bfnnrgn

So it seems that in poor road conditions that the E63 should at least be able keep up with an E55 where the extra torque becomes a liability off the line. Under good conditions though looking at other timeslips from E55s the 55k should have an easy time of getting away from the 63.

dragonAMG

Not to be a d!ck... but you can read, right???? Don't look at the cars 1/4 time... they don't mean anything because of the conditions of the track. The track was full of sand/dirt.... no traction = VERY BAD 1/4 time and lower mph traps. The only thing you can really look at here is the trap speed which showcases the real power of the car. If you want to compare anything, compare that. But even the MPH's were greatly affected, why???? NO TRACTION.

Honestly, if you want to compare anything at all, compare the cars running that day at that track. As another poster said, you can hardely compare an E55 running yesterday on this dirt blown track to an E55 at a track under even half way decent conditions. The 60' of all the cars tell the whole story.

To the poster that is bragging about his stock E55 doing 12.2's w/ stock contis'. Dude, at this track you would have posted 13.5's w/ your stock contis no question about that.

dragonAMG

another retard who can't read ... I'm not one to call names but there is no better way to voice my frustration by your ignorance. Refer to https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/163059-ca-speedway-results.html

rflow306

Dragon what air pressure did you run the Dr's at ?. Did you go as low as 15 lbs ?

pterion

Now I understand the E55 vs E63 debate much better.
Its not at all about what would happen when some stock 55's and stock 63's go to a track on a specific day and run (the results of which we now have) its about how low a number you can type into a forum thread.

Ok, so your stock 55 can do 12.2 and 117. Thats great. Maybe you should paint it on the side of your car. But the 55's that actually went to the track yesterday were not able to beat the stock 63 by more than .1 and had trap speads that were 1 or 2 mph greater at best. Some of the runs were the same between the 2.

So in reality, the 63 and 55 are very similar, but in fantasy forum land, the 55 is just way faster.

I also love the argument that the 63 was putting down its best time on a poor track, but the 55 was way slower. On a better quality track the 63 would not be helped at all, but the 55's would lose a whole second and gain 7-10 mph.
And your evidence for that is what?

Here is what we know for sure: On Sept 15th on a track in SoCa, the E63 was similar in 1/4mile and trap speed to the E55.
Anything other than that is pure speculation and nothing more.


PT

dragonAMG

I believe it was 18. Jay, correct me if I'm wrong here.

dragonAMG

WELL SAID, PT. I'm glad someone understands... LOL.

RJC

I look at all this from another perspective; the 63 is not any faster than the 55...

Jrocket

If the 63 that was there,wasnt putting out 507,then the M cars werent putting out 500 either.

getbitten

retard? The only retard people are those who ignore the obvious. Nice of you to turn it into a school yard pissing match.
Classy.

I read of the track conditions. And I, unlike you, are intelligent enough and have raced enough to understand that 109 MPH SUCKS and the only reason the stock E55's didn't run much better appears to be due to their loss of traction with the bad weather whereas the E63 is less affected due to it's anemic low end torque.

See if you can spend less money on mods and a few bucks on adderall and pay better attention to the truth.

Jrocket

C'mon now,was that really needed?

rflow306

It's very simple an e55 is susceptible to heat soak a n/a motor like an e63, m5 or m6 is not. That in it's own right is a big plus and advantage for the e63 no doubt about it. Whether that was the case with the e55's at the track i don't know. What i was trying to point out is that e55 times can vary from 12.0 to 13.0 and 109 to 116 mph depending on track conditions. But if you feel that all the timeslips posted on dragtimes.com at different tracks are irrelevant or fictional then just forget about it. My post was not meant to be another e55 is better than e63 thread, I was merely stating what i have witnessed first hand at the track with regards to these cars.

getbitten

If you guys would stop blowing sunshine up each other's *** and look at the cold hard facts.

DEREK AND I BOTH DYNOED NEARLY IDENTICAL AT 380 RWHP. EXPLAIN TO ME IN ALL OF YOUR WISDOM AND INTELLIGENCE HOW THAT IS 507 HP?

THIS has been my argument...not whether any of you could get it down a track or not. MB didn't state a quartermile time in their propaganda...just a 0-60 of 4.2 (laughable) and a horsepower number.

pterion

Not any faster on the 1/4 mile, but pretty similar. Now on a road track, on the highway at high speeds etc it probably is faster (according to the AMG tests).

So yes, if you want to go from 0-100 or down a 1/4 mile drag strip the E63 is not an improvement over the 55. If you want handling, braking, highway acceleration (looks, at least in my opinion) etc then the E63 is an improvement.

BTW There is an "8 second" El Camino coming to the east coast drag day... maybe its time to stop arguing about whether the E55 can do 12.6 comared to the 13.0 of the E63 and step up to a modified el camino... i mean is all that matters if straight line acceleration...

PT

RJC

Yup...

getbitten

and I personally was hoping the car to be equal, not inferior. I didn't buy the car to road race.
The E63 doesn't entertain unless you beat on it, unlike the E55 which feels powerful even at low speeds.

Jrocket

But the 63 wasnt anemic yesterday,it suffered from bad starts and not so ideal weather also.1500+ elevation,mid 70's temps,track that has a 6 ft up hill elevation diff,and humidity in the high 80's to low 90's.The 55's were cooled down with huge fans between runs,the 63 was hot lapping back too back.For the 63 driver it was also his first time to a track,and he was learning with every pass,seeing how he started the day off in the mid 14's I beleive.Even with the 63's low tq it still could blaze the tire when babying it off the line.

RJC

OT... How's that super sweet GT been treating you lately???

pterion

Ok so the E55 accross numerous different runs at different tracks can vary from 12.0-13's. I would agree that this is true. What we don't know AT ALL is what the E63 will do under the same varied conditions and tracks. We have 2 examples (derek and yesterday). How do you know that the TWO examples are completely representative of the E63's capabilites? I think we need a lot more data.
Heat soak is irrelevant. That is a weakness of the 55 just like a lack of low end torque is a weakness of the 63. Having a hard time getting traction is also a weakness. Do you think that if you went to a track and raced someone for money and lost by a couple of tenths that you could go up to them afterwards and say "well it was a hot day, and the track was a bit slippery and my car is more suceptable to heat soak and loss of traction than yours it, so I really should have won so i am going to take the money..."



Please

PT

dragonAMG

I will take the higher road on this one.

While you are correct in that the E63 doesn't have the same amount of low end torque as the E55, like all of our cars, the E63's MPH was affected by the dirt/sand/rubber covering this unprepped track which ultimately hindered traction.

Jrocket

Very true,my car made 20hp less on the dyno by making pulls back too back.


Thats why yesterday I took 2 large fans out to the track that we used too cool the 55's down between runs.the 63 hot lapped back too back all day long without using any fans ever.

getbitten

I appreciate your intelligent and considerate explanation.

I will be running my car at the same track that I ran my 2003 E55 at for comparison soon.

I am not arguing that there aren't things to like about the E63...to the contrary, it is superior in every way that I see except in one...and that is POWER.

And fellas, I didn't buy this car for it's looks, handling or that pointy star on the front...I bought it because it is advertised as a 4-door 507 HP beast...and that is just not true.

Ted Baldwin

.............you read my mind. I'm reading this thread thinking.......they are missing the point. The point is clearly the E63 NOT faster than the E55 it replaces, period!! Where did all those fantastic acceleration figures for the E63 come from? Bobcanada may wish to chime in.

Ted

dragonAMG

I do not disagree with you at all. The E63 is definitely not making the advertised power and it is clear that the E55 makes more power. That being said, the E55 and E63 run very close in times simply because the E63 has the edge with the 7sp tranny and ability to gain traction much sooner.

pterion

Quote:
Originally Posted by pterion View Post
So yes, if you want to go from 0-100 or down a 1/4 mile drag strip the E63 is not an improvement over the 55.
PT

Ok... so then get a drag racer. I have seen classic ford trucks modified to do a 1/4 mile in 10 seconds. When not go that route.

I think that most people who spend 90,000$ on a MB are looking for a few things other than striaght line acceleration. But if your are not, then in the drag racing world your 12.x time just blows...

PT