AMG 6.3 Conspiracy?
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: Potomac, Md
2006 E320 CDI, 2007 ML 320 CDI, 2008 C63, 2008 G55
AMG 6.3 Conspiracy?
There has been a lot of talk on this forum regarding speculation that the new 6.3 liter motor isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Does anyone find it strange that Car and Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend have not done a road test on any of the new vehicles equipped with the new 6.3 liter motor? Don’t the 3 major car magazines usually sample and road test new vehicles well before their release and well before they start showing up on dealer lots. Automobile magazine did a comparison test between the E63 and its BMW and Audi competitors yet they only drove the cars and used the manufactures estimates.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
#4
There has been a lot of talk on this forum regarding speculation that the new 6.3 liter motor isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Does anyone find it strange that Car and Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend have not done a road test on any of the new vehicles equipped with the new 6.3 liter motor? Don’t the 3 major car magazines usually sample and road test new vehicles well before their release and well before they start showing up on dealer lots. Automobile magazine did a comparison test between the E63 and its BMW and Audi competitors yet they only drove the cars and used the manufactures estimates.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Don't get me wrong here. E63 is not a stepback by all means it's just not a giant leap as we come to expect from AMG over the years.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...IMHO it's a "gap" vehicle just like C43 had served its purpose well.
I'll wait for the next E either be an E63K or E63TT...but in the meanwhile I'm perfectly happy with my E55K.
#6
as is said in dereks thread
i drove a ml63 w/ a little over 130mi on it and it felt at least as fast as my clk55, which is a low 13 sec. car.
i will try to make a vid tonight and post it up
i drove a ml63 w/ a little over 130mi on it and it felt at least as fast as my clk55, which is a low 13 sec. car.
i will try to make a vid tonight and post it up
Trending Topics
#8
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Irvine, California
'10 MB E63, '08 ML550 ('05 E55, '05 SL55, '08 E63 GONE)
Don't get me wrong here. E63 is not a stepback by all means it's just not a giant leap as we come to expect from AMG over the years. I've said it before and I'll say it again...IMHO it's a "gap" vehicle just like C43 had served its purpose well. I'll wait for the next E either be an E63K or E63TT...but in the meanwhile I'm perfectly happy with my E55K.
~ Ian
#9
Having driven over 20 different 55s, from stock to Stage II, during R&D at evosport, I have sort of developed a "seat of the pants" feel for what kind of power the car puts down.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.
Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.
Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
#12
Having driven over 20 different 55s, from stock to Stage II, during R&D at evosport, I have sort of developed a "seat of the pants" feel for what kind of power the car puts down.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.
Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.
Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
#13
can you dyno 1st or second gear or would tire spin be a problem
Last edited by Vadim @ FD; 09-11-2006 at 12:38 AM.
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,846
Likes: 290
From: Dallas TX
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Gotta love conspiracy theories. They rarely make any sense or have any meaning. Just because the U.S. mags haven't tested anything yet doesn't mean there is something going on. Each and every Mercedes product for 2007, except for the C and SLK has a new engine variant, been facelifted or is all new. For months now there has been one MB after another in all of the major publications. If anything is being held back it is because they're all gettting ready to do some comparison tests. Just think about all the new Benzes that haven't been tested yet, the CLK550, CLK63, ML63, R63, E550, E63, CLS63, CLS550. The GL450, S600, SL550 and S550 have just all made their rounds at Motor Trend and Car and Driver within the last few months so it takes time folks. You'll see a E63 vs. S6 vs M5 vs Quattroporte Sport GT or something like that soon enough and you know the new "550" versions of the E/CLS are going to be tested, particularly the E550 vs. 550i. Time folks, time.
M
M
#15
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: Australia/Hong Kong
05 E55, R33 GTR, R33 GTS-t
speaking of conspiracy's, did we ever get CONCLUSIVE dyno evidence about the 55 recall/reflash thingy? Id like to see one conspiracy settled before moving on to another one!!!
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,066
Likes: 11
From: London, UK
No longer stock '06 E55, A3 3.2 Quattro, LRD4 HSE, R107 280SL
You could use a dyno that bolts onto the rear axle (i.e. wheels come off and the two dyno feeds bolt onto the rear hubs) instead of using wheels on a drum ...
This dyno method is the most accurate to my mind .... eliminates differences in tyres between cars and also .... slippage... You also get a more accurate reading of drivetrain loss on run down...
Anyone dyno their E55's using this method ?
i.e this Dyno ...
http://www.rototest.com/rototest-dynamometer.php
This dyno method is the most accurate to my mind .... eliminates differences in tyres between cars and also .... slippage... You also get a more accurate reading of drivetrain loss on run down...
Anyone dyno their E55's using this method ?
i.e this Dyno ...
http://www.rototest.com/rototest-dynamometer.php
Last edited by stevebez; 09-11-2006 at 06:13 AM.
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,066
Likes: 11
From: London, UK
No longer stock '06 E55, A3 3.2 Quattro, LRD4 HSE, R107 280SL
The OBDII data also gives an engine load indicator output ... I think the output is 0-100 (I guess) ... if this is anything less than 100 in any gear then we will know you are being restricted or not .... may be a very cheap and easy way to check it the car out.
Not sure how they work this number out but .... mbe fuel burned ... dunno ??? any thots ???
Not sure how they work this number out but .... mbe fuel burned ... dunno ??? any thots ???
#18
Having driven over 20 different 55s, from stock to Stage II, during R&D at evosport, I have sort of developed a "seat of the pants" feel for what kind of power the car puts down.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
Over the last month I have driven a CLK63, a CLS63 and two E63s.
My rear end tells me that 55 and 63 are very close. No gay jokes please.
63s low end TQ is no doubtly softer vs 55, but the top end is better and a joy to use and listen to.
In the end we need to get more scientific testing in a form of a dyno and/or ETs from other 63s.
Until than, with exception of Derek, we are flying by the seats of our pants and end up making bashing and silly comments at each other.
Why? We are all adults here.
I am working on getting a dyno done very shortly. I will also be talking to several of our techs to see if they have any info. In addition I am doing some training at MBUSA in SoCal, so I will try to pick their brain on the subject.Meanwhile, lets see what kind of numbers guys get at Fontana on 15th.
.............I don't think a dyno will answer the question. I don't think the E63 is lower in HP than what MB said. I think you hit the nail on the head.....the car is slower in the low end and probably a beast at the high end. Basically, the E63 is a performance clone of the M5. MB/AMG went after the M5 and appear to have succeeded, but they don't understand their own customers. All the E63 needs now is a manual transmission and it can be sold at BMW dealerships.
Ted
#19
If you weren't spinning, a 2.01 is pretty bad. A stock W211 E55 will run almost .25 quicker from a dig, with traction.
What is the gearing for the E55 vs. E63 (final drive and tranny)? Where does the converter stall on each car? Did MB tighten up the converter on the E63 to improve drivetrain loss and driveability? That change, along with gearing, may account for some of the sluggish performance off the line.
#20
kinda thought provoking...
There has been a lot of talk on this forum regarding speculation that the new 6.3 liter motor isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Does anyone find it strange that Car and Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend have not done a road test on any of the new vehicles equipped with the new 6.3 liter motor? Don’t the 3 major car magazines usually sample and road test new vehicles well before their release and well before they start showing up on dealer lots. Automobile magazine did a comparison test between the E63 and its BMW and Audi competitors yet they only drove the cars and used the manufactures estimates.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Is AMG keeping the 6.3 from the press because the numbers will reveal that this engine is only marginally more powerful than the naturally aspirated 5.5 liter engine? DerekFSU only managed a 13.1 second quarter mile in his E63. I have not been impressed with 2 separate E63’s that I drove. I think all the speculation that the 6.3's are under performing because their motors have not been properly broken in is hogwash. I think AMG knows the 6.3 is not delivering the punch they promised and they are purposely keeping it from the media.
The CLK 63, ML 63, CLS 63 and E63 have been in this country and sitting in the VPC’s for over 3 months and they started arriving at dealers over a month ago. Why have none of the major car magazines been able to conduct their own independent road tests?
Not a sermon, just a thought.
#21
If you weren't spinning, a 2.01 is pretty bad. A stock W211 E55 will run almost .25 quicker from a dig, with traction.
What is the gearing for the E55 vs. E63 (final drive and tranny)? Where does the converter stall on each car? Did MB tighten up the converter on the E63 to improve drivetrain loss and driveability? That change, along with gearing, may account for some of the sluggish performance off the line.
What is the gearing for the E55 vs. E63 (final drive and tranny)? Where does the converter stall on each car? Did MB tighten up the converter on the E63 to improve drivetrain loss and driveability? That change, along with gearing, may account for some of the sluggish performance off the line.
Last edited by DerekFSU; 09-11-2006 at 09:43 AM.
#22
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Cary, IL
2003 CL55 Kompressor Horizon Blue Metallic
The TC lock-up may also be relatively more aggressive. With seven gears, a sport mode lock-up in second might be enough to bog the car down.
On the street (which is all I've done), my CL55 feels substantially quicker and more beastly in manual mode once it is rolling. However, from a dead stop sport mode is definitely better. In manual mode, I believe the aggressive TC lock-up in first bogs the motor ... so it either takes FOREVER to get rolling and out of first gear, or the tires are up in smoke.
Getting out of first gear from a dead stop in sport mode is quick as I would expect for the torque our cars have.
#23
.............I don't think a dyno will answer the question. I don't think the E63 is lower in HP than what MB said. I think you hit the nail on the head.....the car is slower in the low end and probably a beast at the high end. Basically, the E63 is a performance clone of the M5.
Stock E55s are around 420 RWHP, E63 should be the same or very close. If we are getting 340-350 RWHP than we have our answer.
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,649
Likes: 207
'03 E55, Range Rover Sport Supercharged, Ducati 748R
it still doesn't settle the conspiracy, but it does prove changes took place in some vehicles.