gnxs

Me and Callmiro, since we both read it the same way. I quoted his post (and unlike you his screenname) in my reply to make it easier to follow.

melmanc55

800 hp? That is stock? Because that is what this original discussion is about.

callmiro

You said it was a piece of shi+ tranny and i showed you that it can take 800hp

Suck it

melmanc55

We'll both of you are reading it the wrong way. What I MEANT to say was that they need the help of the supercharger to get the performance numbers out of the car ( I have already explain ealier that I didn't explain it well enough in my original post). What I meant to say was that AMG engineers have been able to get out of the C63 almost identical performance numbers with a car the has 100 hp and torque less and weighs about the same. They do this by having a far superior transmission and engine. Granted my first post was a little spirited and got a little carried away. But no where in my post did I say there was "nothing special about a 550 hp supercahrge car". Callmiro is just getting into this late and seeing what he can stir up. Which is ok.

melmanc55

Quote:

You said it was a piece of shi+ tranny and i showed you that it can take 800hp

Suck it

Egyptking

please and i think i speak for all members of this forum... a caddy will never be a BENZ.not to mention ugly as all hell.... go with a 600 and blast that american made POS!!!!!

melmanc55

Ahhh the voice of reason FINALLY!! Thanks brother.

gnxs

The two cars do not weigh the same, we already established the C63 is 300 pounds lighter. At least I established it (based on MB and Cadillac's own numbers), perhaps you still don't believe it.

You've finally said something I can agree with which is that the gearing and shifting superiority of the c63 transmission (it is not more durable than the GM 6L90) is indeed one of the things that helps make up for its 100 hp (on paper) deficit. And not to confuse you, but in reality when you compare stock dyno numbers for both cars AT THE WHEELS, the difference is a lot less than 100 hp. The 6-speed auto in the Caddy sucks a ton of hp which further contributes to why there is generally a .5 disparity in their 1/4 mile times in stock form.

As for the C63 engine being "superior" to the CTS-V, that would all depend on what characteristics you value in your car's engine. The fact that the "V" motor comes very de-tuned in stock form and takes very well to mods is an important attribute for me. Likely the reason that when I was looking at used AMG's I gravitated towards the E55 and not one of the NA models.

gonzales25

No reason to be anti AMERICAN

gnxs

I think quite a few members of this forum, many in this thread, might have a problem with you speaking for them (especially the non-600 owners based on your post yesterday):

melmanc55

I honestly don't think the weight difference is that much. I have seen weights on the coupe @ about 4200 lbs and the C63 at a 4,050 lbs. My whole start in all this was that I kept seeing the raw numbers being post in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times between these two cars and which is faster than the other. There is always going to be a faster car out there. It when you start looking at "how" at these two cars get to where they are. With performance numbers so close they are world apart at how they get there. IMHO Cadillac is going the cheap way at making a top performing car.

gnxs

I think quite a few members of this forum, many in this thread, might have a problem with you speaking for them (especially the non-600 owners based on your post yesterday):

Cool, you can alienate both American car owners and fellow MB owners at the same time.

coladin

I think this is a fair statement. One would think with the wieght difference the CTS-V would be much faster than it is. I think that is what melman is getting at. Is that due to technology? Is it due to the overall refinement of the package? I would venture to say yes. I would never say that S/C is a cheap way to go but it is important to acknowledge that the gap should be bigger than it is.

The CTS-V may be a more natural competitior to a E63 anyways as far as interior volume though, isn't it?

gnxs

With gas in the car the C63 is likely at your number, but a CTS-V Coupe with gas is likely a bit over 4300. 300 pounds could roughly equate to .3 in the 1/4 mile.

Yes they go about their missions in different ways, but I would disagree with your belief that Caddy is taking the cheap way out. Has AMG been taking the cheap way at making a top performing cars with their V-12 TT powerplants, the upcoming 5.5 TT motors? Many of the highest performing cars in the world use forced induction powerplants and I wouldn't describe any of them as "going the cheap way".

gnxs

Anybody that understands ALL the combined factors that play into 1/4 mile performance would understand why the cars are generally .5 apart. And BTW, .5 is not an insignificant margin, it's quite a bit to make up.

The CTS-V in this video ran .8 quicker (11.1 vs. 11.9) than the stroker 2010 Camaro with the camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkg9P...layer_embedded

Add to this the fact that the "V" motor is significantly detuned as it comes from GM (simple mods and the resultant gains bear this out) and the numbers make more sense. Nobody is saying the C63 doesn't have an awesome motor, just not sure what makes the Caddy powerplant such a POS in people's eyes. It's potential is massive and they've proven dead reliable even when significantly modded.

Yes the E63 would be it's targeted competitor.

coladin

So only you understand then?

It has already been determined that , depending on all magazine publications, that it may very well boil down to a driver's race. Will the caddy pull at some point? It should but the races could be much closer in real life than .5

I was actually complimentary of the powerplant as manufacturers are going the turbo and SC way in order to improve fuel economy while still delivering torque.

Don't be so defensive!

lowpost

Great morning entertainment - thank you.

I do have to say that I think the CTS-V exterior looks pretty good. When it first come out it was the first american car in a long time that I really liked. If anything at least it was different and pushing the design envelope a little bit. And not a re-hash of some older body style. If it came down to that alone i don't know that I would pick a C63 over a CTS-V. Having said that though I might be looking at a C63 end of this year. Either that or an E55/63 or a new X5 for my wife.

And intersting, I've been driving my CLK around since 2003 and I never realized I wasn't really driving a benz. Guess I'm not a baller like Egyption Lover..I mean King.

gnxs

Sorry, I could have worded that better. My point is there is alot more to it 1/4 mile times than "rated" hp. That message wasn't meant for you specifically, but I'm tired of hearing about the Caddy's 100 rated hp advantage and why it's only .5 quicker in a quarter mile. My apologies, but there are obviously a few people here that have never made a 1/4 mile pass in their lives and I need to switch gears occasionally.

As to your second point, conversely the races also could be much farther in real life.

Yes. In that respect I've always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the AMG folks (forum) would naturally be more accepting of a FI powerplant based on their lineup. It's typically the BMW guys that have no respect for FI powerplants and the ability to mod them. Many of them are having a hard time over there dealing with the fact that the next M5 is going to have a TT powerplant.

As to being defensive.....that's a two-way street. I didn't start out that way in this thread. It seems like a long time ago, but I started out merely providing some factual information based on my experience and knowledge of the subject/question being asked. I know it was only yesterday, but it seems like years ago now.

superlubricity

I'm a fan of both. The P31 option on the 2010+ C63 certainly changes the stock vs. stock conversation a bit. At the end of the day it's all about personal preference as not everyone's definition of "best" is the same.

Thanks (to most of you ) for not letting this thread get out of hand.

melmanc55

I think the fact that the let the weight of the car go over what they probably could have done. The fact that they are still using pushrod technology in their engines are just a start. So why is the car still not miles ahead of the C63 with the horsepower and torque it brings to the table. Just weight? I don't think so. When I made a comment in my original post about the transmission I think i should have said it is not delivering what it should to the car. Running more efficiently or effectively.

AMGC60-3

Please let it be noted that the C63 powerplant is also significantly detuned.

coladin

It's ok.

I think most AMG guys here are not crazy about the TT engines because if the sound. That is one of the biggest allures of the car, the ridiculous exhaust. Then you have the CTS-V which does not sound great and the 5.5 TT which on a lot of clips has lost that gnarly edge. I don't think you can argue with the bhp/tq of the turbo motors and lag seems to have been made a non -issue plus the fact that fuel economy will be much better. Start/stop technology which also seems to be technology than many may seem resistant too.

Cars like the C63 are a dying breed for sure. A 12mpg supersedan that doesn't give a lick about anything but stimulating each of your senses.

I can't wait!

gnxs

I've covered everything about why these cars run the numbers they do elsewhere in this thread ad-nauseum, mostly in response to you. I'm done beating this dead horse with you. Go find a drag strip and make some passes and maybe you'll learn a few things. Maybe they'll even be a CTS-V there that you could line up for a direct comparison.

Go look up GM's LS3 motor (and LS7 if you get ambitious) and learn about ALL of their naturally aspirated specifications (power, torque, engine weight, dimensions, fuel economy, costs to mfr., etc.). I think you'll find that the old pushrods aren't so "old" afterall. OliverK was leading you down that path yesterday. I'm done providing facts for you. You choose to continually disregard the message because of the messenger (The C63 curb weight that I got from MB's website is one example).

gnxs

Ahhh, just noticed the bottom line of your sig. I bet the Canadian Winter can't end soon enough for you.

Quadcammer

And what is wrong with that.

Pushrods are very effective. OHV are cheap, simple, and offer an additional degree of safety by having the pushrods be sacrificial as opposed to the valves.

Pushrod engines power some of the fastest cars in the world.

Whats funny is that OHC technology is actually OLDER, so I guess MB is using outdated technology huh?