ChicagoX

Without perfect traction, you are now introducing driver error.

While dyno-to-dyno comparisons are meaningless for mod comparisons, the correction factors using the weather station can be normalised to give a baseline for dyno type. (e.g. Mustang, Dynojet, etc...)

I'm not saying that dyno operator input couldn't affect the numbers.....I'm simply pointing out that the best method is the same method, across the board.

Hence the importance of the Drag Day !!!

medici78

Someone should assemble a group dyno with E55's and E63s. Same dyno, same day.

L8Apex

Better yet. 60-130mph times. That is a very good measure of performance without driver error.

sly55

how does your car run so fast?!!? and in your sig you ran nearly a flat 12 BONE STOCK?! even stock tyres?! tell me your launch technique!

Damn from the video that 63 is a rabbit out of the hole!! That is pretty impressive for a 2tonne car!

On the power debate, obviously from the now proven fact that the 63 will run slower 1/4 than the outgoing 55, its also fairly accepted that the car is better handling, braking, and overall a better balanced car than the 55. so while its slower down the 1/4 which is important, its still has the traffic light GP 0-100 improved due to its tranny and less torque. I think its still an awesome car and i think ppl would be silly to disregard the 63 totally just coz it runs slower 1/4 mile..

also can someone explain the video, if the e55 ran mid 12's and higher mph, and the 63 ran high 12's, why does the 63 beat it from start to finish? is it coz the 63 had better reaction time?

dinko

Now I'm very glad I have a 55 over a 63

BlownV8

The guy in the video said the E55 will run better times than the E63. We know for a fact that the E55 will run better times than what the guy mentioned too. If the E55 wins in the 1/4 mile, it should also win in the race to 100 mph. It is looking like the only advantages the E63 has is possibly after 100 mph due to gearing and on a road course. The E63 looks easier to launch given that it doesn't make nearly as much torque. HOWEVER, how may people will regularly take their E63's to a road course? Derek, you don't get to answer this one.

99.999999% of the time people will be able to use and will appreciate the extra torque, hp in lower rpm's(hp = tq * rpm/5252), than the high end hp that the E63 offers. Given the dyno numbers, the E63 isin't even coming close to their advertised power. This reminds me of the Ford Cobra debacle but the price of admission is much much greater.

ChicagoX

...and I don't think Extrude-Hone can help in this case...

Fikse

a few of us have run 12 flat in stock cars.... here is my video:

http://www.dragtimes.com/2005-Merced...deos-7808.html

Beltfed

As I've said before, you don't need to be on a road course to appreciate a car that has better handling, braking, and steering, smoother tranny, etc.

Mad TKD

The difference between 108trap and 115-117 trap is huge. Those numbers tell me everything without having look at dyno numbers. Even MB is stating the obvious there.

Does the 63 have a better suspension? I hope so. But for most U.S.A. Drivers the 55k is a better choice simply because it is not a high compression autobahn bomber unlike the 63. I am sure the 63 would be better at speeds above 100mph. How many of us here in the USA get to have sustained trips at over 100mph on a constant basis.

Now to me the 63 engine is a big upgrade for the other line of cars(CLK,C,SLK). But for the E which already has similar hp numbers its not. Dont you think the CL and S class cars will be a step down? I do in performance.

Blown V8 is right to me 99.9% of us use that tq because its so easy and on tap.

We all know that MB messed up when they stated 469hp for the 55k. Almost every car is dynoing higher than that. Now every 63 is dynoing below its stated hp. WTF

djamer

I think for those who own E63 or plan to, maybe you guys need to address this issue with Rob Allen, AMG North American Rep, guy in the video.

I don't own an AMG, but if I were to spend that much money on such a high end car, and the adverstised numbers aren't jiving with actual track/dyno results..then, maybe corporate MB needs to get involved. We can talk and speculate on the forums, but some actual owners should find out the what the real story is.

getbitten

I ran 12.4 at 116 MPH (best run) in my '03 E55 with only 700 miles on the odometer...with the traction control on.

Your MPH tells your horsepower...at 108 trap speeds, what is this telling you?

For comparison, I have run consistant 12-12.3 at 117-118 MPH in my bone stock Viper GTS (GEN II) with stock tires and the car made similiar (just a bit more at 427 RWHP) RWHP to my '03 E55 in bone stock form...tires included. Many have run better times but the MPH in stock form for the Viper is fairly consistant.
The Viper GTS (GEN II) is rated at 450 HP at the flywheel.

That being said, it is obvious that the Viper and E55 were under rated on HP...nice.

It is also obvious the the 507 HP rating on the E63 is overated as it should have a mph of 120-124 as many GEN III Vipers do with a 510 flywheel HP rating.

THE E63 MAY BE A GREAT CAR...BUT MB AND AMG ARE FULL OF **** WITH THEIR POWER CLAIMS AND ARE USING FALSE NUMBERS TO MARKET THIS NICHE CAR.

Fikse

very true... only thing is the GEN III Viper is about 700 pounds lighter than the E63..... so I wouldn't expect 123 MPH traps from the E63, I would expect 115+MPH though.....

SmokinV10

A good portion of the guys are missing the point here. Stop arguing if the E63 is a better car than the E55. Stop arguing if it is a good car in general. That isnt the question. The question is that Mercedes Benz blatently states that the E63 is equipped with a 507horsepower engine. However both dyno and track results seem to indicate that the horsepower ratings are inflated and not accurate. People can argue that the dyno readings are rwhp numbers and not flywheel numbers, but we all know that its pretty outlandish to have a 30% drivetrain loss. Stop being so defensive about the E63 and focus on the issue. People here spent money to buy a car that is supposedly equipped with 507hp. Did they get that or did they get something inferior?

getbitten

actually it is only about a 500 LBS. difference...

and the E63 is relatively the same weight of my '03 E55 that ran 114-116 mph...

This is the point of my post and using the Viper and E55 as examples to make more clear the point is completely justified.

108 MPH DOES NOT EQUATE TO 507 HP IN A 4000 LBS. PERFORMANCE CAR!

medici78

To me it seems M-B is trying to use the excuse that it makes more horsepower, but less torque in an attempt to trick the public that it feels more "linear" than the E55 and not what it really is: SLOWER
If I paid for 507hp, I better damn well get it. This car is short by quite a bit. I find it very sneaky and shady of M-B to attempt to cover up this problem with marketing BS. The reality is that the car is not making the numbers it should. So they trick the public saying it doesn't make as much torque, but, "trust us, it makes more hp!!"
I agree, it seems the E63 is a great car, but it simply is not living up to the hype. It's class action time a la 320hp Ford Mustang Cobra!!

getbitten

The E55 beats the E63 but they state a time of 12.6-12.7 @ 110 to bring it closer to the slower times of the E63. He then tries to say of close they are in performance and the driver makes the difference...yeah...driver makes a huge difference in an automatic car.

MB website also claims a 4.3 0-60 for the E63.
One of the charts posted before boasted a 4.7 0-60...close to the "claimed" 0-60 of the R63 in this week's Autoweek that weighs 6490 lbs.

Soooo, with AWD in the R63, on any given day with the "right" driver...the R63 could make you it's *****. Nice.

The reality is it is doubtful the R63, which outweighs the E63 by nearly 1500 lbs., will be anywhere near that quick...as is the same with the E63.

amgme

sounds like we got something inferior. let's gather up a mob and hang um!

2MANYCARS

Glad that I made my choice for my 55 instead of the 63 back in May, but will see how the 63 is when the ML arrives. I will probably dyno both cars just to get some ideas on how these motors are.

getbitten

Hopefully, more E63 owners will dyno their cars and report the outcome so we can better know what we are dealing with...maybe Derek and I both are incredibly unlucky and got the 407 HP versions of the E63...

Beowulf

It WILL be done at the Atlanta AMG Meet, November 4th & 5th - both on the dyno and at the track. Check out: https://mbworld.org/forums/events-gatherings/163006-registration-info-atlanta-amg-meet-november-4th-5th.html

I just made the group dyno reservations for November 4th at Balanced Performance in Sugar Hill, GA. Ed Senf, regarded as one of the best tuners in the Southeast, runs the dyno there & they have extensive experience with AMG's.

Sunday, we're headed to Silver Dollar Raceway in Reynolds, GA for 1/4-mile action.

This will be a fantastic weekend to get together with other AMG owners. Those who attended last year's Atlanta AMG Meet know what I'm talking about. A lot of great activities are planned and there'll be more than a few surprises.

Any and all are welcome - E63's, especially! Register early and reserve dyno time - let's get it on!

amgme

are you planning on keeping the 63? if so, i would raise hell w/ mb/amg on the missing hp. 30k premium for what? 20 more hp than the e550?

getbitten

I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I'm looking for solid answers from MB first...and less misdirection and segways in conversation.

E55 PWR

BMW M5 will not dyno proper numbers as well on a dyno b/c full power can only be acheived with proper wind resistance on front valence (aka when car is actually driving on the road). I have a feeling AMG may have also done this as well.

getbitten

are you telling me that BMW has some special wind resistance indicator that allows it to unleash it's full power only when some pre-determined gust strikes the front of the car...and the purpose of this fictional equipment would be...what?

Is that the flux capacitor?