CL63 vs S65
10-03-2011, 12:07 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2016 AMG GTS, 2015 GLA45 AMG
CL63 vs S65
So I'm leaving my local MB dealer yesterday right behind a 2010 S 65. I'm following him a bit and we are running around slower traffic and come to stop light with me right behind him I'm thinking this guys gonna blast away from the light. After a slow roll to 20 mph i see two big puffs of black smoke from his tail pipes and in a split second im on the gas of my stock 2009 CL 63 running through the gears with him to about 95mph. I'm a bit perplexed as I'm staying right with him, neither gaining or loosing ground. With all the torque and hp of the V 12 biturbo 65 motor I just can understand why he didn't pull on me at all. His car was definitely a 65 as it was badged as such and had the 65 quad exhaust where the pipes on each side are joined to on another. Any plausible reasons for this?
10-03-2011, 08:20 AM
#2
the phase of the moon.
1. he was heat soaked/ had bad heat exchanger pump
2. he was running bad gas and you were running good gas
3. his car needs work (the v12 tt motors usually dont puff smoke on acceleration unless in disrepair or something is wrong and they run super rich trims)
4. he had ****ty tires and was spinning all the way to 80
5. he had his car in "c" mode instead of "s" (at least on mine i have noticed that the kickdown in "c" results always in a gear down, while in "s" it often results in 2 gears down if speed permits.
hence "the phase of the moon" comment
1. he was heat soaked/ had bad heat exchanger pump
2. he was running bad gas and you were running good gas
3. his car needs work (the v12 tt motors usually dont puff smoke on acceleration unless in disrepair or something is wrong and they run super rich trims)
4. he had ****ty tires and was spinning all the way to 80
5. he had his car in "c" mode instead of "s" (at least on mine i have noticed that the kickdown in "c" results always in a gear down, while in "s" it often results in 2 gears down if speed permits.
hence "the phase of the moon" comment
Last edited by alx; 10-03-2011 at 08:23 AM.
10-03-2011, 05:55 PM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded CL65
the phase of the moon.
1. he was heat soaked/ had bad heat exchanger pump
2. he was running bad gas and you were running good gas
3. his car needs work (the v12 tt motors usually dont puff smoke on acceleration unless in disrepair or something is wrong and they run super rich trims)
4. he had ****ty tires and was spinning all the way to 80
5. he had his car in "c" mode instead of "s" (at least on mine i have noticed that the kickdown in "c" results always in a gear down, while in "s" it often results in 2 gears down if speed permits.
hence "the phase of the moon" comment
1. he was heat soaked/ had bad heat exchanger pump
2. he was running bad gas and you were running good gas
3. his car needs work (the v12 tt motors usually dont puff smoke on acceleration unless in disrepair or something is wrong and they run super rich trims)
4. he had ****ty tires and was spinning all the way to 80
5. he had his car in "c" mode instead of "s" (at least on mine i have noticed that the kickdown in "c" results always in a gear down, while in "s" it often results in 2 gears down if speed permits.
hence "the phase of the moon" comment
10-03-2011, 07:17 PM
#7
I beg to differ. Drag times shows the cl63 at 12.8 or so at 113... the s65 cars are at 12.4 (slowest) at 118. I can tell you from personal experience that a well driven one is a flat 12 second car at 118-119. The sl65 cars are 11 second cars on good track.
If you have ever been at the track you will know that 0.5 secs and 5 mph at those speeds are about bus and a half length. Hardly equal in my book. And it only gets uglier at triple digit speeds.
On the black puff on start- that means your turbo seals are leaking badly. not normal and indication of turbos in need of rebuild soon.
Btw, I have never seen my 65 emit black smoke under any circumstance. The only puff I see is white smoke on cold start on cold morning which is normal.
If you have ever been at the track you will know that 0.5 secs and 5 mph at those speeds are about bus and a half length. Hardly equal in my book. And it only gets uglier at triple digit speeds.
On the black puff on start- that means your turbo seals are leaking badly. not normal and indication of turbos in need of rebuild soon.
Btw, I have never seen my 65 emit black smoke under any circumstance. The only puff I see is white smoke on cold start on cold morning which is normal.
Trending Topics
10-03-2011, 07:56 PM
#8
Registered User
you see all these cars once they have been to the track a few times they get the hang of the car and get the most out of it . IM gonna bring my car stock to the track a few times to see where we are at . the 63's especially .
I think a 12.5 is possible stock.
I think a 12.5 is possible stock.
10-03-2011, 08:17 PM
#9
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded CL65
I beg to differ. Drag times shows the cl63 at 12.8 or so at 113... the s65 cars are at 12.4 (slowest) at 118. I can tell you from personal experience that a well driven one is a flat 12 second car at 118-119. The sl65 cars are 11 second cars on good track.
--This post was about roll on from 20mph to about 90 and the comparision between them both. Not 1/4 mile times. If you want to bring in anything even close to relative find comparable 1/8th mile speeds and times. Furthermore everyone but 1 of the s65's on dragtimes are based on the 220 chassis the 221's are not quite as fast however minute. And apples and oranges why would you bring up sl65's? As I mentioned before the 0-60mph times between the 221 S65's and CL63's are identical but as I said different sources at most give them a .2 spread. So lets split the difference for arguements sake and call it .1 Do you think that between the 60-90mph as stated by his run of up to around 90 that the s65 would put a massive gap between the two considering there 0-60mph times are essentially the same? I also said that the 65's really start pulling away at 80 mph and up as expected by the large differnce in torque.
If you have ever been at the track you will know that 0.5 secs and 5 mph at those speeds are about bus and a half length. Hardly equal in my book. And it only gets uglier at triple digit speeds.
--His "if you can call it a race" never reached triple digits where yes the 65s undoubtedly pull away.
On the black puff on start- that means your turbo seals are leaking badly. not normal and indication of turbos in need of rebuild soon.
--Also I've worked on 137s and 275 motors since they came out while working at a MB dealer and since then. Brand new cars coming off the transporters have always blew out puffs of black smoke on start up as well as the 63s due not as noticeable though, do you relize black smoke is fuel, we are not talking about blue smoke which would be oil so why would black smoke indicate turbo seals are failing?
Btw, I have never seen my 65 emit black smoke under any circumstance. The only puff I see is white smoke on cold start on cold morning which is normal.
--Should I be so persumptious to say that if your car is exhibiting white smoke on start up that your head gaskets are bad and antifreeze is entering the combustion chambers while shut off because that is what "white" smoke implies. BUT im pretty sure your talking about steam which is a by product of combustion in gasoline motors and is more prominent in a rich mixture, which explains why you see it mostly at start up because the A/FS are more fuel rich then!! It may appear white but is much much different then smoke. It's steam
--This post was about roll on from 20mph to about 90 and the comparision between them both. Not 1/4 mile times. If you want to bring in anything even close to relative find comparable 1/8th mile speeds and times. Furthermore everyone but 1 of the s65's on dragtimes are based on the 220 chassis the 221's are not quite as fast however minute. And apples and oranges why would you bring up sl65's? As I mentioned before the 0-60mph times between the 221 S65's and CL63's are identical but as I said different sources at most give them a .2 spread. So lets split the difference for arguements sake and call it .1 Do you think that between the 60-90mph as stated by his run of up to around 90 that the s65 would put a massive gap between the two considering there 0-60mph times are essentially the same? I also said that the 65's really start pulling away at 80 mph and up as expected by the large differnce in torque.
If you have ever been at the track you will know that 0.5 secs and 5 mph at those speeds are about bus and a half length. Hardly equal in my book. And it only gets uglier at triple digit speeds.
--His "if you can call it a race" never reached triple digits where yes the 65s undoubtedly pull away.
On the black puff on start- that means your turbo seals are leaking badly. not normal and indication of turbos in need of rebuild soon.
--Also I've worked on 137s and 275 motors since they came out while working at a MB dealer and since then. Brand new cars coming off the transporters have always blew out puffs of black smoke on start up as well as the 63s due not as noticeable though, do you relize black smoke is fuel, we are not talking about blue smoke which would be oil so why would black smoke indicate turbo seals are failing?
Btw, I have never seen my 65 emit black smoke under any circumstance. The only puff I see is white smoke on cold start on cold morning which is normal.
--Should I be so persumptious to say that if your car is exhibiting white smoke on start up that your head gaskets are bad and antifreeze is entering the combustion chambers while shut off because that is what "white" smoke implies. BUT im pretty sure your talking about steam which is a by product of combustion in gasoline motors and is more prominent in a rich mixture, which explains why you see it mostly at start up because the A/FS are more fuel rich then!! It may appear white but is much much different then smoke. It's steam
10-03-2011, 08:48 PM
#10
So there is much difference between a race up to 95 and another one up to 115 mph? Moreover when the race starts at 20 mph thus eliminating the most disadvantageous scenario for the s65 (race from a dig where the extra 500 pounds have the most effect).
So... I do not agree with you. In my mind the s65 at anything over 40 mph is faster than s/cl63 car. Maybe once at very high speeds when the race goes into 5th for the v12 the 7 gear and the higher red line of the 63 motor might even out the playfield a bit, but not before that.
Btw, Mercedes would not allow the 63 car to be faster than the 65. It is called "pecking order" and no manufacturer would break that order.
So... I do not agree with you. In my mind the s65 at anything over 40 mph is faster than s/cl63 car. Maybe once at very high speeds when the race goes into 5th for the v12 the 7 gear and the higher red line of the 63 motor might even out the playfield a bit, but not before that.
Btw, Mercedes would not allow the 63 car to be faster than the 65. It is called "pecking order" and no manufacturer would break that order.
10-03-2011, 10:04 PM
#12
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2016 AMG GTS, 2015 GLA45 AMG
I strongly disagree with most of this. The 0-60 times of these cars are identical or within .2 secs of each other depending on where you look at statistics at the most. I feel like everyone seems to think the 65 should just walk away from the 63 in a mear 3-5 second pull, since it was a roll on from 20mph leaving a light. Also puffs of black smoke from the back of a 65 thats completly normal, im sure some fellow 65 owners can even chime in on how even on some cold start ups the motors will puff a black smoke cloud out the backs let alone on a WOT stomp from down low. Now he said they were running consistent with each other and stopped around 90mph, thats really the point where the 65 starts streching its legs and will start to outrun the 63's "and most cars". My CL puts out over 600 rwhp and over 850 rwtq and my buddy with a e55 with a pulley, headers, and a tune is just about at my door till 80 "hell even a stock 55 is about the same" and then its total annihilation from there out. This is exactly what I would expect from what fixinbones stated.
10-03-2011, 10:26 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded CL65
So there is much difference between a race up to 95 and another one up to 115 mph? Moreover when the race starts at 20 mph thus eliminating the most disadvantageous scenario for the s65 (race from a dig where the extra 500 pounds have the most effect).
-Here is the General Physics definition for you.
Work(energy used) = Force (parasite drag) x Distance traveled
-Air forces (parasite drag in pounds) goes up as the SQUARE of the increase in speed.
-From 55mph to 70mph....70 ÷ 55 = 1.2727 increase in speed. Square this (1.2727=1.62), 1.62 or 62% more drag to overcome, 62% more energy burned.
-From 55 to 80 (the speed many drive on Interstates). Speed increase 1.45, square this (1.45 = for 2.11 increase in drag. Over double the energy used!
-Doubling speed, increases drag and energy burned by 4.
From 50 mph to 100 mph....100 ÷ 50 = 2 increase in speed. Square this(2= 4), energy burned is 4 times more, because the Force of air drag only, has gone up 4 times. 400%
-NOT included: rolling friction of tires (soft is bad or firm is better), interference drag between belly of the car and road nor power train friction. This treatment is to show speed and aerodynamic drag matters significantly. Not opinion but simple general physics and math.
So... I do not agree with you. In my mind the s65 at anything over 40 mph is faster than s/cl63 car. Maybe once at very high speeds when the race goes into 5th for the v12 the 7 gear and the higher red line of the 63 motor might even out the playfield a bit, but not before that.
-Now thats totally backward your could have a 1-1 ratio in the rear end of the 63 but no car could push it through the wind read above and see how physics work, I directly related it to cars!
Btw, Mercedes would not allow the 63 car to be faster than the 65. It is called "pecking order" and no manufacturer would break that order
- You need a serious history lesson in Mercedes my friend!! In 2002 the quickest mercedes EVER sold in the USA and was the quickest car of that year and any year before for that matter was the 2002 SLK32. Pecking order???
I wasn't in agreement with it as well but since I have very little knowledge of the 65 motors I was not about to comment on it.
Fixinbones I meant and do mean no disrespect to you at all you posted your findings and I know I got way off the topic but I hate misinformation.
-Here is the General Physics definition for you.
Work(energy used) = Force (parasite drag) x Distance traveled
-Air forces (parasite drag in pounds) goes up as the SQUARE of the increase in speed.
-From 55mph to 70mph....70 ÷ 55 = 1.2727 increase in speed. Square this (1.2727=1.62), 1.62 or 62% more drag to overcome, 62% more energy burned.
-From 55 to 80 (the speed many drive on Interstates). Speed increase 1.45, square this (1.45 = for 2.11 increase in drag. Over double the energy used!
-Doubling speed, increases drag and energy burned by 4.
From 50 mph to 100 mph....100 ÷ 50 = 2 increase in speed. Square this(2= 4), energy burned is 4 times more, because the Force of air drag only, has gone up 4 times. 400%
-NOT included: rolling friction of tires (soft is bad or firm is better), interference drag between belly of the car and road nor power train friction. This treatment is to show speed and aerodynamic drag matters significantly. Not opinion but simple general physics and math.
So... I do not agree with you. In my mind the s65 at anything over 40 mph is faster than s/cl63 car. Maybe once at very high speeds when the race goes into 5th for the v12 the 7 gear and the higher red line of the 63 motor might even out the playfield a bit, but not before that.
-Now thats totally backward your could have a 1-1 ratio in the rear end of the 63 but no car could push it through the wind read above and see how physics work, I directly related it to cars!
Btw, Mercedes would not allow the 63 car to be faster than the 65. It is called "pecking order" and no manufacturer would break that order
- You need a serious history lesson in Mercedes my friend!! In 2002 the quickest mercedes EVER sold in the USA and was the quickest car of that year and any year before for that matter was the 2002 SLK32. Pecking order???
I wasn't in agreement with it as well but since I have very little knowledge of the 65 motors I was not about to comment on it.
Fixinbones I meant and do mean no disrespect to you at all you posted your findings and I know I got way off the topic but I hate misinformation.
10-03-2011, 11:01 PM
#14
Let me simplify it for you.
If you are 20 yards ahead at 120 (0.5 secs ahead) that means you were 7-10 yards ahead at 90. If you were not ahead by 90 there is a good chance you would be very little ahead (or not at all) at 120. 90-120 happens in a split of second in our cars as you know.
Some practical factual physics for you: The 65 car puts more tq to the ground at any given point in time compared to the 63 car... So it accelerates harder. The 65 car also has more hp so it puts out that tq for a longer time. The weight advantage of the 63 is largely negated once the beasts are in motion. Given roughly the same drag on both cars as they are really identical- which part of the "more powerful car is faster" you don't understand? I can prolly get into tq curves, gearing and rpms and let you determine at what speed the 63 will start putting the same tq to the ground as the 65, but I will let you plug numbers into the online simulators if you are so inclined
off the top of my head I would say again that this would be the 5th gear for the 65 as it is somewhat tall...
And on the pecking order- Your argument would be valid if the slk320 was faster than the slk32. it was not.
If you are 20 yards ahead at 120 (0.5 secs ahead) that means you were 7-10 yards ahead at 90. If you were not ahead by 90 there is a good chance you would be very little ahead (or not at all) at 120. 90-120 happens in a split of second in our cars as you know.
Some practical factual physics for you: The 65 car puts more tq to the ground at any given point in time compared to the 63 car... So it accelerates harder. The 65 car also has more hp so it puts out that tq for a longer time. The weight advantage of the 63 is largely negated once the beasts are in motion. Given roughly the same drag on both cars as they are really identical- which part of the "more powerful car is faster" you don't understand? I can prolly get into tq curves, gearing and rpms and let you determine at what speed the 63 will start putting the same tq to the ground as the 65, but I will let you plug numbers into the online simulators if you are so inclined
off the top of my head I would say again that this would be the 5th gear for the 65 as it is somewhat tall...And on the pecking order- Your argument would be valid if the slk320 was faster than the slk32. it was not.
Last edited by alx; 10-03-2011 at 11:17 PM.
10-03-2011, 11:04 PM
#15
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Del Mar, CA
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2003 CL600 2005 745Li
I strongly disagree with most of this. The 0-60 times of these cars are identical or within .2 secs of each other depending on where you look at statistics at the most. I feel like everyone seems to think the 65 should just walk away from the 63 in a mear 3-5 second pull, since it was a roll on from 20mph leaving a light. Also puffs of black smoke from the back of a 65 thats completly normal, im sure some fellow 65 owners can even chime in on how even on some cold start ups the motors will puff a black smoke cloud out the backs let alone on a WOT stomp from down low. Now he said they were running consistent with each other and stopped around 90mph, thats really the point where the 65 starts streching its legs and will start to outrun the 63's "and most cars". My CL puts out over 600 rwhp and over 850 rwtq and my buddy with a e55 with a pulley, headers, and a tune is just about at my door till 80 "hell even a stock 55 is about the same" and then its total annihilation from there out. This is exactly what I would expect from what fixinbones stated.
Are you having traction issues ???
.
10-04-2011, 09:27 AM
#16
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded CL65
Really, how can this be, really ? My friend has a E55 with pulley and tune, I have a STOCK CL600 and when are pretty much dead even when we run. I plan to be close to your numbers with a tune and some cooling mods, I also plan to bury him with these changes. Are you saying all he needs is headers and we would still mostly be even. I don't see it, sorry
Are you having traction issues ???
.
Are you having traction issues ???
.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
-As I mentioned earlier in the thread that my CL65 will start to walk away at speeds over 90 due to the massive torque that most 55k motors with any mod have a hard time hanging with. Now I know what you guys might say next will okay after 90 then ill kill them so im faster in the 1/4 mile not really, the bolt on e55's trap nearly 100mph in the 1/8th and the S65s around 90. Yes the CL65's are faster then the S65s no doubt in the 1/4 mile so the margins will be alot tighter in that comparision. But throughout the whole thread its been about s65 vs cl63
Here are the 221 S65 times -http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_s65_amg.html
And the CL63 within .2 0-100kmh
http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_cl_63_amg.html
Last edited by Malones Perf.; 10-04-2011 at 09:54 AM.
10-04-2011, 10:01 AM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,546
Received 1,066 Likes
on
855 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
There is an S600 quicker than the E55's. http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21 Do you really think the S65 is not capable of better times with half litre greater displacement and larger turbos?
10-04-2011, 12:05 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded CL65
There is an S600 quicker than the E55's. http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21 Do you really think the S65 is not capable of better times with half litre greater displacement and larger turbos?
Number one this thread was originally discussing stock vs stock cl63 vs s65 221. And no I dont think the S65 221 chassis can push the car into the 10s as that one was without nitrous, or bigger turbos. And it would take a combination of high octane/race fuel tune, top mount intercoolers, heat exchanger, pump, intake, lsd, drag radials, and tcu tune to even get them to the low low 11s stock. Unless someone has facts or proof of the 221 s65's doing this or coming close to in stock trim please post up.
02-16-2013, 11:00 PM
#19
All this is new stuff to me , is there a chart showing at what spead does each model start spreading legs ? for example the C230 from 0 to 160 , at what speed does it start streaching ? What about the smokey along the side of the road ? A ticket for 10 mile extra speed is $300 , Who wants to streach hands and legs ? hahahahaha
02-17-2013, 12:47 PM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Exactly. Your racing cars with similar power levels and the higher horsepower car weighs a little more. Is it really a surprise they were close from in a very short race??? No...
