C6 kill!
12-30-2006, 03:23 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 C63 Black Series Coupe
C6 test in R&T (below) would seem to confirm the parity of their performance, then add in the fact that the ML driver 'only' has to put his foot down rather than worry about changing gear correctly and in most circumstances that would point to the likelihood of our original poster's story being correct.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf
12-30-2006, 03:43 PM
#27
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG ML63, M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe, New Audi TT, Audi R8 (coming)
Acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels relative to weight, drag, friction etc. In theory that would make the C6 the quicker car, but you'll find that by applying that kind of 'simple' algorithm on its own there are many cars that defy the rule.
Torque at the wheels is influenced by gearing and the spread of torque across the engine revs in use, so it wouldn't surprise me if MB's 7-speed gearbox provides a torque at the wheels (multiplier) advantage compared to the ratios GM choose for the C6.
You assume though that the ML63 must be hampered by lots of drag, and in theory that would seem logical but in practice it just doesn't seem to slow down above 3-figure speeds, indeed it seems to 'feel' even quicker.
Who knows (and perhaps who cares?), but both cars seem to share the same Qtr mile times (and speeds), so I would assume it would take until quite a bit further up the speed range before the C6 would pull away. And I would guess that would need to be well beyond 120mph..
As I said, I'm not finding this hard to believe. An E63 would dissappear from a C6 and the only difference between an E63 and the ML63 is an extra 300 kilos and a less aerodynamic frontal area.
Whatever the answer that certainly makes the ML63 one quick SUV.
Torque at the wheels is influenced by gearing and the spread of torque across the engine revs in use, so it wouldn't surprise me if MB's 7-speed gearbox provides a torque at the wheels (multiplier) advantage compared to the ratios GM choose for the C6.
You assume though that the ML63 must be hampered by lots of drag, and in theory that would seem logical but in practice it just doesn't seem to slow down above 3-figure speeds, indeed it seems to 'feel' even quicker.
Who knows (and perhaps who cares?), but both cars seem to share the same Qtr mile times (and speeds), so I would assume it would take until quite a bit further up the speed range before the C6 would pull away. And I would guess that would need to be well beyond 120mph..
As I said, I'm not finding this hard to believe. An E63 would dissappear from a C6 and the only difference between an E63 and the ML63 is an extra 300 kilos and a less aerodynamic frontal area.
Whatever the answer that certainly makes the ML63 one quick SUV.
Last edited by DoctorD; 12-30-2006 at 03:49 PM.
12-30-2006, 04:05 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels relative to weight, drag, friction etc. In theory that would make the C6 the quicker car, but you'll find that by applying that kind of 'simple' algorithm on its own there are many cars that defy the rule.
Torque at the wheels is influenced by gearing and the spread of torque across the engine revs in use, so it wouldn't surprise me if MB's 7-speed gearbox provides a torque at the wheels (multiplier) advantage compared to the ratios GM choose for the C6.
You assume though that the ML63 must be hampered by lots of drag, and in theory that would seem logical but in practice it just doesn't seem to slow down above 3-figure speeds, indeed it seems to 'feel' even quicker.
Who knows (and perhaps who cares?), but both cars seem to share the same Qtr mile times (and speeds), so I would assume it would take until quite a bit further up the speed range before the C6 would pull away. And I would guess that would need to be well beyond 120mph..
As I said, I'm not finding this hard to believe. An E63 would dissappear from a C6 and the only difference between an E63 and the ML63 is an extra 300 kilos and a less aerodynamic frontal area.
Whatever the answer that certainly makes the ML63 one quick SUV.
Torque at the wheels is influenced by gearing and the spread of torque across the engine revs in use, so it wouldn't surprise me if MB's 7-speed gearbox provides a torque at the wheels (multiplier) advantage compared to the ratios GM choose for the C6.
You assume though that the ML63 must be hampered by lots of drag, and in theory that would seem logical but in practice it just doesn't seem to slow down above 3-figure speeds, indeed it seems to 'feel' even quicker.
Who knows (and perhaps who cares?), but both cars seem to share the same Qtr mile times (and speeds), so I would assume it would take until quite a bit further up the speed range before the C6 would pull away. And I would guess that would need to be well beyond 120mph..
As I said, I'm not finding this hard to believe. An E63 would dissappear from a C6 and the only difference between an E63 and the ML63 is an extra 300 kilos and a less aerodynamic frontal area.
Whatever the answer that certainly makes the ML63 one quick SUV.
C6 destroys evos ran a few from 0-60 is there only good part--I still whipped him bad to -60 then after 60-130ish they fall apart I pulled literal bus lengths on one to 130ish...
Rally your fellow ml63 brethren here to race me, I'll show you how wrong you are...
ps I have an A4 Auto....suposed to be slow huh? like I said earlier plenty of members at Vettforum ran 12.50 @112 bone stock w/my same model at the 1/4
12-30-2006, 06:23 PM
#29
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG ML63, M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe, New Audi TT, Audi R8 (coming)
Comparing test data (in this case from the same magazine) seems a reasonable proxy to substantiate his story. Most of us then nod sagely, say "pretty quick for an SUV" and move on. It's just not that important.
I can't for the life of me imagine who would then want to take his ML63 and start challenging other cars (including C6s) at the dragstrip. It's an SUV for goodness sake, which most of us use to cart our families, dogs and other stuff around during the week. I can't imagine a more inapropriate tool with which to 'race' with (as you say).
I see nothing in any of the counter arguments to oppose the likelihood of eagleye's original story. Because some C6 owners are able to drive their own cars quicker than the published tests tells us nothing unless there is a similar statistical group of ML63 owners who've done likewise.
Since I suspect that's unlikely to happen (although good luck to any ML63 owners who feel the need to prove their accelerative merit) then there seems little point in bringing it up.
12-30-2006, 06:52 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
I never understand this kind of response. The original poster (albeit using a rather emotive title) conveyed his experiences of out accelerating a C6 Convertible in his ML63. Based on manufacturer and magazine test data that would seem to be 'entirely feasible'.
Comparing test data (in this case from the same magazine) seems a reasonable proxy to substantiate his story. Most of us then nod sagely, say "pretty quick for an SUV" and move on. It's just not that important.
I can't for the life of me imagine who would then want to take his ML63 and start challenging other cars (including C6s) at the dragstrip. It's an SUV for goodness sake, which most of us use to cart our families, dogs and other stuff around during the week. I can't imagine a more inapropriate tool with which to 'race' with (as you say).
I see nothing in any of the counter arguments to oppose the likelihood of eagleye's original story. Because some C6 owners are able to drive their own cars quicker than the published tests tells us nothing unless there is a similar statistical group of ML63 owners who've done likewise.
Since I suspect that's unlikely to happen (although good luck to any ML63 owners who feel the need to prove their accelerative merit) then there seems little point in bringing it up.
Comparing test data (in this case from the same magazine) seems a reasonable proxy to substantiate his story. Most of us then nod sagely, say "pretty quick for an SUV" and move on. It's just not that important.
I can't for the life of me imagine who would then want to take his ML63 and start challenging other cars (including C6s) at the dragstrip. It's an SUV for goodness sake, which most of us use to cart our families, dogs and other stuff around during the week. I can't imagine a more inapropriate tool with which to 'race' with (as you say).
I see nothing in any of the counter arguments to oppose the likelihood of eagleye's original story. Because some C6 owners are able to drive their own cars quicker than the published tests tells us nothing unless there is a similar statistical group of ML63 owners who've done likewise.
Since I suspect that's unlikely to happen (although good luck to any ML63 owners who feel the need to prove their accelerative merit) then there seems little point in bringing it up.
Once again I'm not discrediting ml63 as slow pos, It's fast for an SUV no doubt....But hardly any competiton for a C6 Corvette....
I've never hit the drag strip, I love to have the occasional street race when conditions permit, or present themselves, I don't consider this lame to bring up or do....That is why when everybody doubted my C6 in a race between SLK55 I friendly said the same "Lets run'em and find out" we did and I BEAT a much, much, FASTER car than your big 5,000lb ml63.....
Yes your ml is fast in the truck, suv, world but no comparison to Vettes, or SLK55's, etc.. and deffinitely not as the original poster claimed pulling the C6 from 90-100mph
12-30-2006, 07:11 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG ML63, M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe, New Audi TT, Audi R8 (coming)
I have to bring it up because the test datas you brought up are totally inacurate in the real world, plenty of magazines get such varied test data it is hard for me to take as 100% fact, (Other vette mag tests have show 0-60 in 4.1-4.2 -5.2 as well as 1/4 in 12.40-13.5xx way to varied) then researching real world timeslips & tests by guys like ourselves show huge differences in 0-60 & 1/4 mile results..
Once again I'm not discrediting ml63 as slow pos, It's fast for an SUV no doubt....But hardly any competiton for a C6 Corvette....
I've never hit the drag strip, I love to have the occasional street race when conditions permit, or present themselves, I don't consider this lame to bring up or do....That is why when everybody doubted my C6 in a race between SLK55 I friendly said the same "Lets run'em and find out" we did and I BEAT a much, much, FASTER car than your big 5,000lb ml63.....
Yes your ml is fast in the truck, suv, world but no comparison to Vettes, or SLK55's, etc.. and deffinitely not as the original poster claimed pulling the C6 from 90-100mph
Once again I'm not discrediting ml63 as slow pos, It's fast for an SUV no doubt....But hardly any competiton for a C6 Corvette....
I've never hit the drag strip, I love to have the occasional street race when conditions permit, or present themselves, I don't consider this lame to bring up or do....That is why when everybody doubted my C6 in a race between SLK55 I friendly said the same "Lets run'em and find out" we did and I BEAT a much, much, FASTER car than your big 5,000lb ml63.....
Yes your ml is fast in the truck, suv, world but no comparison to Vettes, or SLK55's, etc.. and deffinitely not as the original poster claimed pulling the C6 from 90-100mph
I'm surprised that you keep quoting the SLK55 as a benchmark and then go on to assert that it's "much, much faster' than the ML63. Even stranger when you realise that AMG (who I believe make both cars) provide information to the contrary (i.e. 0-1000m (SLK55) - 23.8 secs, whereas 0-1000m (ML63) - 23 secs)..
Oops..
12-30-2006, 07:24 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Agreed that test data will be varied between magazines. I should know since I often write and test cars for EVO magazine. That's why it seemed reasonable to look at data produced by 'one' magazine which tested both the cars in question. Without testing a sample of both cars on the same day in the same conditions, there's no basis for either side of the discussion to draw any conclusions.
I'm surprised that you keep quoting the SLK55 as a benchmark and then go on to assert that it's "much, much faster' than the ML63. Even stranger when you realise that AMG (who I believe make both cars) provide information to the contrary (i.e. 0-1000m (SLK55) - 23.8 secs, whereas 0-1000m (ML63) - 23 secs)..
Oops..
I'm surprised that you keep quoting the SLK55 as a benchmark and then go on to assert that it's "much, much faster' than the ML63. Even stranger when you realise that AMG (who I believe make both cars) provide information to the contrary (i.e. 0-1000m (SLK55) - 23.8 secs, whereas 0-1000m (ML63) - 23 secs)..
Oops..
Tht's right AUTO TRANNY, I keep bringing up my race w/slk55 because guys from this actual forum have replicated the 1/4 mile times w/slips here to prove it.
And I got into a similar discussion about which was quicker slk55 v C6, I beat the slk55 from this forum...It is a very valid piece of info when considering your ml63 tested in the 1/4 mags only at 13.3 your lowest to 13.6 highest I've seen.
The 12.70 the slk55 puts down SMOKES YOUR ML63....
I have seen plenty of real world 1/4 slips w/my same exact model A4 C6 at 12.50 @ 112mph....
I'm done repating myself...You are obviously playing the devils advocate, your ml63 is in my rear view mirorr all day long...
12-30-2006, 07:32 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG ML63, M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe, New Audi TT, Audi R8 (coming)
Go look for yourself, you're clearly offended by the idea of the ML63s performance rather than looking objectively at its potential.
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/ (check the performance numbers quoted for each model)
If AMG themselves quote the ML63 as being faster than the SLK55 then you'd really have to be wearing rose-tinted specs to conclude otherwise.
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/ (check the performance numbers quoted for each model)
If AMG themselves quote the ML63 as being faster than the SLK55 then you'd really have to be wearing rose-tinted specs to conclude otherwise.
12-30-2006, 07:38 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Go look for yourself, you're clearly offended by the idea of the ML63s performance rather than looking objectively at its potential.
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/ (check the performance numbers quoted for each model)
If AMG themselves quote the ML63 as being faster than the SLK55 then you'd really have to be wearing rose-tinted specs to conclude otherwise.
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/ (check the performance numbers quoted for each model)
If AMG themselves quote the ML63 as being faster than the SLK55 then you'd really have to be wearing rose-tinted specs to conclude otherwise.
12-31-2006, 04:47 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG ML63, M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe, New Audi TT, Audi R8 (coming)
Errm, I have...
... I presume you have actually driven an ML63 before judging it?
Not wishing to play devils advocate, but turning around and disagreeing with the manufacturers 'own data' is just 
... I presume you have actually driven an ML63 before judging it?
Not wishing to play devils advocate, but turning around and disagreeing with the manufacturers 'own data' is just
Last edited by DoctorD; 12-31-2006 at 05:13 AM.
12-31-2006, 06:37 AM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Back to reality guy.....I'll use your mag data to show you how lame your claims actually are...instead of your Cherry picking the best time from Car&Driver....read these n' weep...
Road&Track tested ml63 in the 1/4 mile
13.9 @ 102
0-60 in 5.0 seconds
MotorWeek tested ml63 in the 1/4 mile
13.6 @ 107
0-60 in 5.3 seconds
And notorious
Car & Driver who allways test magically great numbers got..13.27 @ 107
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
Now on to a bitter dose of reality for ya!
Ted Baldwin from our very own forum has a G55 w/K4 mods that makes..
640 Horsepower
700 Torque
weighs only 300lbs more than your ML63
And has..
140 MORE HORSEPOWER
235 MORE TORQUE
Than your precious speed demon ml63
Guess what? w/all that extra HP & especially Torque Ted ran a best of ....
12.74 @ 106
Kinda makes your dreamworld results of beating a SLK55 that consistantly run the 1/4 in...
12.70 @ 110 flat
Pretty IMPOSSIBLE huh!!!!
And unlike your FANTASY race w/SLK55, w/no one to back up your ridicuolous claims......Feel free to look up my old thread, where myself and the SLK55 owner from these forums "Falco" discuss my wining race against his SLK55, in my C6 A4 Vette w/3.15 gears...
Also go look up drag slips at Corvetteforum.com where you will find 5 or more BONE STOCK C6 A4 Vette's runing the 1/4 in 12.5 @ 112 ......The C6 has been tested multiple times in 0-60 and they are at best 4.1-4.2 seconds
Oh but you read it in the Manufacturers claimed perf data, ohhhh me ohhh my, it must be true then...
I mean.... since Mercedes said your ml63 is the new powerhouse, then you should have NO problem beating Ted Baldwins 640HP 700TORQUE beast!! w/12.74 @ 106 (BTW Ted, imprssive as hell
) It's slower than the SLK55.... Doctord= supreme
12-31-2006, 09:44 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'08 CL63
I logged in and lo and behold I thought I went to a corvette forum here 
Very touchy people
I love my ML63
Good day mr. corvette, now please don't come back
Dave
Very touchy people
I love my ML63
Good day mr. corvette, now please don't come back
Dave
12-31-2006, 04:26 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
....What are you held in rapture like Doctord? You'd rather believe in fairytales than FACTS?
I'll be back here evey time I find it necessary to set the truth straight around here
have a great day Mr. Pompous.......
Last edited by Thericker; 12-31-2006 at 04:34 PM.
12-31-2006, 04:41 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Lastly....So since Mercedes said it's faster, your going to negate all published magazine testing data, & all the other real world data from here...Actual SLK55's and C6's runing far better times w/track slips to prove it than your ml63
12-31-2006, 07:15 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
you guys are ****in nuts, what are you arguinf for?
its entirely possible that he beat a c6 ON THE STREET, tire slip, mis shift, wrong gear, head start........
it could happen
same driver, same day, perfect driving the c6 will kill a ml63. (period)
its a ****in suv
its entirely possible that he beat a c6 ON THE STREET, tire slip, mis shift, wrong gear, head start........
it could happen
same driver, same day, perfect driving the c6 will kill a ml63. (period)
its a ****in suv
12-31-2006, 07:56 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
DoctorD and rider1 since neither of you careto search your own forum..
For valid data showing more proof how Mercedes OVERRATED the ml63's perf, I'll post this thread for you here...Enjoy gentlemen....
MBWorld.org Forums > Mercedes-Benz AMG Vehicles > ML55 AMG, ML63 AMG (W163, W164)
Motorweek Results...
Vehicle I drive: '07 ML63 AMG
Posts: 323 Motorweek Results...
Motorweek results
0-60 = 5.3
1/4 Mile = 13.6 @ 108mph
Very disappointing! I'm beginning to wonder why MB is overstating the potency of the 6.3? Don't get me wrong, Motorweek loved the truck, but I'm disappointed in their numbers.
EX-BEEMER
11-18-2006, 06:37 AM #2
Ted Baldwin
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EX-BEEMER
Motorweek results
0-60 = 5.3
1/4 Mile = 13.6 @ 108mph
Very disappointing! I'm beginning to wonder why MB is overstating the potency of the 6.3? Don't get me wrong, Motorweek loved the truck, but I'm disappointed in their numbers.
......I watched Motorweek on the stupid speed channel, only to find out that Speedchannel was showing lasts weeks episode. While watching that, I missed the new episode showing on PBS that contained the ML63 review.
........anyway, the results are kinda what I thought. Lower torque on a heavier vehicle. The trapspeed is pretty good, so I think someone can probably get slightly better numbers, but this is probably the ballpark. Further convinced that the upcomming G63 will be even slower than this and not even be real competition to the G55. Go get a G55.
Ted
Ted Baldwin
Posts: 449 Looks like the ML63's numbers are slower than the E550, damn. When I pick up my truck in December, I should do a head to head comparison between the 2.
11-18-2006, 07:17 AM #4
Rider1
Everyone is going to get different "numbers" since there are so many variables and driving techniques.
By experiencing the whole vehicle and how it drives, the instant power (lots of it), the very responsive transmission, surefooted handling, quiet ride (relatively of course) among other great attributes make this ML63 a blast to drive fast or takin' it easy.
I now have about 4,400 miles on my ML63 and have used a total of one quart of oil and have had no problems. Still feels tight with no squeaks or rattles.
I added the storage bin (plastic with dividers) to the cargo area and find it to be helpful in keeping stuff from flying around back there
Dave
11-18-2006, 08:52 AM #6
crjag
Posts: 27 Motorweek Results
I've got a real test for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_w6a...elated&search=
Cayenne Turbo S is slower on 0-100 km/h and the difference is not that marginal.
They got pretty consistent results as their numbers are very close to manufacturers claims.
Merc claims ML 63 makes 0-100 (0-62mph) at 5.0 sec. In test they make it at 4.9 sec which means a 4.3-4.6 sec 0-60mph.
Porsche claims 5.3sec 0-100 km/h for Turbo S and they got the exact same result. This is very convincing IMOP
CycloneRcr
11-18-2006, 08:44 PM #8
terrence
Originally Posted by absent
You people keep forgetting it was the same show that could not get the Gallardo below 5sec in 0-60...
Very good point. Either they just can't drive, or their test surface is a little too slippery.
terrence
11-19-2006, 10:53 PM #9
Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
11-20-2006, 01:34 AM #11
Ted Baldwin
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
..........you are correct, except that the people pushing this car were expecting 0-60 arround 4.3 secs because of all the hype. Look at CycloneRcr's post. 2 tenths of a second from 5.3 places you at 5.1 secs 0-60, far far away from the 4.3 secs people were implying. So read between the lines. This is exactly what happened with the E63. It is not the exact numbers from Motorweek that is causing the belly ache, it is the realization of what it means. No, the ML63 is not faster than Enzo afterall.
Ted
11-20-2006, 03:24 AM #12
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
..........you are correct, except that the people pushing this car were expecting 0-60 arround 4.3 secs because of all the hype. Look at CycloneRcr's post. 2 tenths of a second from 5.3 places you at 5.1 secs 0-60, far far away from the 4.3 secs people were implying. So read between the lines. This is exactly what happened with the E63. It is not the exact numbers from Motorweek that is causing the belly ache, it is the realization of what it means. No, the ML63 is not faster than Enzo afterall.
Unless I'm mis-reading your post, no one in their right mind could have thought a ML63 would get to 60 mph in 4.3 secs. 5000lbs and the aero dynamics of a small barn prohibit that.
Ted
Nah I still don't see that. Speculation is just that, speculation. Just because the ML63 didn't live up to a specific person's made up hype doesn't mean it's performance is "extremely disappointing", that nuts. Yeah we know Mercedes' 0-60 times have been conservative in the past, but now I think they're not so much so anymore, they've giving real world numbers in some cases now. I know you're joking about anyone thinking a ML63 or any Mercedes would be faster than a Enzo.
As far as the whole E63 things goes, it is tired and extremely overdone at this point. The professionals are getting good numbers for some 63 models like the CLS63 vs the CLS55 so really don't see what all harping is about. If some can't understand that the E63 is a more competent all around car than the E55 then they've sunk to a simple drag racer mentality. These are European cars, specificially German cars, not drag racers. All around competence is what they're for, not just heroic 0-60 times.
M
11-20-2006, 06:38 AM #13
C-rod
Posts: 25 l would like.....
to see the review on "Top Gear"..the British show...now those boys really throw thier vehicles around.........
11-20-2006, 06:54 AM #14
A-Train
Vehicle I drive: ML63
Posts: 113 Are there any 1/4 mile drag strips still open w/in a 2-hour drive of Boston? The one I go to, New England Dragway in Epping, NH, is closed for the season and doesn't re-open until Spring. Would like to know firsthand how the ML63 does... Thank you.
11-20-2006, 06:55 AM #15
Rider1
Originally Posted by Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
I agree with you totally
Rider1
11-20-2006, 07:09 AM #16
crjag
Posts: 27 As I was the one to use the "extremely disappointing" phrase, I thought I might comment. Given that the whole idea of spending $90k for a 5,000+ lb. gas hog that is top heavy is already ridiculous, it is the small things that give some modicum of rationale for this kind of purchase, and at this price, one expects that the advertised capabilities of the vehicle should be a reality. What else other than purely subjective reasons is there to purchase this vehicle versus the Cayenne, for example? What is the justification for the price of the AMG model versus the ML 500? The body and general set-up of the interior is the same, so if the suspension, wheels, transmission and engine are worth $30k, they should deliver what is promised. Perhaps they will, but my current vehicle, CTT, pretty well tested to what was stated. Porsche claims 0-60 in 5.2, and Autoweek - which I feel is generally close to real world - achieved 5.16, so I'll wait to see if they conduct a test if the ML63.
I have not received my ML63 yet - should be here soon - so my disappointment is certainly not with the vehicle, but with MB, at least at this point, but I hope to be proven wrong.
11-20-2006, 07:54 AM #17
A-Train
Originally Posted by crjag
What else other than purely subjective reasons is there to purchase this vehicle versus the Cayenne, for example?... They should deliver what is promised.
I agree that a manufacturer's numbers should be understated rather than overstated; is a much better way to manage people's (especially buyers') expectations, let alone their reaction to actual performance tests once the car is out. I do not know if Mercedes published estimates on 1/4 mile or 0-1000 meter performance.
Regardless, I agree that there is no big deal between .2 to .3 seconds for 0-60 in the sense that such a difference can easily be attributed to track conditions, car-to-car production tolerances, etc. It's cool to be able to say a car does 0-60 in 4.X seconds versus 5.X seconds but not a huge deal, especially when it comes to it being an SUV. I would be a bit bothered if there was a .4 seconds or greater difference in mnfr's 1/4 mi estimates versus actual road tests because for that type of run, the track differences, car tolerances, etc., should get essentially negated. I'd then simply wonder (even if unfounded) if the car was making as much power as claimed, and then I'd begin look at in-gear performance claims and wonder how those stack up (e.g., 30-50 mph in 3rd gear, etc.). Many believe that in-gear performance is a much better look at real-world performance, so perhaps it should get a closer look from the get-go. But 0-60, 1/4 mi, top speed, etc. are much more interesting for most people, for mass market magazines, and for general mainstream discussion purposes.
As to the question above on why buy an ML63 rather than a Cayenne TT/TTS, other than for subjective reasons, here's a few reasons some might have:
- based on the online forums, it seemed like the Cayenne's had a bunch of problems for MY03-04, though most seemingly corrected for MY05-06. This included issues with the P-car's remote control fob not working or having literally a 2-3 foot range, trunk rattles, navigation / screen freezes, extreme turbo lag, lazy / delayed upshifts, etc.
- a refreshed exterior and interior on the upcoming '08 Cayenne due out Spring '07 (there is no MY07 for Cayennes) with a standard power bump from 450 bhp to a rumored 500.
And I'd imagine there are plenty of non-subjective reasons for someone to buy a P-Car rather than an ML. As for the list of subjective reasons to do MB or P, that's a huge, fun, unwinnable discussion in and of itself. Glad for all of us that both manufacturers are in the sport/lux SUV game...
11-20-2006, 11:38 AM #18
Ted Baldwin
Regardless, I agree that there is no big deal between .2 to .3 seconds for 0-60 in the sense that such a difference can easily be attributed to track conditions, car-to-car production tolerances, etc. It's cool to be able to say a car does 0-60 in 4.X seconds versus 5.X seconds but not a huge deal, especially when it comes to it being an SUV. I would be a bit bothered if there was a .4 seconds or greater difference in mnfr's 1/4 mi estimates versus actual road tests because for that type of run, the track differences, car tolerances, etc., should get essentially negated. I'd then simply wonder (even if unfounded) if the car was making as much power as claimed, and then I'd begin look at in-gear performance claims and wonder how those stack up (e.g., 30-50 mph in 3rd gear, etc.). Many believe that in-gear performance is a much better look at real-world performance, so perhaps it should get a closer look from the get-go. But 0-60, 1/4 mi, top speed, etc. are much more interesting for most people, for mass market magazines, and for general mainstream discussion purposes.
As to the question above on why buy an ML63 rather than a Cayenne TT/TTS, other than for subjective reasons, here's a few reasons some might have:
- based on the online forums, it seemed like the Cayenne's had a bunch of problems for MY03-04, though most seemingly corrected for MY05-06. This included issues with the P-car's remote control fob not working or having literally a 2-3 foot range, trunk rattles, navigation / screen freezes, extreme turbo lag, lazy / delayed upshifts, etc.
- a refreshed exterior and interior on the upcoming '08 Cayenne due out Spring '07 (there is no MY07 for Cayennes) with a standard power bump from 450 bhp to a rumored 500.
And I'd imagine there are plenty of non-subjective reasons for someone to buy a P-Car rather than an ML. As for the list of subjective reasons to do MB or P, that's a huge, fun, unwinnable discussion in and of itself. Glad for all of us that both manufacturers are in the sport/lux SUV game...
..............I agree that .2secs from manufacturer's estimate is not a big deal. The problem is that many were hoping that the manufacturer's estimate was actually conservative and that the car was actuallly faster than MB says it is, especially since no easy mods exist at the moment. This why I believe there is all the commotion. For instance, the G55 was rated at 0-60mph of 5.5 secs by MB and motor Trend tested it at 4.7secs. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew_specs.html
If you were expecting that kind of result, then Motor week results will be disappointing. Like I said, the trapspeed is pretty high at 108mph, so the car is capable of going faster than the Motor Week results. How much faster is not clear, but 0-60 of 4.3 secs seems unlikely except if the Motor week driver was a qudraplegic.
Ted
11-20-2006, 12:50 PM #19
nantucketsleigh
Posts: 64 MotorWeek may have gotten a slow car. At the end of the day if test results average under 5 sec O-60 and low 13's for the quarter MB will have no problem. If the Motorweek numbers turn out to be about average, a lot of people will likely resist paying up for the ML63 and wait for the ML550.
11-20-2006, 12:55 PM #20
amgme
Posts: 591 were you guys expecting that the ml63 would get 0-60 in 4.3 sec? a recent test of the e63 did this time and you expect a suv that weighs a LOT more to do similar times?
11-20-2006, 01:20 PM #21
A-Train
Posts: 113 Given all the specs, I expected 5.3 to 60 mph and 13.2 in the quarter at 108-110 mph.
11-20-2006, 07:02 PM #22
TT C6
Posts: 15 Atco,NJ and Englishtown, NJ both have tracks that are still open.
As a matter of fact,
the best possible timeslips will be produced with the present condidtions.
Some ML63's need to get down there and properly represent the AMG crowd.
I am DYING to know what the ML63 will run with a good driver and a well prepared track.
SOMEONE PLEASE RUN YOUR ML63 AND POST YOUR TIMESLIPS AND VIDEO FOR THE REST OF US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Thanks in advance.
11-20-2006, 11:20 PM #23
Germancar1
I have not received my ML63 yet - should be here soon - so my disappointment is certainly not with the vehicle, but with MB, at least at this point, but I hope to be proven wrong.
You're making way too much out of nothing. A few tenths of a second isn't going to matter in a vehicle this fast until you start racing other vehicles like it. Also to go by one roadtest is really, really overdoing it, especially Motorweek. This is nitpicking to death. See what Road and Track, Car and Driver and others come up with before being so disapointed with MB. Motorweek isn't the one to base all this on. No one here has a butt that sensitive to be able to discern .2 secs difference!
M
11-20-2006, 11:28 PM #24
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
..............I agree that .2secs from manufacturer's estimate is not a big deal. The problem is that many were hoping that the manufacturer's estimate was actually conservative and that the car was actuallly faster than MB says it is, especially since no easy mods exist at the moment. This why I believe there is all the commotion. For instance, the G55 was rated at 0-60mph of 5.5 secs by MB and motor Trend tested it at 4.7secs. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew_specs.html
If you were expecting that kind of result, then Motor week results will be disappointing. Like I said, the trapspeed is pretty high at 108mph, so the car is capable of going faster than the Motor Week results. How much faster is not clear, but 0-60 of 4.3 secs seems unlikely except if the Motor week driver was a qudraplegic.
Ted
If that is the case, then people should wait until a real magazine test the ML63 then. Motorweek loves everything they test and they're really a decent show, but they aren't Car and Driver or MT or Road and Track when it comes to their drivers/tests etc. Besides I think the days of MB giving conservative numbers are pretty much over when you start seeing 4.3 secs for a car like the E63. Car and Driver got the CLS63 to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds....! That is astounding when you think about it, but I think it is just plain impractical to expect this type of peformance (i.e. beating the factory times) each and every time.
At best, once all the major mags have tested the ML63, you'll be able to see what the avg 0-60 time is, they can't all be the same anyway. Road and Track and Motor Trend test cars in Cali, but C&D tests most of their in Michigan, most of the time.
M
11-21-2006, 06:53 AM #25
nantucketsleigh
If the 0.5 sec 0-60 difference and the fraction of a second difference in ET between the E63 and the E550 holds up in the eventual ML63 vs E550 comparison (when the latter gets the new engine) it will be hard to justify the price premium of the 63. No doubt the ML 63 is a great SUV but there are just too many $30-40,000 everyday cars capable of low to mid 5 second 0-60 times for the ML63 acceleration to be special. I was close to pulling the trigger on a ML 63 but now I'll wait for comprehensive tests of the ML 63, the X5 4.8 and the ML 550 when the new engine is available before I decide.
nantucketsle
11-21-2006, 09:45 AM #26
Ted Baldwin
.............to be fair, I don't think the difference in acceleration between the E550 and E63 are insignificant. 0.5 sec difference in 0-60mph acceleration is huge in the performance world. At the atlanta meet, the E63 ran a 12.6 in the 1/4 mile. As far as I know, the E550 is a mid 13sec car. This a full one sec difference in 1/4 mile times. This means that these cars are not in the same league. It is the same difference between a stock W210 E55 and a stock W211 E55.
...........I understand the idea behind saving $40K and buying an ML550, but a car that out accelerates the other by a full sec in the 1/4 mile is worth the extra $40K.
Ted
Ted Baldwin
11-21-2006, 11:43 AM #27
nantucketsleigh
Posts: 64 I think .5 sec 0-60 difference is significant. The difference between the 2003 E55 and E500 was huge. The performance gap between the AMG and the mundane MB lineup has narrowed substantially the price gap has not.
11-21-2006, 01:09 PM #28
Black&Tan-AMG
Posts: 63 Actually the price gap is not that great between the ML500 (soon to be ML550) and the ML63. The ML500 on the build your own website is $75,368 with all the options, AMG sport package, 20’ wheels etc... and that is without the leather dash or soft leather seats (N/A on the ML500 and one of my favorite things about the car). If it were an option I would have to guess between $2,500 - $4,000. (it was $3500 on my Boxster)
That makes the difference less that $10,000 apples to apples. I thought about waiting for July to get a ML550 all decked out but the AMG was a better deal.
Black&Tan-AMG
11-21-2006, 03:21 PM #29
ClayJ
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,028 NHSI 'safest SUV' -- and it is damn quick...
I just don't see what the problem is.
It is a 5300 pound SUV - not a friggin Porsche sportscar!
11-21-2006, 03:57 PM #30
Carl Lassiter
I just don't see what the problem is.
It is a 5300 pound SUV - not a friggin Porsche sportscar!
+1
Also, it's great to have a good looking 500bhp AMG with AWD.
11-21-2006, 10:10 PM #31
Germancar1
M
Germancar1
11-22-2006, 05:52 AM #32
Black&Tan-AMG
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 63 July 07
Black&Tan-AMG
11-22-2006, 05:56 PM #33
Spotty-Dog
Almost a Member!
Posts: 55 If all that matters to people is the 0 - 60 and quarter mile times, I suggest you buy a trashed Camaro or Mustang, drop a crate engine in it, put in a beefed-up transmission and rear end and save yourself $60,000.
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Spotty-dog
11-22-2006, 06:51 PM #34
Rider1
Almost a Member!
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Good call
11-22-2006, 08:32 PM #35
Black&Tan-AMG
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 63 + 1
11-22-2006, 11:22 PM #36
Germancar1
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Oh gawd yes. Mercedes is going for a more well rounded package with the "63" cars not impressing dragsters. I'd been waiting for someone else to see this!!!!
M
__________________
I am Merc1 elsewhere. Visit Germancarzone!
11-22-2006, 11:24 PM #37
Germancar1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black&Tan-AMG
July 07
11-23-2006, 04:25 AM #38
A-Train
However, an issue is when there is a big discrepancy between what people expect from a car and what they get -- people can simply feel shortchanged. While 0-60 mph is not a very reliable metric in terms of apples-to-apples comparisons among cars tested on different days / tracks (and too much can often depend on variables outside of the driver's and to some sense, the car's, control; e.g., track conditions, miles on the engine, tires, etc.), 1/4 mile is more reliable because by that distance, a lot of the 0-60 variables are generally mitigated, though the new variable of vehicle drag comes into play somewhat.
M
I'm not sure about the ML450 or the R and G. It is a very reliable source. If I told you I have to kill you. (sorry)
I understand (007).
M
11-27-2006, 10:27 AM #41
TT C6
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Doing 60-0 braking or driving in circle on the skidpad all day would be boring.
However the data that is collected from these tests gives a good picture of how a vehicle will behave when being driven daily or on a road course.
The 1/4 mile is a TEST to determine a vehicles performance.
To many of us, this is the MOST imortant test of a vehicle's performance;
followed closely by braking and handling.
So,
when I hear people say that 1/4 mile performance is "boring",
I feel like directing you to a snob or "waxer" discussion board.
I assumed that AMG guys are true performance "car guys" and they are focused on how well their cars accelerate, brake, and handle.
Yes, I am new here to this site. (thanks to the new ML 63)
But, true performance cars only care about how well their cars run,
they don't care about the
It is only a matter of time B4 MB decides to put a blower on this Baby...it will probably be in response to the next generation Cayenne T Bo....
So Say what you will, Mercedes , and Especially AMG will not go down without a fight.These are Marvelous Times we are living in....Have your cake and eat it TOO!
Remember when 0 -60 in 7 seconds was fast??
You are correct. My point was that there are some people who are "disappointed" with one road test and seem to be generally grief stricken that a nearly 3 ton vehicle did a 0 - 60 time in just over 5 seconds. Motorweek is not what I would consider to be a true enthusiast program but a generalist program that is consistently conservative. As others observed, acceleration times can vary greatly because of temperature, ashphalt conditions, wind etc. and in no way do I consider this to be a representative test.
And yes, I consider myself a "car guy" having owned my CLK55 since new and picking up my ML63 on Wednesday. If that makes me a snob, then so be it.
By the way, welcome to the board
Originally Posted by Spotty-Dog
Thanks for the welcome.
Sounds like you have a nice "stable" of toys over there.
Owning 2 great vehicles would definitely not make you a snob.
I agree that 0-60 times are not the best tool for measuring performance.
The 1/4 mile is a much better test.
I also agree that Motor Trend should post some good test numbers;
as should Car and Driver as well.
Usually fellow "car guys" on internet forums end up documenting the best times and I GREATLY look forward to owners posting their timeslips and videos.
"Ranger" from the Corvetteforum has gone 10.8x at 129.x in his 100% showroom stock 2006 ZO6.
He outperformed the magazines significantly and I expect a ML63 owner to do the same.
I agree with many that the SRT-8 is a great performer for the money.
Jeep and Chrysler need to seriously address their interiors.
But when money is not a issue,
the ML63 is where it is at.
MBWorld.org Forums > Mercedes-Benz AMG Vehicles > ML55 AMG, ML63 AMG (W163, W164)
Motorweek Results...
Vehicle I drive: '07 ML63 AMG
Posts: 323 Motorweek Results...
Motorweek results
0-60 = 5.3
1/4 Mile = 13.6 @ 108mph
Very disappointing! I'm beginning to wonder why MB is overstating the potency of the 6.3? Don't get me wrong, Motorweek loved the truck, but I'm disappointed in their numbers.
EX-BEEMER
11-18-2006, 06:37 AM #2
Ted Baldwin
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EX-BEEMER
Motorweek results
0-60 = 5.3
1/4 Mile = 13.6 @ 108mph
Very disappointing! I'm beginning to wonder why MB is overstating the potency of the 6.3? Don't get me wrong, Motorweek loved the truck, but I'm disappointed in their numbers.
......I watched Motorweek on the stupid speed channel, only to find out that Speedchannel was showing lasts weeks episode. While watching that, I missed the new episode showing on PBS that contained the ML63 review.
........anyway, the results are kinda what I thought. Lower torque on a heavier vehicle. The trapspeed is pretty good, so I think someone can probably get slightly better numbers, but this is probably the ballpark. Further convinced that the upcomming G63 will be even slower than this and not even be real competition to the G55. Go get a G55.
Ted
Ted Baldwin
Posts: 449 Looks like the ML63's numbers are slower than the E550, damn. When I pick up my truck in December, I should do a head to head comparison between the 2.
11-18-2006, 07:17 AM #4
Rider1
Everyone is going to get different "numbers" since there are so many variables and driving techniques.
By experiencing the whole vehicle and how it drives, the instant power (lots of it), the very responsive transmission, surefooted handling, quiet ride (relatively of course) among other great attributes make this ML63 a blast to drive fast or takin' it easy.
I now have about 4,400 miles on my ML63 and have used a total of one quart of oil and have had no problems. Still feels tight with no squeaks or rattles.
I added the storage bin (plastic with dividers) to the cargo area and find it to be helpful in keeping stuff from flying around back there
Dave
11-18-2006, 08:52 AM #6
crjag
Posts: 27 Motorweek Results
I've got a real test for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_w6a...elated&search=
Cayenne Turbo S is slower on 0-100 km/h and the difference is not that marginal.
They got pretty consistent results as their numbers are very close to manufacturers claims.
Merc claims ML 63 makes 0-100 (0-62mph) at 5.0 sec. In test they make it at 4.9 sec which means a 4.3-4.6 sec 0-60mph.
Porsche claims 5.3sec 0-100 km/h for Turbo S and they got the exact same result. This is very convincing IMOP
CycloneRcr
11-18-2006, 08:44 PM #8
terrence
Originally Posted by absent
You people keep forgetting it was the same show that could not get the Gallardo below 5sec in 0-60...
Very good point. Either they just can't drive, or their test surface is a little too slippery.
terrence
11-19-2006, 10:53 PM #9
Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
11-20-2006, 01:34 AM #11
Ted Baldwin
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
..........you are correct, except that the people pushing this car were expecting 0-60 arround 4.3 secs because of all the hype. Look at CycloneRcr's post. 2 tenths of a second from 5.3 places you at 5.1 secs 0-60, far far away from the 4.3 secs people were implying. So read between the lines. This is exactly what happened with the E63. It is not the exact numbers from Motorweek that is causing the belly ache, it is the realization of what it means. No, the ML63 is not faster than Enzo afterall.
Ted
11-20-2006, 03:24 AM #12
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
..........you are correct, except that the people pushing this car were expecting 0-60 arround 4.3 secs because of all the hype. Look at CycloneRcr's post. 2 tenths of a second from 5.3 places you at 5.1 secs 0-60, far far away from the 4.3 secs people were implying. So read between the lines. This is exactly what happened with the E63. It is not the exact numbers from Motorweek that is causing the belly ache, it is the realization of what it means. No, the ML63 is not faster than Enzo afterall.
Unless I'm mis-reading your post, no one in their right mind could have thought a ML63 would get to 60 mph in 4.3 secs. 5000lbs and the aero dynamics of a small barn prohibit that.
Ted
Nah I still don't see that. Speculation is just that, speculation. Just because the ML63 didn't live up to a specific person's made up hype doesn't mean it's performance is "extremely disappointing", that nuts. Yeah we know Mercedes' 0-60 times have been conservative in the past, but now I think they're not so much so anymore, they've giving real world numbers in some cases now. I know you're joking about anyone thinking a ML63 or any Mercedes would be faster than a Enzo.
As far as the whole E63 things goes, it is tired and extremely overdone at this point. The professionals are getting good numbers for some 63 models like the CLS63 vs the CLS55 so really don't see what all harping is about. If some can't understand that the E63 is a more competent all around car than the E55 then they've sunk to a simple drag racer mentality. These are European cars, specificially German cars, not drag racers. All around competence is what they're for, not just heroic 0-60 times.
M
11-20-2006, 06:38 AM #13
C-rod
Posts: 25 l would like.....
to see the review on "Top Gear"..the British show...now those boys really throw thier vehicles around.........
11-20-2006, 06:54 AM #14
A-Train
Vehicle I drive: ML63
Posts: 113 Are there any 1/4 mile drag strips still open w/in a 2-hour drive of Boston? The one I go to, New England Dragway in Epping, NH, is closed for the season and doesn't re-open until Spring. Would like to know firsthand how the ML63 does... Thank you.
11-20-2006, 06:55 AM #15
Rider1
Originally Posted by Germancar1
I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.
Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.
For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.
M
I agree with you totally
Rider1
11-20-2006, 07:09 AM #16
crjag
Posts: 27 As I was the one to use the "extremely disappointing" phrase, I thought I might comment. Given that the whole idea of spending $90k for a 5,000+ lb. gas hog that is top heavy is already ridiculous, it is the small things that give some modicum of rationale for this kind of purchase, and at this price, one expects that the advertised capabilities of the vehicle should be a reality. What else other than purely subjective reasons is there to purchase this vehicle versus the Cayenne, for example? What is the justification for the price of the AMG model versus the ML 500? The body and general set-up of the interior is the same, so if the suspension, wheels, transmission and engine are worth $30k, they should deliver what is promised. Perhaps they will, but my current vehicle, CTT, pretty well tested to what was stated. Porsche claims 0-60 in 5.2, and Autoweek - which I feel is generally close to real world - achieved 5.16, so I'll wait to see if they conduct a test if the ML63.
I have not received my ML63 yet - should be here soon - so my disappointment is certainly not with the vehicle, but with MB, at least at this point, but I hope to be proven wrong.
11-20-2006, 07:54 AM #17
A-Train
Originally Posted by crjag
What else other than purely subjective reasons is there to purchase this vehicle versus the Cayenne, for example?... They should deliver what is promised.
I agree that a manufacturer's numbers should be understated rather than overstated; is a much better way to manage people's (especially buyers') expectations, let alone their reaction to actual performance tests once the car is out. I do not know if Mercedes published estimates on 1/4 mile or 0-1000 meter performance.
Regardless, I agree that there is no big deal between .2 to .3 seconds for 0-60 in the sense that such a difference can easily be attributed to track conditions, car-to-car production tolerances, etc. It's cool to be able to say a car does 0-60 in 4.X seconds versus 5.X seconds but not a huge deal, especially when it comes to it being an SUV. I would be a bit bothered if there was a .4 seconds or greater difference in mnfr's 1/4 mi estimates versus actual road tests because for that type of run, the track differences, car tolerances, etc., should get essentially negated. I'd then simply wonder (even if unfounded) if the car was making as much power as claimed, and then I'd begin look at in-gear performance claims and wonder how those stack up (e.g., 30-50 mph in 3rd gear, etc.). Many believe that in-gear performance is a much better look at real-world performance, so perhaps it should get a closer look from the get-go. But 0-60, 1/4 mi, top speed, etc. are much more interesting for most people, for mass market magazines, and for general mainstream discussion purposes.
As to the question above on why buy an ML63 rather than a Cayenne TT/TTS, other than for subjective reasons, here's a few reasons some might have:
- based on the online forums, it seemed like the Cayenne's had a bunch of problems for MY03-04, though most seemingly corrected for MY05-06. This included issues with the P-car's remote control fob not working or having literally a 2-3 foot range, trunk rattles, navigation / screen freezes, extreme turbo lag, lazy / delayed upshifts, etc.
- a refreshed exterior and interior on the upcoming '08 Cayenne due out Spring '07 (there is no MY07 for Cayennes) with a standard power bump from 450 bhp to a rumored 500.
And I'd imagine there are plenty of non-subjective reasons for someone to buy a P-Car rather than an ML. As for the list of subjective reasons to do MB or P, that's a huge, fun, unwinnable discussion in and of itself. Glad for all of us that both manufacturers are in the sport/lux SUV game...
11-20-2006, 11:38 AM #18
Ted Baldwin
Regardless, I agree that there is no big deal between .2 to .3 seconds for 0-60 in the sense that such a difference can easily be attributed to track conditions, car-to-car production tolerances, etc. It's cool to be able to say a car does 0-60 in 4.X seconds versus 5.X seconds but not a huge deal, especially when it comes to it being an SUV. I would be a bit bothered if there was a .4 seconds or greater difference in mnfr's 1/4 mi estimates versus actual road tests because for that type of run, the track differences, car tolerances, etc., should get essentially negated. I'd then simply wonder (even if unfounded) if the car was making as much power as claimed, and then I'd begin look at in-gear performance claims and wonder how those stack up (e.g., 30-50 mph in 3rd gear, etc.). Many believe that in-gear performance is a much better look at real-world performance, so perhaps it should get a closer look from the get-go. But 0-60, 1/4 mi, top speed, etc. are much more interesting for most people, for mass market magazines, and for general mainstream discussion purposes.
As to the question above on why buy an ML63 rather than a Cayenne TT/TTS, other than for subjective reasons, here's a few reasons some might have:
- based on the online forums, it seemed like the Cayenne's had a bunch of problems for MY03-04, though most seemingly corrected for MY05-06. This included issues with the P-car's remote control fob not working or having literally a 2-3 foot range, trunk rattles, navigation / screen freezes, extreme turbo lag, lazy / delayed upshifts, etc.
- a refreshed exterior and interior on the upcoming '08 Cayenne due out Spring '07 (there is no MY07 for Cayennes) with a standard power bump from 450 bhp to a rumored 500.
And I'd imagine there are plenty of non-subjective reasons for someone to buy a P-Car rather than an ML. As for the list of subjective reasons to do MB or P, that's a huge, fun, unwinnable discussion in and of itself. Glad for all of us that both manufacturers are in the sport/lux SUV game...
..............I agree that .2secs from manufacturer's estimate is not a big deal. The problem is that many were hoping that the manufacturer's estimate was actually conservative and that the car was actuallly faster than MB says it is, especially since no easy mods exist at the moment. This why I believe there is all the commotion. For instance, the G55 was rated at 0-60mph of 5.5 secs by MB and motor Trend tested it at 4.7secs. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew_specs.html
If you were expecting that kind of result, then Motor week results will be disappointing. Like I said, the trapspeed is pretty high at 108mph, so the car is capable of going faster than the Motor Week results. How much faster is not clear, but 0-60 of 4.3 secs seems unlikely except if the Motor week driver was a qudraplegic.
Ted
11-20-2006, 12:50 PM #19
nantucketsleigh
Posts: 64 MotorWeek may have gotten a slow car. At the end of the day if test results average under 5 sec O-60 and low 13's for the quarter MB will have no problem. If the Motorweek numbers turn out to be about average, a lot of people will likely resist paying up for the ML63 and wait for the ML550.
11-20-2006, 12:55 PM #20
amgme
Posts: 591 were you guys expecting that the ml63 would get 0-60 in 4.3 sec? a recent test of the e63 did this time and you expect a suv that weighs a LOT more to do similar times?
11-20-2006, 01:20 PM #21
A-Train
Posts: 113 Given all the specs, I expected 5.3 to 60 mph and 13.2 in the quarter at 108-110 mph.
11-20-2006, 07:02 PM #22
TT C6
Posts: 15 Atco,NJ and Englishtown, NJ both have tracks that are still open.
As a matter of fact,
the best possible timeslips will be produced with the present condidtions.
Some ML63's need to get down there and properly represent the AMG crowd.
I am DYING to know what the ML63 will run with a good driver and a well prepared track.
SOMEONE PLEASE RUN YOUR ML63 AND POST YOUR TIMESLIPS AND VIDEO FOR THE REST OF US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Thanks in advance.
11-20-2006, 11:20 PM #23
Germancar1
I have not received my ML63 yet - should be here soon - so my disappointment is certainly not with the vehicle, but with MB, at least at this point, but I hope to be proven wrong.
You're making way too much out of nothing. A few tenths of a second isn't going to matter in a vehicle this fast until you start racing other vehicles like it. Also to go by one roadtest is really, really overdoing it, especially Motorweek. This is nitpicking to death. See what Road and Track, Car and Driver and others come up with before being so disapointed with MB. Motorweek isn't the one to base all this on. No one here has a butt that sensitive to be able to discern .2 secs difference!
M
11-20-2006, 11:28 PM #24
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
..............I agree that .2secs from manufacturer's estimate is not a big deal. The problem is that many were hoping that the manufacturer's estimate was actually conservative and that the car was actuallly faster than MB says it is, especially since no easy mods exist at the moment. This why I believe there is all the commotion. For instance, the G55 was rated at 0-60mph of 5.5 secs by MB and motor Trend tested it at 4.7secs. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew_specs.html
If you were expecting that kind of result, then Motor week results will be disappointing. Like I said, the trapspeed is pretty high at 108mph, so the car is capable of going faster than the Motor Week results. How much faster is not clear, but 0-60 of 4.3 secs seems unlikely except if the Motor week driver was a qudraplegic.
Ted
If that is the case, then people should wait until a real magazine test the ML63 then. Motorweek loves everything they test and they're really a decent show, but they aren't Car and Driver or MT or Road and Track when it comes to their drivers/tests etc. Besides I think the days of MB giving conservative numbers are pretty much over when you start seeing 4.3 secs for a car like the E63. Car and Driver got the CLS63 to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds....! That is astounding when you think about it, but I think it is just plain impractical to expect this type of peformance (i.e. beating the factory times) each and every time.
At best, once all the major mags have tested the ML63, you'll be able to see what the avg 0-60 time is, they can't all be the same anyway. Road and Track and Motor Trend test cars in Cali, but C&D tests most of their in Michigan, most of the time.
M
11-21-2006, 06:53 AM #25
nantucketsleigh
If the 0.5 sec 0-60 difference and the fraction of a second difference in ET between the E63 and the E550 holds up in the eventual ML63 vs E550 comparison (when the latter gets the new engine) it will be hard to justify the price premium of the 63. No doubt the ML 63 is a great SUV but there are just too many $30-40,000 everyday cars capable of low to mid 5 second 0-60 times for the ML63 acceleration to be special. I was close to pulling the trigger on a ML 63 but now I'll wait for comprehensive tests of the ML 63, the X5 4.8 and the ML 550 when the new engine is available before I decide.
nantucketsle
11-21-2006, 09:45 AM #26
Ted Baldwin
.............to be fair, I don't think the difference in acceleration between the E550 and E63 are insignificant. 0.5 sec difference in 0-60mph acceleration is huge in the performance world. At the atlanta meet, the E63 ran a 12.6 in the 1/4 mile. As far as I know, the E550 is a mid 13sec car. This a full one sec difference in 1/4 mile times. This means that these cars are not in the same league. It is the same difference between a stock W210 E55 and a stock W211 E55.
...........I understand the idea behind saving $40K and buying an ML550, but a car that out accelerates the other by a full sec in the 1/4 mile is worth the extra $40K.
Ted
Ted Baldwin
11-21-2006, 11:43 AM #27
nantucketsleigh
Posts: 64 I think .5 sec 0-60 difference is significant. The difference between the 2003 E55 and E500 was huge. The performance gap between the AMG and the mundane MB lineup has narrowed substantially the price gap has not.
11-21-2006, 01:09 PM #28
Black&Tan-AMG
Posts: 63 Actually the price gap is not that great between the ML500 (soon to be ML550) and the ML63. The ML500 on the build your own website is $75,368 with all the options, AMG sport package, 20’ wheels etc... and that is without the leather dash or soft leather seats (N/A on the ML500 and one of my favorite things about the car). If it were an option I would have to guess between $2,500 - $4,000. (it was $3500 on my Boxster)
That makes the difference less that $10,000 apples to apples. I thought about waiting for July to get a ML550 all decked out but the AMG was a better deal.
Black&Tan-AMG
11-21-2006, 03:21 PM #29
ClayJ
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,028 NHSI 'safest SUV' -- and it is damn quick...
I just don't see what the problem is.
It is a 5300 pound SUV - not a friggin Porsche sportscar!
11-21-2006, 03:57 PM #30
Carl Lassiter
I just don't see what the problem is.
It is a 5300 pound SUV - not a friggin Porsche sportscar!
+1
Also, it's great to have a good looking 500bhp AMG with AWD.
11-21-2006, 10:10 PM #31
Germancar1
M
Germancar1
11-22-2006, 05:52 AM #32
Black&Tan-AMG
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 63 July 07
Black&Tan-AMG
11-22-2006, 05:56 PM #33
Spotty-Dog
Almost a Member!
Posts: 55 If all that matters to people is the 0 - 60 and quarter mile times, I suggest you buy a trashed Camaro or Mustang, drop a crate engine in it, put in a beefed-up transmission and rear end and save yourself $60,000.
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Spotty-dog
11-22-2006, 06:51 PM #34
Rider1
Almost a Member!
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Good call
11-22-2006, 08:32 PM #35
Black&Tan-AMG
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 63 + 1
11-22-2006, 11:22 PM #36
Germancar1
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Oh gawd yes. Mercedes is going for a more well rounded package with the "63" cars not impressing dragsters. I'd been waiting for someone else to see this!!!!
M
__________________
I am Merc1 elsewhere. Visit Germancarzone!
11-22-2006, 11:24 PM #37
Germancar1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black&Tan-AMG
July 07
11-23-2006, 04:25 AM #38
A-Train
However, an issue is when there is a big discrepancy between what people expect from a car and what they get -- people can simply feel shortchanged. While 0-60 mph is not a very reliable metric in terms of apples-to-apples comparisons among cars tested on different days / tracks (and too much can often depend on variables outside of the driver's and to some sense, the car's, control; e.g., track conditions, miles on the engine, tires, etc.), 1/4 mile is more reliable because by that distance, a lot of the 0-60 variables are generally mitigated, though the new variable of vehicle drag comes into play somewhat.
M
I'm not sure about the ML450 or the R and G. It is a very reliable source. If I told you I have to kill you. (sorry)
I understand (007).
M
11-27-2006, 10:27 AM #41
TT C6
This preoccupation with drag strip results is boring.
Doing 60-0 braking or driving in circle on the skidpad all day would be boring.
However the data that is collected from these tests gives a good picture of how a vehicle will behave when being driven daily or on a road course.
The 1/4 mile is a TEST to determine a vehicles performance.
To many of us, this is the MOST imortant test of a vehicle's performance;
followed closely by braking and handling.
So,
when I hear people say that 1/4 mile performance is "boring",
I feel like directing you to a snob or "waxer" discussion board.
I assumed that AMG guys are true performance "car guys" and they are focused on how well their cars accelerate, brake, and handle.
Yes, I am new here to this site. (thanks to the new ML 63)
But, true performance cars only care about how well their cars run,
they don't care about the
It is only a matter of time B4 MB decides to put a blower on this Baby...it will probably be in response to the next generation Cayenne T Bo....
So Say what you will, Mercedes , and Especially AMG will not go down without a fight.These are Marvelous Times we are living in....Have your cake and eat it TOO!
Remember when 0 -60 in 7 seconds was fast??
You are correct. My point was that there are some people who are "disappointed" with one road test and seem to be generally grief stricken that a nearly 3 ton vehicle did a 0 - 60 time in just over 5 seconds. Motorweek is not what I would consider to be a true enthusiast program but a generalist program that is consistently conservative. As others observed, acceleration times can vary greatly because of temperature, ashphalt conditions, wind etc. and in no way do I consider this to be a representative test.
And yes, I consider myself a "car guy" having owned my CLK55 since new and picking up my ML63 on Wednesday. If that makes me a snob, then so be it.
By the way, welcome to the board
Originally Posted by Spotty-Dog
Thanks for the welcome.
Sounds like you have a nice "stable" of toys over there.
Owning 2 great vehicles would definitely not make you a snob.
I agree that 0-60 times are not the best tool for measuring performance.
The 1/4 mile is a much better test.
I also agree that Motor Trend should post some good test numbers;
as should Car and Driver as well.
Usually fellow "car guys" on internet forums end up documenting the best times and I GREATLY look forward to owners posting their timeslips and videos.
"Ranger" from the Corvetteforum has gone 10.8x at 129.x in his 100% showroom stock 2006 ZO6.
He outperformed the magazines significantly and I expect a ML63 owner to do the same.
I agree with many that the SRT-8 is a great performer for the money.
Jeep and Chrysler need to seriously address their interiors.
But when money is not a issue,
the ML63 is where it is at.
12-31-2006, 10:54 PM
#46
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that if I was me in my corvette (2001 C5), one half to one car back, of a 5000+ lb SUV (Tahoe, Hummer, ML 63) hellbent on beating me to a merge I would just backoff and let the SUV win. In a vette you are down low and feel pretty vulnerable when you are playing with something twice your mass that looks like it could drive right over top of you. I would be afraid that the SUV driver believed that they owned the road. He may not even know what an ML 63 is. Probably thought you were a menstruating soccer mom.
Now, on a two lane roadway where he was taunting me - I would let the SUV have it.
Now, on a two lane roadway where he was taunting me - I would let the SUV have it.
01-01-2007, 12:16 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Quick question for you, Doctor D:
Have you ever seen an ML63 actually tested in a standing-start km in 23 seconds flat?
Because, frankly, with 500 horsepower and weighing in at 5,000 pounds, well, that's a 10 pound per horsepower burden for the motor, which means it is a low-to-mid 13 second 1/4 mile car, which is exactly what we see in the road test data, including this test from Edmunds.com:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/merc...ticleId=118931
0-60: 4.7
1/4: 13.3 @ 105.6
Now, this is about 7 to 10 mph off of the C6s I've seen tested, a pretty big margin. If Car A is pulling 7 to 10 mph faster than Car B at the end of a distance, it's kind of a stretch to project that Car B is going to be ahead, pulling away. Because, of course, it won't be.
The fact is that without exception, all of the publications cited in this thread have tested the C6 at a substantially higher 1/4 mile trap speed than the ML. If as you maintain the two accelerate at the same rate, it is flat-out impossible for the scientifically conducted tests from all of these publications to point in the opposite direction. If the ML were accelerating at an equal or faster rate, its trap would be measured at an equal or faster speed.
A well-driven C6 will win in a straightline race.
Having said all of that, the race, as described, is entirely possible. As described was:
1) vehicles round corner.
2) vette starts accelerating, certainly not at full throttle, to hit merge first. 'vette owner is probably exhibiting a tad bit of hubris here, thinking he doesn't need full throttle here, not knowing what he's up against.
3) ML owner jumps to full throttle. since 'vette owner is not at full throttle, ML blasts by.
4) C6 owner is shocked to find that this SUV has some serious grunt, then has to react, then has to take action: either by flooring it, with accompanying pause for downshift (if car is auto), or downshifting it and flooring it (if manual). Combined, this would chew up at least good second or so. Meanwhile, the ML is pulling away, hard.
5) C6 gets in gear and hits full throttle. Too late. With a huge head start, he can't close in that distance, would probably need closer to a full half mile to close distance lost by ML's head start.
And this assumes the C6 driver did everything perfectly once he got on it. If not, this would hurt him even more.
Perfectly plausible.
Because, frankly, with 500 horsepower and weighing in at 5,000 pounds, well, that's a 10 pound per horsepower burden for the motor, which means it is a low-to-mid 13 second 1/4 mile car, which is exactly what we see in the road test data, including this test from Edmunds.com:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/merc...ticleId=118931
0-60: 4.7
1/4: 13.3 @ 105.6
Now, this is about 7 to 10 mph off of the C6s I've seen tested, a pretty big margin. If Car A is pulling 7 to 10 mph faster than Car B at the end of a distance, it's kind of a stretch to project that Car B is going to be ahead, pulling away. Because, of course, it won't be.
The fact is that without exception, all of the publications cited in this thread have tested the C6 at a substantially higher 1/4 mile trap speed than the ML. If as you maintain the two accelerate at the same rate, it is flat-out impossible for the scientifically conducted tests from all of these publications to point in the opposite direction. If the ML were accelerating at an equal or faster rate, its trap would be measured at an equal or faster speed.
A well-driven C6 will win in a straightline race.
Having said all of that, the race, as described, is entirely possible. As described was:
1) vehicles round corner.
2) vette starts accelerating, certainly not at full throttle, to hit merge first. 'vette owner is probably exhibiting a tad bit of hubris here, thinking he doesn't need full throttle here, not knowing what he's up against.
3) ML owner jumps to full throttle. since 'vette owner is not at full throttle, ML blasts by.
4) C6 owner is shocked to find that this SUV has some serious grunt, then has to react, then has to take action: either by flooring it, with accompanying pause for downshift (if car is auto), or downshifting it and flooring it (if manual). Combined, this would chew up at least good second or so. Meanwhile, the ML is pulling away, hard.
5) C6 gets in gear and hits full throttle. Too late. With a huge head start, he can't close in that distance, would probably need closer to a full half mile to close distance lost by ML's head start.
And this assumes the C6 driver did everything perfectly once he got on it. If not, this would hurt him even more.
Perfectly plausible.
Last edited by Improviz; 01-01-2007 at 02:06 PM.
01-01-2007, 04:45 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Excellent post Impro! I still find it odd how the described race goes into detail though about pulling said C6 at 90-100....The C6 would have had to cuaght up at 90 then somehow chocked?
