ran a CL63 on the highway with my 07 CL600



not really close











if you ask me!
Last edited by jimand7; May 30, 2007 at 10:22 PM.
Trending Topics



The Best of Mercedes & AMG
The 63 is AMG and NA engine. The 600 is optioned more than the 63.
Dealers say that CL65's (V12 Bi Turbo) are due out sometime in 08.
http://www.exotixboard.com/showthread.php?t=5147
.......don't worry, although he lost he has three valves per cylinder. Aren't you jealous?
Ted
Last edited by Ted Baldwin; Jun 3, 2007 at 11:01 AM.
..........ever wondered why there is no NA SL63? If the 63 engine in its current form is so wonderful, why is Mercedes/AMG continuing with the SL55 instead of introducing the NA SL63? Something to think about.
Ted
......my brain tells me that it is too late now for a NA SL63. They obviously made a conscious decision not to introduce it in 06 or 07. The reason is obvious to me, but you may dissagree. Be that as it may, the Sl is scheduled for a re-design soon. I doubt they will introduce a NA SL63 right before the re-design of the SL. I think they learned their lessons with the W220 S65 and W215 Cl65. Maybe you know something I don't.
Ted
Last edited by Ted Baldwin; Jun 3, 2007 at 06:03 PM.
Adding turbochargers would be nice, but would definitely cause further confusion as to the hierarchy within the range. the tt V8 would be very close to the current AMG v12 in terms of power and torque--the next V12 would have to do so much better... or differentiate through another route.



Ted[/QUOTEA
My father in law who owns a large MB dealership among other brands told me that, the reason they made the 63 engine was because some german green laws were cracking down on supercharging. But the SL body style was old enough to "grandfather" it in until the model cycle is over.
the 55 would kick the doors off the 63 in an SL
the 55 would kick the doors off the 63 in an SL
One important thing people are overlooking is that the 63s have a higher redline than the V12's. While the torque may not be there, it is compensated for higher in the rev range.
Ted[/QUOTEA
My father in law who owns a large MB dealership among other brands told me that, the reason they made the 63 engine was because some german green laws were cracking down on supercharging. But the SL body style was old enough to "grandfather" it in until the model cycle is over.
the 55 would kick the doors off the 63 in an SL
LOL.. Your 600 argument makes complete sense.
The 55 in any model stock is not "kicking the doors off" a 63. Stock cars are so close it is a truly amazing race. A stock 55 and stock 63 E class ran many many passes and the car getting the better light won everytime. Who ever had the initial advantage held it. I backed off of comparing the 63 engine to the 600 because while the 6.3 is larger it is truly unfair to compare it to a V-12. Would you compare the 63 engine with the 500 or even the 550? N/A motors? I
The real difference between either the 600 or 65 engine and the 63 is forced induction. So when comparing the output of the various engines it makes no sense to leave the V-12s out because they're V-12s. The bottom line is that they produce more and way more torque and power compared with the N/A 63 engine, despite its theoretical design advantages. Detroit gets 600 HP out of pushrods. So what? These engines should all be compared on the basis of their driving characteristics. The twin-turbo V-12s are the strongest, most driveable engines that MB makes. Their main disadvantage is weight, which affects handling.
Last edited by whoover; Jun 4, 2007 at 02:57 PM.



