tuned c63 vs tune & pulley cts-v
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
E46 M3,15 Yukon Denali,09 C63
Think about it like this...it takes them a sc on the same displacement motor to beat our NA beast lol...with just headers/exhaust and a tune we keep up with them and they have a sc, and exhaust and pulley and tune...that is a win for 63 in my book
Senior Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Likes: 9
From: Chapel Hill, NC
2015 C63S E1; 2016 C450 AMG
I'm not sure what the other poster has in mind, but here is my thinking.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 42
C63 AMG
I'm not sure what the other poster has in mind, but here is my thinking.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
Nice to see someone post with some brains and logic.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 748
Likes: 1
From: Dubai
C63 AMG
It really doesn't matter if it has a 10 liter supercharged engine or a 1 litre naturally aspirated engine.
HP is HP
HP / LB of weight is HP / LB of weight
0-60 is 0-60 is 0-60
1/8 mile is 1/8 mile is 1/8 mile and
1/4 mile is 1/4 mile is 1/4 mile
The questions is which would win.
The answer is with these mods, the CTS-V will rip up the C any day of the week.
HP is HP
HP / LB of weight is HP / LB of weight
0-60 is 0-60 is 0-60
1/8 mile is 1/8 mile is 1/8 mile and
1/4 mile is 1/4 mile is 1/4 mile
The questions is which would win.
The answer is with these mods, the CTS-V will rip up the C any day of the week.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
C63 AMG
I'm not sure what the other poster has in mind, but here is my thinking.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
While the LSA engine in the V does have a super charger, the M156 engine in the C has 3 extra cam shafts and 16 more valves compared to the V. The M156 also has a complicated variable intake set up while the LSA just uses a simple throttle body. Similarly, the M156 has a complicated variable valve timing mechanism while the LSA has fixed timing from a single cam shaft.
Supercharging and multi-valve / variable timing techniques are both methods of solving the same problem, getting more air into the engine so it can burn more fuel. Neither method is inherently superior, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage of the M156 approach is cost and complexity. The M156 likely costs at least 2x the price of the LSA and has lots more moving parts. The other advantage of the LSA approach is the ease of increasing power. We have seen that getting more power on the M156 is quite expensive once you go past a tune and some exhaust work. By contrast, owners have added 100+ HP on the LSA by swapping pullies and installing better breathing intakes. The cost of such upgrades (including custom tuning) is less than $1,000.
Don't misunderstand, I have both a V and a C and I love them both. The bark of the C when I stomp on the pedal is unmatched. But I can't say that the V is inferior simply because it uses a super charger. Plus with an upgrade budget of $2K, the V will go much faster than the C.
+1 V's are very fast after pulley swaps, especially for how little you have to spend. Plus you can keep a stealth stock sounding car until you smash the throttle and hear that screaming supercharger whine.
Last edited by PistolWhipC63; Feb 18, 2013 at 08:52 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 17
From: Toronto
2016 C63 S
Guaranteed....CTS-V with some simple mods is an animal. I was "C63 all the way" before when it came to quality and presence, but i sat in a CTS-V at the car show yesterday, and I really liked the interior. The back seat room is a little better than the C63 and the Recaro's in the CTS-V feel amazing.
After being completely disappointed seeing the 2014 E63 in real life, i think i might be trying out a CTS-V next.....plus look at the wagon!
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 748
Likes: 1
From: Dubai
C63 AMG
The new V is insane and I was actually looking at a 2011 before picking up my C. The price of a 2011 V is the same as an 09 C. The problem is the V has absolutely no space inside the front drivers side seat / cockpit. I am 6 foot 4 and my head was pretty much touching the roof and the steering wheel is way too far forward.
Guaranteed....CTS-V with some simple mods is an animal. I was "C63 all the way" before when it came to quality and presence, but i sat in a CTS-V at the car show yesterday, and I really liked the interior. The back seat room is a little better than the C63 and the Recaro's in the CTS-V feel amazing.
After being completely disappointed seeing the 2014 E63 in real life, i think i might be trying out a CTS-V next.....plus look at the wagon!
After being completely disappointed seeing the 2014 E63 in real life, i think i might be trying out a CTS-V next.....plus look at the wagon!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 17
From: Toronto
2016 C63 S
The new V is insane and I was actually looking at a 2011 before picking up my C. The price of a 2011 V is the same as an 09 C. The problem is the V has absolutely no space inside the front drivers side seat / cockpit. I am 6 foot 4 and my head was pretty much touching the roof and the steering wheel is way too far forward.
My cousin is 6'4 as well...he adjusted the seat and he was perfect in it....you can drop the seat very low...
134MPH in the wagon...and babying it out of the hole
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 748
Likes: 1
From: Dubai
C63 AMG
My cousin is 6'4 as well...he adjusted the seat and he was perfect in it....you can drop the seat very low...
134MPH in the wagon...and babying it out of the hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv11nvQcFGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3uGaAWJvXA
134MPH in the wagon...and babying it out of the hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv11nvQcFGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3uGaAWJvXA
