SLK55R

First off ... unless in 07 mercedes to mess with a limit before breakin ... I honestly don't think its the case. The only way I would believe that this is the case is if Mercedes told everyone to bring thier E63's back within 1k miles.

2nd ... I have the 7 speed in my SLK55 and the loss from crank to rear wheel is only 15.49%. I did multiple dyno runs ... this loss was on a Dynojet.

chiromikey

i guess us 55 owners that complained about this same problem don't look so crazy now do we.

mb should be held accountable for this and if these two e63's aren't flukes then i hope ALL 63 owners stand up for themselves instead just a few like the 55 owners did.

hydeaway

wow - I was thinking of getting the new E63 or Cls63. For sure wont be doing that now. You should have a case to return the car (if wanted) due to false advertising?!?!

getbitten

4th gear pulls



5th gear pulls

meegle

I questioned several sales rep at two different Orlando dealers and none were aware of any issues with the 63's. They attempted to feed me a line by saying that the new 63's were "much more powerful" than the 55's.

I had contemplated holding out for a S63 if and when it ever came out but will likely just go with the S550.
I really feel for those who bought the 63's.

djamer

Interesting video I found on E63 vs. E55 (AMG FEST 06') event. The Mercedes rep clearly states, E55 is faster in 1/4 mile, but the video does show the 63 beating 55.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WIaSzJyb08A

2MANYCARS

That's weird, I can't imagine the new motor would put down less power than the old motor. Maybe after the proposed break in, the car would put down more? Damn, now I am begin to think if my upcoming ML63 would put down the same or worse, lower.....

WishforE55

don;t you normally work on b/w 25 - 30% loss from crank to the rear wheels depending on the dyno??, awd cars can be even higher..

BoBcanada

hahaha E63 IS slower in 1/4 CASE closed.

If you like to Drag race get yourself e55k

If you like to track car get e63.

Beltfed

Well, obviously it did come down to the driver in this case........the E63 clearly beat the E55.

meegle

Nice video clip. The MPH stated for both cars were 108-109 while the 55 was about 2-tenth quicker so I must assume that the 63 driver just cut a much better light. Perhaps the 108 MPH that DerekFSU ran isn't really that far off from it's full potential?

E552006

WOW
That thing is pulling timeing across the board.....

There are some major issues here.

newton22

Damn. 120 hp difference to the wheels. That ain't right.

Ted Baldwin

............I agree. Towards the end of the the video, the figures that Mr. Allen gave for the E63 were right on with what Derek got. So this is it. I still don't understand why someone went through a big effort to publish numbers for the E63 that are clearly not true. I should slow down, but was someone being deceptive? Is the secondary air injection pump Ecu flash to slow down the E55 true afterall?

Ted

Jrocket

I highly doubt MB would do such a thing,BUT after you look at everything that has been posted and see the facts so far....it really would make sense.

IMO,the people that are buying the E55's and E63's want a fast performance sedan,each year the car should improve in every aspect of performance.So far the E63 hasnt done that in my eyes.When I see a car that is too replace my current model,it should be quicker....especially after seeing it makes more power.

dragonAMG

AMG Official in that video said 12.9 @ 109 in the 1/4 for the e63. Sounds spot on with Dereks run.

zdkdeeier493

Interesting theory. It makes sense and all but think about it: why would MB put all that money, time and research into a car that is slower than the previous generation? AMG is obviously a very high-end engine manufacturer. We all know damn well that if they wanted to, they could have thrown an engine under that bonnet that would blow everything else out of the water. Hell, they could have made it a V10 if they wanted. So here's my question: Why not make the E63 just a little faster than the E55? Sure, if the E has to be slower than the SL or CL then fine, up those too. I know auto manufacturers have to check themselves in these crazy HP wars, but not like that. Making a mid-year adjustment to DETUNE a current vehicle so the new one is faster is a pretty crazy conspiracy. Why go through all that if they could have just made the E63 what they said it would be?

chiromikey

here's your conspiracy theory:

"what if"...after they put the entire production package together and there was no going back, the 63 didn't perform up to expectations. then, how do you as a car company still get people to trade in their e55's? after all, that's the first set of buyers that will be stepping up to this car. hmmm...detune the 55 slightly with a bogus recall so that the majority of owners won't notice, especially the '03 and '04's cause they're going to be the ones ready for trade in, let them get used to that for 6 months, pop them in a new 63 for a test drive = "wow a faster car than my old 55, i'll take it".

true??? hell i don't know...probably...HOPEFULLY not, but it sure explains a lot of what has happened in the last 6 months.

AMG_Power

after watching the video a couple of times i noticed something strange, look closely at the RPM of the E55. It looks like it fell from 4,000 to 3,000 and up again as if it the driver's foot kinda slipped or something!!?

chiromikey

typical when modulating throttle in a car that's losing traction...which you could hear in the video. at least that was my take.

zdkdeeier493

As I said, its an interesting theory. To me the only discrepancy is that it seems like a lot more work to do the bogus recall than to simply re-tune the production package. The amount of tuning necessary is minimal - it could be something as simple as an ECU reprogramming. As with the E55, all stock engines have a degree of potential that is typically never accessed by manufacturers for various reasons. My opinion is that it would be easier just to access these power reserves than to create a whole conspiracy. Now, as im not too big on conspiracies I'll take this one as amusement, but, just like you, I sure as hell ain't ruling it out...

IanSL55

People put far too much stock into these dyno numbers. The machines and process might be great for judging the effects of mods (before and after pulls), but comparing results from one dyno to another is really meaningless considering these machines are not universally validated.

Put that thing on a track and see what you can do. Those numbers are probably a better gauge of what you car has under the hood.

~ Ian

20C4S

just curious, anyone got dyno number for the 550 engine?

Ted Baldwin

...........You make a good point. It will seem like too much trouble than to re-engineer the E63. It all depends at what stage the E63 was in production. Would it have been easier to "recall" the E63's and delay their launch vs recall the E55's. As I'm typing this I am telling myself that to stay of the the liqour, but something doesn't make sense. The ECU part of the E55K recall was definitely not neccessary and had nothing to do with the secondary air injection pump they were fixing. In addition MB/AMG created the impression that the E63 will be faster, realeasing numbers for the E63 that are apparently bogus. There is no SL63 and no body with an SL55 had any ECU recall problems. But then there is no G63 either and I had ECU recall problems in my G55K. Ok, you are right.

Ted

enzom

I've been to the track once post-recall and ran a 12.20 @ 115.8 on a humid 75 degree day. If MB tried to slow my car down, they did not do a very good job.