NY_SG

Ok I was in my friend's CL63 he has about 5k miles in it.

An S55 pulled up and off we went.

First round lost. Second round lost. third round lost.

His S55 was stock and so was my friends CL63.

I was like ****!!!! The power of the 55 motor. I am just indicating the end result.

CL63 lost 3 times in a row.

Timeless

Everyone knows the 55 is superior.

sprins

Was the CL63 properly broken in?

BlownV8

It gets worse when you throw the twin turbo 600's into the mix. If they put twin-turbo's on the new 63's, it would be a completely different story. The new engine is nice but it needs forced induction.

JRAMGV8

Wow, well those AMG 55s prove they can still kick butt

juicee63

so you raced on public streets in 500 hp cars in the RAIN?

NY_SG

Wasnt raining last night it was about 12.30am at olympic and overland and it wasnt me. I was just a passenger.

Should be my friend loves cars treats them like baby. Retarded I say. So ya he is getting rid of the CL currently in the process.

But I mean ya I was shocked that the 55 beat the 63. I was like errr what just happen dude. And he was like I dont know man. HAHAHA

juicee63

sounds crazy. The CL 63 is a sexy ride and its likey slower because your buddy drives it like he is a pimp.


S55 is very fast for a big sedan but believe it the CL is HEAVIER and you were in the car making it even HEAVIER. be careful out there and relax, most folks buythe CL to be a cruiser not a light to light rocket

V12Godspeed

55's are no joke!!!

Satan

Same hp with more tq. how can you go wrong

red308

Here is why. (If I understand correctly, this race was in LA..if not, then ignore the following comments)

The CL63 requires 93 octane unleaded gas. While it is possible to obtaine hi octane unleaded gasoline in California, you have to look hard to find it at a few specialized gas stations.

Assuming this CL63 was just using readily available pump gas, it is just 91 octane in California. Based on the way the knock sensors work in this motor, you are probably giving up close to 50 horsepower and who knows how much torque compared to what you would have at a full 93 octane.

The supercharged 55 motor will run at full horsepower on 91 octane!

I know. I have tested the difference in my car. It is dramatic.

So, this race is not nearly what it seems like. Frankly, if the CL63 was anywhere near the S55, it was a good showing.

Mark

Timeless

50 HP from 2 octane points? I smell

NY_SG

Are you serious?

So the 65 can run at full hp at 91 octane?

Heh anyways the CL63 is still a pretty car though. BUT DAMN! 55 motor is a monster!

Ted Baldwin

............you can't be serious. First of all I think what you are saying is bull. The 55 has higher low end torque and both cars way about the same. The 55 apparently is faster.

........secondly even if what you are saying is true (it is not), I never heard anyone credible say "hey men, wait for me I need to go and get higher octane gas so I can stand a chance when I race you." Besides, if you want to use 93 octane or race gas, then put same gas in both cars and the 55 will still win. I know you own a CL63 but the excuses seem to get more and more absurd.

Ted

JAYCL600

hmmm i will guess this was a W216 vs a W220.....

red308

Sorry I started a war here.

I do not race cars. I do not care which car is faster. I do not have a bias
for the new 6.3 motor vs the supercharged or turbocharged motors. I do believe that the supercharged/turbo motors are excellent. I drove an SL55 for 6 months and really liked the car and the drivetrain.

I do, however, understand a little of what goes on in these engines. You definitely give up some power and torque because of the way the engine-management software works if you do not use the specified octane rating fuel. You can study this online in a lot of interesting definitions, explanations and discussions.

I have also owned a 2005 CL65. Was a great car. Tons of torque. And, yes, it ran full out on 91 pump octane gas because the engine management software was set up at the rated hp and torque levels.

I prefer the new CL63 mostly because it handles well, not because it goes like crazy in a straight line. But, in order to get the maximum performance out of the new 6.3 motor, you MUST use at least 93 octane. Yes, if you are going to go racing, you better go find the right gas!

Mark

Satan

Net power 518 hp @ 6,800 rpmNet torque 465 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpmCompression ratio 11.3:1Fuel requirement Premium unleaded gasoline, 91 pump octaneFuel tank capacity 23.8 gal/90 liters — 2.9 gal/11 liters

Timeless

Think that about says it all for making his post even more BS.

Ted Baldwin

Originally Posted by Satan
Net power 518 hp @ 6,800 rpmNet torque 465 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpmCompression ratio 11.3:1Fuel requirement Premium unleaded gasoline, 91 pump octaneFuel tank capacity 23.8 gal/90 liters — 2.9 gal/11 liters


.............In light above information. Do you want to correct yourself or keep digging the hole?



Ted

regor60

oops, the 63 watchdog caught you, he patrols all 63 posts regardless of model

regor60

perhaps, but not this part

red308

OK. All you experts. You are wrong. Here is why.

The owners manual in the CL63 says it is ok to run 91 octane. Yes, that is ok. But the engine management allows you to do that because it retards the spark so that you do not damage the engine by detonation.

That is the case with many cars that are sold in California. They have to in order to sell them because 91 octane is all you can get in most areas. I have owned several cars that nominally require 93 octane but are approved for operation in California at 91 octane. I owned a 2001 Corvette which fell into this category.

But.....you do not get the maximum performance!!!!!!!!

If any of you have any one of the cars that have the 6.3 motor would please go out to your car and open the gas tank cap. You will find that it calls for minimum 93 octane gasoline. In fact, it actually asks for 98 octane using the European calculation. Those of you who do not own one of these cars, please travel to your nearest MB dealer and find a car for sale that has the 6.3 motor. Open the gas filler cap. Guess what! Yup...it calls for 93 octane.

I have talked to three different MB service departments and the sales department at the MB-owned dealership in Manhattan. I have also talked with the MB central phone support group. They confirm the following:

The 6.3 motor, while it is specified to operate at its maximum rating using 93
octane gas, it is also certified to be safe to operate in the US at 91 octane.

I find it unacceptable that the US MB marketing info claims that you get the full performance spec for HP and torque while using 91 octane. The US written owners manual is an example. But that is simply not the case. The marketing people are stumped when they are asked about this. The technical people just shrug and blame the marketing people.

I, too, fell into this trap. I was surprised and was almost ready to not take delivery of the car. Marketing crap wins.

In Europe in and in most Eastern US states, 93 octane is readily available. In California and many Western US states it is not. The car is designed to take advantage of gasoline that is readily available in most of the world.

Also, I have experienced emperical evidence over and over again in several cars and now in the CL63. If you put in a tank of 93 octane fuel, you will experience substantial and extremely noticeable performance improvement.

Try it. Go out and run the test yourself before you start calling BS.

Mark

Imahobo

Here in SW Florida, 93 is available at every 7-11. It does make a difference, you can feel the engine producing more power - it's almost like having the a/c compressor off instead of on.

WSH

Sure, there will likely be perf diffces w/oct diffces....but how much? What are the alleged hp/tq, accel diffces...as objectively measured? And how accurate/precise is the alleged octane supposedly available at the gas pump?

And what's the mfg variance in hp/tq/perf of copies of same AMG model? Does that variance and power output change later in a produc cycle for a given motor/model as produc tolerances are optimized?

Need to separate out "placebo" effects of seat-of-pants, qualitative, subjective diffces....have fueled w/?100 oct on various occasions for various cars (incl CL63) and can't easily discern placebo effects vs real perf effects...

If oct diffces are so material, would think various car mags would struggle w/perf arbitrages in their accel testing data of same models in CA vs Eastern US vs UK vs Germany.....

WSH

We can endlessly debate micro-diffces in octane and mfg variances, etc....

But would observe that I prob drive my CL63 faster...and more aggressively accelerate...prob 99% of time on real-world CA roads vs my prior '07 SL65 b/c of its poor traction on uneven and/or wet pavement...and its awful brake pedal feel....admittedly, subjective, qualitative impressions...

But, IMO, even objective accel data on a smooth, dry private track/dragstrip w/100oct means very little in real-world accel/driving.....