BoBcanada

Cant find the time, anyone knows what time did it ran around the ring with pp preferably.

SebringSilver

I don't think the C63 can make it all the way around the Nurburgring without stopping to refuel...

...that or it'd need new rear tires.

Seriously though...


93.Lotus Esprit Sport 350 8:13 150 ´99 354 / 1324 Sport Auto
94.Aston Martin V8 Vantage (380bhp) 8:13 150 ´05 385 / 1636 sport auto 10/2005
95.Dodge Viper SRT-10 8:13 150 ´05 506 / 1600 Sport Auto
96.BMW M5 (E60) 8:13 150 ´05 507 / 1848 Sport Auto
97.Ferrari F355 8:13 150 ´95 380 / 1350
98.Mercedes C 63 AMG 8:13 150 ´07 457 / 1772 sport auto
99.Mercedes SL65 AMG 8:14 150 ´04 612 / 2049 Sport Auto
100.Mercedes SLK 55 AMG Black Series 8:14 150 ´06 400 / 1506 Sport Auto
101.Alpina B3 Biturbo 8:14 150´07 360 / 1626 sportauto
102.Porsche 997 Carrera 8:15 150 ´04 325 / 1395 Walter Rƶhrl

patboyy

+1

but i think SL black series can make it in one tank and one set of tyres, so can we...

GermanCars

I read somewhere that who ever set the time thought the C63 would have been faster WITHOUT PP. Apparently the Ring isn't boulevard smooth, the PP suspension was too stiff.

Siman

the m5 does the same time how accurate is that

SebringSilver

They seem like reliable sources:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürbu...edirected=true

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html

In fact, the same driver was at the wheel for both the M5 and C63's timed runs.

MikeS54

What C63 needs is a set of KWV3, a heavy duty mechanical diff and a rear wide body with some 305+ tires.

Wait... sound like CLK BS

AMGC60-3

No doubt it needs more rubber underneath. I am sure it would make up some good time per lap (approx 21 kilometers)

AMG Powerrr

@MikeS54,

yes that's exactly what I think also! The KW Variante 3 is a really nice suspension!

Siman

Im just saying i thought the c63 is more track capable then the m5

BoBcanada

i think it is, its the tire that are undersized. and detuned engine too.

Unleash those and you will get closer to 8 minutes.

SebringSilver

No doubt all these points are very valid, but what's good about Sport Auto is they test the cars in completely stock form (and almost always with Chief Editor, Horst Von Saurma, at the wheel) so that the numbers are more comparable to one another.

MikeS54

C63 is definitely more capable than M5 on the track... however m5 come with pretty fat tires while also having a high reving engine and M diff which works very well on the track.

C63 equiped with LSD and 275 in the back would take a M5 for sure on the track.

It is really stupid why our car come with 255.....

AkaSigFreak

2009 CTS-V completed a lap of the legendary Nordschleife in 7:59.32.

yooker

Yes it did.

MikeS54

However 759 isnt that impressive considering that car has 100hp more than C63 and a whopping 130+hp than M3

a m3 with some bolt on will get that time easily
tuned C63 with wider tire and a proper LSD will probably be close

DFW01E55

How about the 350 pound weight advantage that the 63 has?
Don't kid yourself, 7:59 is impressive.

The 13 or 14 second difference is almost immaterial.
If the C63 ran the track the day after a good rain and the CTS-V ran on a day when there was plenty of rubber on the track, you could easily make up 14 seconds. DA matters too, just ask any of our drag racers.

AkaSigFreak

7:59 is impressive for any 4 door sedan (especially a production Chevy model).

VCA_AMG

The CTS-V's advanced suspension alone makes an incredible difference on the track, 100HP difference or not. The C63 ain't a CTS-V, and vice versa...thankfully. 2 different cars for 2 different applications IMO.

ericpd

You've got to be kidding. 759 is the record. There is no such thing as a 'not so impressive record'. That animal just does not exist. Look at the names of the cars on that list that the CTS-V smashed by 10 seconds or more,... and that's just 92 thru 103. Sure would like to see the 2 thru 91 crowd,... wonder what badges are members of that group. What's shocking in the Black didn't even break 50,... and it's only got 2 doors.

759 for a 4-door sedan is quite impressive. Again,... it's the record. That means nothing else on earth (4 door sedans) has done better.

MikeS54

that is simply not true

in fact all these official times are NOT OFFICIAL, they are all based on what manufacturers' own testing.

I am not sugguesting that they cheated on the time but theres simply no rules and guidance to start off with. Especially on nurburgring that a slight change in weahter can result in 10second difference each lap.

Fact is the 759 proves Ctsv to be a beast but it is more of a market tactic it is used to sell the car rather to prove its true performance.

I am sure if manufactures like BMW or Mercedes are focused on lap times to sell the car they could put some "Official time" for the M3 or C63 that is better than what we think they can do now. Truth is BMW and Mercedes don't need to claim a bald lap time to sell their cars.

Heres some very good insight

http://www.speedsportlife.com/2008/1...itter-porsche/

I am aware this article is a bit biased towards Porsche but that aside it nails a lot of the problem with all the "Official Lap times"

ericpd

Good aritcle! I've heard some of those arguments before back when the GT-R did their so called laps. It's still a little on the sour-grapes side of things I believe. Trust me, if it were the other way around and Porsche got all the favorable breaks, that article would not exist. The fact of the matter is, the CTS-V currently holds the record for a 4 door sedan lapping the ring. Period. Sure we can dissect and analyze until the cows come home and spend enormous amounts of time, resources and brain power coming up with words to discount what Caddy has accomplished. But like I said no other 4-door sedan on earth has completed the Ring in less time than has the CTS-V. Is the recording of what they did surgically accurate? Of course not. Are there variables outside the prowess of the car that may have impacted their time? Of course. But guess what, the Caddy went out again since that time and recorded a second sub 8 time,... I know not much room to do that. But they did. I'd be willing to accept more of this argument if it weren't for the fact that time after time, the Caddy has beaten the competition in other venues and under all kinds of conditions. There are many comparos out there pitting the CTS-V against the mighty M5, and in not one of those contest has the M5 taken the day. Similar results with similar cars beyond the M5 as well. I may have missed something, but I can't think of one comparison or time match under any conditions where the CTS-V has been bested by another super sedan in it's class.

iftwb

GG with F10 M5. CTS-V can say good bye too...

azlane

Dec '09 Car and Driver had the E63 faster in the 0-60 and also the 1/4 I believe. They had the manual CTS-V and could only get 4.3 0-60 and the E63 had a surprising 4.0. The 1/4 was close if I remember right but I think the E63 nipped it. Not a lap time, but a timed raced none the less.