Can't beat the pesky Viper
#26
get some juice http://youtu.be/apOY03sCAF0?hd=1
#27
get some juice http://youtu.be/apOY03sCAF0?hd=1
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
I wouldn't be disappointed. You are running with what is considered to be a super car in a sedan. Viper's at any gen are no slouches.
My friend had a 97 GTS coupe, with some bolt ons it was a solid 11 second car trapping over 123mph. I am sure your friend's viper with the mods is trapping the same.
My friend had a 97 GTS coupe, with some bolt ons it was a solid 11 second car trapping over 123mph. I am sure your friend's viper with the mods is trapping the same.
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
#30
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTS-V Coupe
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
The C63 can more than hold its own against the "big boy" CTS-V. I have eaten several of those for breakfast on both the street and at the strip. Granted they were minimally modded beyond stock (exhaust, pump gas tune, etc), but then again so am I with only a tune and exhaust.
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I never understood why guys that dont even have a benz come on benz forums and post... Whats the point? No friends maybe...
I am happy to just hang with a Viper in my 4 door grocery getter, that I can comfortable drive across the country if I wanted to with my bags in the back seat.
Not to mention when the po po roll up they are all over that Viper before even looking my way. Poser indeed.
I am happy to just hang with a Viper in my 4 door grocery getter, that I can comfortable drive across the country if I wanted to with my bags in the back seat.
Not to mention when the po po roll up they are all over that Viper before even looking my way. Poser indeed.
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
^ LOL.
The CTS-V is a great car with huge potential. But Its very close to a C63 both with minor mods.
The viper was going to the shop for headers today, I was following in a truck and GTR pulls up.. We all merge onto the freeway and they both get into it... Viper was slowly walking on the GTR.. But it was verrryy close.
The CTS-V is a great car with huge potential. But Its very close to a C63 both with minor mods.
The viper was going to the shop for headers today, I was following in a truck and GTR pulls up.. We all merge onto the freeway and they both get into it... Viper was slowly walking on the GTR.. But it was verrryy close.
#36
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
#37
Super Member
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Headers, tune and tires (R6's 255 front and 295 rear on 19 pound Forgestars) and you will leave the piggy V on a road course. If the V has pulley and tune he will heatsoak before the tires and brakes warm up.
Big Boys ???????? Gimme a break
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
The Vipers puts out around 525 lb ft of torque, has steamroller rear tires, weighs at least 400lbs less and loses less power through the drive train with a manual transmission. He will put the power down better.
Torque is acceleration, hp is top end. No shame in losing to an 8 litre Viper. He's got at least 100 ft lbs of torque up on you.
Torque is acceleration, hp is top end. No shame in losing to an 8 litre Viper. He's got at least 100 ft lbs of torque up on you.
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
The Vipers puts out around 525 lb ft of torque, has steamroller rear tires, weighs at least 400lbs less and loses less power through the drive train with a manual transmission. He will put the power down better.
Torque is acceleration, hp is top end. No shame in losing to an 8 litre Viper. He's got at least 100 ft lbs of torque up on you.
Torque is acceleration, hp is top end. No shame in losing to an 8 litre Viper. He's got at least 100 ft lbs of torque up on you.
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
If only it were true and you could do with out rubbing all the time. Given the C63 Front Engine RWD the car need at least 315 or 335 in back to hook up and not be all tail happy in the turns. I've got 315 on the back end of a Porsche Turbo and it eats them like pretzels
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Currently Selected Tire Size(s)
Size 295/30ZR18
Load Range UTQG Max LLMax Load = 1,235 lbs
Max psi = 44 psi
Treadwear: 40
Weight 24 lbs.
RimWidth 9.5-11"
Overall Diam. 25.3"
It's a lot of tire but within spec's. 17mm pads and small tire diameter provide the clearance. Can not take more than one passenger or it will rub severely.
Size 295/30ZR18
Load Range UTQG Max LLMax Load = 1,235 lbs
Max psi = 44 psi
Treadwear: 40
Weight 24 lbs.
RimWidth 9.5-11"
Overall Diam. 25.3"
It's a lot of tire but within spec's. 17mm pads and small tire diameter provide the clearance. Can not take more than one passenger or it will rub severely.
#44
Super Member
Currently Selected Tire Size(s)
Size 295/30ZR18
Load Range UTQG Max LLMax Load = 1,235 lbs
Max psi = 44 psi
Treadwear: 40
Weight 24 lbs.
RimWidth 9.5-11"
Overall Diam. 25.3"
It's a lot of tire but within spec's. 17mm pads and small tire diameter provide the clearance. Can not take more than one passenger or it will rub severely.
Size 295/30ZR18
Load Range UTQG Max LLMax Load = 1,235 lbs
Max psi = 44 psi
Treadwear: 40
Weight 24 lbs.
RimWidth 9.5-11"
Overall Diam. 25.3"
It's a lot of tire but within spec's. 17mm pads and small tire diameter provide the clearance. Can not take more than one passenger or it will rub severely.
Interesting.... Are you on stock suspension? Did you have to do any bodywork to your rear fenders?
I'm completely OEM and the difference in traction going from 255 -> 275s was staggering... makes me really curious about finding ways to get more rubber on the back.
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
I have H&R springs which lowered the car but they are stiffer. This is a track only setup which will rub with people in the back seat. It is worse with a 275/35 than the 285/30 or 295/30 because the 275 is much taller. You do need 9.5 inch wheels minimum for the Hoosiers and many brands limit the 9.5 rim to 275 tires.
#47
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 C63 AMG
I do believe that it is more difficult than one would think to compare the C63 and the Viper. They are both very fast, but other than that their stock forms are VERY different cars built for very different purposes. Each has its own positives and negatives when compared with the other, but each is the best (or close to the best) at what it was made to do.
My C63 is, in my opinion, the BEST four-door sports sedan, daily driver, sleeper beast available (within my budget).
My GT500 is, in my opinion, the BEST example of raw American horsepower and torque, not a great daily driver but the most fun and best sounding car available (within my budget).
The GT500 is faster and better handling than the C63, but that's only because it is MUCH MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper to mod.
My C63 is, in my opinion, the BEST four-door sports sedan, daily driver, sleeper beast available (within my budget).
My GT500 is, in my opinion, the BEST example of raw American horsepower and torque, not a great daily driver but the most fun and best sounding car available (within my budget).
The GT500 is faster and better handling than the C63, but that's only because it is MUCH MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper to mod.
Last edited by Baby Gorilla; 02-16-2012 at 02:00 PM.
#48
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG
I think sometimes that everyone on this forum is deceived about, or in denial about, how fast the C63 actually is. Sure, compared to the Toyota Camry it's fast as all hell, astoundingly fast. But next to the big boys like the Viper, CTS-V, GT500, etc it is not actually all that fast. Anemic rear tires, porky curb weight, iffy transmission--these are not the makings of a truly fast car. It's almost as if the C63 is a better poser than it is a "sports car". But I'll be damned if they aren't one of the best looking sedans on the road today, and the difference in performance might not be noticeable in daily driving situations.
How sad is it that a true LT/Tune Only full weight C63 such as mine is faster than every single CTS-V with full bolt-ons and pulleys?
And the few that are faster all have internal engine work/nitrous/race gas?
While I will say you are correct about the anemic rear tires I can't help but think that the rest of that statement was intended for describing the CTS-V itself....
"Porky Curb Weight" CTS-V 4300lbs vs C63 3924lbs
"Iffy Transmission" Please don't get me started on how garbage the 6L80 trans is. I have 200+ passes on my stock trans. I haven't broke it yet.
#50
I personally like both cars, but you can bolt on a 2.8 kb supercharger on the V and be done with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHexM...deo&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBX-e...deo&playnext=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXC5a...ure=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHexM...deo&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBX-e...deo&playnext=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXC5a...ure=plpp_video