6.2 L NA engine VS 5.5 twin turbo - Page 2

May 15, 2011 | 06:55 PM

#26

CELLryuu

Super Member

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 658

Likes: 2

From: DFW

C63 AMG Coupe P31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jycke

I doubt the 5.5 in the CLK can be compared to the M157.
I would too take the 5.5 TT, but we won't see that one in the C-class, with the exception of the BS perhaps. Madness

Um.....to my knowledge the clk63 5.5 turbo amg did have the m157 engine in it (or maybe it was the cls? not sure). Please correct me if im wrong. the car i drove was a prototype thats not available in the states yet.

May 15, 2011 | 07:43 PM

#27

DuaneC63

MBWorld Fanatic!

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 1,601

Likes: 10

From: San Diego/San Francisco

AMG GLC63. Audi R8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I've owned a GT3 RS and now own the new 997 turbo with pdk.
Man , you should listen a turbo at WOT with Sport+ enabled and then edit your post

I agree that at idle and low rpm the sound is just like any other car

I wonder how the new GT3 RS 4.0 sounds

I have a 996 turbo with a free flow exhaust that I've driven at WOT side by side with the GT3RS. They still sound better to me. Just a personal view.

May 16, 2011 | 08:16 AM

#28

hhughes1

MBWorld Fanatic!

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,521

Likes: 3

From: Central Florida

2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by CELLryuu

It must be the CLS, CLK's stopped production a while ago.

May 16, 2011 | 11:25 AM

#29

BK63amg

MBWorld Fanatic!

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 1,345

Likes: 3

From: Oakland, CA

'16 GTS Solar

I drove the 2012 CLS63 yesterday at the AMG Performance Tour in Monticello...pretty sure thats the M157 in there...I can say the power was very impressive - it felt like a rocket once it got up to speed but there was some perceptible lag down bottom...the C63 was significantly more fun around the track (CLS63 feels like a boat in comparison.)

May 17, 2011 | 06:40 AM

#30

KEMA

Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 317

Likes: 0

2012 E63 PP, 2012 Ferrari 458, 2012 Boxster S

Holy cr@p!

I just reviewed the entire Inside Line article. The S63 PP actually put down 536 HP at the wheels which should translate to around 650 HP at the crank (using 18% drive train loss). Can this be true?

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...z-s63-amg.html

Not to mention the absolute monstrous torque this beast is putting down.

I'm absolutely in love with my 6.2 but on paper the new 5.5 TT blows it away.

Ken

May 17, 2011 | 08:14 AM

#31

Erbo

Junior Member

Joined: May 2009

Posts: 35

Likes: 0

From: Sweden

C 63 fully loaded

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEMA

No, it can´t. Look at this chart:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-sls_chart.jpg

It´s got 10 more HP than the SLS and we all know that the 6,2 engine in that car is not rated at 640 hp. Something fishy with that dyno.

May 17, 2011 | 08:39 AM

#32

KEMA

Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 317

Likes: 0

2012 E63 PP, 2012 Ferrari 458, 2012 Boxster S

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erbo

You're right. Got confused when they actually referred to wheel HP in the article. Dyno chart is screwed up. 527 HP for the SLS can't possibly be WHP but on the other hand if this dyno (like some do) automatically converts to FWHP then this is one weak SLS...

I guess the only thing we can conclude from this article is that the new 5.5 TT is rated above the SLS which would place it around the 585 FWHP mark. Still not too bad.

Ken

May 18, 2011 | 01:46 PM

#33

Yuille36

MBWorld Fanatic!

Joined: Apr 2009

Posts: 6,020

Likes: 532

From: Alexandria, VA

07 E63 AMG, 10 C63 AMG, 07 E63 Designo, 07 E350, 09 C300, 07 C230

Having recently driven the 2012 CLS63 with the 5.5 Bi-Turbo, the 6.3 and 5.5 have different characteristics altogether. Not just from the aspect of HP, but torque, as the 5.5 makes its torque at low rpms, and pulls hard right from the dig. Feels stronger than the 6.3, but keep in mind that the 6.3 is no slouch. I will keep the 6.3 personally, as theirs no replacement for displacement, unless you have turbos