CLK550 VS C6
#26
true the stock interior needed some work.... but ive addressed that with full red carbon fiber trim.... and some other leather upgrades from dsvettes.com. the cars interior is very exotic now.
ive owned s,cl,clk old and new and yeah there nice comfy cars and good performers... but ive moved away from mb now especially with there new goofy futuristic cars with no real body lines or style like in the older generation benzes that were bulletproof on realibility. ive had worse quality issues on my sclass then any other car ive owned.
ive owned s,cl,clk old and new and yeah there nice comfy cars and good performers... but ive moved away from mb now especially with there new goofy futuristic cars with no real body lines or style like in the older generation benzes that were bulletproof on realibility. ive had worse quality issues on my sclass then any other car ive owned.
#28
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C6 Vette Z51 Convertible 6-speed, 06 M35X
Any car can be built to go in a straight line fast. The Benz in this post is a SEDAN which hauls 4 - 5 people. Your C6 is a purpose built sports car that in stock form, is no faster than a stock E55 with an 8 year old powerplant.
On a separate note, I seriously looked into buying a C6 vert before opting for the SLK55 for the wife. That C6 interior was rental car grade - not to mention the Sales guy had to literally hang all his body weight while bracing himself against the footwell & dash in an effort to pull the top down. That shenanigans was enough for me to instruct the Benz dealer for our SLK build. While I do think the Vette is the best bang for buck available for a 2 seat sports car, Chevy needs to address the interior - including the seats.
Chevy quality vs Mercedes? You can't be serious.
On a separate note, I seriously looked into buying a C6 vert before opting for the SLK55 for the wife. That C6 interior was rental car grade - not to mention the Sales guy had to literally hang all his body weight while bracing himself against the footwell & dash in an effort to pull the top down. That shenanigans was enough for me to instruct the Benz dealer for our SLK build. While I do think the Vette is the best bang for buck available for a 2 seat sports car, Chevy needs to address the interior - including the seats.
Chevy quality vs Mercedes? You can't be serious.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Morehead, KY USA
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
SLK55 AMG, E320 BlueTec, ML350, (formerly) C32 AMG, MR2 Turbo, HD-FLH-FSE, BMW R100RS, Ducati M900
550 vs
I am still having a hard time seeing a stock 550 keeping up with a stock C6 unless the vette driver forgot to put it in the correct gear. If he went from 6th to 5th, that would give you the difference to keep up until it came on the power. What does a stock C6 trap?
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
#33
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
I am still having a hard time seeing a stock 550 keeping up with a stock C6 unless the vette driver forgot to put it in the correct gear. If he went from 6th to 5th, that would give you the difference to keep up until it came on the power. What does a stock C6 trap?
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
#34
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C6 Vette Z51 Convertible 6-speed, 06 M35X
Originally Posted by JG26_Irish
I am still having a hard time seeing a stock 550 keeping up with a stock C6 unless the vette driver forgot to put it in the correct gear. If he went from 6th to 5th, that would give you the difference to keep up until it came on the power. What does a stock C6 trap?
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
My C32 cannot take a C6 and I'm trapping 13.1's at 105-107 mph. The vette is in the 12's easy. A C5 might be different. No doubting the OP's story but me thinks the vette was not being driven to its limit.
Irish
Several people have actually ran low 12s in the A4 with just an intake. However, from what I hear, the A4 is lazy to downshift if in the wrong speed on a roll.
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
No offense, and this is from a Corvette owner, but carbon fiber trim does not address the C6 interior shortcomings. The only C6 interior I've really liked is the Caravaggio full leather with Daytona seats.
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
c63 has no chance to beat a ls3 vette z51 6 speed. stock for stock i have raced more then a handful down here in brooklyn on the belt pway and have run away from them.
stock c63 450hp prob around 3,900lbs automatic.. factory in the drivetrain loss
stock ls3 z51 6 speed has 436hp but its underrated.. my car dynoed slightly over 450 stock. and the car weighs 3150 pounds. plus much better gearing.
stock c63 450hp prob around 3,900lbs automatic.. factory in the drivetrain loss
stock ls3 z51 6 speed has 436hp but its underrated.. my car dynoed slightly over 450 stock. and the car weighs 3150 pounds. plus much better gearing.
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Any car can be built to go in a straight line fast. The Benz in this post is a SEDAN which hauls 4 - 5 people. Your C6 is a purpose built sports car that in stock form, is no faster than a stock E55 with an 8 year old powerplant.
On a separate note, I seriously looked into buying a C6 vert before opting for the SLK55 for the wife. That C6 interior was rental car grade - not to mention the Sales guy had to literally hang all his body weight while bracing himself against the footwell & dash in an effort to pull the top down. That shenanigans was enough for me to instruct the Benz dealer for our SLK build. While I do think the Vette is the best bang for buck available for a 2 seat sports car, Chevy needs to address the interior - including the seats.
Chevy quality vs Mercedes? You can't be serious.
On a separate note, I seriously looked into buying a C6 vert before opting for the SLK55 for the wife. That C6 interior was rental car grade - not to mention the Sales guy had to literally hang all his body weight while bracing himself against the footwell & dash in an effort to pull the top down. That shenanigans was enough for me to instruct the Benz dealer for our SLK build. While I do think the Vette is the best bang for buck available for a 2 seat sports car, Chevy needs to address the interior - including the seats.
Chevy quality vs Mercedes? You can't be serious.
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 G8 GXP M6
I used to think this way too. The pushrod design offers some real advantages with respect to packaging and weight. Plus, the LS3 is no at all a low-tech engine, you can read more here..
http://www.camarohomepage.com/ls3/index.htm
http://www.camarohomepage.com/ls3/index.htm
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
I used to think this way too. The pushrod design offers some real advantages with respect to packaging and weight. Plus, the LS3 is no at all a low-tech engine, you can read more here..
http://www.camarohomepage.com/ls3/index.htm
http://www.camarohomepage.com/ls3/index.htm
Here's a quote from an old thread I dug up:
Earlier you posted the LS7 was comparable to the M156. I’m not so sure. Aside from the obvious point of the M156 being over 10% smaller and producing more peak power (and it's not a flash number, the M156 has 90% of it's peak torque available at 2000 RPM), the M156 does have design advantages. The M156 is a closed deck design. A closed deck design weighs more, but it allows for higher combustion pressures. The LS7 is an open deck design. The crank on an M156 is held in place by a bedplate. The LS7 uses caps. A bedplate design is unquestionably better in high performance applications. The M156 cylinder walls are constructed using a twin wire arc spraying process that is considerably harder than the Lokasil process it replaces. Chevrolet simply pressed steel sleeves in an aluminum block for the LS7. On the M156, both intake and exhaust valve duration can be independently varied by over 42 degrees. The LS7's single bumpstick design is physically incapable of independent variable valve duration. The M156 uses bucket tappets under cams. The LS7 has push rods, rockers, and two valve heads.
I could go on for quite a bit longer, but I think you get my point.
I could go on for quite a bit longer, but I think you get my point.
#40
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 G8 GXP M6
Well I guess given the respective designs racing history and success, great engine on budget > great engine
If one were to really consider, the 3 most successful (stock block) engines in racing history all suffer from major design "shortcomings" of one type or another. (i.e. Chevy and Ford small block and air cooled Porsche)
If one were to really consider, the 3 most successful (stock block) engines in racing history all suffer from major design "shortcomings" of one type or another. (i.e. Chevy and Ford small block and air cooled Porsche)
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 1,762
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
04 w211 E55
i have a 2008 c6 ls3 z51 manual 6speed coupe. when it was stock i shatt all over any 550 benz like it was a joke. the same with every 55 i came across and the 63's were even worse.
my car now has 625hp with a camshaft and fullbolt ons finished by famous cartek in nj. any amg boys wanna see the back of my borla exhaust?
try that with your crappy amgs... i have had mercedes and they are the worst cars ever made and you gotta spend so much to get them modded.
this is of course except for my old school benz w116 turbo diesel which i wouldnt trade for anything.
my car now has 625hp with a camshaft and fullbolt ons finished by famous cartek in nj. any amg boys wanna see the back of my borla exhaust?
try that with your crappy amgs... i have had mercedes and they are the worst cars ever made and you gotta spend so much to get them modded.
this is of course except for my old school benz w116 turbo diesel which i wouldnt trade for anything.
In my area your what we call a DOUCHE.
#42
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
An interesting debate.
Are the M156 compromises are cost, weight, packaging, more moving parts & fuel economy and overall life vs. the LS7?
Does the M156 have racing pedigree in it's current form? The LS7 has C5R and C6R GT1 history.
Are the M156 compromises are cost, weight, packaging, more moving parts & fuel economy and overall life vs. the LS7?
Does the M156 have racing pedigree in it's current form? The LS7 has C5R and C6R GT1 history.
#44
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
#45
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 S500 Sport
So why don't you guys race
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
LS7: cheaper, heavier, larger, fewer parts, stone age tech
Performance is similar
Fuel economy is similar
Overall life is debatable (lots of LS7s grenading CF, but both engines haven't been out that long)
But if you ask me, it's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast.
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
How you go fast? Press the gas pedal and steer lol... how boring... Test drive a fast manual car you're missing out!
I was going to go with the C63, when looking for a car. It was my first choice after reading all the mags about them... but decided to try out a manual car for something different. WOW! From now on it will be an easy choice for me (no more autos til I am an old grandpa), if you think you are getting the whole driving experience in a CLK, you are just lying to yourself.
Interior is crap in the Vette compared to the Benz, but as soon as that clutch is eased out, the gas pedal pressed in and you are banging through the gears every other second - the interior will be the last thing on your mind
And besides, the stone aged Z06 will be a bus length ahead of you after a 1/4 mile... so much for all the superior technology you claim to have at twice the price.
I was going to go with the C63, when looking for a car. It was my first choice after reading all the mags about them... but decided to try out a manual car for something different. WOW! From now on it will be an easy choice for me (no more autos til I am an old grandpa), if you think you are getting the whole driving experience in a CLK, you are just lying to yourself.
Interior is crap in the Vette compared to the Benz, but as soon as that clutch is eased out, the gas pedal pressed in and you are banging through the gears every other second - the interior will be the last thing on your mind
And besides, the stone aged Z06 will be a bus length ahead of you after a 1/4 mile... so much for all the superior technology you claim to have at twice the price.
#48
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
M156: more expensive, lighter, smaller, more moving parts, cutting edge tech
LS7: cheaper, heavier, larger, fewer parts, stone age tech
Performance is similar
Fuel economy is similar
Overall life is debatable (lots of LS7s grenading CF, but both engines haven't been out that long)
LS7: cheaper, heavier, larger, fewer parts, stone age tech
Performance is similar
Fuel economy is similar
Overall life is debatable (lots of LS7s grenading CF, but both engines haven't been out that long)
I find it amusing a pushrod is considered stone-age when both designs have been around for over a century.
Also I don't see the problem with caps since 5000hp Top Fuel engines have caps vs. bedplates too.
Finally in terms of costs and technology, the LS7 engine is more expensive than the supercharged LS9 in the ZR1.
I will say both are GREAT engines, just different.
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
How you go fast? Press the gas pedal and steer lol... how boring... Test drive a fast manual car you're missing out!
I was going to go with the C63, when looking for a car. It was my first choice after reading all the mags about them... but decided to try out a manual car for something different. WOW! From now on it will be an easy choice for me (no more autos til I am an old grandpa), if you think you are getting the whole driving experience in a CLK, you are just lying to yourself.
I was going to go with the C63, when looking for a car. It was my first choice after reading all the mags about them... but decided to try out a manual car for something different. WOW! From now on it will be an easy choice for me (no more autos til I am an old grandpa), if you think you are getting the whole driving experience in a CLK, you are just lying to yourself.
By the way my slushbox shifts faster than you ever will. Enjoy the experience of shifting slowly.
Can you quantify that the M156 is lighter, physically smaller and similar fuel economy?
I find it amusing a pushrod is considered stone-age when both designs have been around for over a century.
Also I don't see the problem with caps since 5000hp Top Fuel engines have caps vs. bedplates too.
Finally in terms of costs and technology, the LS7 engine is more expensive than the supercharged LS9 in the ZR1.
I will say both are GREAT engines, just different.
I find it amusing a pushrod is considered stone-age when both designs have been around for over a century.
Also I don't see the problem with caps since 5000hp Top Fuel engines have caps vs. bedplates too.
Finally in terms of costs and technology, the LS7 engine is more expensive than the supercharged LS9 in the ZR1.
I will say both are GREAT engines, just different.
To answer your question about weight and size, the M156 weighs in at 439lbs and the LS7 at 458lbs. I don't have the link on me where I read about the physical dimensions being smaller but you could probably find it on google.
The M156 benefits from technology such as electro-hydraulically driven 42-degree variable valve camshaft timing and phasing and variable intake geometry designed to flatten the torque curve and provide a smooth, consistent, and predictable torque output at any given RPM. The bucket tappets deliver exacting valve control. Conical valve springs reduce vibration and valve float.
On reliability the M156 is a closed deck design which increases the rigidity and durability of the cylinder walls. The twin wire arc spray bore coating creates a much lower friction surface than bare steel and is twice as hard. The rigid bedplate design is the same used in Mercedes-Benz Motorsports race cars and is much stronger than individual caps in any given application. A rigid bedplate eliminates cap walk and reduces wear on the main bearings for high RPM engines like the M156. I'm not saying that you can't have a high performance engine that uses caps, just that they will wear quicker and are more prone to failure than a bedplate design. Why do you think they rebuild those 5000hp race cars after every race?
If you've worked on and driven any LSx engine (which I have) and a M156 (which I am afraid to touch) it's pretty obvious that they are completely different concepts. LSx engines are built around burning the most fuel as quick as possible. Look at the upgrade paths: large intakes and throttle bodies to get more air, larger injectors or reprogramming for more fuel, handheld tune to get the mix correct, and maybe a supercharger or nitrous if you want a power adder. The LSx is a simple tool that doesn't require a rocket scientist to mod or work on, and is essentially unchanged (with the exception of the electronics and precision tooling) from its historical variations. While there may have been OHC engines in the past there has been nothing even close to the M156 in terms of technology. Again that's not to say the LSx isn't awesome, it's just a simple engine. For some people that's good enough.
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
I almost forgot, on fuel efficiency, it's hard to compare since MB doesn't make a 63 in the same weight category as the Z06, so it's really apples to oranges. But if you were to factor in the weight
C63
12/19 mpg
3993 lbs
333/210 lbs/mpg
Z06
15/24 mpg
3180 lbs
212/133 lbs/mpg
The C63 is moving more weight per gallon of gas than the Z06. This is not scientific in any way, but my point is if both cars weighed the same your gas mileage would be similar. The M156 isn't quite efficient enough to cancel out the 800+ extra pounds of weight it has to pull over the Z06.
C63
12/19 mpg
3993 lbs
333/210 lbs/mpg
Z06
15/24 mpg
3180 lbs
212/133 lbs/mpg
The C63 is moving more weight per gallon of gas than the Z06. This is not scientific in any way, but my point is if both cars weighed the same your gas mileage would be similar. The M156 isn't quite efficient enough to cancel out the 800+ extra pounds of weight it has to pull over the Z06.