vraa

So AMG is still going to be straight line fast only?
I was hoping the next round would turn them into hyper-special variants of their classes like the M3 is to the 3-Series. You can identify a M3 a block away versus a regular 3-Series.

What I'd like is more extravagent AMG styling, more pronounced authority and what not.

But of course, that's what the aftermarket is for right?

2K6E55

Are the dealerships taking order(s) for the E63 yet?

RJC

What are you thinking of doing?

WayneE

Aren't the E/CLS motors underrated @ 469hp?

I really hope the E63 is faster from a dig than the E55. MB/AMG shouldn't be moving backwards going to the new engines.

2K6E55

Ditching one of the E55s for the new E63.

It's really depends on how much faster the E63 is over the E55. I am very curious...

RJC

I thought so. I'm sure the new 06 with it's problems must be making you insane...it would me. I think I'd give MB 2 full model years with any new engines/trans etc. I really hope you get the trans delay and engine stumble worked out very soon.

stevebez

I reckon performance is going to be pretty close ... torque is less but not massively ... the difference is where the peaks are instead of 2500 its now at 5200 its quite a different engine character - even though we have 500nm at 2000rpm which is more than the M5 peak torque!

Rgds Steve.

IanSL55

According to owners yes... however MBUSA by law has to be within a couple of % points. Personally I believe the auto insurance industry numbers (they base rates partially on HP) which are the same as what MBUSA advertises.

~ Ian

WayneE

The only time someone is going to sue a manufacturer is when the cars produce less than the advertised HP. Even then, it's not the gov't that intervenes.

Mazda had a problem with the RX-8 recently where it produced approx 5% less HP than advertised. They offered to buyback the cars, but that was their choice. Hyundai overrated their engines by 4.7% and only offered customers extra warranties. There were obviously class action suits in that case

I have a C5 Z06. It made 363hp at the wheels, bone stock. That's a bit more HP than the rated 405. Almost every 02-04 Z06 I've seen makes more than the advertised 405hp. When manufacturers started voluntarily using the new certified SAE hp ratings, GM's cars were almost universally rated higher by that rating. Many manufacturers ratings were lowered when using the new standard.

I have not dynoed my E55, but it is my understanding that most E55s dyno between 405 and 410hp at the wheels. I also thought that is about the same as S, CL and SL 55s. The E is rated at 469hp and the S, CL, SLs are all rated at 493hp. So did MB underrate the E55 or overrate the other cars using the 55K motor?

I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand the numbers.

abalto

That is a good question. Does anyone have dyno numbers for stock S55, CL55, SL55 VS. the E55?

How do they compare? That would tell a lot.

Substance

only 510 hp? forget it then...480 for clk 510 for e ..not fair

362 for clk 469 for e was a good ratio

Staff@RPM

MB Under-rates the E55 - this is because the other models are "higher" up in the line and they don't want the lower model to have the same HP as a more expensive vehicle. Porsche has done the same thing - for instance the GT3 is rated at 375HP but stock cars are dynoing out at 350 to the wheels. The Turbo is more expensive than the GT3 and they don't want the HP numbers to be equal. Anyway, the SL and E55 both dyno between 410-420HP at the wheels and 460-480 torque at the wheels.

abalto

So, they real numbers on the E55 are really the same as the SL55?

WayneE

Thanks for the clarification, Eric. That tracks with what I've read online.

Let's hope MB has once again underrated the E63, because on paper it doesn't sound like it will even match the performance of the outgoing 55K

RJC

I think the SL has a different exhaust system and possibly the ECU may have some different programming; plus for 07 the SL55 gets a different supercharger and a few other tweaks totaling 510 hp and 531 lb ft of trq.
I'm not too sure if auto manufacters can now get away with HP differences since the new SAE standardized HP ratings went into effect where everyone must report within the same parameters.

stevebez

Its pretty interesting the HP diffs between the 55K cars ... given the different applications. Exhaust systems are telling ... the E's are probably the quietest and maybe as a result the most restricted across the range and maybe thats where the HP dips. Why they dyno the same as SL's is very interesting. Does the SL also have the restricted intake snorkel that the E's have ? The mappings are different though as the SL torque curve is different think theirs has a slightly narrower plateau ... its marginal though.

So going back to the E63 ... mmm. I think round a track the 63 will be quicker with a better shifting box and closer ratios, maybe also uprated 030 brake setup and CLS 030 suspension mods. Motor for motor I think the 55K is still a better unit for outright grunt vs an unblown 6.3. If they put a Hammer I (light pressure turbo) in the E with +570hp then OK ... great, but I dont think that will come in this W211 but in the next incarnation of the beast, in 2008/9.

Speculation ... but I will still take the E63 for a test as soon as I can and see wazzup.

Rgds Steve.

RJC

How are you liking the 06 so far?

C32 MIA

my understanding is tht it's due to variations on the exhaust systems as to the variations, such as e55 vs. sl55 (bmw same way with the M3, Z3, etc).

IanSL55

I don't think they understate HP as much as they restrict it for the same reason you point out. I've never seen anyone DYNO a E55 and SL55 under the exact same conditions on the same exact DYNO back to back for anything resembling a true comparison. You also have a different exhaust on the cars, different airflow, and torque curves which suggest the ECU is programmed differentl

I'm familier w/ what happened w/ Mazda. So correct - that's the only time a consumer or consumer advocate group would sue is if it was understated. The insurance co's are a different story - since they base rates partially on HP they have a huge financial interest at stake.

When it comes to what MB says, I'm more than certain the stated HP is more of a average and less an exact figure - so cars that are accurately DYNO'ed may make more (or less) HP... that is their will be a variance from car to car regardless. The average that MB publishes is likely derived from controlled tests of dozens of cars. I think the key here is they're controlled measurements.

So why are people seeing more HP here? Well, nobody calibrates all these individual DYNOJETS to make sure they're all making equal measurements. Meaning across the nation people are making comparisons using "rulers that may be of diffrent lengths", under different environmental and temperature conditions, using different fuels, etc. Hardly scientific.

As far as the E v. the SL etc. Well the SL has a completely different exhaust system and we know for certain that our K cars can be chip tuned for better performance. I have no doubt the E55 has the exact same HP potential as the SL/CL's but find it very difficult to believe MB would understate the actualy HP of the car in a very competitive marketplace - it just doesn't make any sense to do so.

~Ian

erol/frost

Exactly, everyone is talking about straight-line acceleration, when where it´s at is a more completely focused package which is good for when the road twists also.

E55 KEV

Here's the proof. MBZ fudged the HP numbers on the W210 E55 perhaps to make the non blower S55/CL55 seem superior? Has anyone checked their owners manual for HP rating? The W210 E55 was only advertised at 349 HP. All the non-supercharged W220 S55 and W215 CL55's where listed and advertised at 354 and 355HP. My owners manual has 355HP:

IanSL55

Not sure what proof you're speaking about. Being off 5-6HP is a very small (<2%) deviation in HP. Current European ratings call for <1% deviation. I'm not sure what laws and procedures were in place in Europe when the W210 was produced, however I do know that they've been regulating HP ratings for decades.

I do know for a fact that it was in 2005 that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) introduced a new test procedure (J2723) for engine horsepower and torque. This was done to bring North American standards in line with what the Europeans have had in place for years. At the time the SAE, whose procedures for rating engine output have been the unofficial industry standard since 1980, said previous criteria allowed automakers too much wriggle room.

As it stands, the current SAE procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement - meaning it requires standardized conditions for fuel, airflow and engine load. The procedure also requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. While the test is voluntary in the US, engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified". General Motors was first US manufacturer to adopt the new standard, announcing in 2005 that the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 produced 505 SAE-certified HP. MB is also one of the SAE-certified manufacturers.

Most if not all DYNOJETS in the USA do not factor these inputs into their readings and because of this, comparing DYNO results with published manufacturer HP numbers is like comparing apples and oranges.

~ Ian