whoover

The announcement that the CL63 is normally aspirated presumably means the S63 will have this same engine. While it is quoted as 9 more HP than the E63 tune, it has the identical torque rating. This is 630 Nm, compared with the 720 Nm of the latest SL55.

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Sep06/1...otor_Show.html

The E55 crowd is fairly mutinous at this point because of the major torque reduction of the E63, and the resulting impact on straight-line performance. This engine in the heavier S class will result in even more dissatisfaction for the torque addicted.

I love the W221, but this makes the S63 a difficult decision, particularly because it's only a matter of time before the twin turbo version fixes the problem.

Ted Baldwin

............WERD!!!!!!!!!

Ted

Germancar1

I doubt if the S55/CL55 crowd will complain nearly as much. There are few fewer of them and these aren't really as sporty as the E/CLS anyway.

M

whoover

Complaining isn't the issue -- not buying the car is. An S55 has a different blend of attributes than an E55, of course, but the owner is aware of that. Very few people will spend 100k+ on this car and not be performance enthusiasts. They also do their homework.

This sample of one will continue to drive an S55 until a replacement doesn't involve such a compromise.

absent

It looks more and more like 2001-2002 all over again.
My gut tells me the N/A 6.3 in S/CL is only for 1-2 years before they put in a mild turbocharger.(575hp)

02S430

i agree they just might need the bigger car for the space the back seats in both are a lil snug and the trunks might be smaller

Germancar1

Nah, sales won't be a problem at all. There are enough people out there who don't care about whether or not it will have more hp or torque in a few years, they just want a CL now. Nor does everyone care about the previous car and this car's relation to it. You have to remember that an internet mesage board doesn't = all buyers, only a small minority.

M

Ted Baldwin

............you are right. There are those that don't care about Hp and just want a CL now. For them there is the CL550.

Ted

WSH

May want to eval S65 in context of $0 down, 27 mo lease....MB Credit is offering decent terms, so one can enjoy 65's legenday tq and better interior finishes for likely not much more than 63 cost....and roll into new ?NA V12 upon lease expiration (or few mths prior if MB wants to help move you into greatest/latest tech car).....

Downside of 65 is tricky traction vs 55/63, esp on wet roads....one needs to be cautious w/even mid-range accel....annoying for a commuter car where one may be multi-tasking and not very traction-focused....

Not as big an issue for S, but more relevant for CL/SL is advantage of 63's some ?200+lb lighter motor than 65, esp over front wheels, in terms of steering feel/handling....and 63 exhaust note may be more interesting than 65's.....

absent

Are you talking '06 or '07 S65?
What payments for example?

WSH

'07 S/SL65 both have reasonable 27 mos leases from MB Credit.....$0 down, 7.5K mi/yr (makes little sense to "pre-pay" for addtl mis on most leases), inclg 8.5% CA sales tx: roughly $3500/mo, w/"flexible" terms for exit a few mths early, esp if rolling into another new MB....advantages of DCX using its balance sheet to move the otherwise fast-depreciating, hard-to-sell 65 w/a capital and CA sales tx-efficient $0 down lease....and my sense from major dealers in SF/Greenwich is that 95%+ of new 65s are leased.....

Given that both S/SL65 are unlikely to materially change in terms of technologies/aesthetics over next 2 yrs, would argue these terms are fairly cheap.....and allow one to roll into perhaps new NA AMG V12 upon expiration of this 65 lease.....

Always interesting to look at 2 yr lease terms of mfrs to find subtle discts that make MSRP and trade-in value comparisons less relevant, esp if one gets a car early in its product life cycle.....

SSM AMG

When I got my 55, I wanted to be sportier that the regular s class. I did care about the hp. I got the car because it was fast and could be made faster. Alot of people on this board think if you have a S55 you don't care if there is a drop in power. This is not true. I got this car because I wanted space. Also I belive the S is on par with the E and CLS in most cases.

WSH

Depends.....prior to '07 65s w/new-gen ABC/ESP software, etc, know of several sophisticated owners/capable drivers (incl one London pal who owns Enzo/599/430/997TT Tip, etc etc) who traded in their new 65s (and ate the $50Kish deprec hit) to go back to new 55s b/c they hated 65's lack of traction, esp in wet....

Recently got an '07 SL65 and find car's chassis balance/steering to be remarkably improved over '06's; unless 599 or CL63/65 proves otherwise, to-date, I enjoy driving my 65 more than any P/F/MB I've ever driven.....but, even in dry conds, can sense tail-wagging w/semi-aggressive use of throttle in mid-range accel.....for rainy CA winters, I have a 997TT Tip for ultimate high-perf traction in daily use....and will get CL63 in Spr/Summ07 and see if 63 is indeed more balanced than 65 (and whether 63's trac makes 997TT irrelevant for winter duty).....and if 63 proves weak, will simply get a CL65 in Fall07 when it's released.....

Nevin

I had a 2003 S55 that was turned back in when the lease ended in April. I put a deposit down on an S63 over a year ago with plans that it would replace the S55.

Seeing the weight increase and torque loss of the S63 compared to the S55, I got my deposit back two weeks ago.

I have owned five fine Mercedes automobiles, but they currently do not make a vehicle that works for me.