Ok should of said N/A vs TURBOED!

 

Same problem. It makes no sense to include supercharged engines like the 55 in the discussion but not turbocharged ones. My point is what's under the hood should be of no concern -- just the driving experience. Greater than 500 ft-lb from 1,500 to 6,000 RPM is hard to beat. It's a bit of a nose-heavy drive, but in a highway cruiser that's not too big a deal.

On the other hand, I'd love to drive a CLK63 Black, or even a C63. I think about it whenever I drive my wife's C55.

 

your right it was the pedestrian law thing, sorry i forgot the reason...but of course mercedes would put the 63 engine in the e class it is a great fit...but the original point was as the cars get heavier the lack of torque as compared with the v12tt is quite evident thus in the case of the SL perhaps mercedes sporiest of cars they did not want to put in the 63 engine if they did no have to and apparently they did not. yet another reason (along with mercedes not offering a sport package on S and CL 600's in the US) why mercedes knows there is a large performance gap between the v12's and the 63's in the heavier (S CL and SL) cars.

 

[QUOTE=whoover;2249596]Same problem. It makes no sense to include supercharged engines like the 55 in the discussion but not turbocharged ones. My point is what's under the hood should be of no concern -- just the driving experience. Greater than 500 ft-lb from 1,500 to 6,000 RPM is hard to beat. It's a bit of a nose-heavy drive, but in a highway cruiser that's not too big a deal.

The 63 engine is an amazing accomplishment considering it puts out similar power without the added forced induction of either an SC or a turbo or extra cylinders. The power and displacement are insane for an N/A motor. This and the other thread creates an illusion that the 63 engine is torqueless and a "dog". I agree the added weight hurts the 63 in the S and CL class, but it should be tuned to allow for more peak hp and torque to make up for added weight. The 63 comes off the line much easier a 55 and it maintains the most linear power curve of the three engines. This translates into smooth and steady acceleration. It makes perfect sense when considering overall driving experence to put the 63 engine in the S and CL. I bet the car is a perfect cruiser, comfy and smooth. If you need more out of the box get the 65 or 600 but you lose the AMG package on the 600 and this takes away some features attributed to AMG. So it is up to what the consumer likes. Drive a 65 it is likely you will want one. Do they even let you test drive a 65? The V-8 is simply more cost effective and it is amazing the performance level achieved w/o an added TURBO or SC. You could argue why leave the AMG package off the 600? Maybe its just as likely MB did not want to eat away at 65 sales! The CL 63 is a great out of the box auto, to trash it because it is a bit slower in a street race is dumfounding.

 

[QUOTE=juicee63;2250249]it is not up to the consumer. if it were my cl600 would have the sport package. I can add it aftermarket but that is a pain.
the 63 engine is totally awesome. I will never argue that.
the cl63 is also totally awesome out of the box.... but why get it when the 600 is totally awesome (er). AMG cars should be the fastest. in this case they are not. what if the e550 was faster than a an e63amg for about the same price why slap amg badges all over the 63...what is AMG if it is not faster? just sportier? all show with a little less go?

 

[QUOTE=jimand7;2250325]Why do people buy the CLS 550 and debadge it and spend 30k on cosmetic mods? Thye make th car look INCREDIBLE but uh it aint fatsr than a 55 or 63.

Ok I see what you are saying about the AMG car should be faster and , yeah I agree. I would be pissed if I purchased a 63 AMG and figured it would blow doors of the CL 600 and I got a lesson. I see what you are saying now. In the other models the AMG cars are the fastest, this is the only case and even MB is not honest about this. The 63 is faster than the 550 , the 55 is faster than the 500 and 550. Just be glad you do not own an M3 so you could get smashed by a 335 LOL.. Ok sorry, I get it now!

 

[QUOTE=juicee63;2250358]ha I guess I did a bad job of explaining myself up to this point but that was most of my point. It really ticks me off for some reason!
But I think that it is also the case on the S class and really the SL as well. the sl55 is a tick or two slower than the sl600... not according to mercedes but trust me...the sl600 is faster and heavier than my e55 ( i have repeadtedly been smoked by my dad that has an sl600 which i believe I mentioned in a previus post. not by a lot but enought to determine a winner) which is lighter than an SL so the SL55 by deduction would be slower having the same engine, than a 600. ANd as you know I am sure the 55 is the same engine in all classes regardless of what mercdes claims.
BUt i do get why this is ...refinement vs. brute force... the 63 is a good combo of these things though...

 

The 600s have always been able to beat 55s. SL600 vs. SL55, S600 vs. S55. The specs have always been carefully matched, but the low-end torque of the V-12 TT has always been potent. The 63s don't really change that equation.

 

So maybe one good solution would be to wait a little bit, pick up a used CL/S/SL 600 for a good price, then Renntech/EvoSport/Kleemannize the ECU/TCU, put on the AMG package with the AMG wheels and brakes, and then you would have the almost perfect package. Sounds like a pretty good idea, cuz then you would have the best of all worlds: ultimate refinement and luxury, AMG looks and braking power, and that twin-turbo V-12 boost.

 

Yep, and the facelifted SL will debut the new NA SL63 AMG.

M

 

Hey man I just realized.

This has been the case for a LONG TIME.
The S55 and CL55 have bothe been offered along with the 600 and have been slower the entire time.
This is nothing to do with the 63 engine being slow it replaces the 55 engine and will push the car along stock just as quick as the 55 did. So the AMG cars have not been the fastest in this class of cars for MANY MANY YEARS

 

Yup, the 600 was also a bit faster than the 55 but Mercedes claimed it to have identical hp and 0-60. Of course, that was all marketing. The problem with this new CL600 is that they go out of there way to make sure people get the CL63 by giving the CL600 that plain bodykit.

Now, the only thing I have heard some people argue is that with cars as heavy as the S, CL, and SL, you need an engine with more torque to move them. The 520lbs seemed to be sufficient, yet some people claim that the 465lbs of tq or so from the 63's isn't powerful enough to propell the car.

 

..........exactly!! this what we have been pointing out. The S63 is not even close to being as fast as the 600. The AMG versions other than the 65's have never been faster. This is why I was just suprised when people were arguing about the CL63 being faster or as fast as the 600.

......The difference now is that to many, the 63 is not only slower than the 600 but also slower than the out going 55's. I understand that the 63 vs 55 is an arguable point but as weight increases in these larger cars, the difference will become more obvious. This to me explains why there is no NA SL63, or NA G63. MB/AMG has continued with the 55's versions of this car and plan to do so for the next several years. It further explains why for the first time MB/AMG refuse to sell the S600 with AMG visual enhancements, for fear thah no one will buy the 63. You may disagree with the above, but can see the logic. If you disagree, then what is the explanation?

Ted

 

I agree. well said. IN the larger heavier (where torque is critical) cars MB is admitting the "new" amg engine cannot come up with the same power as the 55. NA or not, who really cares. it is amazing that they made the 63 engine, it is a great accomplishment.
The disparity now is greater between the 600 and the 63 than it was between the 600 and 55 (plus the 600 is now MORE powerful as well), and that is why it is an issue, and I have a beef. Excluding the 200k+ 65 you have to buy the "worse looking" car to go faster. where else does thi happen in the auto industry????

 

Ted,

I think you're overdoing it by saying the S63 isn't even close to being as fast as the S600. The S63 hasn't been tested yet. I don't expect it to be as fast as the S600 either, but to say it isn't even close might be overdoing it a bit. Yes I see the logic you're trying to give here as to why this is sold with that and this isn't, but in the end Mercedes is going for a different buyer with the AMG CL/S than they are with the S/CL600. You're dismissing this with this theory about the bodykits and what not. If this was so true then how did Mercedes get away with it on the W220/C215 models, both the AMG V8 and 600 models were available with the AMG kit. Just asking.

What are you going to say when the SL63 is shown at Frankfurt this year? I'll eat my shoes if they keep the 55 in the SL come facelift time! A G63 isn't going to happen because the thing is old and I'm sure the Euro pedestrian stuff doesn't apply on such an antique, but you're right the 63 engine would be pointless in such a heavy beast. The 5.5L SC V8 was made for something like the G with all its torque.

I say buy a S65 and put the S63 and S600 owners on the rack.

Also, the AMG kit is available on the 600s nearly everywhere else in the world, but the U.S. so I really don't think it is this big fear of people not buying the 63 models like you say.

M

 

I would take this further and suggest to Ted that the 63 is not slower than the 55. It revs higher producing torque throughout the power band. Maybe off the line but the 55 and 63 are too close to even make the suggestion the S63 is slower than the S 55? The 63 engine has better economy and is a perfect choice in a cruiser. The S 63 and Cl 63 are never going to be dragsters, they are smooth luxury cruisers with a sporty feel. The way power is delivered is important to consider and the "lacking torque" is truly a fairy tale. 465 lbs is PLENTY to move a 5000lb car. the 63 will average at least 4-5 miles per gallon better than a similarly driven 55. My 63 made it to Sacramento on 1 tank of gas. In the 55 I would have made it maybe 320 miles.I got 22.1 mpg and to SAC 387 miles away.

 

i dont know what dream world you guys live in, my brain works off of data...and now we have moved on to talk about gas mileage thats like wearing a skirt to a fight

 

Not a dream. Reality. The 63 engine can get good gas mileage and deliver some serious power at the same time. It is every bit as fast as the car it replaces . You guys can continue to bash the sixty three, "its a dog", "no torque", "the Cl and S are to heavy for the 63 motor". This is not DATA this is simply OPINION. The 55 is also not as powerful as the V-12 but it is not the center of a barage of baseless attacks.

Wheres the thread

"WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY A CL55 WHEN THEY COULD DRIVE A CL 600"

[B]I raced a CL 55 in my CL 600 and destroyed it[/B]

Fact the S55 and CL 55 AMG have been offered alongside the faster 600 for years.

Fact
The 600 with the AMG kit is sold in Europe alonside the Cl 63

Fact
The S63 and CL 63 AMG cars are vastly different than the CL 600 and S600

There is room for both vehicles in the MB lineup and they are both INCREDIBLE platforms.

 

I dont want to argue with you as it seems you are a little upset at what you see as 63 bashing, when the truth hurts its does actually hurt a bit. The 63 was and will continues to be a disappointment in the eyes of anyone who has driven/owned a 55K motor, they went backwards in torque which is a big nono because thats what made the car such a big hit. The car will not and has not performed at the levels of a stock e55, that is a fact. Its not hard to extrapolate from that data that when put into a heavier car its performance disparity as compared to the out going 55's will be that much worse. You should know what its like driving a heavy car, yours weighs as much as mine, I weigh in a 4550lbs. Its torque that gets these heavy cars moving and thats what you are missing, and the unfortunate fact is that is also what the 63 is missing, and lots of it. This thread has nothing to do with gas mileage or vehicle styling. I will say again as I stated from the beginning, I am a NA AMG guy at heart, I still have the original E55 uber sedan with 100K of my own miles amd over 250 timeslips, no one wanted the E63 to "run its number" more than I, but performance wise its a shear disappointment.

 

That the 63 cars are a "sheer disappointment" is simply hogwash, the 63 cars have performed just as well an in some cases better than the old 55 cars in the hands of professional drivers. This whole 55 vs 63 issue really isn't as simple as that. What I find amazing though is the sheer amount of time spent arguing about a few tenths of a second and/or a few mph when doing, of all things.....drag racing Mercedes-Benzes. It is like I'm on some drag racer board, not high-end European luxury car board. It is like the other refinements that came along with the 63 cars are matterless. We're talking about GT or Touring cars here not racing machines.

M

 

Bottom line is you cannot possibly use 5 runs in a 63 and compare it with thousands of runs by 55 owners. When you compare apples to apples the 55 is not faster period. The Cls 55 is all I have to compare my car to, I have never lost to a 55 , never. My time is faster than Siswati and I will race a 55 on tape in SAC. If the engine is so bad how on Earth am i beating the 55k? You and many other peole are wrong, give it a year or two so people can get the cars on the track. I would be willing to wager the E63 will match the fastest stock 55 time. Enzom has the fastest time and his will be what the 63 should aim for. It is so unfair for you to throw this engine out based on a handful of runs. I repeat, if the engine is so bad why cant the 55 line up accross from the POS 63 and WAX me? please esplain. Cars are so ******* close its amazing you can suggest the loss of some torque makes the car a DUD! How bout the extra HP, displacement, gearing? This is an AMG built engine are you suggesting they erred? I also owned an E55 from 2003 to 2006, I think I would notice the diminished performance.

 

no ones is attacking you but if they did it wouldnt be baseless, when compared to 55k's the 63's are slow man, thats a fact u cant take on the chin. ill let the accolation of data at dragtimes speak loudly.

e63 VS e55 ALL STOCK :

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

 

ill take that bet right now

 

then you are completely delusional, or u know how slow your car really is, if it was mine personally id run it into a tree if i ran a 111

 

It would seem to me that is exactly what they did, gearing and higher rpm power to make up for the torque loss.

M