2008 Cl63 Vs S55 Amg Olympic
02-27-2008, 10:43 AM
#76
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee:
I think you are off base on this one. The CL63 weighs about 300lbs more than a CL55 (about 4,250lbs). The S55 weighs only about 50lbs more than the CL55. I am not sure it makes much difference for the comparison. I think the 55 engines were better suited for the heavier cars in the AMG lineup. That doesn't mean that I am trashing the 63 engine...which is a technological marvel in its own right. The 63 is just slightly less suited for moving such mass. The freer reving 63 engine is much better suited for a lighter ...more sporty car (CLK BS is a perfect fit).
Tom
I think you are off base on this one. The CL63 weighs about 300lbs more than a CL55 (about 4,250lbs). The S55 weighs only about 50lbs more than the CL55. I am not sure it makes much difference for the comparison. I think the 55 engines were better suited for the heavier cars in the AMG lineup. That doesn't mean that I am trashing the 63 engine...which is a technological marvel in its own right. The 63 is just slightly less suited for moving such mass. The freer reving 63 engine is much better suited for a lighter ...more sporty car (CLK BS is a perfect fit).
Tom
I stand by the 550 lb difference between the W216 and the W220.
I have removed 200 lbs from my CLS 63 and it runs nearly a second quicker than cars with similar dyno #s in the AMG lineup. Imagine what 300 lbs does or even 500 lbs. 100 Lbs in my car is good for at least 1/10 and 1.5 mph.
The OP asked why the 63 lost. We have given him real world answers rooted in Physics and Chemistry yet they are dismissed as an excuse or an apology. Car had a passenger (added weight) , Car is already even by your estimation 300 lbs heavier. This alone is enough, there is more. The 91 Octane in a vehicle tuned specific to 93 is causing performance degradation across the platform in States where 93 is not available.
02-27-2008, 10:45 AM
#77
MBWorld Fanatic!
I've posted on this before but in anther section. Just like our gallons are smaller our RON is different too. Our 93 is the same as your 97/98. Unfortunately in L.A. (land of the frigging car) we can only get 91, which is 95 RON in your money. The S85 engine is certainly one that would react well to 93 but there's only one garage that sells it.
Juicee, where's it at? Somewhere on Pico?
Juicee, where's it at? Somewhere on Pico?
You can pull up right to the pump at Barrington and Pico (76) for a mere 8.49/gallon you can WAKE up your M. The 91 also kills the M cars.
02-27-2008, 11:09 AM
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
02-27-2008, 11:39 AM
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee:
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the "what if a CL63 lost 300lbs" and "what if he had higher octane gas that optimizes the performance" arguments are not going to win over anyone who wasn't already predisposed to the 63 to begin with.
I think someone had mentioned earlier that the 65 (maybe it was a 55 typo) is optimized for 91 octane. I read in the CL65 W215 press materials that it was actually optimized for 93 octane.
Tom
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the "what if a CL63 lost 300lbs" and "what if he had higher octane gas that optimizes the performance" arguments are not going to win over anyone who wasn't already predisposed to the 63 to begin with.
I think someone had mentioned earlier that the 65 (maybe it was a 55 typo) is optimized for 91 octane. I read in the CL65 W215 press materials that it was actually optimized for 93 octane.
Tom
02-27-2008, 12:36 PM
#82
MBWorld Fanatic!
Enzom, we actually already tried that experiment the time before last time at Fontana. I ran 100% 91 octane gas and my car repeatedly trapped 109 to 111 mph. Then I added 100 octane to the mix, and my car trapped 111 to 113 mph. I then repeated the same experiment at Sacramento because I wanted to test the theory under good DA. And again, my car trapped higher on higher octane. At Sacramento, the difference was more dramatic: my car went from low 112 to high 114s 
Also, Mercedes/AMG themselves confirmed that 63 models require a minimum of 93 octane for maximum performance.
Also, Mercedes/AMG themselves confirmed that 63 models require a minimum of 93 octane for maximum performance.
02-27-2008, 05:54 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee:
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the
Tom
AMG did a great job with the CL63, for those that want more they simply buy the 600 or 65, guys go for the 63 for looks, it looks amazing.
My car weighs the same as the S55, in a straight line I would dessimate an S55, would it be fair for me to start a thread
"Oh my God , I pulled alongside an S55 some dude cruising with his buddy, he punched it ,I punched it , I dunno but I could no longer see them, this happened 3 times. How is this possible? I had no idea the 63 was so fast"
This is just pathetic, and it feeds alot of misconceptions about the cars.
I never said "what if we removed 300 pounds" "What if we added 109" "what if we added two large turbos"
There is a reason the CL lost and all I did was relay the info to the OP.
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the
"what if a CL63 lost 300lbs" and "what if he had higher octane gas that optimizes the performance" arguments are not going to win over anyone who wasn't already predisposed to the 63 to begin with.
Tom
AMG did a great job with the CL63, for those that want more they simply buy the 600 or 65, guys go for the 63 for looks, it looks amazing.
My car weighs the same as the S55, in a straight line I would dessimate an S55, would it be fair for me to start a thread
"Oh my God , I pulled alongside an S55 some dude cruising with his buddy, he punched it ,I punched it , I dunno but I could no longer see them, this happened 3 times. How is this possible? I had no idea the 63 was so fast"
This is just pathetic, and it feeds alot of misconceptions about the cars.
I never said "what if we removed 300 pounds" "What if we added 109" "what if we added two large turbos"
There is a reason the CL lost and all I did was relay the info to the OP.
02-28-2008, 01:01 AM
#84
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee:
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the
Tom
AMG did a great job with the CL63, for those that want more they simply buy the 600 or 65, guys go for the 63 for looks, it looks amazing.
My car weighs the same as the S55, in a straight line I would dessimate an S55, would it be fair for me to start a thread
"Oh my God , I pulled alongside an S55 some dude cruising with his buddy, he punched it ,I punched it , I dunno but I could no longer see them, this happened 3 times. How is this possible? I had no idea the 63 was so fast"
This is just pathetic, and it feeds alot of misconceptions about the cars.
I never said "what if we removed 300 pounds" "What if we added 109" "what if we added two large turbos"
There is a reason the CL lost and all I did was relay the info to the OP.
I agree..the CL63 weighs alot more than a CL/S55. But that is how MB/AMG built them. I think car enthusiasts expected the 55K replacement to be much faster...not just marginally faster. I think the newer 63 based AMG's have improvements. The problem is that enthusiasts expected straight line performance to improve dramatically (think about the perfomance gap between the E55 W210 to E55 W211). I am not going to get into the debate of whether the 63's are faster than the 55's. However, the
Tom
AMG did a great job with the CL63, for those that want more they simply buy the 600 or 65, guys go for the 63 for looks, it looks amazing.
My car weighs the same as the S55, in a straight line I would dessimate an S55, would it be fair for me to start a thread
"Oh my God , I pulled alongside an S55 some dude cruising with his buddy, he punched it ,I punched it , I dunno but I could no longer see them, this happened 3 times. How is this possible? I had no idea the 63 was so fast"
This is just pathetic, and it feeds alot of misconceptions about the cars.
I never said "what if we removed 300 pounds" "What if we added 109" "what if we added two large turbos"
There is a reason the CL lost and all I did was relay the info to the OP.
In the land of the wealthy (or one off saved purchases)newer is always better!
You go to any merc dealer and speak to a dealer salesman and they will tell you 63 is the bomb and is faster then 55...BUT!! then you run along side one thinking you will own,but alas can only run along side him only, or worse lose!
Now owner of 63 is baffled
why is my expensive 63 (worse if its a CL) losing to a lower model!
They are not usually clued up on weight/fuel/ecu etc...heck people think the SL is one of the lightest just by looking at it, so the SL55 is the fastest it also has 510hp!
where as cls/e 469! i know they are the same but others don't, get my point(newer is better)?
Last edited by Zod; 02-28-2008 at 01:07 AM.
02-28-2008, 01:28 AM
#85
MBWorld Fanatic!
Few comments for you:
In the land of the wealthy (or one off saved purchases)newer is always better!
You go to any merc dealer and speak to a dealer salesman and they will tell you 63 is the bomb and is faster then 55...BUT!! then you run along side one thinking you will own,but alas can only run along side him only, or worse lose!
Now owner of 63 is baffled why is my expensive 63 (worse if its a CL) losing to a lower model!
They are not usually clued up on weight/fuel/ecu etc...heck people think the SL is one of the lightest just by looking at it, so the SL55 is the fastest it also has 510hp! where as cls/e 469! i know they are the same but others don't, get my point(newer is better)?
In the land of the wealthy (or one off saved purchases)newer is always better!
You go to any merc dealer and speak to a dealer salesman and they will tell you 63 is the bomb and is faster then 55...BUT!! then you run along side one thinking you will own,but alas can only run along side him only, or worse lose!
Now owner of 63 is baffled
why is my expensive 63 (worse if its a CL) losing to a lower model!They are not usually clued up on weight/fuel/ecu etc...heck people think the SL is one of the lightest just by looking at it, so the SL55 is the fastest it also has 510hp!
where as cls/e 469! i know they are the same but others don't, get my point(newer is better)?I get that 100%
and would be pissed if I was told "oh yeah the new 63 will destroy the old model"
I know better...My 55 was brutal , I never expected to be an E55 hunter in my 63, its like a Dolphin going after a Great White, yeah sometimes they defeat the shark but most the time it dont end up so good.
I refuse to believe the 63 is a step down or backward..just sideways IMO
02-28-2008, 02:27 PM
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
Wind stayed the same throughout the day, so when we had tailwind on the 91 octane runs, we also got it on the 93 octane runs as well.
Fontana's track prep was excellent and did not change much throughout the day. Fortunately for us, Fontana's track prep is always top-notch (they are very generous with VHT
). The problem with that track is high elevation and hot & humid weather 
From my experience, the ECU adapts to the aggressive driving throughout the first 2 to 4 runs. Before doing this, I hot lapped my car about 5 times before we began experimenting with fuel. But even after I ran out of the race fuel and had to fill up 91, my mph went back down
BTW, have you guys ever tested E55 with different fuels: 91, 93, 95, 100? If so, what was the result?
03-02-2008, 03:44 AM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Im just saying this right now, I didn't read any of the rest of the posts but the first one so don't jump on me cause it looks like theres probably alot of debate and bull**** in there and Im just not going to read it, but hell ****in yea doggy thats that good kompressor **** rite there all you 63 driving no supercharger havin donkeys can kiss my ***! haha! 
greatest post i ever read thank you for putting that up there.
greatest post i ever read thank you for putting that up there.
