I've been reading a lot of articles about the new Z06 it makes me wonder if it might be my next car. Our current 5.5L isn't up to matching the Z but from what I've been hearing about the 6.3L engine it should produce similar numbers.
AMG 6.3L V-8: 503 hp at 6800 rpm and 465 lb-ft of torque at 5200 rpm.
Z06 7.0L V-8: 505 hp at 6200 rpm and 470 lb-ft of torque at 4800 rpm.

I know a few people will say they are in different categories but personally they would both be on my next-car shopping list.

Of course that is if the 6.3L will make it into the CLK.

 

6.3 will be offered in the CLK sometime in the summer according to Rob Allen (AMG production of North America). You have to consider the weight of the vehicles as well as the different transmissions. The Z06 will be faster but it still not a benz

 

There will not be a 500hp CLK anytime soon.
So a Z06 is not a Benz CLK, but as far as performance a CLK AMG that is sold in the USA (including the new c63) will not be close the a z06.

 

I dont know about the specs on the new Benz but the new Z06 is loosing its appeal to me. Originally when the car was anounced they stated a 0-60 time around 3.6-3.9 secs, as time goes on and more magazines are testing it, it seems that they are getting a 0-60 around 4.0-4.1. I just sold my 2004 Z06 and those cars were always tested in the 3.9 - 4.1 range. Point is, I think that if your going to spend $70K you may want to consider some different rides. There is no dought the Z06 is a great car, I loved mine and it would smoke my 55 but the bottom line is that when you get in it you know its a chevy. Spend a little more and get yourself a used 911 turbo, that will pull a Z06. I know because a freind of mine also had a Z06 and his son had a 911 turbo, they lined them up and from whatever speed the turbo pulled away without a problem, those things are wicked. My feeling is that to truly get all that power to the ground and make the car easy to drive fast all wheel drive is a must in a street legal supercar. Hey just my .02.

 

Hi Fella's,

I agree, I don't think MB are going to release a new 6.3 motor in the old current CLK shell. The current 2006 CLK facelift runs to about June 2006 and in June-Oct 2007 the new CLK could come out, they may bring it out earlier to combat the new BMW M3 V8.

The 6.3 motor will be in that, otherwise they will have no grand fanfare for the new model release, new shape, new motor, I mean new shape, old motor is not a big deal when BMW are going new shape, new motor.

Plus, talk is the current CLK cannot handle the power of the 6.3 anyway, my money is on a new CLK model sooner than later with a 6.3, very late 2006 or early 2007 to go head to head against BMW, any takers?

Roberts

 

I was a my MB dealer yesterday and they were expecting CLS63's to start arriving in the Spring. That sounded very early to me. But from what I'm hearing nobody really knows if we will have a W209 CLK63 or have to wait until the W210 CLK63.

 

????? Have you seen the latest issues of Car & Driver or Motor Trend?

Car & Driver's test of new Z06:

Test results:
0-60: 3.6 seconds
0-100: 7.9
0-150: 17.5
1/4 mi: 11.7@125


Motor Trend's test of the new Z06:
0-60: 3.5 seconds
1/4 mi: 11.5@127.1

These smoke any test either mag did of the prev Z06. Road & Track tested the new one and got a ****ty time, but there was either something wrong with that car, or their equipment; their trap speed was waaay too low for that much horsepower.

And it laps fast too: Autoweek reports in this article that:
The Porsche Turbo's time: 7'54". The new Z06 killed that time.

That thing is a monster, and at $65G, it's a supercar for far less than any used 911.

 

So what was your question lol?

 

Wasn't a question, it was an observation. Just noting that the new Z06 has been tested at *much* faster than 4.0 0-60, and that it's a beast.

 

ZO6 3.5 seconds in 0-60? I seriously doubt the magazines who are supported in part by Chevrolet.

Remember, Car & Driver is the magazine that brought you a 0-60 speed of 4.8 seconds for a 1964 GTO back in late 1963. Hmmmmm.....yea, right. Point made.

Currently, R&T September tested the new Porsche Cayman S and it turned 5.4 seconds and in the current November issue states 4.8 seconds. While C&D states the exact same car turned 5.1 seconds. Conclusion? The magazines are all over the place and not to be believed verbatim. Even with temp variations, these speed and times are just too divergent.

Going from a Benz to a Chevy? Better get ready for a severe reality check. Those Benz owners who haven't realized it, you've been mercilessly spoiled by the build quality, design, comfort and features of your German AMG ride. Leaving the fold for a Chevy will result in a serious shock that you may not enjoy living with.

 

These same mags have clocked the previous gen Corvettes in the low 13's, and I've run several of them, dead even from 0-100, where I start to pull. My times at strips: low 13's.

I've also witnessed previous-gen Z06's, stock, running mid 12's, and, stock, had them clean my clock. So add another 100 horsepower, and that thing should easily hit the numbers that Car & Driver and Motor Trend have gotten.

Hardly. The fact that one car mag got tricked 40 years ago isn't proof of anything. 405 horse Z06's have been clocked in low-mid 12's by numerous mags, and as I said I've personally witnessed bone stock versions running these times at drag strips. And FYI, the new versions have already been dynoed, and they're making more than enough RWHP to produce the as-advertised horsepower.

Wrong. They did not test it in the September issue; the article to which you refer gave factory performance ratings, and historically, these have always been conservative for German cars:

Yes; this was an actual road test, and as stated before, factory performance ratings are normally conservative.

Which is only 0.3 off the Road & Track numbers, and you're failing to note that in the 1/4 mile, both mags tested the cars exactly 0.1 seconds apart: 13.3 @ 106 in Road & Track, 13.4 @ 105 in Car & Driver.

Rather consistent, I would say.

Not really. Different drivers get different times, and these cars have production differences. This is basic engineering: not every car off of a production line will produce the same horsepower. There are variances.

Have you ever even been to a strip, particularly with a manual-transmissioned car? Did you turn the exact time with every run? If so, congratulations: you are the first perfect human.

Wtf are you talking about? I never said any such thing, and have no plans to buy one, but that certainly doesn't mean that I don't respect its amazing performance capabilities. What I *AM* saying is that the new Z06 is an amazing car from a performance perspective, and this holds true regardless of what your personal opinion of Chevrolet products happes to be.

Further, while anyone who's familiar with my posting history here can vouch for my enthusiasm for my AMG and AMGs in general, this does not mean that I'm a blind loyalist...and if you think Mercedes is one of the highest brands in quality, you're kidding yourself. Both Consumer Reports and JD Power rate Mercedes near the bottom of the heap...as can be seen graphically by reading the images in this post:

But I would assume you already knew this; after all, wasn't it you who started this thread, entitled "MB facing loss of profits, cuts 8500 jobs", the second sentence of which stated the following:


And I really don't appreciate getting lectured by someone with 50 posts to his credit on my enthusiasm for AMGs, when I've posted about them over 1,200 times here. I respect performance, no matter what brand is producing it, and this thread is about the performance of a Z06, whether you like it or not.

 

[QUOTE=Improviz]????? Have you seen the latest issues of Car & Driver or Motor Trend?

Yes I have Car & Driver right here, Motor Trend, No. I guess you havent seen the latest issue of Automobile or Road & Track.

Road & Track
0-60 4.2
1/4 mile 12.3 @ 116.7

Automobile Mag
0-60 4.1
1/4 mile 12.0

Oh by the way, do you know were Car & Driver tested the new Z06? Oh ya, GM's proving grounds, no bias there. Isnt that something, they are the only ones that have achieved the factory's claim of 0-60 in 3.6. The only thing I found in Motor Trend (Online) was the factory estimates provided by GM, so I cant comment on the current issue.

Point is, this is what always happens. Manufactures claims are put out there and then seemingly always get knocked down when the real world testing comes into play. I have no dought the new Z06 will be a beast, but your now starting to play in the price range of much more refined performance autos.

 

If the current clk cant handle that much power, what do you consider the DTM?

 

I not only have seen it, I mentioned it in my post:
Guess ya missed that, huh?

Yeah, that's the one I mentioned. And as I said: this is the same trap speed as the previous Z06, which was the same weight and had 100 less horsepower than the new one. This, combined with good ol' fashioned physics and the Motor Trend/Car & Driver results (and the Automobile results; more on that in a moment), points to the Road & Track results being a fluke, unless of course one is prepared to argue that you can add 100 horsepower and no weight to a car and have no gain in trap speed....

Further, have you happened to notice that generally, Road & Track turns in slower test times than Car & Driver or Motor Trend? Well, it's true. Consider this: the slow, piece of **** Z06 you're complaining about tested by Road & Track was only 0.1 slower to the 1/4 mile than the Ford GT they tested in December 2003, which ran a 12.2.

Yes, and let's examine the results from the Automobile mag test in a bit more detail, rather than cherry picking it, shall we?

What you fail to note is the total test results from the latest issue of Automobile, where they compared the new Z06 with the Viper and the Ford GT.

CAR:---Z06---Viper---Ford GT
lap: 1:32.75 1:33.95 1:32.45
0-60: 4.1 4.3 3.8
1/4: 12.0 12.4 12.2
70-0: 149 150 156
top speed: 198 190 205
cornering, g: 1.1 1.04 1.03

So, let's see: in the article you're citing to assail its performance, the Z06 turned a faster lap times than the Viper and was 0.3 off the Ford GT. It was faster to 60 than the Viper, and to the 1/4 mile than the Viper and the Ford GT. It stopped in shorter distances than either car, has a top speed of about 200, and pulled higher cornering than either car. (Click here for Automobile mag track video from the shootout)

Wow, what a huge disappointment. The piece of **** only won in three out of six categories...what a clunker.

Oh, and while in this test the Z06 was tested slower to 60 and through the 1/4 than in Car & Driver or Motor Trend, guess what? So were the Viper and the Ford GT. Car & Driver tested the Ford GT at 3.3 seconds 0-60, a full half second faster than Automobile. They tested the Viper at 3.9 seconds, 0.4 seconds faster than Automobile. Motor Trend tested the Ford GT at 3.6 seconds 0-60, twice, both times 0.7 faster than Automobile. And they tested the Viper at 3.9 seconds 0-60, 0.4 seconds faster than Automobile.

And when we look at the Automobile test for the Z06, what do we see? Well, it's 0.5 slower to 60 than the Car & Driver test, and 0.6 slower than the Motor Trend test.

Beginning to see a pattern here? I.e. that Automobile got slower times in the other two cars as well? That this difference is the same for all three automobiles? That maybe some magazines have better drivers than others?

No? Then have a look at the following links and see how the Z06 compares with these same cars as tested by other publications:
Car & Driver tests the new Viper coupe: 12.5 @ 117 mph:

Car & Driver tests the Ford GT: 12.0 @ 123 mph:

Car & Driver tests the new Z06: 11.7 @ 127 mph:


Motor Trend tests the Viper: 11.77 @ 123.63 mph:

Motor Trend tests the Ford GT: 11.78 @ 124.31 mph:

Motor Trend tests the new Z06: 11.5 @ 127.1 mph:

And it is also telling that in the Car & Driver "Lords of Envy" shootout between the Aston Martin DB9, Ferrari F430, Ford GT, Lamborghini Gallardo, Mercedes SL65 AMG, and Porsche 911 Turbo cab, the Ford GT had the fastest acceleration and the best track time. Meaning that Automobile's results indicate that the Z06 should beat most of these, with the possible exception of the Ferrari F430, whose lap time almost matched the Ford GT.

You're joking, right? The location made it faster?

Unfortunately, Motor Trend tested it elsewhere, and got even better results. Further, given that Automobile's slower test results are in line with their slower test results for the other two cars tested, well, this only buttresses the other two mags' test results.

False. Motor Trend tested it in 3.5, which I linked to in my first post, up above in this post, and will link to again: here you go:

Oh, and then there's this little nugget, as reported by Autoweek in this article:
FYI, the CLK DTM's Nurburgring lap time: seven minutes, 54 seconds. And this is with 582 horsepower--80 more horsepower than the 6.3L motor being discussed here will produce--and a near-full-race suspension, which will not make it into a production CLK63.

And the point is this: Automobile, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track have all tested the new Z06. While the times each magazine got varied slightly, the fact is that Automobile, Car & Driver, and Motor Trend all tested the new Z06 faster than both the Viper and the Ford GT, while Road & Track's fluke 12.0 test was still only 0.1 off the 12.2 they ran in the Ford GT. And lastly, Autoweek reports that only one production car on the planet has lapped the Nurburgring's Nordschleife circuit faster than the Z06.

Now, when all of this is considered, I really have a hard time seeing what it is about the Z06 you're knocking....is it that it accelerates faster than the Viper and Ford GT? Or that it laps faster, stops faster, pulls higher skidpad numbers, etc.? Or is it the fact that it lapped the 'ring faster than all other production cars except the $450,000 Porsche Carerra GT?

 

Its the fact that its still a chevy, lol. Seriously though the Z06 is an AMAZING performance car for its price. I was strongly considering buying one until I saw the markup. There is NO WAY I'm paying 20k over sticker for a chevy!

 

Improviz: No need to be so ultra defensive and so sensitive. My, you have a fragile skin.
FLASH! This is a forum where members can express their opinions. Also, don't even think of pulling rank on any member here because you were here longer. This is not the military and you hold NO sway or credibility over any other member. You have some serious issues you have to deal with ,fella.

This is a car forum, don't get so bent out of shape. No need to cuss either. Nothing was said to injure you or sully you. Maintain a gentleman like manner please, for the benefit and respect for all members.

 

I wasn't pulling rank, I was pointing out, accurately, that I have 1,200 more posts to my credit on these forums than you do, and so it's more than a bit ridiculous for you to imply that I'm more of a Chevy fan than a Mercedes fan.

I do have issues when someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about tries to tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

If you don't like having inconsistencies in your position pointed out, you might try not picking fights with people who know their ****. I live, breathe, eat, and sleep cars, and if you want to debate me about them, come prepared.

And pick a fight you did: you cast aspersions on the data I provided and implied that it's not possible for a 3150 pound car with 505 horsepower, a six speed, and 325 series tires to hit 60 in 3.5 seconds. You falsely stated that Mercedes' reliability is greater than that of Chevrolet, which, sadly, it is not according to both JD Power and Consumer Reports. You put words in my mouth and falsely implied that I was "going from a Benz to a Chevy".

You might try the same. If you want to throw rocks at my posts, be prepared to have some boulders come back your way. There was nothing factually incorrect in any of my posts. Unlike some people, I check my facts before I make my claims, particularly when I'm responding to someone else's posts.

 

Improviz, take a pill. If your so in love with the Z06 go Jerk-off over at that forum. I agree with Skytop, add a couple of layers to your skin, or take off the panties. I never said the Corvette was a piece of **** or that it was a clunker. I owned 3 Z06's, so I know what the car is all about. Dollar for dollar the Z06 is probly the best buy on the planet for the performance. But for the new asking price, your now entering another league of performance cars, with better refinment, fit and finish. Oh, and you said Road & Track had a bad car and Automobile Mag's drivers suck, but Car & Driver and Motor Trend what they say is the gospil. Come on, dont be so naive about Car & Drivers numbers and the fact they tested at GM's facilities. If you think there wasnt a team of GM engineer's there and they were going to let their car be tested less than what they said, give me a break. If you believe that I also have some prime swamp land in florida I'll sell you. Also, you say that Road and Track always has slower times than the rest. Well how about the fact that they tested the New Carrera S at a 0-60 time of 3.9. Your precious Car & Driver mag did it in 4.1 and the worst of them, Motor Trend said 4.5. Boy, Car and Driver must of had one of Road and Track's ****ty drivers that day and Motor Trend must of had a bad car. Even the sales personal at the Porsche dealership I deal with said they must of been smoking crack the day Road and Track pulled that one off.

I will now secede to any further comments because we all have found out that you are GOD and know all that is good.

 

A clk dtm can only run a 7.54 at the ring? A stock C5 Z06 can run a 7.53...

To answer your question a N/A CLK 6.3 will not take out a C6 Z06.

 

People calm down..

no need to get hostile on this discussion.


The question asked was addressed toward the performance aspect of C6 Z06 and the upcoming CLK63 AMG(if it ever be sold in this engine configuration).
Which one is quicker and not which one is more refined or etc..

H-MAN, unless I mistakenly read the intention of the question please correct me...

Looking at Law of Physic the CLk63 and C6 Z06 have very similar power curve. However Z06 is only weight at roughly 3150lb and I don't think CLK63 weight will be close to that at all.

Same power, heavier plus automatic transmission against lighter Z06 and manual transmission I am afraid CLK63 will not be a match against Z06 (stock vs stock).


Regardz,

 

No. I said the test was a fluke, for one simple reason: because I am an engineer, and know that physics works. As you, the supposed owner of three Z06's should know, the previous generation, 405 horsepower Z06 trapped at 116 mph. The new Road & Track test of the 505 horsepower Z06, which I would guess is a typo (like the one they had recently for the Audi S4, later corrected) claimed the car trapped at 116, even though it was 0.5 faster to the 1/4 mile than the previous version. So, brucie boy, answer this simple question: if you took your current car, and added 100 horsepower to it, would you expect it to trap at exactly the same speed in the 1/4 mile?

So why would you, a supposed owner of three Z06's, believe that the new one, with 100 more horsepower, would trap at the same speed as the old one? Are you really that stupid? Sure seems like it...

And to cap it off, if you weren't such an ignoramus, you might be aware that Road & Track tested a 2005 Corvette coupe, not a Z06, a few months ago. Here is the test: They ran 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, and a 12.8 @ 114.5 1/4 mile. And you're dumb enough to believe that the Z06, with 100 more horsepower, can only get to 60 mph 0.2 seconds faster and trap 2 mph higher??

So a car can gain 100 horsepower and have no increase in trap speed in the land of bruce? What color is the sun in this world of yours?

But Road & Track never makes typos, right brucie? Which is why, on page 44 of their current issue, they issue a correction to their Audi S4 Road Test Summary from September. That issue had posted a 12.9 @ 109.8 1/4 mile time, but in the current issue they state that this was a typo, and that the correct time was 13.8 @ 101.7.

No, liar, what I said is that their times for all three cars were slower than those in other publications. And what pisses you off about it, obviously, is that you tried to cherry-pick the article to prove that the Z06 isn't as fast as all that...well, as I showed, the times Automobile got for all three cars tested in that article were slower than what other publications had gotten in these three cars.

You can cry and whine and moan all you like, but the data clearly show that you're wrong. So Automobile didn't get as fast of times for the Z06 as Motor Trend or Car & Driver did? Wow. But unfortunately for you, as I showed, they didn't get as fast of times for the Viper or the Ford GT.

Which only goes to show that their drivers, for whatever reason, are consistently not extracting times out of their test cars on a par with their competition. It does NOT prove YOUR claim about the "slowness" of the Z06.

It's "Gospel". And this is a laughable case of pot/kettle, as you're acting as though we should look at data in total isolation without considering other factors or other tests.

Dude, get over it...all of the mags' tests, including Road & Track's, show that this car is an amazing machine. If you want to stick your head in the sand and cry about it, fine, but you don't have a leg to stand on, data-wise.

Ah, that would be at Milford, right? Which of course in brucie-world proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the evil conspiricists at GM simply had to have given Car & Driver a ringer, which is what explains the 11.7 1/4 mile they ran.

Psst...brucie: here's a little fun-filled fact that you might not know: Road & Track *also* tested their Z06 at GM's facilities. The following is a direct quote from their article, which you can read here: On track, the Z06 lives for big, fast sweepers where the fat Goodyears can be effectively utilized. As our testing at GM's Milford Proving Ground in Michigan later showed, there's a generous 0.98g of lateral grip available.

So, I guess the obvious explanation here is neither a typo or less-than-optimal test driving, but that those evil, sinister GM folks gave both Motor Trend and Car & Driver very, very fast Z06's, but somehow managed to give Road & Track one that's only marginally faster than a regular Corvette coupe.


You're making an insinuation, but it's a baseless accusation unless you've got something to back it up. Do you? No? Then STFU and stick to the facts. The facts are that four magazines have tested it, that all four of these magazines have gotten times which put it in the league of the fastest, most exclusive sports cars on the planet, and it will absolutely ***-rape whatever it is you drive. So you can take cheap shots at the car, or at Chevrolet, or at me, but this car will bend your car over, make it its beeyutch, eat it, and spit out the bones.

I did not say any such thing, making this two lies in one post from you. I said that they generally do it, but not always. Generally and always are not synonymns. Learn to read.

And I notice that while you whine, cry, and make childish personal attacks, what is conspicuously absent from your post is any attempt at presenting any data about the Z06 that shows it's not in the league with the world's fastest sports cars. But the facts are clear: the car will accelerate, lap, brake, and handle in a league with any other production sports car currently for sale on this planet, and in fact will hand most of them their asses.

You have presented nothing to refute this, and I have presented reams of data to support it. Even the article YOU cited, the Automobile magazine article, had the Z06 beating the Viper and Ford GT in the 1/4 mile.

Meanwhile, your ridiculous false claims such as a used Porsche Turbo being able to "pull a Z06" have been shown to be utterly worthless.

In other words, you lose.

 

What is with the arguement over the 0-60 time? So what if some mags cant best the C5 time, that can be chalked up to traction, what matters more is what happens after 60.

 

speed and all is great, braking helps too


BUT WHEN ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AND THEY DO... basically, if you take both cars and drive them into a wall the:

Chev will crack in half and so will you!

BENZ you'll still be alive and you can sell the remaining parts

just my change of info.

 

Oh, this guy's just pissed off because I showed how full of it he was...any idiot can look at the Automobile test and see that the fact that the 'vette pulled both the Viper and Ford GT in the 1/4, out lapped the Viper and was only 0.3 off the Ford GT, out stopped them both proves that the thing is a monster which is in a league with the world's best sports cars, and will beat most of them...but he's too stubborn to admit he's wrong, and so insists on throwing temper tantrums.

 

EVERYONE, do we all realize we are debating about a car that does not exsist yet........ CLK63 AMG is not in production............