gixxer

February R&T obtained a little better numbers

0-60 4.1 sec
5-60 5.8 sec
1/4 12.6@109.8mph
60-0 112ft
1.03G

jonnyrt

how can 0-60 be 4.1 yet 5-60 rolling start be 5.8?? do you mean 4.8?

bmoney12

Its correct. I saw another mag test with a similar 5-60 time(5.7). The wonders of launch control. There's gotta be some serious lag.

dremorg

You're right. That makes no sense.

gixxer

That makes perfect sense. It's a launch vs an idle automatic style go. Probably takes a second for the turbo to spin before the car really starts moving. Also no torque or hp at that RPM.

Kinda the reason we all love the new drive by wire. That delay.... it's built in many cars to control torque to save the tranny


Car an Driver 2007
911Turbo tiptronic
Zero to 60 mph: 3.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec

dremorg

ok..learn something new everyday.

C63newdude

With a tune and maybe a less restrictive exhaust ..yes but stock ..NO

C63newdude

Because when you start from zero mph you are actually launching the rpms and building boost.

AZBENZ-CTSV

very impressive new model from MB

AMG Boost

I was suppose to buy this car instead of my C63 however they ran out of cars for 2014! Unfortunate.

But I do agree from a light the CLA45 will beat a C63 or most other RWD cars most of the year simply because of the traction difference. C63 might have 450HP but cant put it to the ground unless its summer time.

CLA45 is a great car. I wanted that 4cyl really bad, but I think i can live with my new V8

jonnyrt

I will say it again, buy any AMG, any year and you can't go wrong! Love the CLA 45!

C63newdude

Would you like to have a chance to edit your post? Are you aware that there are at least two different car magazines that tested the C63 and got 3.9 sec? do you know that the C63 coupe traps 120mph stock and have done no less than 114mph traps on any magazine?
Even with a bad traction(255 tires) the C63 kills the CLA... Just challenge on this topic and I will be glad to post the links with the road test done over the years to prove my point.


Some car magazines and TV shows like Motorweek are getting the CLA to run a 13 second pass and 5 sec 0-60............


I know very well what the AWD cars can do.. (4 Evos, one STI, 1 WRX, two Stealth R/T Twin turbos, 4 Eclipse GSX and Porsche Carrera 4 (964 bodystyle). The CLA 45 AMG does well indeed but the C63 does better.


Please google C63 accelerations...

jonnyrt

Wow CLA 45 1/4 mile at 12.7 and 0-60 in 4.2, that is the same stats as the new Camaro Z/28! Impressive for a 2 litre!

I think everyone is splitting hairs on this thread…3.9 versus 4.4 etc, its minor! You also have to remember it depends on so many conditions - altitude, road temperature etc. For example, I live 1000 ft above sea level, so my twin scroll turbos in the CLA45 compensate for altitude power loss versus a naturally aspirated V8 C63 which looses 15% horsepower at this altitude.

zibby43

+1

The CLA45 is a great car and it's amazing that AMG got that much power out of a 2.0L turbo 4-cylinder. Furthermore, with the help of the 4MATIC, you can more consistently achieve great 0-60 runs.

However, against a C63 at sea level/near sea level, the CLA45 is just going to flat out start running out of breath as the revs and speeds climb.

In the last few tests I've seen, the C63 put down 3.8 and 3.7 0-60 times. And this was without launch control.

AMG Boost

Hey bro.

Do you live where I live? Do you think I have the climate to do a 4.0sec 0-60 most of the year?

I dont need to google anything. Dont post **** without knowing where im coming from.

Where I live I can probably put the power down in my C63 4 months out of the year. I also live at altitude and my c63 loses 15% HP here. A CLA45 is turbo and AWD which means I dont loose as much power from altitude and I can put the power down most of the year.

I dont care what a magazine tests the C63 at. All I care about is what the car can do for me where I live, performance wise that is.


But with that said, Yes you are correct. The C63 is a faster car. But the conditions have to be good for it. The CLA45 is a bit more usable to me because of its AWD and forced induction. Im just sour its still winter out lol.

jonnyrt

+1, Well said

C63newdude

AMG boost and Jonnyrt,


I fully understand what you said and I agree with just about everything... for your location the CLA 45 is a win-win, no doubt. I also know that the CLA 45 with tunes will do high 3 sec 0-60.


Jonnyrt, the Z28 might do the 0-60 the same but traps will be higher. I still know what you are trying to point out. Both cars will do well for different purposes.


I am still waiting for the GLA 45 to arrive, I haven't gave hope. I did a pre-trade and have $29k credit to decide what Mercedes I get before the end of the year. I want to see and seat on the GLA preferably this year.. I am afraid it wouldn't be here on time(before the end of the year) because I would lose my tax trade in credit a well. I also love the AWD cars.

bmoney12

Having owned both I'd say tune vs tune would be pretty even up to 100 then the C63 should start to pull away. I'd take the C63 from a roll at any speed....it really is a beast. That being said my tuned CLA45 has really surprised me. It feels a lot more potent than stock. Right about the time when we start seeing the M2 and RS3 I wouldn't be surprised to see an S model with output closer to tuned numbers.

dchl21

well if I see you at the street light you are getting smoked.

jonnyrt

doubt it

dchl21

aww ... you are too far away .. I wouldn't mind showing you what's really going on ..

AMG Boost

Sorry I didnt mean to be offensive at all by the way. Just for me and where I live a AWD turbo car will have an advantage over an NA RWD. Thats all I was trying to say... If it is +30c tempature every day with nice clean streets and at sea level id be betting on the C63.

Congrats on your GLA45