Hercules86

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.

Mantooth

callmedoc

You know there is a power top option for the C6 'Vert right? I have it and it is AWESOME. Top goes up/down in 18 seconds total and completely hassle free (and looks cool to boot).

Hercules86

i taught the convertible was a powertop standard?

they made the c6 with a manual top? i dont they did

Mantooth

callmedoc

Power top is a $2000 option on the base 'vert.

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

Deuuuce

An A4 C6 isn't so hot and the gearing of the 7spd 550 is probably much better. From a dig the lighter Vette will squirt out in front but from a roll on the highway, it could be very interesting. Worse still if the Vette doesn't hold a gear and waits for the downshift.

callmedoc

I agree....


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.

clkwork

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.

Jons95c36amg

Run away from the C63? What does your C6 trap? To run away you should be trapping 123 The C6 Z06 runs away from the C63. I think it should be a close race-my C63 vs your C6. PM me bro..

Jons95c36amg

Also whats up with the old 40yr pushrod engine?

bullydog

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

clkwork

LSx engines take lots of shortcuts to produce the power that they do. Does this make them any less reliable or effective? Not really. The LSx a great engine on a budget, while the M156 is just a great engine.

Here's a quote from an old thread I dug up:

bullydog

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)

E55AMGGG04

AHAHAHAH LISTEN to yourself. YOUR SO COOL man. If you dislike benz so much then gtfo out this forum. Ill choose my 500hp 55 over your 625hp vette anyday !! Mercedes vs Chevrelot isnt the toughest decision around here to make.

In my area your what we call a DOUCHE.

Deuuuce

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.

Jons95c36amg

Yeah but the M156 is also used in the new SLS AMG supercar putting out over 560hp NA with only 6.2L V8.

Deuuuce

Good point. The LS7 hasn't had any development in 5 model years. I wonder what it's capable of while retaining street-legal emission compliant status.

Gondon

So why don't you guys race

clkwork

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)

But if you ask me, it's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast.

kindafast

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.

Deuuuce

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.

clkwork

Been there, done that. So your vette was your first manual sports car?

By the way my slushbox shifts faster than you ever will. Enjoy the experience of shifting slowly.

I agree with your last statement, I'm not saying that the LS7 isn't a great engine, but IMO it lacks the tech that makes the M156 superior. I'm not going to argue with the magazine racers that would say the LS7 is better simply because it puts out more power or is quicker in a lighter package. Obviously a C6Z06 is quicker than any MB 6.3L simply because you're riding in a balsa wood, fiberglass, and plastic bucket built strictly for lightness and speed. That's not my point.

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.

clkwork

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.