http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mg-test-review

Pretty strong acceleration #'s once rolling.

0-60mph: 4.0s
0-100mph: 8.8s
0-130mph: 14.2s
1/4m: 12.3 @121mph

Not bad braking and handling figures either for a 4,825lbs car:

70-0: 167'
300' skidpad: .90 g

I don't think I have seen a U.S. magazine test a W216 CL65. I would be curious to see how the CL63 PP stacks up against the V12 Biturbo.

Tom

 

Nice Tom- I have always noticed that C and D has some crazy good trap times. Your earlier R and T post had the car doing 119 but faster zero to 60 by a tenth and faster to 100 by the same margin.

C and D in the E63 vs M5 vs S6 comparo test had the M157 engine trapping 124 mph- WTF!!!!!

 

Nice find and thanks for posting. Love the 216 CL.

 

R&T doesn't weather correct their acceleration data:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-report/how-we-test

R&T usually posts in their data panels the ambient weather and elevation of the test track. If I recall correctly, they usually do most of their testing in Irvine, CA which is already at 1,000+' of elevation.

Alternatively, Car & Driver weather corrects its acceleration to "dry air" 14.7psi and 60 degrees.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...braking-page-2

I would theorize that 9 times out of 10, the Car & Driver figures are going to be better because R&T is more likely testing in 1K+' of positive DA conditions whereas C&D's figures are likely producing sea-level acceleration figures. Even if R&T is able to test on a cool and crisp day, it will likely have a harder time gaining traction in those conditions.

Also, I am not 100% sure how they weather correct data but if it is anything like dyno SAE/STD correction, it could skew trap speeds. Sometimes you will see the SAE or even STD correction factors listed on the dyno charts. For example if the correction factor is 1.02, it would mean that the uncorrected whp figure was increased up by 2% to correct up to the SAE figure. A .98 correction means the opposite, the run was run in cold conditions and a 2% reduction was applied to the uncorrected whp. If this same methodology is used, the acceleration times won't be as impacted.

For example, say the acceleration times were recorded in relatively warm conditions that resulted in a 2% weather correction. The reduction in a raw 0-60mph time of 4.0s would only result in .08s being deducted taking it to a rounded 3.9s time. Meanwhile the 1/4 mile trap speed would be increased 2% to reflect that same weather correction. That could turn a raw trap speed of 120.0 mph into a weather corrected trap speed of 122.4 mph.

At least those are my theories on the disparities....

Tom

 

Lol

 

Just made a deal on a 2011 CL63 with PP to replace my '09 CL63. My 09 doesn't have a LSD. Can anyone tell me if the 2011 and up CL 63s have LSDs? I can't imagine the car being able to rip off 0-60 in 4.0 and a 12.3 1/4 mile at 120 with an open rear end. Any info on this topic appreciated.