ran a CL63 on the highway with my 07 CL600
06-07-2007, 05:08 AM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
06-07-2007, 05:12 AM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
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
e63 VS e55 ALL STOCK :
http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21
The fastest stock run in a 55 is certainly faster than the fastest stock run in a 63.
How many pages of 55 runs are there?
All the head to head matchups I have seen, and it has been over 20 races. The car gets the jump wins. They are glued down the track. The performance difference is driver based.
I have never been beaten by a 55 in any form.
2-0 vs the E55@ Irwindale
5-0 vs the CLS 55 @ Palmdale
I will make certain my race with the CLS 55 is filmed on 6/16 and plastered here.
Taking the worlds fastest stock 55 run really does not prove anything. There is not enough people racing the 63 to even use the data pool at all. Statistically it is fallable the information you provided. If you got beaten by a 65 on a daily basis yet had a faster 1/4 mile run, would your car be faster than the 65 that beat you down daily or would you send him your drag times link?
Any 55's stock beat my 1.69 60 ft time?
guess the 63 is faster? That is an assinine statement , but I think I did have the fastest 60ft time. I am certain there are some 55k that would beat me but in stock form the race would always be VERY close.
Last edited by juicee63; 06-07-2007 at 05:23 AM.
06-07-2007, 05:22 AM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Looks like you got your mind made up so I wont continue this, i guess it will take years of 1/4 times or you getting beaten face to face.
now this is different because street racing and the 1/4 times are quite different. I can easily say when I have been beaten. Since my times and trap speeds and real world races have shown me that even modified 65's cant keep up with me, its a thought i dont ponder.
now this is different because street racing and the 1/4 times are quite different. I can easily say when I have been beaten. Since my times and trap speeds and real world races have shown me that even modified 65's cant keep up with me, its a thought i dont ponder.
06-07-2007, 05:29 AM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Looks like you got your mind made up so I wont continue this, i guess it will take years of 1/4 times or you getting beaten face to face.
now this is different because street racing and the 1/4 times are quite different. I can easily say when I have been beaten. Since my times and trap speeds and real world races have shown me that even modified 65's cant keep up with me, its a thought i dont ponder.
now this is different because street racing and the 1/4 times are quite different. I can easily say when I have been beaten. Since my times and trap speeds and real world races have shown me that even modified 65's cant keep up with me, its a thought i dont ponder.
I respect you and your opinion matters to me, I guess I am simply shocked that you think the 63 is a "miss"
My waxing 55's on the track wont do anything to change your mind either so lets just say I have a slow car that beats faster 55's on the track but in reality it is a miss and a slow poor choice by AMG and MB. Fine I like you know otherwise
06-07-2007, 05:36 AM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
I respect you and your opinion matters to me, I guess I am simply shocked that you think the 63 is a "miss"
My waxing 55's on the track wont do anything to change your mind either so lets just say I have a slow car that beats faster 55's on the track but in reality it is a miss and a slow poor choice by AMG and MB. Fine I like you know otherwise
My waxing 55's on the track wont do anything to change your mind either so lets just say I have a slow car that beats faster 55's on the track but in reality it is a miss and a slow poor choice by AMG and MB. Fine I like you know otherwise
06-07-2007, 08:41 AM
#58
Super Member
06-07-2007, 11:42 AM
#59
Senior Member
Thread Starter
taking the 65 out of the equation, there is the largest performance gap between the AMG cars and the 600 cars, in the S and CL class.
NO one can argue that the difference of 150LB/ft of torque is not going to affect the performance of a 4800lb car.
personally I would rather be faster in a 600 than look faster in a 63.
I am not a hater of the 63 engine I have spent 4 straight days back to back in an e63 and an e55. It is a great engine for every car!!! there is just a better engine option in the S and CL models right now.
yes there has always been this debate with the 55 vs 600, but now the 63 engine is even less powerful than the 55 and the 600 is MORE powerful than ever...so the gap has GROWN.
NO one can argue that the difference of 150LB/ft of torque is not going to affect the performance of a 4800lb car.
personally I would rather be faster in a 600 than look faster in a 63.
I am not a hater of the 63 engine I have spent 4 straight days back to back in an e63 and an e55. It is a great engine for every car!!! there is just a better engine option in the S and CL models right now.
yes there has always been this debate with the 55 vs 600, but now the 63 engine is even less powerful than the 55 and the 600 is MORE powerful than ever...so the gap has GROWN.
06-07-2007, 12:26 PM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
1st of all its the only class where there is a small difference. The gap has not widened it is a miniscule difference. You should have gone to 130 and hit your limiter while the 63 simply motors ahead. The differences in appearance is what has widened. The Cl63 AMG looks better than the 600 not by a little.
06-07-2007, 12:37 PM
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
1st of all its the only class where there is a small difference. The gap has not widened it is a miniscule difference. You should have gone to 130 and hit your limiter while the 63 simply motors ahead. The differences in appearance is what has widened. The Cl63 AMG looks better than the 600 not by a little.
I should have gone to 130 and then he would have been 4 or 5 cars behind maybe more....speaking of things I should do, is go to renntech and for 6k$ put that cl63 10 cars+ behind me at 130 hahah and maybe 15 at 180 haha. Try doing that for 6k$ in a 63. your tranny would blow up.
06-07-2007, 12:41 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sometimes I wonder why Mercedes replaced the 55k's with the 63's. Even if the 63 is faster than the 55k (which its not as proved on the strip), on the streets the 55k will definitely be and feel faster because of its low RPM instant torque thanks to the supercharger. The 63 doesn't have that instantaneous torque and it will feel slower and take time to reach its peak. For the average driver, most guys will just press the gas for a few seconds to overtake someone on the highway or something. They don't need to or want to go from 60-140mph. With the 55, you had the torque that would move you at all speeds and at any RPMs.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much faster than the 55k and the 63.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much faster than the 55k and the 63.
Last edited by ItalianStallion; 06-07-2007 at 02:33 PM. Reason: spelling
06-07-2007, 12:45 PM
#63
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Sometimes I wonder why Mercedes replaced the 55k's with the 63's. Even if the 63 is faster than the 55k (which its not as proved on the strip), on the streets the 55k will definitely be and feel faster because of its low RPM instant torque thanks to the supercharger. The 63 doesn't have that instantaneous torque and it will feel slower and take time to reach its peak. For the average driver, most guys will just press the gas for a few seconds to overtake someone on the highway or something. They don't need to or want to go from 60-140mph. With the 55, you had the torque that would move you at all speeds and at any RPMs.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much master than the 55k and the 63.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much master than the 55k and the 63.
06-07-2007, 12:56 PM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sometimes I wonder why Mercedes replaced the 55k's with the 63's. Even if the 63 is faster than the 55k (which its not as proved on the strip), on the streets the 55k will definitely be and feel faster because of its low RPM instant torque thanks to the supercharger. The 63 doesn't have that instantaneous torque and it will feel slower and take time to reach its peak. For the average driver, most guys will just press the gas for a few seconds to overtake someone on the highway or something. They don't need to or want to go from 60-140mph. With the 55, you had the torque that would move you at all speeds and at any RPMs.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much master than the 55k and the 63.
The only reason I could see Mercedes putting the 63 engine in is because they thought they could market it better since its newer and has more hp (again, subjective but marketing wise MB seems to pull it off). The 7 speed tranny is also nice, but as we know its not strong enough to hold the massive torque of the old 55k's. So, I am assuming that they did this because they will launch a 63 Twin Turbo in the next few years that will do to the 63's what the Kompressor did to the 55's. Other than that, I see the 63 as a waste and not necessarily a step backwards in technology or performance, but just a step backwards because it is lacking what owners liked the most from the old 55k's: torque.
The 600 just blows both engines away and there is no arguing there. The 55k might feel a little bit more violent and may give the illusion that its torque is more powerful but its quite obvious that the 600 is much master than the 55k and the 63.
You guys ignore what is the most amazing feat.
The 63 Engine is ALL MOTOR
You can bet your left *** they will use the 63 motor as standard and offer a SC or turbo for future. To keep the performance level close its astounding considering the 55k motor SC. This is the WORLDS largest displacement in a V-8. I never said the 63 was FASTER, it is not slower thats all I am clinging to here. Plus there are many pluses to N/A motors which I laid out in this thread about 80 posts ago. I agree with you guys we want FASTER more POWERFUL cars. Remember the first 55, it was also N/A and was a great car!
06-07-2007, 02:10 PM
#65
Senior Member
Thread Starter
You guys ignore what is the most amazing feat.
The 63 Engine is ALL MOTOR
You can bet your left *** they will use the 63 motor as standard and offer a SC or turbo for future. To keep the performance level close its astounding considering the 55k motor SC. This is the WORLDS largest displacement in a V-8. I never said the 63 was FASTER, it is not slower thats all I am clinging to here. Plus there are many pluses to N/A motors which I laid out in this thread about 80 posts ago. I agree with you guys we want FASTER more POWERFUL cars. Remember the first 55, it was also N/A and was a great car!
The 63 Engine is ALL MOTOR
You can bet your left *** they will use the 63 motor as standard and offer a SC or turbo for future. To keep the performance level close its astounding considering the 55k motor SC. This is the WORLDS largest displacement in a V-8. I never said the 63 was FASTER, it is not slower thats all I am clinging to here. Plus there are many pluses to N/A motors which I laid out in this thread about 80 posts ago. I agree with you guys we want FASTER more POWERFUL cars. Remember the first 55, it was also N/A and was a great car!
the 63 is a feat being NA dont get me wrong, and I agree it will be eventually upgraded with TT's. until then long live the v12 in any car that it is available. amg's are slower than non amg's.
06-07-2007, 03:15 PM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,550
Received 1,067 Likes
on
856 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
You guys ignore what is the most amazing feat.
The 63 Engine is ALL MOTOR
You can bet your left *** they will use the 63 motor as standard and offer a SC or turbo for future. To keep the performance level close its astounding considering the 55k motor SC. This is the WORLDS largest displacement in a V-8. I never said the 63 was FASTER, it is not slower thats all I am clinging to here.
The 63 Engine is ALL MOTOR
You can bet your left *** they will use the 63 motor as standard and offer a SC or turbo for future. To keep the performance level close its astounding considering the 55k motor SC. This is the WORLDS largest displacement in a V-8. I never said the 63 was FASTER, it is not slower thats all I am clinging to here.
The 55K is the quicker of the two cars. Heck, even AMG openly admitted that the E55K is quicker than the E63. Show me any stock 63's that have gone in the 11's with the stock engine. Don't get me wrong because I think the 63 engine is a good platform.................................... with twin turbos but not in NA for on a heavy four door car. The 63 engine in a CLK will be outstanding but give me a forced induction AMG any day over a NA AMG engine. Why? Mods, mods, and more mods.
There is just so much that can be done to a 55K engine or the 600 tt that can't be done to the 63 engine. The 63 platform is a disappointment. The problem is not the motor; rather, it's that the tranny is not strong enough to support the additional torque/hp a forced induction engine would produce. Now, put the 5 speed tranny back in, or strenghten the 7 speed, and add twin turbos and you have got a truly awesome car in every sense. Until then, I will agree with the guys bashing the 63 platform as an underperformer or at least to what everyone was expecting with the quantum leap AMG was promoting with the 63 egine.
06-07-2007, 07:08 PM
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
thinking the E63, CLS63, is = to ANY E55K, did you already forget? you have modded your cls63 w/filter removal & high perf Michelin Cups, Tires???Nearly 100% of the E55k records your dying to equal let alone beat
were BONE STOCK E55K's DOWN TO THEIR PAPER FILTERS & Dealer installed Conti's
cls55k has already been shown to be substantially slower then the E55k's ie..Due to heavier weight or Mercedes de-tuning like they tried to do w/the E55k's that has ben heavily documented by multiple owners on this forum.
Carry on
06-07-2007, 09:05 PM
#69
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Juicee, you're a good guy but you're going thinking the E63, CLS63, is = to ANY E55K, did you already forget? you have modded your cls63 w/filter removal & high perf Michelin Cups, Tires???
Nearly 100% of the E55k records your dying to equal let alone beat were BONE STOCK E55K's DOWN TO THEIR PAPER FILTERS & Dealer installed Conti's
cls55k has already been shown to be substantially slower then the E55k's ie..Due to heavier weight or Mercedes de-tuning like they tried to do w/the E55k's that has ben heavily documented by multiple owners on this forum.
Carry on
thinking the E63, CLS63, is = to ANY E55K, did you already forget? you have modded your cls63 w/filter removal & high perf Michelin Cups, Tires???Nearly 100% of the E55k records your dying to equal let alone beat
were BONE STOCK E55K's DOWN TO THEIR PAPER FILTERS & Dealer installed Conti's cls55k has already been shown to be substantially slower then the E55k's ie..Due to heavier weight or Mercedes de-tuning like they tried to do w/the E55k's that has ben heavily documented by multiple owners on this forum.
Carry on
06-07-2007, 09:14 PM
#70
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PCH
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OO7 CLS63///G55TANK ///S80-T6///R1///R6
OK OK OK, Theres too many people here talkin out of thier ***....
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
06-07-2007, 09:39 PM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
OK OK OK, Theres too many people here talkin out of thier ***....
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
06-07-2007, 09:52 PM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
OK OK OK, Theres too many people here talkin out of thier ***....
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
E55jay, Ur claims are a little too far, U hve no vids , no nuthin except for some bull**** claims which u hav no proof of... I will race u with an 06 sl65 chipped or not chipped , U CHOOSE... until U post vids of ur bogus claims, quit actin like u got somethin u dont
but other than that i needed the after dinner laugh, thanks.
Last edited by JAYCL600; 06-07-2007 at 09:55 PM.
06-07-2007, 10:07 PM
#73
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PCH
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OO7 CLS63///G55TANK ///S80-T6///R1///R6
oohh u hurt my feelings. Its obvious to me, Ur car does not push the numbers u claim because all u did was do somemore talkin rather than provin wat u got...to claim u smoke 65s is a long shot especially when u hav no proof, and that is somethin I cant respect....
TALK IS CHEAP
TALK IS CHEAP
06-07-2007, 10:14 PM
#74
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PCH
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OO7 CLS63///G55TANK ///S80-T6///R1///R6
NO not really, I didnt even read any of the posts, Someone here told me u dust 65s pretty easy, and im actually interested if its true... if so much respect.... if not then im not suprised as there seems to be a growing trend here on the forum...
06-07-2007, 10:18 PM
#75
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Why the attitude in your other posts? Chiliy ***** guy, you're totally in the wrong here
Last edited by Thericker; 06-07-2007 at 10:39 PM.
