No Fly Zone Airstrip Event - 2013 C63 P31 vs 2013 F10 M5
03-06-2013, 10:43 AM
#26
Out Of Control!
03-06-2013, 11:09 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
... Still waiting for an answer! Unless you have a 507 which is just a tune, or a Black series again just a tune with suspension and cooling upgrades what is different with your C63 P31 sedan and my 2012 C63 P31 sedan?
03-06-2013, 11:33 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I think the M5 owner was just confused, thinking the P31 package equates to a Black Series motor. My car is your standard 2013 C63 Sedan with P31 Package and 481hp rating.
03-06-2013, 11:41 AM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thanks! That event looked like tons of fun! Im actually planning on taking my car to a runway event this summer!
03-06-2013, 12:05 PM
#30
All these people are bringing up other videos where supposedly the m5 pulls buses and every time it loses or is close it has to be in limp stick economy 2 cylinder granny shifting mode lol Guys remember this is a MCT P31 c63 that beat the m5 some of these other videos are just the old 7G trans. Dont forget the m5 is 4400+ pounds ! While the m5 is underrated at 560 the c63 p31 is also underrated at 481 its basically the same engine tune that was in higher class 63's in years before that was rated at 515
03-06-2013, 12:08 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
997.2 GT3
Great race and win for the C. There is another video on the forum where a white M5 pulls quite a few buses on a tuned C.
Not sure for your race if this is due to this M5 not being on the right settings or not kicking it down at the cone.
The new M5 stock is quicker and faster than any stock Cs.
Not sure for your race if this is due to this M5 not being on the right settings or not kicking it down at the cone.
The new M5 stock is quicker and faster than any stock Cs.
03-06-2013, 12:19 PM
#32
03-06-2013, 01:02 PM
#34
Super Member
Sadly I wasnt there
. I watched your videos on the *********** site. I wanted to get into the ShiftSector event but its completely sold out ! Its a shame because I would nearly be done with my car build...
03-06-2013, 01:05 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...vs-f10-m5.html
Not sure if the car is a 2013 but it is at least tuned. The result is not pretty.
Not taking anything away from the OP. He has a great car and the video is proof. Go and create friendly havoc on the bimmer boards
.
We have enough videos about the biturbo engine giving a spanking to the C63 and Vic who owns an M5 states the M5 is slightly quicker than the M157 cars stock for stock.
Since the OP is going to another event soon, maybe he can run against other M5s and see what results he gets.
Awesome runs anyway and thanks for sharing.
Not sure if the car is a 2013 but it is at least tuned. The result is not pretty.
Not taking anything away from the OP. He has a great car and the video is proof. Go and create friendly havoc on the bimmer boards
.We have enough videos about the biturbo engine giving a spanking to the C63 and Vic who owns an M5 states the M5 is slightly quicker than the M157 cars stock for stock.
Since the OP is going to another event soon, maybe he can run against other M5s and see what results he gets.
Awesome runs anyway and thanks for sharing.
03-06-2013, 01:24 PM
#36
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...vs-f10-m5.html
Not sure if the car is a 2013 but it is at least tuned. The result is not pretty.
Not taking anything away from the OP. He has a great car and the video is proof. Go and create friendly havoc on the bimmer boards.
We have enough videos about the biturbo engine giving a spanking to the C63 and Vic who owns an M5 states the M5 is slightly quicker than the M157 cars stock for stock.
Since the OP is going to another event soon, maybe he can run against other M5s and see what results he gets.
Awesome runs anyway and thanks for sharing.
Not sure if the car is a 2013 but it is at least tuned. The result is not pretty.
Not taking anything away from the OP. He has a great car and the video is proof. Go and create friendly havoc on the bimmer boards
.We have enough videos about the biturbo engine giving a spanking to the C63 and Vic who owns an M5 states the M5 is slightly quicker than the M157 cars stock for stock.
Since the OP is going to another event soon, maybe he can run against other M5s and see what results he gets.
Awesome runs anyway and thanks for sharing.
03-06-2013, 01:51 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
All right, do a little search...
Keep drinking the cool aid if you think a stock C63 keeps up with a stock M157 E63 on a 1/2 mile race.
Go ask Vic. He owned all of them. He 'll tell you.
Keep drinking the cool aid if you think a stock C63 keeps up with a stock M157 E63 on a 1/2 mile race.
Go ask Vic. He owned all of them. He 'll tell you.
03-06-2013, 02:06 PM
#38
all im saying is a c63 with P31 puts down 425-430 WHP and a non PP CLS63 without PP puts down 460-470 while being 400+ pounds heavier So im sure it would be an interesting race your the one claiming "spankings"My car isnt stock either and I love the M157 and the ability to have silly power with a software change just calling it how i see it
03-06-2013, 02:09 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
1/4 mile is a different story, 1/2 mile the C wins.... Trust me
03-06-2013, 02:23 PM
#40
The m157 are downlow and midrange torque monsters so they would prob give it the advantage in the 1/4 with the right tires but the rev range of the m156 with the ability to rev almost 1000rpm higher while still making more power as revs go up give it a top end advantage as well as the 400+ pound weight advantage
03-06-2013, 03:59 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
Most magazines are showing the new E63 in the high 11s versus low 12s for the C63.
As you stated you want to compare the highest output P31 C63 to the regular E63 and it will be a driver's race and a toss up. However if you take the PP E63 versus the P31 C63, the E will win most of the time.
Could the C catch up at the 1/2 mile? obviously some people think so. I have never seen it. What I have seen and witnessed is up to 150mph, the E or CLS PP wins. Throw a tune on both cars and the C is buses behind the E/CLS.
By the way, I do not drive a CLS yet and still contemplating other cars.
As you stated you want to compare the highest output P31 C63 to the regular E63 and it will be a driver's race and a toss up. However if you take the PP E63 versus the P31 C63, the E will win most of the time.
Could the C catch up at the 1/2 mile? obviously some people think so. I have never seen it. What I have seen and witnessed is up to 150mph, the E or CLS PP wins. Throw a tune on both cars and the C is buses behind the E/CLS.
By the way, I do not drive a CLS yet and still contemplating other cars.
03-06-2013, 06:53 PM
#44
Most magazines are showing the new E63 in the high 11s versus low 12s for the C63.
As you stated you want to compare the highest output P31 C63 to the regular E63 and it will be a driver's race and a toss up. However if you take the PP E63 versus the P31 C63, the E will win most of the time.
Could the C catch up at the 1/2 mile? obviously some people think so. I have never seen it. What I have seen and witnessed is up to 150mph, the E or CLS PP wins. Throw a tune on both cars and the C is buses behind the E/CLS.
By the way, I do not drive a CLS yet and still contemplating other cars.
As you stated you want to compare the highest output P31 C63 to the regular E63 and it will be a driver's race and a toss up. However if you take the PP E63 versus the P31 C63, the E will win most of the time.
Could the C catch up at the 1/2 mile? obviously some people think so. I have never seen it. What I have seen and witnessed is up to 150mph, the E or CLS PP wins. Throw a tune on both cars and the C is buses behind the E/CLS.
By the way, I do not drive a CLS yet and still contemplating other cars.
Then car and driver has a PP CLS 63 0-60 in 3.8 and 1/4 mile in 12.0
then they also did the NEW MCT C63 COUPE PP 0-60 in 3.7 and 1/4 mile in 12.1
So as you see the PP c63 coupe can run with the PP M157 cars in the quarter mile and has a better chance in the half mile forget about the non PP M157.
And if you want to add tuning to the equation you can just stop at a tune you have to talk about the fastest m156 vs the fastest m157. JRCart showed that he beat the fastest M157 out there right now with wesitec upgraded turbos and that was in his C63BS that doesnt have the built engine so its not running full boost as hes claimed before thats his slow car
03-06-2013, 07:13 PM
#45
Super Member
Bizarre. M5 should have eaten it alive. He either wasn't in M1 mode I think its called or some of the early M5s came with a huge hole in the airbox that was supposed to be covered with a metal plate which wrecked havok on the power output. Dealers will retrofit the plate on there. The difference is like 50whp. That may be where the conflicting results come from. A properly running M5 in the proper mode will outrun a PP E or CLS biturbo and even motortrend dynod one and said they make over 600hp. They got a different one for a different test and it ran like a dog. Something wierd going on with them.
03-06-2013, 08:12 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,925
Received 167 Likes
on
133 Posts
2021 Porsche TTS
Esec63. Thanks for looking up the exact info. As you pointed it out, it is close but you still have not shown any C being tested below 12s.
I had been focusing on the CLS rather than the E so maybe there is a slight difference.
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...ance_pack.html
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...e_package.html
The CLS has 11.9 and the C has 12.1 for the 1/4.
More importantly and what I have been trying to say and obviously I was not doing a good job is that the trap speed of the CLS is usually a bit faster and the higher speed you go the bigger the gap.
Look at the 200kph. The CLS does it in 12.5 and the C in 13.3 which again indicates that the CLS is building up more speed which is consistent with the races I have been involved in (1/4, 1/2 and mile runs).
Regarding your comment on the tune, it does not make sense. It seems you do not want to admit that a simple tune on a TT engine achieves huge gains whereas it takes a huge amount of money to get the similar power on a NA engine.
Trying to argue whether someone can mod either car and which one would be faster is pointless.
Don't get me wrong. I love both cars and respect the C with what it has achieved with that wonderful M156.
I had been focusing on the CLS rather than the E so maybe there is a slight difference.
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...ance_pack.html
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...e_package.html
The CLS has 11.9 and the C has 12.1 for the 1/4.
More importantly and what I have been trying to say and obviously I was not doing a good job is that the trap speed of the CLS is usually a bit faster and the higher speed you go the bigger the gap.
Look at the 200kph. The CLS does it in 12.5 and the C in 13.3 which again indicates that the CLS is building up more speed which is consistent with the races I have been involved in (1/4, 1/2 and mile runs).
Regarding your comment on the tune, it does not make sense. It seems you do not want to admit that a simple tune on a TT engine achieves huge gains whereas it takes a huge amount of money to get the similar power on a NA engine.
Trying to argue whether someone can mod either car and which one would be faster is pointless.
Don't get me wrong. I love both cars and respect the C with what it has achieved with that wonderful M156.
03-06-2013, 08:58 PM
#47
Esec63. Thanks for looking up the exact info. As you pointed it out, it is close but you still have not shown any C being tested below 12s.
I had been focusing on the CLS rather than the E so maybe there is a slight difference.
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...ance_pack.html
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...e_package.html
The CLS has 11.9 and the C has 12.1 for the 1/4.
More importantly and what I have been trying to say and obviously I was not doing a good job is that the trap speed of the CLS is usually a bit faster and the higher speed you go the bigger the gap.
Look at the 200kph. The CLS does it in 12.5 and the C in 13.3 which again indicates that the CLS is building up more speed which is consistent with the races I have been involved in (1/4, 1/2 and mile runs).
Regarding your comment on the tune, it does not make sense. It seems you do not want to admit that a simple tune on a TT engine achieves huge gains whereas it takes a huge amount of money to get the similar power on a NA engine.
Trying to argue whether someone can mod either car and which one would be faster is pointless.
Don't get me wrong. I love both cars and respect the C with what it has achieved with that wonderful M156.
I had been focusing on the CLS rather than the E so maybe there is a slight difference.
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...ance_pack.html
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes...e_package.html
The CLS has 11.9 and the C has 12.1 for the 1/4.
More importantly and what I have been trying to say and obviously I was not doing a good job is that the trap speed of the CLS is usually a bit faster and the higher speed you go the bigger the gap.
Look at the 200kph. The CLS does it in 12.5 and the C in 13.3 which again indicates that the CLS is building up more speed which is consistent with the races I have been involved in (1/4, 1/2 and mile runs).
Regarding your comment on the tune, it does not make sense. It seems you do not want to admit that a simple tune on a TT engine achieves huge gains whereas it takes a huge amount of money to get the similar power on a NA engine.
Trying to argue whether someone can mod either car and which one would be faster is pointless.
Don't get me wrong. I love both cars and respect the C with what it has achieved with that wonderful M156.
Car and driver tested the c63 coupe @ 12.1 @ 120mph so the gap isn't that big ! As you see the c usually has a slightly better 0-60 time and the cls has the slightly better 1/4 time and trap speed
Now what I'm going to say is my opinion based on knowledge throughout the years of having different cars with different power bands and learning how they ran so I can be completely wrong but ill give my educated opinion
If you see the Dyno sheets the cls has a HUGE midrange torque advantage so what I think is happening is the C is getting better traction due to less torque /wheel spin on the initial launch hence better 0-60 times
then those turbos really spool on the m157 and it launches forward making that time up in the first 1/8 mile with brutal torque and pull
Then as the gears change and your only seeing the top of the rpms the monster top endpowerband and weight of the c63/m156 real it back in to make it close
The thing is you really only use that monster low/midrange from a dig because when your racing from a roll like these guys were and have 7 gears to play with you will start out in the strong part of your power band and that huge midrange advantage is taken out of the equation and the weight disadvantage is still there making it an interesting race ! I'm not making any claims but Jrcart did and if anyone has had experience with both these cars / engines its him and when he said "trust me" makes it seem like him and the guys at wiestec have tried it out
Either way I love both cars and engines and I'd love to run any m157 once I get my mbh headers bolted on win or lose its all fun I'm not a fan boy of anything
If you go up a few comments you see I said "I love the m157 and the ability to have silly power with just a software change" so I don't know where you got the Idea I don't want to admit that a tune gives huge gains on these motors sometimes its better to take a second really read what people are saying realize its thru text so there aren't emotions displayed that you might think they are and then respond
I was just making a point that at this moment the c63 with the m156 can be made faster than the fastest m157 if you want to get out of the realm of the way they came out of the factory
03-06-2013, 09:09 PM
#48
Super Member
Do you know if that 11.9 is legit and what magazine it was from? Just asking no reason people can't have friendly debates without getting accused of "drinking the koolaid"
Car and driver tested the c63 coupe @ 12.1 @ 120mph so the gap isn't that big ! As you see the c usually has a slightly better 0-60 time and the cls has the slightly better 1/4 time and trap speed
Now what I'm going to say is my opinion based on knowledge throughout the years of having different cars with different power bands and learning how they ran so I can be completely wrong but ill give my educated opinion
If you see the Dyno sheets the cls has a HUGE midrange torque advantage so what I think is happening is the C is getting better traction due to less torque /wheel spin on the initial launch hence better 0-60 times
then those turbos really spool on the m157 and it launches forward making that time up in the first 1/8 mile with brutal torque and pull
Then as the gears change and your only seeing the top of the rpms the monster top endpowerband and weight of the c63/m156 real it back in to make it close
The thing is you really only use that monster low/midrange from a dig because when your racing from a roll like these guys were and have 7 gears to play with you will start out in the strong part of your power band and that huge midrange advantage is taken out of the equation and the weight disadvantage is still there making it an interesting race ! I'm not making any claims but Jrcart did and if anyone has had experience with both these cars / engines its him and when he said "trust me" makes it seem like him and the guys at wiestec have tried it out
Either way I love both cars and engines and I'd love to run any m157 once I get my mbh headers bolted on win or lose its all fun I'm not a fan boy of anything
If you go up a few comments you see I said "I love the m157 and the ability to have silly power with just a software change" so I don't know where you got the Idea I don't want to admit that a tune gives huge gains on these motors sometimes its better to take a second really read what people are saying realize its thru text so there aren't emotions displayed that you might think they are and then respond
I was just making a point that at this moment the c63 with the m156 can be made faster than the fastest m157 if you want to get out of the realm of the way they came out of the factory
Car and driver tested the c63 coupe @ 12.1 @ 120mph so the gap isn't that big ! As you see the c usually has a slightly better 0-60 time and the cls has the slightly better 1/4 time and trap speed
Now what I'm going to say is my opinion based on knowledge throughout the years of having different cars with different power bands and learning how they ran so I can be completely wrong but ill give my educated opinion
If you see the Dyno sheets the cls has a HUGE midrange torque advantage so what I think is happening is the C is getting better traction due to less torque /wheel spin on the initial launch hence better 0-60 times
then those turbos really spool on the m157 and it launches forward making that time up in the first 1/8 mile with brutal torque and pull
Then as the gears change and your only seeing the top of the rpms the monster top endpowerband and weight of the c63/m156 real it back in to make it close
The thing is you really only use that monster low/midrange from a dig because when your racing from a roll like these guys were and have 7 gears to play with you will start out in the strong part of your power band and that huge midrange advantage is taken out of the equation and the weight disadvantage is still there making it an interesting race ! I'm not making any claims but Jrcart did and if anyone has had experience with both these cars / engines its him and when he said "trust me" makes it seem like him and the guys at wiestec have tried it out
Either way I love both cars and engines and I'd love to run any m157 once I get my mbh headers bolted on win or lose its all fun I'm not a fan boy of anything
If you go up a few comments you see I said "I love the m157 and the ability to have silly power with just a software change" so I don't know where you got the Idea I don't want to admit that a tune gives huge gains on these motors sometimes its better to take a second really read what people are saying realize its thru text so there aren't emotions displayed that you might think they are and then respond
I was just making a point that at this moment the c63 with the m156 can be made faster than the fastest m157 if you want to get out of the realm of the way they came out of the factory
03-06-2013, 09:17 PM
#49
Good info I didn't know that ! But I also referenced the times for the cls63 so it's a direct comparison both tested the same way
