benjyboards

I know it is a mute point in terms of costs, but does anyone have real world experience with new model CL600 v/s CL65 gas mileage (my concern is range per tank of fuel). Also, is there an AMG option yet available for the CL600?

whoover

Gas mileage is pretty much the same. There is still no sport package in the US. The AMG option for the CL600 is the CL65.

cjf_moraga

Are you really concerned about this? Depends on the type of driving you do of course...

I can tell you that with my S600 I can get around 400 - 430 miles on one tank of gas when freeway cruising at 70-80 mph. (Maxes out at about 21.3 mpg) However in stop and go town traffic it can get down to 11-13 mpg. The Cl is going to be pretty similar given it is the same engine and approximate weight.

I find the extremes for the 600 engine are both better and worse than the published figures. Generally though you should certainly be good for 300 miles or more in typical mixed driving.

I believe the S65 is similar or at least varies by only a small amount.

Chris

benjyboards

Thanks for your input. It seems that whatever car I buy they always wind up in the 12-13 mpg area. I am not concerned about mpg, but I get tired of poor range very quickly. I drove a CL600 yesterday and the difference between it and my last CL600 from 2002 is night and day. These cars have locomotive torque. I figure the 65 is even more impressive but I wanted an unbiased opinion on range. The sales guys are pretty good at telling you what you want to hear!

WSH

65 and 600 deliver similar MPG....

63 actually gets 1-2 MPG less than 600/65...

Worst is SL63....it gets ?10% less MPG than CL63 and has a ?10% smaller fuel tank...

Agree, range is critical for commuter cars....997TT would drive me nuts w/its inept range....some 12MPG and a some 17gall fuel tank....

benjyboards

This is a major consideration for me. Life is too short to be on a constant hunt for the next gas station.

My buddy bought a CL63 (mostly because I so heavily promoted the car and had one on order for 18 months before release), but when I got to drive it I was completely disappointed. I just drove a CL600 last weekend and the difference between the two is incredible. The heavy weight CL needs the V12 TT. It is just fantastic. I also drove an SL65 that was on the lot to compare with the 600 motor, and to be honest I could not feel that much difference (pretty hard when briefly test driving dealer's cars).
Either way, I am completely sold. There is nothing else out there that has the whoosh and thrust of the twin turbo V12. I bought a Jaguar XKR Portfolio instead of the CL63 after driving my friends' car, and the Jag is far superior to the 63 in many ways, BUT the twin turbo benz motor is in another class altogether.
I will get a 600 or a 65. They are both outstanding. Range per tank fill up is one of the things I have a real issue with however, so thank you very much indeed for your helpful knowledge.

cjf_moraga

Glad you tested both and determined the truth behind the marketing hype. I also tested an (S)63 (which I originally ordered) and CL600 back to back (over several days) and found the contrast was simply night and day. I found the 63 engine had none of that "hang on to the wheel for dear life" crazy acceleration in the 0-60 zone that I so loved in my old E55.. Of course raw straight line acceleration is not everything... dynamically the CL63 is a fine car, (and the 63 engine is lighter up front) but I can't help but feel that the power/torque/weight ratio of the 63 engine is a little under powered for a car in the CL/S class weight category for its stated performance aims... the NA 63 engine to me makes more sense in the E-Class weight range.

Throw in the superior interior appointments and "all options included" and the 600 is a no-brainer. Plus at some point you have the option of tuning the 600 engine to ridiculously high amounts of hp and torque if that is your thing. The V12 has far more unused capacity, a transmission that can take it, and is less highly strung. As you say there is nothing else like it.

Chris

ColdWater

Same thinking here. I dumped an M6 for my CL600, and one of the primary motivations was lack of range. German manufacturers seem adamant about not increasing tank size despite stuffing in bigger engines. Unless you're heavily on the throttle the CL600 will do well over 300 miles on a tank, which is good but not great. The M6 was ridiculous at barely more than 200 miles.

Given the recent EU reversal on relaxing CO2 emission limits I suspect that the days of MB 12 cylinder cars are numbered, so the CL600 will likely stay in my garage for a long time. Very interesting to hear your views on the CL63 and XKR.

600 vs. 65 is an interesting question. RENNtech can give you better than 65 performance in a 600 for less than the list price differential, but would you ever use it ? It seems more a question of style, and I strongly prefer the clean look of the 600 to all of the AMG plastic bumps and scoops. My views really crystalized when my car was parked next to a special edition 65 (with the Alubeam paint) at delivery. If I want something more performance-oriented, I'll find a 612 Scaglietti (with 27 gallon tank!).

Enjoy your shopping, the discounts these days on cars in stock appear to be huge.

WSH

Agree....63 motor is underpowered for CL, esp seen in mid-range acceleration

But I'm not a fan of putting extra hp/tq (no matter how nominally cheap) in any factory-spec car....IMO, so much of dynamic balance of any car is not simple hp/tq stuff....need chassis set-up, perf tires, brakes, etc to match the drivetrain for a coherent, confidence-inspiring driving experience...

To me, why 65 is so much more interesting than 600 is its superb brake pedal feel and chassis set-up....appreciated, even for straight-line driving, if one needs to perform an emergent evasive maneuver....other subtleties of 65 that I enjoy include the ergonomics of the AMG CL sport seats and the thick-rimmed leather sport steering wheel....

I'm perhaps just as impressed by tq as by brake pedal feel and response....became a brake "elitist" after a few K mis of driving 997TT w/PCCB and 599 w/CCM....unlike ceramic brakes, which can have scarily slow response in wet conditions, IMO, AMG CL brakes are arguably best brakes of any car today, esp if one considers pedal feel and performance on real-world dry/wet/smooth/bumpy roads....

Net, net, 600 or 65 is each one of world's greatest cars today....so much more dynamically refined than prior-gen CL

benjyboards

I agree on the brakes observations completely. Safety in an automobile is dictated first and foremost by crash avoidance, and abundant power, controlled handling and compressive braking are ones best friends in these regards.

If the worst happens, and there is collision involved, the strength and integrity of build plus crumple zone design and airbag technologies come into play. The 65 has all these bases covered for sure. $30K or $50k of "wasted money" or whatever the amount, become instantly unimportant at that moment of impact.

The CL65 price is a difficult pill to swallow over the CL600, but I may just go for it. Life is too short to not have the most power and best braking available!

ColdWater

While I concur with the observations and concerns about ceramic rotors, pardon my skepticism about the existence of any substantive difference between 600 and 65 brakes, even in relatively intensive street use. I've seen no reports indicating any superiority of the AMG brakes in stopping distances, nor have I ever detected a trace of fade with my 600. The AMG brakes absolutely look better, but that's my point - for virtually all conceivable circumstances in street driving the differences between the 65 and 600 are purely a matter of visual style.

If you like the AMG look and have money to burn, chacon à son goût. But it would be fanciful to justify a 65 based upon 'better' brakes or pedal feel. If a substantive performance improvement is desired in a vehicle of similar configuration, for example if occasional track days are anticipated, then pursue a meaningful benefit by considering a 612. Better residual values might make this a wise economic decision as well.

WSH

ColdWater, if you haven't already, would do an aggressive test-drive of 65 vs 600 on interesting rds....

I notice the difference in brake pedal feel/response, starting in first 100 yds at 30MPH speeds....the diffces become dramatic in high-speed fwy braking....and, I'm admittedly unconventional in that I use my CLs for wkend AM mtn twisties attacks, where the braking differences btwn AMG and 600 are night vs day (I have zero interest in risk/reward of tracks).....and chassis stability of any AMG CL is notably superior vs 600 in emergent high-speed freeway maneuvers....

Have test-driven 612....an amusing POS IMO....no tq....and no side/head airbags, despite weighing some 4300+lbs...agree, bigger fuel tank than CL, but given F's notably laughable crash safety engineering, wouldn't want to be in any serious collision when that large fuel tank becomes a large on-board bomb.....truly best evidence of weak F engineering...any monkey can engineer speed...only AMG and P seem to be able to engineer a brilliant balance of speed/precision/safety....

ColdWater

Appreciate your views as always, WSH. If only I could persuade my local dealer to lend me a 65 for an aggressive test drive, I'd welcome the chance to discover firsthand those stability and braking distinctions you describe. It surprises me, however, that you do not find or mention that such appealing distinctions are even greater between the 612 and any MB.

Its fascinating to me to see how differing personal values are expressed in our acquisitions. After the M6 experience I concluded that my diverse desires (needs?) are better satisfied with a small fleet providing both fast, stylish luxury (the CL) and the aesthetic pleasures of older cars, which also offer sufficiently minimal traction to make driving on public roads more interesting. Clearly I'm more willing than others to sacrifice a degree of safety for other joys. If I could only have one vehicle, however, that extra something about the 65 might just be worth the money.

May I suggest a new wardrobe to compliment the 65 interior ? http://www.barbour.com/index.cfm?fus...ID=2&RangeID=1

benjyboards

Thanks again people for all the insights. These forums are very illuminating in terms of real world customer experiences with these cars. The brief (and sometimes reluctant) test drives from the dealers are usually very limiting in the assessment of the different models.
I am all in favor of planted accuracy and stability, and so it seems the 65 might be worth the extra expense for me.
I would never want to drive a 612 as a daily freeway bruiser. The Ferrari dealer support is still utter misery from everything I hear from my friends, and completely unsuited to someone who buys a car to use for the daily grind.
I appreciate that Ferrari's are vastly different to those of ten years ago in terms of build quality and reliability, but I still think they are fairly delicate creatures. The other huge issues for me are the safety factors as WSH justifiably points out, as well as the flamboyant image of Ferrari. I could not pretend to relax, either parking a 612 on the street or driving through a less than desirable neighborhood. Their paddle shift transmissions are also pretty awful compared to the wonderful automatics in the big Mercedes.

ColdWater

Fully agree with all you've said about the problems of using a 612 day-to-day, especially in times when even Republican candidates can't seem to separate the words "Wall Street" from "greed and corruption". These are precisely the reasons why I have a CL instead, although I've found F-cars to be quite robust and reliable.

WSH is absolutely correct that test drives are the only proper way to choose. Perhaps with demand collapsing your dealer will be more willing, especially if you put some cash down with a commitment to buy one or the other.

For planted accuracy and stability I have no complaints about the 600, although it's not a GT3RS. It just seems to me that the flamboyant AMG performance kit is at odds with the character of the CL and will not age gracefully, aside from the lack of real-world benefit. Not an issue for WSH who seems to change cars with the season, but if I find something I like I'll keep it for years. Either way, you can't go wrong (provided you realize that depreciation makes these cars as much an expenditure as a weekend in Las Vegas).

gaazmon

Agree with you guys, I would prefer 55 engine over 63. I love torque, that's why I love benzes. The V12s are astronomical.

About fuel economy: the 600 and 65 are smaller (litre wise) than the 63 (600 = 5.5, 65 = 6.0, 63 = 6.2; I believe) and they have the turbos (this goes back to 911TT, produce all that output and pretty good mileage). I think Mercedes is gonna go with the TT system from here on out. I read somewhere that the 63 and 65 engines will be discontinued by AMG and they are now developing two 5.0 TT V8 engines (one with more output then the other). If I remember correctly too, the torque figures were amazing (one wise like over 700 ). I'm excited to see this come out and I believe it's a smart move to follow (i.e. Porsche 911 and Cayanee TT's and BMW V6 and V8 TTs).

In regards to 600 vs. 65. I've heard a lot of negatives about the 65's traction especially on wet surfaces and wet or snowy conditions because of too much power output. IMHO, it's not worth spending over $50,000 more for 90 hp (renntech it), a body kit, rims, exhaust (the V12 already sounds amazing and you could just delete the resonator on it), and brake kit (AMG or Brembo). I believe all around, the CL600 is the best choice. I do not like the 63 engine at all and would probably not buy it (especially since the regular V8 550 now produces over 380 hp). Also, I do not like the new 7 speeds and the V12s come with 5 spd.

whoover

How much do you think all that's going to cost? And at resale time you will see none of it back. And you're not getting the other improvements, like AMG performance suspension and transmission mods. The 65 is designed as a complete package, complete with warranty.

Traction on dry roads, at least in the W220 S65, is excellent. Flooring it in the wet is not a smart thing to do in either a 600 or 65.

whoover

One last thing -- when comparing a Rennteched 600 and 65, the similar peak horsepower ratings are misleading. The 65 has a bigger displacement and bigger turbochargers and develops more torque over a wider RPM band than the 600 engine. By messing with the tuning, Renntech can make the torque curve peakier and have it develop at higher RPMs, which will give it a high peak RPM. But it doesn't have the unique 65 torque curve: 500 ft-lbs by 1,500 RPM and 738 from 2,000 to almost 5,000 RPM.

This is the reason, not peak horsepower, that a 65 drives like no other production car. At any RPM, in any gear, on any hill, the car responds to feathering the throttle almost telepathically. While a Renntech 600 is a great engine, it doesn't duplicate the 65 experience. And you can always Renntech a 65...

gaazmon

Ya, I get what you mean. Obviously the 65 engine is better than the 600 since it is bigger as well (6.0 instead of 5.5). I just think brand new, it's not worth spending the extra $50k. Used is a different story since the price of the 65 is probably not to far off from the 600, since the 65 depreciates so much. Honestly, the 500+ hp in the 600 is good enough for me.

Recently I read somewhere that said MB purposely put a higher 0-60 time for the SL600 so that it wouldn't make it "faster on paper" than the SL55 or SL63.

BlownV8

FACT CHECK:

According to Renntech. A stage 1 Renntech 600 makes 745 lb-ft of torque from 1800 - 3500 and 625 hp at 5000 rpm. A stock 65 makes 738 lb-ft at 2000 to 3000 RPM and 604 hp at 5500 RPM. My old 600 produced even better than Renntech advertises. In fact, it put down over 524 RWHP and made over 500 RWHP for most of the run.

The Renntech 600 makes more torque and more HP and it hits earlier than a stock 65. A Renntech 600 makes more hp and tq over the entire RPM curve to boot. The additional boost at lower RPM's in the 600 more than makes up for the stock 65's extra displacement.

Now, compare a Renntech 600 to a Renntech 65 and it's a completely different story.

whoover

I know that's their claim, but the dynos never show it. Do you have a dyno output that comes close?

BlownV8

Mine produced better than advertised results. The dynojet was mine. The Dyno Dynamics was from a SL 600 owner on this board. Keep in mind these are RWHP and RWTQ numbers:

whoover

Low-end torque in one seems way lower than advertised, and there's no torque plot in the second, so it's kind of hard to comment.

BlownV8

Keep in mind that is rear wheel torque which is much lower than crank torque. 700 RWTQ is around 800 crank torque. You can't really get one at a lower point than around 3000 RPM with the CL600 because the tranny will downshift.

Here is a stock SL65 dyno chart. This is typical of a stock 65. Notice the difference between a tuned 600 and a stock 65.

whoover

Concentrate on the torque curves. Don't forget that my position is that low-end torque is what makes the 65 experience.

In this stock 65 dyno, RWTQ is about 450 at 2,000 RPM and 550 at 2,500. In the Renntech 600 (the plot that shows torque) it's less than 300 at 2,000 RPM and about 425 at 2,500. The max torque in the 65 plot, 673, is at about 2,700 RPM. The max torque of the Renntech 600 is at about 3,300. Don't get me wrong -- the Renntech numbers are very nice. But they are just what I'd expect from the smaller displacement / smaller turbo engine being tuned with higher boost and mapped for higher revs: a peakier torque curve that comes on later compared with the AMG engine with physical mods. (These are all RWTQ numbers.)

I still maintain the the Renntech claim for their modified 600 engine, 745 ft-lbs at 1,800 RPM, has never been substantiated. The tune raises peak HP considerably -- I don't dispute that. But I don't see how it could possibly duplicate the broader torque curve of the 65 engine, and I've never seen a dyno graph that backs it up.