E430tuner

I was having a discussion with a freidn and he was telling me how he thinks it is stupid to special order an S63 being that they will most likely be sitting on the lots, just like the E63's are. His argument was the real enthusiast would go for the S65 and that the market for S63 just isnt there, esp if it is priced near the price of the S600. Some of what he did say made alot of sense, what does everyone else think?

LetsJet

Personally, I think the numbering is confusing. A 63 is a supercharged V8, correct? The 6 series have always been V12's. I guess they had to do it because they took the S550 number even though it's not AMG.

I think it should have stayed S500, S55, S600, S65.....

I'm not sure why anyone would choose a V8 over a V12 when they are about the same price.....

MercedesFTW

63 is a NA V8. The 600 has always been a V12. 6 series is Bimmer.

LetsJet

Let me restate the obvious.........

Anything w/ MB starting with a 6 (6 series) has been a v12. Only with these models have they started with v8s.

If they had an S63 in 2004 would you think it would be a V12 or V8?

Shinigami

You seem to be a little confused about MB's numbering of the engines...

First of all, they're not called "6 series". MB's have always been called "The S series" or "E series" etc. This is the first time I hear calling MB's a '6' series or anything to that tune...

The 63 also happens to be a homage to a previous engine and thus whilst being a 6.2 liter NA engine, it took the numbering of 63.

MB has some V12's which are fully NA as well, and they're not necessarily 6 liters in size. The 600 for example is a V12 but it's 5.5 liters and like the 65, has turbos.

AMG just tends to 'increase' their number versus MB's engines to keep them unique and wanted.

If they called the 65 engine the 60, there would be people looking at the 600 and the 60, and thinking that the 600 lost a number.

MB's numbering has often little to do with engine displacement or the number of cylinders.

The current SL had a 350 sold in Europe with a 3.7 liter engine, and the current SLK has a 3 liter engine called the 280 and a 1.8 liter engine called the 200.

The V8 63 engine is a very nice engine. It's a big change from the 5.5's (even if they're supercharged). Very smooth power distribution, happy high revving (appreciated by some people) and very light compared to a 55 with an SC. It has a little more power then a 55 with an SC, a little less torque, but overall, the revvy nature and lighter weight coupled with the new 7G gearbox means that most 63 variations of MB's current cars tend to perform better then their 55 sc variants.

Now tho', MB's beginning to make cars with numbering schemes like the 550 in america, whilst it's still called the 500 over in europe, probably to remind people of a certain type of car, i.e. a non AMG.

axl

personally, i have never driven a 63 or a 65 neither a 600, only the w221 550 and i know the e55(k)

i think amg should have optimized the 55k and out it into the S and the facelift of the E. Since supercharged engines can be tweaked more easier than a usual v8, which the 63 is.

the s550 is a pretty fast car for a "standard" v8 ...nearly 400hp is not bad for a limousine, which biggest target group is not supposed to be younger , the sporty car oriented,people

I would have loved to see the 55k in the w221...and no lie, i would love to have the 63, of course what a question, but id somehow prefer the 600 since the v12 fits the big S better imagewise. And according to this the s65 is plainly the so called icing on the cake

but i am no marketing pro nor an amg engineer

so i guess they should know what they are doing

whoover

Obvious perhaps, but wrong. The W100 limousine of the late '60s and early '70s was designated the "600." It introduced the legendary 6.3 liter V8 that was also used in the 300SEL 6.3. In fact, the new AMG V8 displaces 6.2 liters but is called the "6.3" in homage to the earlier V8. Yes, it takes a little bit of study beyond the nameplates to understand these cars but for most of us that's a good thing.

Shinigami

btw: I met Brabus on thursday at the Geneva car show. I asked them if they've got any engine tuning options for the 63 engine.

They said that they've just come out with the first two tune-up options.

A headers/exhaust option and ECU which brings engine power to 550hp.

Probably more is on the way...

mclarenm8d

I don't dispute the notion that one could wait and pick one off the lot instead of ordering one. But I don't think the S63 will be a flop ... at some point, I have to replace my CL55. I would be tempted to replace it with an S63 instead of a CL63.

However, all things considered, I'll probably replace my CL55 with a 2006 CL65 or S65. Price points on them is just too tempting.

WSH

$150K+ perf sedans/limos will always have poor resale value after first 6-12mos (at best) of tight supply in a few major mkts....can 2 yr lease any of S600/63/65 to lock-in one's deprec costs....

Not clear 65 will be perf guy's sedan (know few guys w/599 (and who prev owned 65s) who want S63, not S65, for family-hauling duty).....would compare traction of 63 vs 65; 250lb heavier motor over nose's effect on steering (and brakes); 63 may have more interesting exhaust note of a NA motor; more playful manual mode gearbox; and thicker-rimmed, all-leather steering wheel w/paddleshifters....and not sure how long MB will keep the old-tech, heavy biturbo, 3v/cyl 12s around, before replacing w/a new-tech, poss lighter, 4v/cyl NA 12.....

Need to drive 63 vs 65 to really see diffces for self on real-world urban fwys/mtn twisties....but doubt any true perf guys use these limos for twisties anyway (there are CL63s and 599s out there for more twisties enjoyment ).....S63/65 are just cooler-looking than a codgerly 600 when parked in front of one's favorite restaurant/kid's school/grocery store....

joemoney415

Being that I own a CLS 63, and my mom owns an SL 55k and 2007 S65 I think I can chime in on all three platforms. The 55k is raw power, very impressive from the low end with a 2nd gear that may be the best single gear drive of any vehicle. My CLS does not feel slow compared to the SL, it launches very hard and has the best of low end and top end. On the highway, from 50-100 I'm not positive but would take the 63 over the 55. My CLS 63 actually shocks me sometimes when I get it to shift from 7th to 4th and just Blast off. The S65 drives very different from both of the before mentioned vehicles. There is no half way with the TT V-12. If you want it to go, you need to hit it and stay on it, which is very difficult because it feels like the front end is about to lift off the ground. The 65 is not tame at all and is very much a drivers car. The more you work at it the more you will love it. All this being said, I dont think the S63 has much of a place in the fleet. Before taking the 63 I would definitely go for the S600. If they offered a 600 in the CLS I would have definitely gotten it over the V8. The S65 is at a different price point so it really shouldn't be discussed as an option. Saying the S63 will flop is like saying that the previous platform S55 would flop, which it surely didn't. The only problem I see with the 63 vs old 55k is that the 55k is very mod friendly whereas the 63 does not yet appear to be so. The AMG enthusiast will now probably lean towards the V-12 that is very tuneable, hence, the 600. Final thought, every weekend I see my mom I offer to trade her rides straight up, but I cant get her to bite. Although she loves the look of the CLS, NOTHING is an S-Class.

whoover

I agree with most of what you say, but don't agree with this part of your characterization. The unique thing about the V12 experience is the feeling of limitless reserve and telepathic responsiveness. You want it to go, you tap it. You want to scare the hell out of everyone, you hit it and stay on it.

This is the biggest reason that the 65 engine is not about to be obsoleted; at 3,000 RPM an S63 can produce 238 HP; at 3,000 RPM an S65 can produce 442 HP. The 65 engine produces max thrust (738 ft-lbs) by 2,000 RPM and passes 500 ft-lbs at 1,500. Turbo lag is minimal because of the twin-turbo configuration and because the ECU limits boost at low RPMs to keep the output at "only" 738 ft-lbs to save the tranny. (When chipped, you give up a bit of the tractability because the boost limit is removed.)

I also never feel the chassis is in over its head and I do my fair share of scaring the hell out of everyone. I wonder if the W221 S65 drives somewhat different than my W220?

joemoney415

I think I should clarify my position slightly. My previous car to the CLS 63 was an Audi RS4, also a high rpm N/A V8. One of my favorite things to do in that car was rev it up to 6k, let off it for maybe one or 1.5 sec, and then crack it again real hard. I have not done it to that extent in the 63 being that it is still very young. The N/A engine allows for more sudden "punches" of the throttle. When I just tried to goose the 65 a bit there wasnt a ton of response. When I give it say a two second throttling, the response is unparalled. I love the TT V12's, just pointing out the obvious, that it drives very different from the N/A V8. As for the differnce in platforms, I cannot say. Her old car was a 55k as it was an '04 and the 65 was not yet available.

srice

I currently drive a 2006 E55, and I have ordered the S63. The E55 is raw power and a blast to drive (probably too much fun ). Unfortunately, I often have to haul three other adults - meaning adults in the back seat. The back seat of the E is just too small to be comfortable, leading me to opt for the S class. After driving the E55, a standard S550 was out of the question. While it is a very nice car, 382 hp is not going to move the S class like 469 hp moves the E.

The price of an S65 is out of my range, leaving me to choose between the S600 (510 hp) and the S63 (525 hp). Between the two, I would describe the S600 as luxury with power, and the S63 as power with luxury (at least that is what I am betting, based on my order). Not to mention the maintenance costs on a NA V8 vs. a TT V12. Coming out of the E55, I am accustomed to the AMG suspension tuning, throttle response, seats, etc. That is why I have opted for the S63. I doubt I will be the only one who comes to this conclusion.

Eurosport

one thing people tend to forget is long term reliability, which obviously in N/A form will be better than twin turbo or supercharged.
how will S63 sales do? well i think they'll do just fine.

LetsJet

Congrats......

Post your impressions when you get it.

One question though... You list the HP rating btwn S63 and S600. Do you know the torque ratings?

Vadim @ FD

Very well said. Exactly my sentiments.

cantdriveonly55

Well, if it counts for anything, when I got to play around with an E63 at the dealer, it has one of the most hellacious factory exhaust notes of any sedan I've ever been in. Just sitting there in park and punching it is glorious. I love the "big block" V8 sound of my S55, but the 63 engine sounds beautiful. I've moved on to the point where the overall thrill of the car is more important than slowly how fast it'll do 60 or the quarter. My next car looks to be a Maserati Quattroporte or S63. The Maser is down over a hundred horsepower, but sounds even better than the 63 and handles otherworldly. The S63 promises to be something special, but I'll have to drive one before I make a decision. The Audi S8 had a lot of potential, but the chasis dynamics aren't sporting enough and the engine feels 'constrained' so to speak. The BMW M5 is similar to the concept of these cars, where high power makes it a blast to floor over the standard versions, but higher revvs and lower torque make it more docile when trying to cruise around town. The torque monster and violent 55 engines are a hoot, but I feel that the dynamics and handling are becoming a much bigger role in the average buyers' considerations. The S63 might not be a huge advancement speedwise, but handling/technology/refinement, it promises to be really cool. And have enough room to take another couple out to dinner or 3 businessmen along for the ride.

Shinigami

True, true. But let's not forget that the 63 will rev much higher then the 65, and ultimately, it depends on which one will be able to get to their redline quicker at a given gear.

I haven't driven a vehicle with a 65 engine yet, but say the 63 engine is able to get to redline on 2nd gear in 5 seconds, will this be the same in the 65? Will it get to redline in less then 5 seconds, or will it take more? Many things come into place, size of pistons, crankshaft, weight of bits and pieces...

Thus, when you say that at 3000rpm the 63 has only 238hp, it has only just gone past a third of its rpm range, whilst the 65 will have reached half way there. So maybe the 63 took 2 seconds to get to 3000rpm and the 65 took 3 seconds.

(I'm just throwing numbers around, but the revvy nature of the E63 I drove showed that it got to 7500rpm very, very quickly indeed. Very smooth distribution of power versus my SLK55's 6400rpm redline which tends to come in waves when it hits the sweet spot in the torque range).

Shinigami

btw: the 63 engine was designed by the same man who brought is the engine for the Porsche Carrera GT. And I think he delivered the goods

cantdriveonly55

Also, the new Automobile magazine has a three way comparo between the S63, Audi S8, and Maser Automatic. Haven't read through it yet, but they say the S63 is quite the brute with the engine. Wish we could have the Short Wheelbase S class!

whoover

The 65 will dust the 63 in a drag -- that's not really the point. The 63 will do a fine job of staying with it until they get to 60. It will do it by using lower gearing and a wonderful screaming engine with a lot higher redline than the 12.

My point is that at cruising speed the 65 can deliver lots more power, like now, while the S63 needs to get the revs up first. This was in response to the orginal comment that seemed to imply the V-12 needs to be floored to get it moving. It's not only the other way around, in my experience, but the main characteristic of the S65 experience. The 65 is much "faster-er" than the V8 than the numbers make it look. Yes, the 7-speed and selected ratios for the S63 give it a 0-60 time very close to the S65, but on the road you realize they're in different leagues. 30-40, 60-70, 80-130 -- there is no interval that's off this engine's peak. (Remember the torque curve looks like a mesa.)

Comparing the S63 and S65 doesn't really make sense. It's about price points. The harder question, and the one discussed here, is whether the S63 is a better car than the S600. I think that if it is for someone, it will be more about handling than "power." Of course looks and sound matter too, but if we limit the discussion to "performance," the AMG tuning of the chassis is probably the biggest plus compared with the S600. Vmax, interior, seats are all icing, but the V12 is pretty seductive for a performance driver too.

MBZFAN55

Vadim - As you've noticed there seems to be a running "discussion" about the merits of the CL and S - 600,63 & 65's. (The good news is that the 55vs63 W215vsW216 seems to be abating) Certainly "price point" is a factor, but so is the power/luxury vs luxury/power aspect, as mentioned above.

My question to you is, just how many cars are we actually talking about here ? For example in the CL (MBUSA) production, how many 550's, 600's, 63's and eventually 65's are we talking about ? Is it possible only 200 Cl63's are planned for the 2008 model run ? In the entire S-Class production, how many S63 and S65's would you expect to see produced ?

Vadim @ FD

I do not know the numbers that US suppose to get. Right now CL550/600 in good colors are almost impossible to get. S65/600 are in signle digits and do not last past a week.

My understanding is that the rest of the world demand is higher than expected, which resulted in reduction of number of car coming to US.

As far as S63, my guess around 200 in 2008 MY.

moneybagzs65amg

You are soooooooo stupid. You are trying to be smart but you are wrong!!!! Its not called a "S Series", its called and "S-Class" "C-Class" etc. you retard!