DerekFSU

Please forgive the tone, a 13 second car will do that to ya.

terrence

Exactly! Told you guys the E63 drive was disappointing. Jumped into my E55 (Kleemann Stage 1) and the first feeling was " Wow! This car is fast!"

I believe the E63 may be similar in acceleration than a stock E55 between 25 to 60. After 80, the E63 may be faster. E63 may also launch a bit better, but the E55 definitley kicks much harder even without Kleemann. With K1, there is no comparison. It will be faster everywhere.

That's why I am getting a 2007 SL55. This may be the best and last 55 engine MBZ will ever make.

Can Drive 55

Derek, my condolences on the car, but in contrast, congratulations on your 1000th post.

pterion

This just makes no sense. This is basically the same car with a less powerful engine. The E550 weighs 3880lbs, only 120 lbs less than the E63. How is it possible that the E550 is faster (or as fast).

Does edmunds just lie and make up numbers?

PT

RJC

What was the E550's trap speed at the end of the Q/M though?

RJC

Answered my own question:

From Edmund's

Bye, bye baby
Nail it from a dead stop and the E550 hits like Tyson in his prime. At full throttle, the rear-wheel-drive E550 treats with a melodious V8 bellow, firm, right-on-redline upshifts and great forward thrust. Zero to 60 mph is a 5.2-second sprint. Just over 8 seconds later the quarter-mile has been covered and the E550 is traveling at more than 104 mph.

So according to this test of the E550 it did the Q/M in more than 13.2 (probably 13.4-13.5 based on 5.2 + "just over 8 seconds") @ more than 104 which is certainly not 13 flat or close to 108+ mph trap's Derek's E63 did.

Jakpro1

How many trades in's does it take for a company to get to the center of a Turbie Pop.

Let's find out....

Ahh oneee, ahh two-whooo, ah three.

Three.....

pterion

I guess the only thing to do now is wait until the track event next week and see if the results are replicated.

I have >1000 miles on my E63, but unfortunally I live nowhere near a track...

PT

Mad TKD

there are a couple of tracks in Nashville pterion

NO EXCUSE

996ttr

Hi Guys,

I have not posted for many years and have been waiting for some confirmation of what I experienced. I had my E63 order for a long time and I thought it was going to be the perfect car for me. I have owned two E55's, a 2001 and a 2004 which I sold in the spring. Both cars were great, with the 2004 being a huge improvement over the 2001. I received the first E63 at my dealership about a month. My E63 was in many ways a huge improvement over the E55. One of my favorite things about the E63 is that I could get a light colored interior. My wife and I went to pick up the car and it was really stunning. And then we went a ride....... The car was a huge disappointment. I can tell you without a doubt that the E63 is not faster then a normal running E55. Having drag raced for many years I cannot see that car running under 12.75.

We ended up not taking the car and are searching for a nice E55, hopefully with mods. If anyone is selling, let me know

BiTurboBenz

In 2002, MB developed the M275 5513cc (current V12 BITURBO) engine with twin-turbochargers incorporated into the design of the engine. There is no N/A version of the M275. I don't know why AMG did not do the same for this new 6.3 liter engine?? We all know a biturbo system is coming, and I think the W211 could benefit from 600+ torque. But why not develop this engine with twin-turbos from the get-go? Going from 516>>>465 makes no sense at all. Most of us buy these AMGs (or 600s) because of the torque not the horsepower!!!

Coalman

My guess is that there is either something basically wrong with your car, or you just got a dog.

From what I've seen on this forum since I joined last year, there are fast AMG's and there are relatively slower AMG's. I've seen ET's for E55's in the low 12's and I've seen posts of E55's in the low 13's. Honestly, I think my 2003 E55 would be hard pressed to consistently break into the 12's based on comments I've read about the torque and power of others E55's.

I've owned a lot of muscle cars and bikes in my life and there is always a large range of variability in performance. If I were you, I would have the car checked out before I sell it.

deaguero

I got slammed by the E63 guys for taking RJC's "Used" E55 versus the E63 that I had on order. I still feel the E63 will be a great car but not for me! The cancelation was the right decision for me and obviously for you too! I had a three year frame of reference to base my decision on too!!!

AMG_55

where?
what time?
how much?

zdkdeeier493

I couldn't agree more. Personally I think I launch this car pretty well (I've been doing it for almost 3 years now) and I too don't think I could run consistant 12's. To be honest, sometimes I feel like my car wouldn't even be able to pull a 13!! But thats an issue in and of itself. Anyway, through my years on this forum I've learned that every single car that comes off the assembly line is different in one way or another. NO TWO CARS are identical.

Who knows Derek, maybe you got a lemon. I'm not going to go out there and say that AMG would have built a NEW car that is slower than the old one, but who knows, thats a possibility also. But since when have you given up this easily? It sure took you long enough to get your E55 into the 10's but you did it. Sure, if you don't want to put the milage on the car, don't. But let me tell you, even if I were planning on selling it, I would have MBZ check it out anyway simply because of how pissed I would be that they sold me a car like that. You had high expectations (admit it, we all did) and you were let down. TAKE IT TO THE DEALER AND GIVE THEM HELL! Thats what I would do.

This whole E63 thing is way too new to start making conclusions. There are very few E63's in the United States, let alone North America, that even have over 1-2k miles on them. Give it some time and lets see what happens.

RJC

Doesn't AMG bench test each and every one of their "hand-built" engines to make certain it's up to spec before they're ok'd to go into a car???

E63AMG

Dream on, Homey. While I will be there on 9/15 with my new E63, I will not be allowing others to drag race it. I do not care THAT much about the scientific testing process to allow strangers to race my car.

Beltfed

Little confused by this post.

You received the 1st E63 at your dealership.

Your E63 was in many ways a huge improvement over the E55.

But you went for a ride (test drive I presume) and it was a huge disappointment.

So you ended up not taking the car.

The way you worded it, sounds like you had the E63 (as in bought the car) and drove it around. Then you decided while it has many improvements over the E55......its not that fast.

But in reality, you only test drove the car.

csumt76

Derek......... just put the hose on the 63 and gain back the low end. It's that easy, but better make it a wet kit. Toss in the drag radials, an LSD and a new ring and pinion. Ice the intake and run the CCW's up front.

dragonAMG

Dude... the CLK has a claimed 25 less hp and the same torque. My guess it that it has the same hp and MB just says it has less for marketing reasons... just like we found out with the E55 vs. the SL55. In any event it weighs less than the E63 so it is probably deed even in actual performance even though it is "less powerful".

I know that my car is modified.... not disputing that. Just saying that I spanked it. Probably even worse than I would a stock E55. I can't see running a stock E55 and being down 3-4 cars around 40mph and coming back to spank it by 3 car lengths in the next 60 mph (40-100mph). I basically made up 7 car lengths from 40-100mph.

We'll all know for certain on the 15th. It will be settled.

amgme

speaking of the m6, how can a 3900 lb car w/ 500hp@7750 and 383tq@6100rpm obtain 4.5s in a 0-60 and 12.4 for the 1/4 mile run when it appears that the new e63 can't? both cars have very close specs. errrr???? say it ain't so...

stevebez

Guys,

This E63 performance is very revealing. I said before that the E55 will be the one to gain the most from a sticky quarter track as it is able to launch much more easily than on some back street.

Since the qtr to me is mostly about launch this is where the E55 really shines ... it picks up way more advavantage than the E63 does (if any at all) as the E63 can get most of its power down in a street race. The E55 can be a tricky balance between shove in your seat, smoke, or flashing lights.

So I reckon at the qtr track the E55 will remain the one to beat - on a road race the E63 will be better, and on a street drag it will all depend on whether the E55 gets a good launch or not.

This however does not explain the poor trap speed.....

All this and the ECU reflash all adds up now ...

AMG must be sitting there after developing their masterpiece engine and be saying shheeezz our new flagship engine is slower than a 5 year old design ... !!!!

vraa

That's because I was an idiot in clarifying my statement. I thought we weret talking about dynos, not track runs. My mistake.

Thans dragon, I found the sig on e46fanatics, I hope the owner doesn't mind me using it, I think it's hilarious!

Grumpy666

This is not an uncommon occurance. If the CLK has space limitations that would cause the intake and/or exhaust systems to be restricted, its engine could put out the same torque level and less HP due to reduced airflow in the upper RPM range.

amgme

maybe it's a good idea to know who built your engine so future 63ers can look for his name b4 signing the papers and steer clear from the purchase.