2012 CTS-V or an AMG?
02-18-2011, 06:23 AM
#126
And if you can brag about your Factory Freak,why cant GM brag about 556hp?
Seriously,every thread in this forum turns into nothing but fail after a few pages
02-18-2011, 08:48 AM
#128
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW Suburbs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SVT Cobra
02-18-2011, 08:51 AM
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow
Its Friday keep the debate rolling. Ohhhyea Im on a four day weekend so if Melman wants to bring his C class to Oklahoma for a whuppin come on up 
Last edited by gonzales25; 02-18-2011 at 08:58 AM.
02-18-2011, 09:00 AM
#131
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW Suburbs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SVT Cobra
Like I mentioned somewhere, I've only crossed paths with one on the road and it definitely had a tough stance.I don't own a Coupe, I own a Sedan. I'm usually more involved in the video end than photography when it comes to mine and friend's cars/racing, but a friend of mine snapped a few pics the day after I bought mine and occasionally gets some at the track.
Last edited by gnxs; 02-18-2011 at 09:04 AM.
02-18-2011, 09:17 AM
#132
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW Suburbs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SVT Cobra
Going to try and stay on the straight and narrow today. 
Ok, one quick question. How much faster is the 2011 CTS-V coupe suppose to be over a current model C63? Every review that i have read (so far) have it as a mid 12 sec 1/4 mile car with 0-60 times that are 4.0 sec and over..... I have seen posts stating that this car can easily out run a C63 without mods. So how much faster is it? Doesn't sound like much if any.
). See Jons95c63amg signature and his stock 1/4 mile time.
02-18-2011, 09:28 AM
#133
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'14 911S (garage queen) '13 X3 (family hauler)
Gnxs, your car looks much better than the coupe--more car and less spaceship.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63, but that's not surprising.
BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63
, but that's not surprising.BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
02-18-2011, 09:32 AM
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow
Gnxs, your car looks much better than the coupe--more car and less spaceship.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63, but that's not surprising.
BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63
, but that's not surprising.BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
02-18-2011, 09:36 AM
#135
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'14 911S (garage queen) '13 X3 (family hauler)
So does the sedan get 285s too?
02-18-2011, 10:17 AM
#136
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Your arrogance continues to amaze me. One would think you must be the offspring of Thurston Howell III and Leona Helmsley for you to think so highly of yourself. However your self righteous attitude has never been reserved exclusively for this forum alone. You tend to sprinkle your comments like an irritant just to garnish a reaction.
And back to the LS7:
1. It has no relevance to this discussion
2. A smaller motor would not have 13% more displacement
3. As for fuel efficient, how many 4000lb cars are currently powered by this motor?
And back to the LS7:
1. It has no relevance to this discussion
2. A smaller motor would not have 13% more displacement
3. As for fuel efficient, how many 4000lb cars are currently powered by this motor?
If you were to take a gander back at the posts where the ls7 was discussed, you would realize that it was brought up to indicate that GM can create high hp NA motors.
2. The dimensions of the motor are smaller (i.e. outwardly more compact)...as was also mentioned...try to keep up. its also simpler, cheaper to produce, and as durable.
3. As far as I know, there are zero 4000lb cars powered by the LS7...but then again, I forgot that weight is the only determining factor of fuel efficiency.
02-18-2011, 10:21 AM
#137
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW Suburbs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SVT Cobra
Gnxs, your car looks much better than the coupe--more car and less spaceship.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63, but that's not surprising.
BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
That said, I still like the looks of the C63
, but that's not surprising.BTW what kinda meat is on the rear tires, I can't remember but I think the coupe had 285s is that right?
Either way, I remember it was more than our wimpy rubber--I give props to GM for at least putting a decent sized tire in back.
No denying the good looks of the C63, and I don't know of really anybody that doesn't like the AMG. The CTS-V has many people that love it and many people that hate it, especially the coupe. I didn't buy it specifically for it's looks, but obviously they are not objectionable to me at all.
Last edited by gnxs; 02-18-2011 at 10:24 AM.
02-18-2011, 10:26 AM
#138
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
This thread has gone down the tube with some stupid comments. Pretty typical. 
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
02-18-2011, 10:33 AM
#139
Super Member
The Sedans come with 285's (on a 9.5" rim vs. a 10" on the coupe). In the pics above the car has the stock 255/285's on, but I currently have 265/35/19's and 305/30/19 Bridgestone RE-11's on the car. (MT 305/35/18's DRs on C6 Z06 rims for the track).
No denying the good looks of the C63, and I don't know of really anybody that doesn't like the AMG. The CTS-V has many people that love it and many people that hate it, especially the coupe. I didn't buy it specifically for it's looks, but obviously they are not objectionable to me at all.
No denying the good looks of the C63, and I don't know of really anybody that doesn't like the AMG. The CTS-V has many people that love it and many people that hate it, especially the coupe. I didn't buy it specifically for it's looks, but obviously they are not objectionable to me at all.
I don't think anyone can truly hate the sedan's looks, it is a well balanced car. Even the regular CTS always catches my eye as does a regular C class. Nice proportions. I don't mind the coupe but it does look slightly claustrophobic.
02-18-2011, 10:38 AM
#140
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG
This thread has gone down the tube with some stupid comments. Pretty typical.
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
02-18-2011, 10:38 AM
#141
Super Member
This thread has gone down the tube with some stupid comments. Pretty typical.
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
I apologize to the CTS-V posters for the immature comments of some of our AMG owners.
I will however add to the fire that I believe the overall engineering of the MB cars to be superior to the GM cars and here's my personal experience.
In March 2010, I attended and ran the mile run in Miami. There were 3 C63s and many american products as follows:
3 C63s (none stock, 2 just tuned and one was Dad's car). Our cars are about 4000 pounds and with a tune somewhere around 500hp. My car was slowest with 168mph, the other was 172 and Dad's was 179.
3 Z06s (stock and mildly modded) ran from 164 to 174
2 ZR1s (stock) ran 178 and 179
2 CTS-V (one stock and one slightly modded) ran 160 and 162.
Both CTS-V made at least 50hp more and the best CTS-V was 6mph slower than the slowest C63. That is quite a few car lengths at that speed.
Corvettes weigh at least 600 pounds less and are designed to be a pure sports car and as you can see by the results compare poorly versus a heavy 4 door sedan designed to be fast but nothing like a "track ready" car like a Z06.
Both ZR1 with at least 100hp and 600 pounds less were slower than the best C63.
All of this can be checked at on topgunrun.com. It all happened the same day.
I am not debating the fact that you can mod a V to go 190 in the mile run. I am giving props where it is due. That car has potential and is fast in a straight line or on the ring.
My point is that the engineers at AMG have created a car that performs better overall for the HP it has than its American competitor.
As a side note, I will give props to Porsche as the engineering seems to even be better than AMG. How they can get the Panamera Turbo (4,400 pound car) to do mid 3 sec 0-60 time is mindboggling.
Impressive list of cars rocketing down the track. True, the Panamera is a monster and I amy be one of the only people not disgusted by its looks!
02-18-2011, 10:50 AM
#142
MBWorld Fanatic!
The CTS-V is an animal, no matter how you compare it. If you think 550 hp is nothing special because is has a blower.....you might be right....but you might as well tell the E55 guys that there 5.5 numbers are nothing special too because they have a blower
But that nothing special motor easily makes over 800 hp to the wheels and can now run in the high 9's.....
There are a ****load of posts out there explaining how the C63 tranny cant and wont handle endless amounts of hp or torque, but the CTS-V takes it and runs the numbers......
Just pull your stock C63 beside one and see how well you do
But that nothing special motor easily makes over 800 hp to the wheels and can now run in the high 9's.....
There are a ****load of posts out there explaining how the C63 tranny cant and wont handle endless amounts of hp or torque, but the CTS-V takes it and runs the numbers......
Just pull your stock C63 beside one and see how well you do
Last edited by callmiro; 02-18-2011 at 10:54 AM.
02-18-2011, 10:55 AM
#143
Super Member
The CTS-V is an animal, no matter how you compare it. If you think 550 hp is nothing special because is has a blower.....you might be right....but you might as well tell the E55 guys that there 5.5 numbers are nothing special too because they have a blower
But that nothing special motor easily makes over 800 hp to the wheels and can now run in the high 9's.....
There are a ****load of posts out there explaining how the C63 tranny cant and wont handle endless amounts of hp or torque, but the CTS-V takes it and runs the numbers......
Just pull your stock C63 beside one and see how well you do
But that nothing special motor easily makes over 800 hp to the wheels and can now run in the high 9's.....
There are a ****load of posts out there explaining how the C63 tranny cant and wont handle endless amounts of hp or torque, but the CTS-V takes it and runs the numbers......
Just pull your stock C63 beside one and see how well you do
Exactly. Whether one may like it or not, you have to give huge respect to the best American sedan ever.
02-18-2011, 10:56 AM
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG
The CTS-V is an animal, no matter how you compare it. If you think 550 hp is nothing special because is has a blower.....you might be right....but you might as well tell the E55 guys that there 5.5 numbers are nothing special too because they have a blower
But that nothing special motor easily makes over 800 hp to the wheels and can now run in the high 9's.....
Last edited by melmanc55; 02-18-2011 at 11:00 AM.
02-18-2011, 11:01 AM
#146
MBWorld Fanatic!
[quote=melmanc55;4526045]
Another person on this tread that has not read anything but the last few pages. No one ever said that.[/quote
[quote=melmanc55;4526045]
"I guess my point is that with a 100 more in horsepower and torque this is all the gain you get?"
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.
Read your own posts douchestick...you've been slinging so much crap you don't even know what you're arguing anymore
Another person on this tread that has not read anything but the last few pages. No one ever said that.
[/quote[quote=melmanc55;4526045]
"I guess my point is that with a 100 more in horsepower and torque this is all the gain you get?"
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.
Read your own posts douchestick...you've been slinging so much crap you don't even know what you're arguing anymore
02-18-2011, 11:06 AM
#147
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW Suburbs
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 SVT Cobra
........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..................
Last edited by gnxs; 02-18-2011 at 11:16 AM.
02-18-2011, 11:07 AM
#148
MBWorld Fanatic!
This is what i'm talking about
800 WHP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQj-K52DlHA
CTS-V in the 9's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVFighlajFk
Last edited by callmiro; 02-18-2011 at 11:11 AM.
02-18-2011, 11:22 AM
#149
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG
melman: you are wasting everyone's time with your stupid comment
Read your own posts douchestick...you've been slinging so much crap you don't even know what you're arguing anymore
I If you think 550 hp is nothing special because is has a blower
Did we misinterpret this post you made earlier in this thread?
And by the way you guys...nowhere in my original post was I attacking anyone else's comments. Just stating mine.
Last edited by melmanc55; 02-18-2011 at 11:25 AM.
02-18-2011, 11:26 AM
#150
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by melmanc55
"I did where did I say that 550 hp is nothing special because it has a blower? Moron. You can read it again baboso."
Originally Posted by 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..................
Last edited by callmiro; 02-18-2011 at 11:28 AM.
