melmanc55

Ok so we are talking about 2 tenths of a second faster straight up on the quarter mile (taking into account that the CTS-V wasn't on drag radials either we don't know that) with a car that has over 100 more stock horsepower and almost equal amount of gain in torque.... Wonder how fast that car would be with its 6.2 liter engine and without the supercharger. That's why you have to love respect AMG. Same size engine (without a supercharger to help it) with nearly identical performance figures. Oh and by the way near identical weight.

Quote:

Wanna come up to Oklahoma I'll show how fast mine is

Sure anytime....

emericr

Stock vs stock, it is a driver's race since it is within a few tenths on the quarter (11.9X versus 12.1X)
mod vs mod, it is cheaper to mod the CTS but both cars will achieve 10.X times so it is still a driver's race so it comes down to look and preferences.
The MB is better built overall and the new model seem to be on par with the CTS interior.
The stock exhaust on the MB is heaven, the one on the CTS is uneventful.

gnxs

In equal conditions on the same tires, I'd say more like .5 seconds and 5+ mph.

Everything I've ever seen about the C63 shows curb weights of under 4,000 pounds. The CTS-V Sedan is nearly 4300. Not sure what to say about the blower statement, but that's like saying "yea, but what would that CL65 run without the turbos". Who cares, the cars come with Forced Induction.

The 11.9 run was NOT done on DR's. I was there and have run with the guy since then. His car is still bone stock to this day. He's only been to the track 2-3 times in his life.

His 11.99 pass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6F-7...layer_embedded

If you can't appreciate what DRs and 1500+ feet difference in DA means in terms of ET/MPH, then I really don't know what to tell you.

gnxs

So you guys are going to keep taking a BONE STOCK CTS-V running at 41 foot DA and keep comparing it to a C63 on DRs running at -1500 ft? Why don't you ask some of the track ****** here what kind of differences we're talking. The quickest truly stock C63 on dragtimes shows 12.3, perhaps there is a list on this forum somewhere that is more comprehensive.

BTW, a CTS-V has been modded into the 9's, with a few more I know of knocking on the door.

emericr

Well, on paper, I could show you the bone stock 3.9 sec 0-60 of car and driver and ask you to provide me back up of a CTS-V doing this number. I will not because different day, different car, different driver kinda thing.
Bottom line is 2 to 3 tenths on the quarter is still a driver's race on the streets and the outcome will be different every time.
Both cars are very close to each other and it comes down to personal preferences.
Please provide links to your 9 second CTS please.

DD GT3 RD

Cts v sedan 6 speed ran a 9.3 sec 60-130

Dont think a c63 will do that. Going to run my p31 vbox any day now

gnxs

.2-.3 is indeed a driver's race. IMO though the CTS-V is arguably a .5 faster car than a C63. Also a driver's race potentially, although given the choice I like my chances better in the .5 quicker car. I don't own a C63 or have any friend's with one, so I'm just looking at numbers I've seen over time posted here, dragtimes, etc. I am well aware of the impressive exploits of some of the C63 owners on this site, particularly many of the East Coast guys.

I hope none of my comments would lead one to assume that I espouse that anybody should drive one over the other. We all have a unique set of needs in a car and for each person one might fit better than the other depending on that criteria. All I'm hoping to do is provide some data and comment on a few items I would disagree with in some of the statements I've seen made that I don't believe are accurate.

9 second CTS-V (there is an older thread about it on this site already including YouTube video of the pass).

HERE:
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/...ts-v-sick.html

alqamzi

I don't think i'll buy any CTS after i read this.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...?csp=obnetwork

melmanc55

I guess my point is that with a 100 more in horsepower and torque this is all the gain you get? Where is the engineering and development in that. They NEED the supercharger just to keep up. And so I go back to the original thread topic. CTS-V or C63. The CTS-V has to make up for the **** poor development and engineering by increasing the horsepower of the car to make it perform (and doing it the cheap way at that). Forget about developing a transmission that is up to the performance of the engine (that's to much work). Slop in a piece of s!@# transmission and hey why not add a supercharger to make the 1/4 mile number look good. It's funny watching people try to compare the "number" in an attempt to prove that the CTS-V is a "world class" vehicle. IMHO You cannot compare these two cars. They are made by two different car companies that have very little in common in how they approach making a car.



Of course it is brother....it's also cheaper to mod a Subaru Sti and get it under 4 seconds. I don't understand why this is a big point for some people. If it's all about cheap horsepower then you're not looking for either one of these cars. Go find a piece of S!@# Ford Mustang and mod it out

-=Hot|Ice=-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcrwF3MEbDs

I just can't get over that.

ZephyrAMG

OOOH MAN .....LOL. Thats like a RUTH CHRIS calling you after dinner and saying, "Uh, yeah...so the steak and sides and dessert you just ate, you gotta come back here and vomit it all up for us cuz we just found out it'll kill ya..."

Mx_AMG

Its really sad to have a view such as yours, instead of praising a company for being able to make hp and mpg out of a simplistic engine, you trash it. Give props for where its due, the c and cts-v are different vehicles anyways. The V is compared to the e63 and I believe the E63 actually beat it out in most the comparisons I have read.

GHAZAN

Not on battle of supercars it lost 3 out of 4 competitions and tied the 4th. (0-100-0 braking, 60-130, wet slalom; tied top speed)

gnxs

I honestly don't know where to start about picking apart half the BS in your post.

First off, let's go to MB website and see what they say the car weighs:
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/?lang=usa#/c63-specs

I also love the GM needs a SC argument...LOL. Man I haven't heard that since the Vette and GTO guys were whining about that with my.....how did you classify it in your last sentence.....S&*% Mustang (Cobra in my case). Sorry, I can't afford a Ferrari or Porsche as my "fun" car so I've got to live within my limitations. It's also lived at the 600+ rwhp level since late 2004 (300+ 1/4 mile passes and 111,000 miles) so it's not too much of a POS.

The CTS-V's engineering goes WAY beyond "slapping a SC" on the motor and hoping for the best. If you're not aware of all the various advancements present in a CTS-V, then you likely don't venture outside this forum much. Hell, even inside this forum you should know more than you do as there are a multitude of knowledgeable and objective enthusiasts of this forum. Handling, braking, acceleration are all at or near the top of the class it competes in. If you think it's just a straight line bullet, you've just kept your head in the sand as to some of the accomplishments of the car.

Transmission holding up to the performance of the engine? While the automatic trans. has been singled out my magazines in tests as a weak link compared to the SMG type transmissions of some of it's competitors (criticism that is justified), both the automatic and manual transmissions have proven as bulletproof as you can expect. Mid 10 second runs on DRs have not hurt the stock trans, no failures from any of the guys that spend their time on road courses.

If you don't think (for whatever reason) that the two cars are comparable, that's fine. While I suppose the E63 is the more natural competitor to a CTS-V, you're understanding of the basic underpinnings, specifications and capabilities of the car are woefully inadequate. I'd get into the power-to-weight and gearing difference and hp/tq. disparities, etc. in relation to the performance of both the CTS-V and C63, but I'm not sure you'd be able to assimilate it.

I'm not trying to convince anybody the "V" is a better car, just bringing a little factual information to the table. I know this is a MB forum and that people here obviously love the MB and AMG's (and rightly so). Your posts are proof that information on competitor's vehicles is desperately needed in some cases.

There is nothing bad I can say about a C63. Understanding and expressing the capabilities of one car doesn't require me to bash a competing mfr. to prove a point. While I didn't choose a C63, I'd have no trouble spending a lot of time behind the wheel of one.

gonzales25

Just shows the inability to be open minded when it comes to motor vehicles. Or he is just pissed off because the CTS-V is faster then a C63 (both in stock form).

sinister55

Get the V, if you want to Mod, its cheaper then modding a mercedes, stock vs stock its faster.
A v8 supercharged for the same as a v8...
As for the NAV, its total crap.
It breaks down to ur lifestyle, if your using it as a daily dont get the V, the amg is better, but if you just want to have fun and mod and have it as a luxury sports car for the weekends or fun times, the V is for you.

melmanc55

I put that in there just for you I love to see Ford oweners on Mercedes forums (AMG at that) trying to make a case for another American car.

I don't claim to know about the "multitude" of advancements that are in the Caddie. I just comment on what i see and read. Maybe you and Mr. "CTS-V" who also commented on my post can start a tread on it.




Not at all just trying to make a positive case on a "Mercedes AMG" forum about the car MOST of us own on here. Oh i'm sorry you were expecting me to say the Caddie is better than the car i chose....I get you

gonzales25

I guess you haven't read my signature I still own an "AMG" sorry I have good taste in cars. But in reality my Caddie is faster then my modded E63 was.

Mx_AMG

Everything you have brought to the table at this point is null, pertaining to the lack of spelling and punctuation you seem to exercise.

gnxs

True car enthusiasts have a love for performance and/or interesting cars no matter what mfr. makes them. I'm a forum member on MANY forums where I've never owned their brand. If they make a cool car, I typically want to learn about it from the guys that own one. I also like to learn about what to potentially expect if I cross paths with one on the street or if I'm in the market for one ion the future.

I've admired AMG automobiles since I learned about them. A used E55 was almost put in my garage before I realized I could swing a new CTS-V. This forum is one of the reasons I was considering an E55. The performance arms of any mfr. is where my heart typically lies (AMG, "M" division, SRT Mopars, SVT Fords, etc.) When an American mfr. (or anybody) puts out a quality piece, I have no trouble touting it and when they put out a POS, I have no problem criticizing it.

Not sure where you got the impression that I was expecting you to say something nice about the "V". My interaction with you in this thread started when you asked a question and I replied with some facts (reply # 50). Since your question regarded 1/4 mile times for a CTS-V and I've probably been down the 1/4 mile 600+ times in my life (including 60+ in my CTS-V), I thought my opinion might be relevant. Unfortunately your continued posts in this thread have demonstrated that you aren't able to comprehend some of the information I've provided. It's apparent you are unable to hear something positive about another car without thinking it's an attack on your particular brand.

I already know your preference when it comes to other mfrs:



P.S. - I hope none of my posts have offended any of the true enthusiasts on this forum, but sometimes you have to post (as I have in this thread) with the least common denominator in mind.

melmanc55

You are so right...my spelling is crap. Just typing to fast....

Glad you like your new car.

To be honest I love all good cars. My wife currently has a 09 Tahoe and it's great. I have owned a BMW, 2 Audis, 2 Volks, 2 Porsches, 3 Mercedes and a 05 CTS! (No kidding) it was actually a good car. Oh and a 04 Landrover Discovery SE7...it was the biggest POS I have owned. A few other American cars also. I honestly like all cars.

However ignorant you think my comments are they are mine (for good or bad). I know I have not offended anyone on here. Hey I like your picture...but why one of your mother....I would have posted one of your Mustang.

VCA_AMG

I'm an AMG guy, but we aren't talking about 0.2sec difference between these two cars. The CTS-V spanks the C63 in virtually every performance category. A 0.5 difference at these speeds is huge. The C being on drag radials w/1800DA makes a huge difference. The V has turned in 3.9 0-60s in almost every test it has competed in. The quarter mile is the same. Let's call a spade a spade, the Caddy's LS SC engine is a more powerful engine AND easier to mod to huge HP for tiny amounts of $$$ compared to the AMG 6.3. That doesn't make either car "better," it's just reality and depends on what you want.

gnxs

Good to hear, but that's far from the impression your previous posts have given (to me at least).

EDIT: Ahhh I just got it.....you're referring to my ostrich pic. I'll be the bigger man here and just let this one slide. Calling somebody's mother names......lol, didn't quite expect that from somebody that can afford to put a C63 in their garage.

VCA_AMG

You obviously haven't spent any time in the C63 forums...

melmanc55

I agree completely. I guess my original point (which i didn't get explain well) was that for a 100 hp diffrence that is still not THAT much. Car and Driver ran the same 0-60 time in a C63 without the LSD. I was just trying to give credit to our cars and the performance they can put out with less.

Yeah my wife and mother would probably agree with you. But lucky they are not on here.

Sorry I don't know her name...