I've looked but couldn't find any comparisons between the S65 and the S63. Is one sportier than the other? Is there a big difference in performance? Why did you choose one over the other?

 

Ah man its hard to say... I'd take any of them but as performance these beauties run in the mid 4s and I believe the S65 is faster by .3 of sec. but if money is not an issue I'd go for the S65, we are talking 738lbs of torque man !!!!

S63 6.3LV8 DOHC 518HP
S65 6.0LV12 Twin Turbo SOHC 604HP

 

s65 is said to have better interior materials, plus it has 4 more cylinders and two more turbos than the s63. thats enough for me right there

 

The S63 handles a bit better because it's less nose-heavy. The immense torque of the S65 provides an effortless driving experience that has to be experienced to be appreciated.

At 2,500 RPM the S63 engine can produce 190 HP; at 2,500 the S65 can produce 360 HP. That's more significant than the extra peak horsepower in terms of driving difference. The S63, with its 2 extra gears, can be kept in its power band with a bit of shifting; the S65 is always in its power band.

 

Real debate over driving dynamics is btwn CL63 w/030 (lighter wheels, perhaps better tires vs non-030) and '08 CL65...

AMG openly admits CL is (logically) more calibrated/programmed for sporty driving than S....

S63 and S65 are limos....suspect majority of <1yo S63 and S65 actually are used as limos for driving at <<60MPH on surface streets of Manhattan/BevHills/Greenwich....and, even in often-illiterate LA, the bimbos seem to know 65s cost $50K more ....and even one w/a crude sense of interior materials realizes 65 has elegant leather but 63 has ugly plastic-look leather....and 65 has a codgerly wood steering wheel meant to be used by a limo/elderly driver, whereas 63 has a proper sports steering wheel and paddleshifters....

To me, it's clear 65 has much-appreciated tq for use in mid-range accel on dense high-speed fwys (like SF Peninsula's 280)...but don't yet know what trade-offs will be in traction on dry, uneven/wet pavement or how different steering precision of 65 will feel vs 63 (CL63's steering is absolutely brilliant....precise yet superbly damped for bumpy US roads).....

Am trading in CL63 for CL65 in Oct, so will be able to do own comparos....likely will be two brilliantly engineered cars in any case, w/subtle trade-offs...suspect one will prefer 65 for smooth, dry stretches of fwys like 280, but want 63 for drives in mtn twisties....and 65's interior will crush 63's, unless this 65 quilt pattern is particularly tacky-appearing in real-life....

 

CLs are certainly great cars, but I think you exagerate the difference between them and S-class sedans. A CL63 is actually heavier than a short-wheelbase S63 (which of course we can't get in the States), and only 30 kg lighter than our long-wheelbase S63. It's weight and the laws of physics that determine the handling ceiling for these cars. The chassis are tuned pretty close and the steering and suspension characteristics are not the night-and-day you imply.

If S65s are used as limos, that's a shame. I know of at least one that's driven very hard and with great joy. The ability to occasionally carry five adults comfortably happens to be a requirement for me, and I don't find the compromise too onerous. Frankly, if I didn't need the usable rear seat, I'd probably consider a 997 Turbo. Now that would be night-and-day.

 

This is very true in the "63", particularly in the "C" mode where it is really noticable. The "S" mode is better with the higher shift points and what appears to be the transmission always operating in one gear lower than where the "C" setting would be. The "M" addresses the lack of low speed torquiness but I don't think I want to be a manual shifter all day. Obviously, as you mention, working the paddles keeps the rpms sufficiently high to utilize the power band curve, but you do need the manual input.

 

Diffces among these great cars are subtle...but important to car nuts...

Have to drive S63 vs CL63 back-to-back; I haven't yet. Have driven '07 S65. Wt per se may be less important than wheelbase, wt distribution (esp wt over nose), ctr of gravity, calibration of ABC/brake pedal feel/steering/ESP, traction, etc....after all, the brilliant 599 even weighs 4000lbs....and it has primitive, presumably lighter-wt, safety structures/systems/seat structures, etc etc, not to mention a dubious fuel tank position that optimizes wt distribution, but may be a safety tradeoff....

Really need to drive any of these cars over varying conditions to determine many of strengths/weaknesses car mags can't figure out/choose not to comment re: to avoid angering advertisers .....e.g., had 997TT last Fall....its turbo lag was rather annoying/inept in 280 fwy driving (less impressive real-world tq than CL63); its chassis damping vs bumpy CA fwys leads to notably less high-speed stability (at even <100MPH) than CL63 or S65 have; 997TT has cross-wind stability issues that CL63 does not have (SF Peninsula is a fairly windy place); though '07 S65 has rather weak traction (even vs '06 S65 ), 997TT is plagued w/its own issues in wet road driving....its otherwise brilliant PCCB brakes seem to become waterlogged (and markedly less effective upon initial application ) if not periodically tapped during fwy cruising in-rain (also noticed this phenom on 996TTS w/PCCB I had in past)....perhaps MB's auto brake-drying feature is a notable real-world safety advance over PCCB....

Again, each of these cars is a remarkable achievement of daily-useable engineering dynamics....but it's fun to hyperanalyze dynamic strengths/weaknesses, as we await some new, latest/greatest-tech car to evaluate/enjoy....just need to be cautious interpreting data/impressions gained on a smooth, dry track/stretch of derestricted autobahn vs variables one encounters on even better fwys/mtn twisties, even in a place w/perf car-friendly weather like CA....

 

This repeats some of the stuff said above

Engine character noise, delivery etc is a big difference as well as the power

I had an W220 S55 and S65, test drove briefly an W221 S65 and bought a W221 S63.

Here is some bad clips of the S55 and S65 but it shows the noise differences

S55 V8 noise

http://www.geocities.com/mrjumjum/0-100mphBadLaunch.wmv

S65 V12noise

http://www.geocities.com/mrjumjum/S65damp0-125mph1.wmv

S65 outside idle http://www.geocities.com/mrjumjum/S65idleMovie_0001.wmv

Appalingly bad S63 initial acceleration testing (bad conditions , traction on, in standard mode auto) couldn't get traction too wet, very poor need to break it in, find some dry weather and practise launch technique.

http://us.share.geocities.com/mrjumj...cture_0001.wmv

As said these are bad clips but basically as said V8's make a better noise, the V12 has blinding power (literally as the blood gets forced back from your eyes under hard acceleration), it does sound good bit like a power boat, sounds v good at idle and on the over run but the V8's are different league , quiet when tootling but more NASCAR when pushing on.

The S55 went 0-100mph in about 10 seconds 0-150mph in 24 seconds
The S65 went 0-100mph in 8.7 seconds 0-150mph in just over 19 seconds

BUT it was much easier to get the S55 to do consistant runs around the 10 second mark, whereas the S65 was tricker and often 0-100 you would end up with nearly the same times as the S55.

On the track the broader rev range of the S55 V8 and its power delivery made it slightly more fun for me, the S65 was also fun but it could be more of a handful and it was harder to modulate the power, these cars you can only turn the traction control DOWN not right off and this came into play a lot more with the S65 where you were trying to balance power delivery against traction and intervention from the traction control.

The handling was slightly different but this wasn't as noticable to me as how I had to approach getting the power down.

I'll get the S63 on track soon.

Aside from the money S65 is £150k speced in uk (although they drop to near half in about 9 months), you do have to be a bit careful esp in wet , you can kill yourself in an S55 or even an S63 if you try , but the S65 just makes it that bit easier, it is a heap of fun and can be driven easily like a ***** cat, but sometimes being inattentive or clumsy can get you way out of shape much easier than in the S55/S63, I also live in a place that is WET A LOT and this makes a big difference .

Down sides of S65
1. You ***** yourself letting others drive it, I always have had to say "Don't kickdown unless the car is pointing straight up a straight bit of road and you are sure all 4 wheels are pointing the same way" "Two hands on the wheel , no really"
2. On longer trips having to drive it in manual mode on wet winding roads to avoid unwanted kick downs, you might only be going a reasonable speed , but even still a little inattention can make the trip a bit too exciting.
3. My father managing a 180 spin from a standing start turning right out of Mercedes Benz Manchester, old bugger never listens and pressed the accelerator like he was driving his old diesel merc.
4. Slithering about off the mark on a damp road behind some Subaru STI, the battles not with him really its between , 800ft odd of torque , 275 tyres and the damp road , over keen traction control power reduction, your skill with your right foot to try and find a compromise and a bit of wheel work to keep the old girl straight, then when the chaps looking smug at about 60-70 thinking he's just owning you everything hooks up and you just about rear end him as he finds out about some real acceleration.

 

Simply AWESOME post!!!

 

I agree there have been some very interesting and useful posts. Mmmm brings into focus why my experience with traction in the W220 S65 is at odds to some reports. I find it fairly easy to keep the rubber on the road, with only a tad of feathering the throttle in first. Once connected I can, and often do, floor it. The freeway onramp 0-85 never gets old.

But the road is wet here 69 days a year on average (and only for part of many of those), and I drive like a granny when the road is wet. In the dry (with fresh rear tires every 10K miles ), I'm quite satisfied. I haven't driven an W221 S65, but I do hear many reports that traction has degraded. What's up with that?

I drove a 215 CL65 and it felt pretty much the same as the W220. Not having driven a W221 S65 or, or course, a 216 CL65 I have no basis to compare them.

I live on a mountain road and there's one turn that will trigger the ESP. It's decreasing-radius and the camber is all wrong, and it's my daily reminder than this car needs a limited-slip differential. But for wet roads, how about an S65 4Matic?

 

I agree. That last paragraph had me in the car with him!

 

interesting comments, but one inaccuracy has to do with the difference in interior quality of the 63 and the 65. there is NO difference.

 

Sorry, there is a huge difference. The S63 interior is based on the S550; the S65 on the S600. The premium leather, throughout, is a much better quality. There is more of it. There is more wood. There are better accents. Four-zone climate control is standard. The list goes on.

 

I would go with the S65 hands down...

V12 with twin turbos.... How can you go wrong?

 

i can only speak from my cars, and there is NO difference.

 

I agree....

 

OK, does your S65 not have the 4-zone climate control or does your S63 have it? And does your S65 not have a leather dash or does your S63 have the leather? If the latter, you got lucky because that's not the way most of them come, nor the way they're advertised. Just check the specs on www.mbusa.com.

 

I agree with you that there certainly is a difference in the interior between the two.

 

I definitely prefer the S65, but something to think about - S63 + 030 Performance Package = 186 M.P.H. Nice

 

S65 + removed limiter = Nicer.

 

Agree. But, do they have Illuminated Door Sills? Bet you thought I forgot about them, huh?

 

IDS deletion them is an option, iirc. You'll love the W221.

 

I just notice your Sig Can Drive....love it

 

Ok you are clearly a CL fan over the S. good for you. but do you really consider your CL to be a sports car just because it is SPORTIER than the S ? Since you feel the need to down the S63 and S65 (since my S63 is on its way) I feel the need to enlighten you, that your CL may be sportier but not a sports car at all. Its just a smaller version of the S.