6.2 L NA engine VS 5.5 twin turbo
05-15-2011, 06:55 PM
#26
Super Member
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.
05-15-2011, 07:43 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.
05-16-2011, 11:25 AM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.)
05-17-2011, 06:40 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
05-17-2011, 08:14 AM
#31
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C 63 fully loaded
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
Ken
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
Ken
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-sls_chart.jpg
Itīs 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.
05-17-2011, 08:39 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 E63 PP, 2012 Ferrari 458, 2012 Boxster S
No, it canīt. Look at this chart:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-sls_chart.jpg
Itīs 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.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...-sls_chart.jpg
Itīs 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.
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
05-18-2011, 01:46 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
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 
