SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: new SL63 seems slow? tunning options?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Beverly Hills, CA
2003 E500, 2005 SL600
new SL63 seems slow? tunning options?
not sure if it's because i am not used to the SL63, but i just got rid of my SL600 (which had the RENNTECH upgrade) and despite the fact that the 600 didn't have much feedback on the road and worse handling compared to the 63, the 600 certainly felt alot faster off the line (which it even did without the RENNTECH upgrade). From talking to fellow SL63 owners, it seems like the power in this car is more distributed in the middle rather than at the beginning. I have driven it in all modes (sport, sport plus, and manual) - any thoughts on this?
I am considering a few tuning options (with a budget in the range of $3000-$4000) - here are the things that have been recommended:
1. ECU upgrade + new airfilters
2. ECU upgrade + new pulley system (with evosport) (although one person told me that the voltage in the 63 would not mesh well with the new pulley system - not sure what he meant by this?)
3. ECU upgrade + modifying the intake system
4. ECU upgrade + new headers
any thoughts on which one is best and the most effective within my budget?
I am considering a few tuning options (with a budget in the range of $3000-$4000) - here are the things that have been recommended:
1. ECU upgrade + new airfilters
2. ECU upgrade + new pulley system (with evosport) (although one person told me that the voltage in the 63 would not mesh well with the new pulley system - not sure what he meant by this?)
3. ECU upgrade + modifying the intake system
4. ECU upgrade + new headers
any thoughts on which one is best and the most effective within my budget?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
not sure if it's because i am not used to the SL63, but i just got rid of my SL600 (which had the RENNTECH upgrade) and despite the fact that the 600 didn't have much feedback on the road and worse handling compared to the 63, the 600 certainly felt alot faster off the line (which it even did without the RENNTECH upgrade). From talking to fellow SL63 owners, it seems like the power in this car is more distributed in the middle rather than at the beginning. I have driven it in all modes (sport, sport plus, and manual) - any thoughts on this?
I am considering a few tuning options (with a budget in the range of $3000-$4000) - here are the things that have been recommended:
1. ECU upgrade + new airfilters
2. ECU upgrade + new pulley system (with evosport) (although one person told me that the voltage in the 63 would not mesh well with the new pulley system - not sure what he meant by this?)
3. ECU upgrade + modifying the intake system
4. ECU upgrade + new headers
any thoughts on which one is best and the most effective within my budget?
I am considering a few tuning options (with a budget in the range of $3000-$4000) - here are the things that have been recommended:
1. ECU upgrade + new airfilters
2. ECU upgrade + new pulley system (with evosport) (although one person told me that the voltage in the 63 would not mesh well with the new pulley system - not sure what he meant by this?)
3. ECU upgrade + modifying the intake system
4. ECU upgrade + new headers
any thoughts on which one is best and the most effective within my budget?
Though if I were in your shoes modding a heavy sedan w/N/A engine is akin to chasing ones tail, seriously not worth your time/money. Just enjoy it for what it is, a super great looking/sounding GT, you'd be better served buying some really lightweight perf wheels no larger than 19" dia @ 19-20lbs each, it will free up about 20-25 rwhp & add better cornering/braking/acceleration
Freeing up rotational mass is far more beneficial than adding 20 rwhp ECU & maybe another 15 rwhp w/longtubes, I know tuners will claim a lot more but trust me I've modded plenty of N/A motors w/every mod available including pulleys/Longtubes/Xpipe/hi-flo cats/CAI/filters/ECU/TCU/cat-back/ect.. Only to be disappointed @ the Dyno, unless aftermarket gearing options were available for this model IE shorter final gear ratio, that'd be an insanely cool/worth while mod, the torque multiplication thru shorter gearing is w/out a doubt the best mod for an N/A car to gain off/line low-end speed...
Last edited by Thericker; Mar 31, 2009 at 12:43 AM.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Beverly Hills, CA
2003 E500, 2005 SL600
What your noticing is the SL63 stock 465 torque vs stock SL600 590+ torque (when dyno'd the stock SL600 routinely puts down 530-550 rwto = 646-670 Crank Torque bone stock) the 600 & 63 are seperated by some 200 ft lbs of torque, after moding ECU/TCU forget'aboutit
Though if I were in your shoes modding a heavy sedan w/N/A engine is akin to chasing ones tail, seriously not worth your time/money. Just enjoy it for what it is, a super great looking/sounding GT, you'd be better served buying some really lightweight perf wheels no larger than 19" dia @ 19-20lbs each, it will free up about 20-25 rwhp & add better cornering/braking/acceleration
Freeing up rotational mass is far more beneficial than adding 20 rwhp ECU & maybe another 15 rwhp w/longtubes, I know tuners will claim a lot more but trust me I've modded plenty of N/A motors w/every mod available including pulleys/Longtubes/Xpipe/hi-flo cats/CAI/filters/ECU/TCU/cat-back/ect.. Only to be disappointed @ the Dyno, unless aftermarket gearing options were available for this model IE shorter final gear ratio, that'd be an insanely cool/worth while mod, the torque multiplication thru shorter gearing is w/out a doubt the best mod for an N/A car to gain off/line low-end speed...
Though if I were in your shoes modding a heavy sedan w/N/A engine is akin to chasing ones tail, seriously not worth your time/money. Just enjoy it for what it is, a super great looking/sounding GT, you'd be better served buying some really lightweight perf wheels no larger than 19" dia @ 19-20lbs each, it will free up about 20-25 rwhp & add better cornering/braking/acceleration
Freeing up rotational mass is far more beneficial than adding 20 rwhp ECU & maybe another 15 rwhp w/longtubes, I know tuners will claim a lot more but trust me I've modded plenty of N/A motors w/every mod available including pulleys/Longtubes/Xpipe/hi-flo cats/CAI/filters/ECU/TCU/cat-back/ect.. Only to be disappointed @ the Dyno, unless aftermarket gearing options were available for this model IE shorter final gear ratio, that'd be an insanely cool/worth while mod, the torque multiplication thru shorter gearing is w/out a doubt the best mod for an N/A car to gain off/line low-end speed...
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
The nice thing with the 63 is you can floor it without lighting up the traction.
The trouble with turbo cars and supercharge cars to a lesser degree is they
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker. With it's
good handling and grip I am loving mine.
By the way DMS offer another 40bhp and throttle response mapping from the CLK Black Ed. I am sure someone can do that in the States.
The trouble with turbo cars and supercharge cars to a lesser degree is they
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker. With it's
good handling and grip I am loving mine.
By the way DMS offer another 40bhp and throttle response mapping from the CLK Black Ed. I am sure someone can do that in the States.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
The nice thing with the 63 is you can floor it without lighting up the traction.
The trouble with turbo cars and supercharge cars to a lesser degree is they
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker. With it's
good handling and grip I am loving mine.
By the way DMS offer another 40bhp and throttle response mapping from the CLK Black Ed. I am sure someone can do that in the States.
The trouble with turbo cars and supercharge cars to a lesser degree is they
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker. With it's
good handling and grip I am loving mine.
By the way DMS offer another 40bhp and throttle response mapping from the CLK Black Ed. I am sure someone can do that in the States.
The trouble with turbo cars and supercharge cars to a lesser degree is they
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker.
produce a rush of power at certain revs making them feel quicker.
Not only does it make them FEEL quicker, Extra Torque indeed makes them accelerate a ton faster....NO way NO how is any ECU/TCU map going to legitimately give the 63 N/A motor 40bhp period...Unless were talking about the neutered C63 version..
I guess in all my years of modding N/A & supercharged etc vehicles manufacturers CLAIMS = reality @ the dyno
You will see a max of 20-25bhp period on ECU/TCU for this app & that is being generous...
Last edited by Thericker; Apr 11, 2009 at 04:10 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
What your noticing is the SL63 stock 465 torque vs stock SL600 590+ torque (when dyno'd the stock SL600 routinely puts down 530-550 rwto = 646-670 Crank Torque bone stock) the 600 & 63 are seperated by some 200 ft lbs of torque, after moding ECU/TCU forget'aboutit
Though if I were in your shoes modding a heavy sedan w/N/A engine is akin to chasing ones tail, seriously not worth your time/money. Just enjoy it for what it is, a super great looking/sounding GT, you'd be better served buying some really lightweight perf wheels no larger than 19" dia @ 19-20lbs each, it will free up about 20-25 rwhp & add better cornering/braking/acceleration
Freeing up rotational mass is far more beneficial than adding 20 rwhp ECU & maybe another 15 rwhp w/longtubes, I know tuners will claim a lot more but trust me I've modded plenty of N/A motors w/every mod available including pulleys/Longtubes/Xpipe/hi-flo cats/CAI/filters/ECU/TCU/cat-back/ect.. Only to be disappointed @ the Dyno, unless aftermarket gearing options were available for this model IE shorter final gear ratio, that'd be an insanely cool/worth while mod, the torque multiplication thru shorter gearing is w/out a doubt the best mod for an N/A car to gain off/line low-end speed...
Though if I were in your shoes modding a heavy sedan w/N/A engine is akin to chasing ones tail, seriously not worth your time/money. Just enjoy it for what it is, a super great looking/sounding GT, you'd be better served buying some really lightweight perf wheels no larger than 19" dia @ 19-20lbs each, it will free up about 20-25 rwhp & add better cornering/braking/acceleration
Freeing up rotational mass is far more beneficial than adding 20 rwhp ECU & maybe another 15 rwhp w/longtubes, I know tuners will claim a lot more but trust me I've modded plenty of N/A motors w/every mod available including pulleys/Longtubes/Xpipe/hi-flo cats/CAI/filters/ECU/TCU/cat-back/ect.. Only to be disappointed @ the Dyno, unless aftermarket gearing options were available for this model IE shorter final gear ratio, that'd be an insanely cool/worth while mod, the torque multiplication thru shorter gearing is w/out a doubt the best mod for an N/A car to gain off/line low-end speed...
SL63 and my S600 have about the same BHP, the S600 has more torque
but they both reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds. Cars with turbo's and supercharges certainly feel quicker though.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 is, an SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it)
But even w/out drag rads, a Stock S600 from a roll-on 50-100+mph will most certainly pass your SL63 on frwy, you obviously have no idea what torque does...Besides make a car fell quick as you put it LoL!
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
Last edited by Thericker; Apr 11, 2009 at 08:59 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 3
From: South Carolina
2005 E55 ///AMG
1) 0-60mph is the worst measure of a cars perf, those in the know realize 1/4 Mile perf is true litmus test of cars ultimate acceleration capabilities 2)Your using fact stats which are skewed for marketing purposes 3) The S600 w220 weighs about 500lbs MORE than your SL63 thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 isan SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...
ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it
)
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 isan SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it
) Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
It was vkapoormd but Sound8 can not except reality...
I think I may put this quote in my Sig for laughs, I've never read/seen such an uninformed comment on Torque, Sound8 is literally shooting themselves in the foot w/this one..
but Sound8 can not except reality...I think I may put this quote in my Sig for laughs, I've never read/seen such an uninformed comment on Torque, Sound8 is literally shooting themselves in the foot w/this one..
Originally Posted by sound 8
No no, just because a car has more torque it does not make it faster, My
SL63 and my S600 have about the same BHP, the S600 has more torque
but they both reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds. Cars with turbo's and supercharges certainly feel quicker though.
No no, just because a car has more torque it does not make it faster, My
SL63 and my S600 have about the same BHP, the S600 has more torque
but they both reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds. Cars with turbo's and supercharges certainly feel quicker though.
Last edited by Thericker; Apr 11, 2009 at 09:24 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
Printed info on 0-60 and 0-100 times are very relevant, particularly
when printed by the Manufacturer. To know what your talking about you need
to read a great deal about BHP v Torque, Bhp increases with revs and torque
diminishes. An ideal combination would be to have both increase with revs.
All you guys talk about is my... would eat your....
I have a S600 so I know exactly how fast a SL600 would be, I also have a
SL63 and it's very comarable to the 600, winning in places and loosing in
others but pretty on par. F1 cars have around 800 bhp and 280 lb torque
and they are the quickest accelerating car in the world.
And please it's sound 8!!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
1) 0-60mph is the worst measure of a cars perf, those in the know realize 1/4 Mile perf is true litmus test of cars ultimate acceleration capabilities 2)Your using fact stats which are skewed for marketing purposes 3) The S600 w220 weighs about 500lbs MORE than your SL63 thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 is, an SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...
ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it)
But even w/out drag rads, a Stock S600 from a roll-on 50-100+mph will most certainly pass your SL63 on frwy, you obviously have no idea what torque does...Besides make a car fell quick as you put it LoL!
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 is, an SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it)
But even w/out drag rads, a Stock S600 from a roll-on 50-100+mph will most certainly pass your SL63 on frwy, you obviously have no idea what torque does...Besides make a car fell quick as you put it LoL!
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
besides the variation in times for a turbo car will vary much more,depending
on temperature,humidity and fuel. The nat as engine will vary much less.
Have you not noticed how much better your car goes on certain days,
TURBO! Nuff said.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
1) 0-60mph is the worst measure of a cars perf, those in the know realize 1/4 Mile perf is true litmus test of cars ultimate acceleration capabilities 2)Your using fact stats which are skewed for marketing purposes 3) The S600 w220 weighs about 500lbs MORE than your SL63 thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 is, an SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...
ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it)
But even w/out drag rads, a Stock S600 from a roll-on 50-100+mph will most certainly pass your SL63 on frwy, you obviously have no idea what torque does...Besides make a car fell quick as you put it LoL!
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
thanks for giving 1st hand exp on how slow your SL63 is, an SL600 will absolutely dominate your SL63 being they're about 100lbs apart...ps..4800+ lb S600 bone stock w/drag rad's is actually still faster than your SL63, Stephen from this board ran a 12.20-12.30 ET in 1/4 mile your SL63 has been tested by another board member Fantasm as well as handfull of mag's He got a 12.50 ET that's beating your SL63 by 2+ lengths in a model weighing 500+ lbs MORE than your SL63.. Car Mag's got 12.50-12.80 ET 1/4 in the SL63..
(you need Drag radials when you have 600+ FT LB's torque, funny how TORQUE works isn't it)
But even w/out drag rads, a Stock S600 from a roll-on 50-100+mph will most certainly pass your SL63 on frwy, you obviously have no idea what torque does...Besides make a car fell quick as you put it LoL!
Another member has gone into the high 11's BONE stock w/drag rad's down the 1/4 in SL600
Please stick to topics your actually informed on...
I live in a country with bends and roundabouts, so no need!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
I don't call 30ft in front after a quarter mile," absolutely dominating my SL63"
besides the variation in times for a turbo car will vary much more,depending
on temperature,humidity and fuel. The nat as engine will vary much less.
Have you not noticed how much better your car goes on certain days,
TURBO! Nuff said.
besides the variation in times for a turbo car will vary much more,depending
on temperature,humidity and fuel. The nat as engine will vary much less.
Have you not noticed how much better your car goes on certain days,
TURBO! Nuff said.
Your grasp of torque or motor racing is beyond pathetic, will leave it @ your last 2) brilliant posts
Originally Posted by sound 8
No no, just because a car has more torque it does not make it faster, My
SL63 and my S600 have about the same BHP, the S600 has more torque
but they both reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds. Cars with turbo's and supercharges certainly feel quicker though.
No no, just because a car has more torque it does not make it faster, My
SL63 and my S600 have about the same BHP, the S600 has more torque
but they both reach 60 in about 4.7 seconds. Cars with turbo's and supercharges certainly feel quicker though.
brilliant! Hope you blokes don't have any frwy/highways
By the way, I don't drive my car on a drag strip, or drive on drag radials, I live in a country with bends and roundabouts, so no need!
Last edited by Thericker; Apr 12, 2009 at 03:49 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
But you said you drive in a country with bends and roundabouts
The heavy 4800+lbs S600 will pull that 30ft @ 1/4 & continue to pull away w/all that meaningless torque by the time you reach the mile mark you'll be a spec...
The heavy 4800+lbs S600 will pull that 30ft @ 1/4 & continue to pull away w/all that meaningless torque by the time you reach the mile mark you'll be a spec
...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 20
From: Southern, CA.
V12-Biturbo
Miss Sound 8, I just found this Fantasm is opting to sell SL63 you already know why..
He actually raced his SL63 down the 1/4 & got the lower 12.50 ET (Best any Mag could do) & is humbly considering selling due to it's kind of slow.. Unlike your obviously superior racing experience..
I don't drive my car on a drag strip, or drive on drag radials, I live in a country with bends and roundabouts, so no need!
Heh owning a SL63 is not just about power, the looks,the handling all make
it a fantastic car. The only thing that has more real power is a SL65, I drove
one before buying my SL63 and it was boring. It was quiet smooth and
a bit stodgy, I preferred my CL65! There are some companies in the UK that will give you another 30bhp with better throttle response. I don't think there
is a stock AMG that is really better than the SL63, unless your thinking GTR.
What you need is to get a friend to drive your car and you follow looking
at it from different angles, you might change your mind!
it a fantastic car. The only thing that has more real power is a SL65, I drove
one before buying my SL63 and it was boring. It was quiet smooth and
a bit stodgy, I preferred my CL65! There are some companies in the UK that will give you another 30bhp with better throttle response. I don't think there
is a stock AMG that is really better than the SL63, unless your thinking GTR.
What you need is to get a friend to drive your car and you follow looking
at it from different angles, you might change your mind!
post here about UK tuner garnering 40bhp w/ECU/TCU out've ANY 63 platform
DMS offer another 40bhp and throttle response mapping from the CLK Black Ed. I am sure someone can do that in the States.
You're obviously lying about driving SL65..Ahhh so you're a woman, explains your VAST KNOWLEDGE on Torque/motor racing
Last edited by Thericker; Apr 12, 2009 at 05:19 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
He actually raced his SL63 down the 1/4 & got the lower 12.50 ET (Best any Mag could do) & is humbly considering selling due to it's kind of slow.. Unlike your obviously superior racing experience..
Love how you added 10bhp to yourpost here about UK tuner garnering 40bhp w/ECU/TCU out've ANY 63 platformplus your obviously ridiculous statement on SL65 being boring? stodgy?You're obviously lying about driving SL65..
Ahhh so you're a woman, explains your VAST KNOWLEDGE on Torque/motor racing
Love how you added 10bhp to your
post here about UK tuner garnering 40bhp w/ECU/TCU out've ANY 63 platformplus your obviously ridiculous statement on SL65 being boring? stodgy?You're obviously lying about driving SL65..Ahhh so you're a woman, explains your VAST KNOWLEDGE on Torque/motor racing
So I have been reading up.
A hi torque engine is desinged to start a heavy object ( like a truck) moving.
A hi torque engine pushes you back in the seat when accelerating, however
a high bhp lower torque engine develops max torque and bhp at high revs
when your hi torque(turbo) engine is dying. So you may get the jump on
a lower torque high bhp car but as revs rise you may find the lower torque
high bhp car has caught you and maybe passing you. I have seen this on vids
where you think a car is going to dust another only to find out it catches
and often passes the quickest car of the line.Confused, so was I reading about it, but at least I made the effort to find out.
Incidently of all the AMG's the SL is the most important, it's competitors are
from Porsche Ferrari Aston Martin who do not make saloons/sedans.
The competitors for other AMG cars are numerous,M5,M3,RS6,Ford ST,Vauxhall VXR ,the list goes on. The SL must have an AMG to compete.
If you want a complete explanation I am sure Tom TMCM5 will explain.
Last edited by sound 8; Apr 12, 2009 at 06:51 PM. Reason: addition
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Thanks for your poor response. Neither you or I know much about totque.
So I have been reading up.
A hi torque engine is desinged to start a heavy object ( like a truck) moving.
A hi torque engine pushes you back in the seat when accelerating, however
a high bhp lower torque engine develops max torque and bhp at high revs
when your hi torque(turbo) engine is dying. So you may get the jump on
a lower torque high bhp car but as revs rise you may find the lower torque
high bhp car has caught you and maybe passing you. I have seen this on vids
where you think a car is going to dust another only to find out it catches
and often passes the quickest car of the line.Confused, so was I reading about it, but at least I made the effort to find out.
Incidently of all the AMG's the SL is the most important, it's competitors are
from Porsche Ferrari Aston Martin who do not make saloons/sedans.
The competitors for other AMG cars are numerous,M5,M3,RS6,Ford ST,Vauxhall VXR ,the list goes on. The SL must have an AMG to compete.
If you want a complete explanation I am sure Tom TMCM5 will explain.
So I have been reading up.
A hi torque engine is desinged to start a heavy object ( like a truck) moving.
A hi torque engine pushes you back in the seat when accelerating, however
a high bhp lower torque engine develops max torque and bhp at high revs
when your hi torque(turbo) engine is dying. So you may get the jump on
a lower torque high bhp car but as revs rise you may find the lower torque
high bhp car has caught you and maybe passing you. I have seen this on vids
where you think a car is going to dust another only to find out it catches
and often passes the quickest car of the line.Confused, so was I reading about it, but at least I made the effort to find out.
Incidently of all the AMG's the SL is the most important, it's competitors are
from Porsche Ferrari Aston Martin who do not make saloons/sedans.
The competitors for other AMG cars are numerous,M5,M3,RS6,Ford ST,Vauxhall VXR ,the list goes on. The SL must have an AMG to compete.
If you want a complete explanation I am sure Tom TMCM5 will explain.
I think there are some misconceptions going on here. Just because the V12TT engines have higher low-end torque...doesn't mean they don't have high high-end torque.
Here is an example of what I mean as taken from (HP) and interpolated from (TQ figures) one of my stock dynos:
3,500 RPM: 430rwhp and 645rwtq
4,000 RPM: 487rwhp and 639rwtq
4,500 RPM: 494rwhp and 577rwtq
5,000 RPM: 510rwhp and 536rwtq
5,200 RPM: 499rwhp and 504rwtq
5,300 RPM: 488rwhp and 484rwtq
5,400 RPM: 448rwhp and 436rwtq
What you see is that even at 5,400 RPM, way past the 65's HP and TQ peaks, it is still making more HP than a higher reving engine like the V8 in the SL63. Even at that elevated RPM (at least for the V12TT), the 65 is making more torque (436rwtq) than the 63 engine is making anywhere in its RPM range.
Obviously the 65's weight is an issue. However, the SL63 tested by Car & Driver weighed in at a portly 4,468lbs. The SL65 weighs in at 4,555lbs and W215 CL65 weighs in at 4,654lbs. The 65's are not giving away that much weight compared to the HP and Torque advantage throughout the range.
The SL63 can make up for some of that torque short-fall through better gearing. The SL63 has a 3.06 final-drive ratio and is matted to a 7 speed MCT tranny whereas the CL65 has a 2.65 and SL65 has a 2.82, hooked up to the old reliable 5 speed auto. However, the SL63 will have to shift more often which will "slow" it down a bit even with its wonderful 7 speed tranny. For example, a jaunt to 100 mph will see the SL63 shift 3 times, whereas a 65 needs only two shifts to hit the century mark.
Tom
Last edited by TMC M5; Apr 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
I think there are some misconceptions going on here. Just because the V12TT engines have higher low-end torque...doesn't mean they don't have high high-end torque.
Here is an example of what I mean as taken from (HP) and interpolated from (TQ figures) one of my stock dynos:
3,500 RPM: 430rwhp and 645rwtq
4,000 RPM: 487rwhp and 639rwtq
4,500 RPM: 494rwhp and 577rwtq
5,000 RPM: 510rwhp and 536rwtq
5,200 RPM: 499rwhp and 504rwtq
5,300 RPM: 488rwhp and 484rwtq
5,400 RPM: 448rwhp and 436rwtq
What you see is that even at 5,400 RPM, way past the 65's HP and TQ peaks, it is still making more HP than a higher reving engine like the V8 in the SL63. Even at that elevated RPM (at least for the V12TT), the 65 is making more torque (436rwtq) than the 63 engine is making anywhere in its RPM range.
Obviously the 65's weight is an issue. However, the SL63 tested by Car & Driver weighed in at a portly 4,468lbs. The SL65 weighs in at 4,555lbs and W215 CL65 weighs in at 4,654lbs. The 65's are not giving away that much weight compared to the HP and Torque advantage throughout the range.
The SL63 can make up for some of that torque short-fall through better gearing. The SL63 has a 3.06 final-drive ratio and is matted to a 7 speed MCT tranny whereas the CL65 has a 2.65 and SL65 has a 2.82, hooked up to the old reliable 5 speed auto. However, the SL63 will have to shift more often which will "slow" it down a bit even with its wonderful 7 speed tranny. For example, a jaunt to 100 mph will see the SL63 shift 3 times, whereas a 65 needs only two shifts to hit the century mark.
Tom
Here is an example of what I mean as taken from (HP) and interpolated from (TQ figures) one of my stock dynos:
3,500 RPM: 430rwhp and 645rwtq
4,000 RPM: 487rwhp and 639rwtq
4,500 RPM: 494rwhp and 577rwtq
5,000 RPM: 510rwhp and 536rwtq
5,200 RPM: 499rwhp and 504rwtq
5,300 RPM: 488rwhp and 484rwtq
5,400 RPM: 448rwhp and 436rwtq
What you see is that even at 5,400 RPM, way past the 65's HP and TQ peaks, it is still making more HP than a higher reving engine like the V8 in the SL63. Even at that elevated RPM (at least for the V12TT), the 65 is making more torque (436rwtq) than the 63 engine is making anywhere in its RPM range.
Obviously the 65's weight is an issue. However, the SL63 tested by Car & Driver weighed in at a portly 4,468lbs. The SL65 weighs in at 4,555lbs and W215 CL65 weighs in at 4,654lbs. The 65's are not giving away that much weight compared to the HP and Torque advantage throughout the range.
The SL63 can make up for some of that torque short-fall through better gearing. The SL63 has a 3.06 final-drive ratio and is matted to a 7 speed MCT tranny whereas the CL65 has a 2.65 and SL65 has a 2.82, hooked up to the old reliable 5 speed auto. However, the SL63 will have to shift more often which will "slow" it down a bit even with its wonderful 7 speed tranny. For example, a jaunt to 100 mph will see the SL63 shift 3 times, whereas a 65 needs only two shifts to hit the century mark.
Tom
about the best way according to this Professor fellow is to have max torque
and max bhp together at high revs.This would allow you to use more power
when driving in slippery conditions, and I have noticed that I can give the 63
far more throttle in the wet without the tracky light permenately on, my CL65
and to a lesser degree my S600 are impossible to drive fast in slippery
conditions, it's so frustrating when some nerd in a GTi is pulling away and every time you squeeze that pedal all you get is a light, I'm sure you have had thisexperience.Also I realize that you need a close ratio 7 speed tranny like the 63 in order to get the power.I still prefer a turbo engine though, as you knowthat feeling of thrust from way down low, the 63 feels slow because it does not have it, however keeping between 5k and 7k with the superb tranny does somehow compensate. I am having a lot of fun driving it, and
EVERY body keeps asking me to start and rev it, just to hear the noise!
At this rate I will be doing more miles whilst standing still rather than moving.
Thanks again for responding.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Thanks for the contribution! It is all becoming clearer. However if you think
about the best way according to this Professor fellow is to have max torque
and max bhp together at high revs.This would allow you to use more power
when driving in slippery conditions, and I have noticed that I can give the 63
far more throttle in the wet without the tracky light permenately on, my CL65
and to a lesser degree my S600 are impossible to drive fast in slippery
conditions, it's so frustrating when some nerd in a GTi is pulling away and every time you squeeze that pedal all you get is a light, I'm sure you have had thisexperience.Also I realize that you need a close ratio 7 speed tranny like the 63 in order to get the power.I still prefer a turbo engine though, as you knowthat feeling of thrust from way down low, the 63 feels slow because it does not have it, however keeping between 5k and 7k with the superb tranny does somehow compensate. I am having a lot of fun driving it, and
EVERY body keeps asking me to start and rev it, just to hear the noise!
At this rate I will be doing more miles whilst standing still rather than moving.
Thanks again for responding.
about the best way according to this Professor fellow is to have max torque
and max bhp together at high revs.This would allow you to use more power
when driving in slippery conditions, and I have noticed that I can give the 63
far more throttle in the wet without the tracky light permenately on, my CL65
and to a lesser degree my S600 are impossible to drive fast in slippery
conditions, it's so frustrating when some nerd in a GTi is pulling away and every time you squeeze that pedal all you get is a light, I'm sure you have had thisexperience.Also I realize that you need a close ratio 7 speed tranny like the 63 in order to get the power.I still prefer a turbo engine though, as you knowthat feeling of thrust from way down low, the 63 feels slow because it does not have it, however keeping between 5k and 7k with the superb tranny does somehow compensate. I am having a lot of fun driving it, and
EVERY body keeps asking me to start and rev it, just to hear the noise!
At this rate I will be doing more miles whilst standing still rather than moving.
Thanks again for responding.
Tom
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
The SL63 comes with a little more grip in the rear (285s) than the CL65/S600 (275s). That may explain part of the advantage of an SL63 in the wet. The CL65 is not ideal for driving fast in slippery conditions. If all season performance is a requirement, an AWD vehicle such as the 911 Turbo or the GT-R would be a much better tool than either an SL63 or CL65. Call me crazy but I tend not to push my car when it is slippery out.
Tom
Tom
when the roads are slippery!My 63 does have bigger boots,but I am sure it's more a lack of low torque.
My 996 Turbo was hardly 4 wheel drive with only about 20% to the front!
I don't know if that's changed on the 998. The GTR has of course cutting
edge 4 wheel drive.Still I will find out on Thursday when I drive one.
