSV better in my opinion is its faster and its bigger. The C63 is a small car. Also the CTSV interior is really nice. Much flashier than a C63. Cost. If you need new rotors on a CTSV it will cost you $800 for 4. It will cost you $3600 on the MB.
Just FYI: The C63 goes 0-60 in 4.3 not 3.9. The CTSV does it in 4.2. The C63 does the 1/4 in 12.3. The CTSV in 12.2. The CTSV will do the twisties better.
If I was buying strictly a track car? Hmmm... Still tough choice but I might go with the CTSV and debage her.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...c63_amg_page_3
Below is a passage from the link above^^:
An aggressive right foot generates can't-help-smiling burnouts, while a more restrained squeeze yields a fuss-free launch, followed by a hair-raising 3.9-second explosion to 60 mph, easily outrunning the other two. Upshifts happen quickly, leaving just the smallest interruption in the surge of power on the way to a blazing 12.3-second quarter-mile at 116 mph, and the Benz keeps charging hard until it runs headfirst into its 153-mph speed governor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C-Class
AMG model
The C63 AMG is reportedly the first AMG Mercedes designed from the ground up for performance, as compared to previous AMG cars which essentially featured "bolt on" performance modifications. The C 63 has a revised front end architecture that is taken from the CLK 63 AMG Black series. The revised 7-speed automatic transmission now has three shift modes - Comfort, Sport and Manual - with the last one running with the converter locked allowing the driver to hold the engine at the rev limit. The ESP can now be completely turned off, interfering only under heavy braking. The car also has the quickest, most responsive steering of any Mercedes to date. Car and Driver tested the car in their December 2007 issue and got a 0-60 mph time of 3.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 12.3 seconds at 116 mph (187 km/h).[15] This made the C 63 the fastest 4-door production sedan in the world at its debut.
Additionally, here is another roas test in which the C63 got a 4.1 sec(still better than your claims)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html
Last edited by C63newdude; 03-27-2010 at 07:48 PM.
03-31-2010, 01:42 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,731
Received 561 Likes
on
371 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
LOL at quoting C&D times. They're notoriously WAY off. 0-60 means nothing anyway. Dragtimes is the only way to go.
The Stock vs. Tuned argument is ridiculous as well. An ECU'd/Pulley'd CTS-V will have 100hp on average more than an equally tuned CTS-V.
The Stock vs. Tuned argument is ridiculous as well. An ECU'd/Pulley'd CTS-V will have 100hp on average more than an equally tuned CTS-V.
03-31-2010, 03:48 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,177
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
2014 Audi RS7
The Hennessey CTS-V700 went 185.3 in the mile in Miami. http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/...ctionReq=Where
That car is heavily modified and a manual. It also sounds like they were running open headers.
A well modded, but still N/A C63 went 180.7mph in the mile a couple of weeks ago. Not too far behind when you are comparing a heavily modified BLOWN car against a bolt on (with race heads and stock cams) N/A car. Wait until the C63 gets some cams. Then we'll see if an N/A C63 can catch the Hennessey CTS-V??? If we can't catch them N/A it will be very close. Only time will tell.
That car is heavily modified and a manual. It also sounds like they were running open headers.
A well modded, but still N/A C63 went 180.7mph in the mile a couple of weeks ago. Not too far behind when you are comparing a heavily modified BLOWN car against a bolt on (with race heads and stock cams) N/A car. Wait until the C63 gets some cams. Then we'll see if an N/A C63 can catch the Hennessey CTS-V??? If we can't catch them N/A it will be very close. Only time will tell.
03-31-2010, 04:27 PM
#32
Senior Member
1. Well rounded (C63 v CTS-V)?: Yes, I would argue the CTS-V is as well-rounded as the C63. The CTS-V has some added power, forced induction and handles better in turns than the C63. It also has a more high-tech (albeit not necessarily better appointed) interior, and doesn't compromise size as much as the C63. However, the C63 has the benefit of a much better exhaust system/note, and also has the reliability track record that has taken MB in the top 10 in numerous recent reliability studies (including JD Power). So, I'd say they both have pros and cons, but are both well-rounded vehicles and great buys at the price.
2. If mercedes made it (guessing C63) 518hp like the e63, it would outpeform the cts-v in a straightline? Quite possibly, yes. Most guys with the MHP tune are getting nearly 518hp, and are putting down numbers in the mid-high 11's...which is faster than a stock CTS-V. Therefore, I think a C63 w/ 518hp would take the CTS-V in the straights.
03-31-2010, 05:31 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Ok, since this was the original question(s) I'll give my answers:
1. Well rounded (C63 v CTS-V)?: Yes, I would argue the CTS-V is as well-rounded as the C63. The CTS-V has some added power, forced induction and handles better in turns than the C63. It also has a more high-tech (albeit not necessarily better appointed) interior, and doesn't compromise size as much as the C63. However, the C63 has the benefit of a much better exhaust system/note, and also has the reliability track record that has taken MB in the top 10 in numerous recent reliability studies (including JD Power). So, I'd say they both have pros and cons, but are both well-rounded vehicles and great buys at the price.
2. If mercedes made it (guessing C63) 518hp like the e63, it would outpeform the cts-v in a straightline? Quite possibly, yes. Most guys with the MHP tune are getting nearly 518hp, and are putting down numbers in the mid-high 11's...which is faster than a stock CTS-V. Therefore, I think a C63 w/ 518hp would take the CTS-V in the straights.
1. Well rounded (C63 v CTS-V)?: Yes, I would argue the CTS-V is as well-rounded as the C63. The CTS-V has some added power, forced induction and handles better in turns than the C63. It also has a more high-tech (albeit not necessarily better appointed) interior, and doesn't compromise size as much as the C63. However, the C63 has the benefit of a much better exhaust system/note, and also has the reliability track record that has taken MB in the top 10 in numerous recent reliability studies (including JD Power). So, I'd say they both have pros and cons, but are both well-rounded vehicles and great buys at the price.
2. If mercedes made it (guessing C63) 518hp like the e63, it would outpeform the cts-v in a straightline? Quite possibly, yes. Most guys with the MHP tune are getting nearly 518hp, and are putting down numbers in the mid-high 11's...which is faster than a stock CTS-V. Therefore, I think a C63 w/ 518hp would take the CTS-V in the straights.
03-31-2010, 05:35 PM
#35
Senior Member
fyi - most C63 AMG ecu flash tunes available are basically bringing the C63's power from the MB "detuning" back to where the other 63's are. It's true that MHP may in fact be turning it up just a bit further though. According to my dyno and calculating a 20% drivetrain loss, my car would be ~ 522HP / 480 lb-ft TQ with my mods.
04-05-2010, 01:15 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..lol. Cams for a c63. What would that cost like 8k ? For 8K i can get headers,pulley,cai, ported snout, larger heat exchanger and a custome tune. And if MB is so godly and supererb in their engineering than why did they slap on 255's for your rears ?!?
04-05-2010, 02:16 AM
#37
Senior Member
Most people are running 275's and d/r if they are tracking. That is a cost/styling choice by MB. Larger tires do fit on there.Why does GM have to supercharge a motor to get over 500hp out of it? THAT is an engineering thing.
I don't think cams are a good option on the C63 anyway. Looks like without F/I, 600-630bhp are max without costing WAY too much.
And anyway, I don't think either GM or MB can talk motor engineering when BMW can get 414hp out of a 4L engine or 505hp out of a 5L engine...BMW's motor engineering is FAR superior to both MB and GM when it comes to shear dyanmics and capability for the size motor.
04-05-2010, 10:52 PM
#38
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 CLS63 s-amg, 2012 Porsche Cayenne, ML350
I just had a Cts-V in front of me the other day. looked pretty new so dont think it had any mods. I have the Kleemann K1. To me it seemed the stock CTS-V would not have a chance in a strait line race. Of course I wouldn´t know how hard the driver was stepping on his pedal but it did not take long before i was at his tail and im pretty sure he stepped on it good.
To me its pretty clear. A "slightly" modded (meaning ecu tune) C63 will beat a CTS-V. I always hate these comparisons but just writing this cos the C63 should come with 520hp as stock. Dont understand why MB "detuned" it...
Anyway, the CTS-V is a very nice car, I like the inside a lot its more luxurious than C63s.. All in all and considering the price. Id go with the C63 any day. Im happy about the CTS-V cos its a powerful and good quality US made car much like the european rivals. I hope the us carmakers will have more models to choose from in the future. It looks good now with the camaros, chargers, CTS-Vs, Ford GT etc. Not all are good but keep em coming
I´m still a eurocar-fan but good to see the us carmakers are stepping up.
To me its pretty clear. A "slightly" modded (meaning ecu tune) C63 will beat a CTS-V. I always hate these comparisons but just writing this cos the C63 should come with 520hp as stock. Dont understand why MB "detuned" it...
Anyway, the CTS-V is a very nice car, I like the inside a lot its more luxurious than C63s.. All in all and considering the price. Id go with the C63 any day. Im happy about the CTS-V cos its a powerful and good quality US made car much like the european rivals. I hope the us carmakers will have more models to choose from in the future. It looks good now with the camaros, chargers, CTS-Vs, Ford GT etc. Not all are good but keep em coming
I´m still a eurocar-fan but good to see the us carmakers are stepping up.
08-02-2021, 02:43 PM
#40
SPONSOR
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 1,087
Received 245 Likes
on
189 Posts
2001 E55AMG
C63 all day, from performance, build quality, range, and resell value.
Tesla feels like a C300 that can go fast 0-60 but has a similar ride and build quality feel.... that gets worse rapidly.
Personaly, the C63 is the more premium product.
Tesla feels like a C300 that can go fast 0-60 but has a similar ride and build quality feel.... that gets worse rapidly.
Personaly, the C63 is the more premium product.
The following users liked this post:
doncmleon (08-02-2021)
08-02-2021, 05:44 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,060
Received 2,836 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2012 P31 C63 Coupe Trackrat, 2019 GLE63S Coupe Beast
It’s already amazing enough that regular people bump 10yr old threads with nothing interesting or relevant to say. But a forum sponsor? Are you drunk?
08-02-2021, 08:54 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Whitehouse Station, NJ
Posts: 392
Received 97 Likes
on
69 Posts
2012 C63 P31 Sedan
Not your fault. It's because of the useless "related thread" suggestion that shows up at the bottom of the one you actually wanted to read. Very easy to scroll past it and not even notice.
The following 3 users liked this post by BalanBro:
07-25-2022, 11:11 PM
#46
Great discussion. I cross shopped a C63 vs a Tesla 3 Performance as well. I went with the C63 because I like tuning cars. In addition to the statement above about their being big gains in electric vehicles in the future. Last part I like to take road trips and the charging would have added 2-4 hours on a 10-12 hour trip, making a one day trip a two day trip.
I do agree with the above that the c63 takes some focus to drive. My previous CLS550 was just as quick but much more of a GT. I am surprised that others feel the quality and handling of the Tesla is on par with MB.
I guess perhaps Tesla will be my next car 3-4 years from now.
I do agree with the above that the c63 takes some focus to drive. My previous CLS550 was just as quick but much more of a GT. I am surprised that others feel the quality and handling of the Tesla is on par with MB.
I guess perhaps Tesla will be my next car 3-4 years from now.
07-26-2022, 01:01 AM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,060
Received 2,836 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2012 P31 C63 Coupe Trackrat, 2019 GLE63S Coupe Beast
LOL
07-26-2022, 05:44 PM
#48
Member
Great discussion. I cross shopped a C63 vs a Tesla 3 Performance as well. I went with the C63 because I like tuning cars. In addition to the statement above about their being big gains in electric vehicles in the future. Last part I like to take road trips and the charging would have added 2-4 hours on a 10-12 hour trip, making a one day trip a two day trip.
I do agree with the above that the c63 takes some focus to drive. My previous CLS550 was just as quick but much more of a GT. I am surprised that others feel the quality and handling of the Tesla is on par with MB.
I guess perhaps Tesla will be my next car 3-4 years from now.
I do agree with the above that the c63 takes some focus to drive. My previous CLS550 was just as quick but much more of a GT. I am surprised that others feel the quality and handling of the Tesla is on par with MB.
I guess perhaps Tesla will be my next car 3-4 years from now.
