E63 vs E55 Post Drag Race Perspective
09-16-2006, 01:18 PM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMGs
Last edited by 2K6E55; 09-16-2006 at 04:15 PM.
09-16-2006, 01:24 PM
#77
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
09-16-2006, 01:30 PM
#78
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
I have the same buying perspective as you do,but I went with the 55 due to ease of modding.Its possible the 63 makes close to 507 at the crank,seeing that both the M5 and the 63 ran similar numbers that day.They both lack tq but claim big hp numbers,it is possible.
09-16-2006, 01:50 PM
#79
No driver error involved on this dyno.
09-16-2006, 02:03 PM
#80
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
Didn't that E63 on the track also have low mileage, something like 1000miles? Again, from my experience even in my Dad's new S550. The first time I drove it I thought it was much slower at take off than his previous S500 (220). I wondered how 388hp could be slower than 306hp. Then I realized I had to change it to S mode from C and it would start in 1st gear instead of 2nd. That helped a bit but it still felt slower. I was really disappointed. No or very little wheelspin from a kickdown start. Now he has about 5000 miles on it and the take off is waaay better than before! Kickdown will produce wheelspin and a real push into the chair that there is no doubt it is a much faster machine than the previous S500. This brings me to my point that these new 4 valve engines need some time to break in before they push all the power. I don't know whether it is some sort of ECU limiter or the engines are still very tight from new. BUT there was a definate improvment in acceleration in both my Dad's S550 and my C280 once we passed about 5,000 miles!!
So lets keep them E-guns holstered
and not on the E63 as it is still a bit premature to judge it unless someone has one with more mileage (properly broken in with more than 5000 miles) and gets it and a fellow stock E55 without re-flash (so we also don't have any 
from various members) to a decent track. Only then will we get a good equal showing.
So lets keep them E-guns holstered
and not on the E63 as it is still a bit premature to judge it unless someone has one with more mileage (properly broken in with more than 5000 miles) and gets it and a fellow stock E55 without re-flash (so we also don't have any from various members) to a decent track. Only then will we get a good equal showing.that just sounds like the tranny ecu learning to haul!! maybe?
09-16-2006, 02:54 PM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sin City
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
12' C63 P31, 06' Supercharged Range, 08' BMW 550i
I agree... definitely should be 120+. I will definitely hit my 11.70's @ 120+ in November when it cools in Vegas.
09-16-2006, 03:05 PM
#82
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the interesting thing about reading the post race comments from those that were actually there is how similar they are. There is very little difference in conclusions from those there racing about the different cars, whether they were personally driving a stock E55, E55 K2, E63 etc.
What I have seen posted by the racers reflects their attempt to disseminate the truth, not to support some bias related to the car they drove. I salute their honesty.
As I (and others) have tried to say, on this track, on this day, the stock cars were dang close. It may well be proved soon that on better tracks the gap is bigger. Until that time, take this for what its worth. To me, it was at least one indication that the E63 is in the same league as the E55.
What I have seen posted by the racers reflects their attempt to disseminate the truth, not to support some bias related to the car they drove. I salute their honesty.
As I (and others) have tried to say, on this track, on this day, the stock cars were dang close. It may well be proved soon that on better tracks the gap is bigger. Until that time, take this for what its worth. To me, it was at least one indication that the E63 is in the same league as the E55.
09-16-2006, 03:07 PM
#83
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Quinta, CALIF.
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2009 C63 Black on Black
Buy a Lexus if you want "smooth & linear"
09-16-2006, 03:09 PM
#84
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Seems your unhappy with the dyno numbers,does this mean you'll sell it now or ?
09-16-2006, 03:23 PM
#85
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have, you miss the point if you focus on absolute time, rather than relative times from yesterday. This seems to be universally agreed upon by those actually there.
09-16-2006, 03:35 PM
#86
MBWorld Fanatic!
Look at the trap speed not the et. The M's trap speed were 3 to 5 mph higher. The e63 trap speed is not indicative of a 500 hp car. Surface condition has very little impact on trap speed the weather on the other hand does.
09-16-2006, 03:42 PM
#87
Super Member
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.
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.
109 is within spitting distance of everything here except Dragon's K2, so I guess I'm not seeing how intelligence plays into this.
Loren
09-16-2006, 03:43 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'07 Porsche 997TT
09-16-2006, 03:47 PM
#89
Super Member
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
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
09-16-2006, 03:50 PM
#90
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UG
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 ML63 AMG PP
Jangy,
You could be right, it could be the tranny ecu, because these days when I kickdown ...holy crap...the car (S550) moves! That's why I keep saying we need an E63 with more than 5,000 miles on the clock! I've never felt such a change from driving at 100 miles compared to driving after its reached 5,000miles like I have in the S550. The C280 had it also but not to the extent of the S550 but a greater difference than the S500 (220). I did drive my Dad's S500 also when it was new and it only opened up a bit more, noticable, but not as great as in the S550. That's why I stongly believe that the same applies to the E63!
You could be right, it could be the tranny ecu, because these days when I kickdown ...holy crap...the car (S550) moves! That's why I keep saying we need an E63 with more than 5,000 miles on the clock! I've never felt such a change from driving at 100 miles compared to driving after its reached 5,000miles like I have in the S550. The C280 had it also but not to the extent of the S550 but a greater difference than the S500 (220). I did drive my Dad's S500 also when it was new and it only opened up a bit more, noticable, but not as great as in the S550. That's why I stongly believe that the same applies to the E63!
09-16-2006, 03:53 PM
#91
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
BTW you new pic in your sig line looks way better than the other one,I like it.
09-16-2006, 03:55 PM
#92
Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2011 Porsche Carrera GTS, 2009 BMW 750Li, 2011 Ferrari 458, 2011 SLS AMG, 2012 C63 AMG BS
A slippery track probably suits the E63 more, since it does not have as much low-end torque to spin the tires and lose time. On a dryer track with better traction, I think an E55 would be able to take advantage of its low-end torque more and jump ahead a little bit more, but the two cars would not be night and day difference in 1/4 mile times anyway, at least stock to stock. In around town driving from 10 to 60 with traction not an issue, I think the E55 would be noticeabley quicker. With a few thousand dollars in mods, the E55 would be significantly quicker, again given enough traction. In high speed runs, the two stock cars would be similar, with the E63 probably edging out in front after 100mph.
09-16-2006, 03:59 PM
#93
MBWorld Fanatic!
Jrocket is that mph correct?
Last edited by rflow306; 09-16-2006 at 04:05 PM.
09-16-2006, 04:06 PM
#94
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This statement is basically true for launching the car. If the track is slippery after the launch, it can have a huge impact on trap speed. Look at the traps for the stock cars - they should be in the 112-115 mph range, not 108-110 mph. With slippery conditions beyond launch, the track essentially becomes shorter. There is less distance to accelerate with good traction. This is also apparent in 1/8-mile trap speeds, which were lower than expected.
09-16-2006, 04:13 PM
#95
Super Member
09-16-2006, 04:15 PM
#96
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Loren , I understand about your car and the flash issue. What I don't understand and no-one has mentioned is that j-rocket, according to the list ran as high as 113.50 mph and alot of 108-109 mph. This difference in mph is indicative of heat soak issues for an e55. Was the highest mph listed for an e63 109 mph?. thanks
Jay55 was stock but on Drag radials.Not trying to down play or be rude here,cause I met Jay and think he's a cool dude,but with better driving technique he could have been in the 12.8? or so.
The humidity is what held us back for mph that day.We had a few times were the sun broke through and the track surface had some heat to it,but it the air just wasnt there that day.
Im not taking away from any of the claimed very low 12 second passes that have been made in stock 55's but seems like the ones that Ive seen have all been in very low temps/good air and fair track surfaces.Could be wrong but on that but theres no way any of those cars would run their claimed numbers that day.
Too rent a track is pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay for these cars,so if anybody wants to get another group together,count me in.Hopefully the air and track will be better.
09-16-2006, 04:23 PM
#97
Super Member
The high mph run was after the car sat for 1 hour at lunch,and towrds the end of the day I did make 2-3 runs in the 109.9 range and the last pass was a 110.10 run.I would make 2-3 back to back runs then bring the car in and place the fan in fron to of it for 20-30 minutes,sometimes less.With a little more vht I could have ran a 12.9?,remember I was on stock Conti's as well @28lbs.
Jay55 was stock but on Drag radials.Not trying to down play or be rude here,cause I met Jay and think he's a cool dude,but with better driving technique he could have been in the 12.8? or so.
The humidity is what held us back for mph that day.We had a few times were the sun broke through and the track surface had some heat to it,but it the air just wasnt there that day.
Im not taking away from any of the claimed very low 12 second passes that have been made in stock 55's but seems like the ones that Ive seen have all been in very low temps/good air and fair track surfaces.Could be wrong but on that but theres no way any of those cars would run their claimed numbers that day.
Too rent a track is pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay for these cars,so if anybody wants to get another group together,count me in.Hopefully the air and track will be better.
Jay55 was stock but on Drag radials.Not trying to down play or be rude here,cause I met Jay and think he's a cool dude,but with better driving technique he could have been in the 12.8? or so.
The humidity is what held us back for mph that day.We had a few times were the sun broke through and the track surface had some heat to it,but it the air just wasnt there that day.
Im not taking away from any of the claimed very low 12 second passes that have been made in stock 55's but seems like the ones that Ive seen have all been in very low temps/good air and fair track surfaces.Could be wrong but on that but theres no way any of those cars would run their claimed numbers that day.
Too rent a track is pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay for these cars,so if anybody wants to get another group together,count me in.Hopefully the air and track will be better.
Today I went to pick up lunch... still had the drag radials on from yesterday... cold as bricks. Punched it with ESP Off and I was plastered into my seat. Wow... if only race tracks were as well prepped as Victory Blvd in Woodland Hills. I can safely say it was my best 60 foot time in the last 24 hours, and I didn't even warm them up.
Kinda sucks the way management just shrugged and let us struggle with it.
Loren
09-16-2006, 04:23 PM
#98
MBWorld Fanatic!
This statement is basically true for launching the car. If the track is slippery after the launch, it can have a huge impact on trap speed. Look at the traps for the stock cars - they should be in the 112-115 mph range, not 108-110 mph. With slippery conditions beyond launch, the track essentially becomes shorter. There is less distance to accelerate with good traction. This is also apparent in 1/8-mile trap speeds, which were lower than expected.
Look at jrocket's 113.5mph. If that slip is correct it represents what the average e55 should run trap speed wise. Dragon's K2 car trapped 119 mph a difference of only three mph from his usual 120-121 which i attribute more to the weather conditions. I wonder if we could find out what the adjusted altitude was for late that day.
09-16-2006, 04:33 PM
#100
MBWorld Fanatic!
The high mph run was after the car sat for 1 hour at lunch,and towrds the end of the day I did make 2-3 runs in the 109.9 range and the last pass was a 110.10 run.I would make 2-3 back to back runs then bring the car in and place the fan in fron to of it for 20-30 minutes,sometimes less.With a little more vht I could have ran a 12.9?,remember I was on stock Conti's as well @28lbs.
Jay55 was stock but on Drag radials.Not trying to down play or be rude here,cause I met Jay and think he's a cool dude,but with better driving technique he could have been in the 12.8? or so.
The humidity is what held us back for mph that day.We had a few times were the sun broke through and the track surface had some heat to it,but it the air just wasnt there that day.
Im not taking away from any of the claimed very low 12 second passes that have been made in stock 55's but seems like the ones that Ive seen have all been in very low temps/good air and fair track surfaces.Could be wrong but on that but theres no way any of those cars would run their claimed numbers that day.
Too rent a track is pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay for these cars,so if anybody wants to get another group together,count me in.Hopefully the air and track will be better.
Jay55 was stock but on Drag radials.Not trying to down play or be rude here,cause I met Jay and think he's a cool dude,but with better driving technique he could have been in the 12.8? or so.
The humidity is what held us back for mph that day.We had a few times were the sun broke through and the track surface had some heat to it,but it the air just wasnt there that day.
Im not taking away from any of the claimed very low 12 second passes that have been made in stock 55's but seems like the ones that Ive seen have all been in very low temps/good air and fair track surfaces.Could be wrong but on that but theres no way any of those cars would run their claimed numbers that day.
Too rent a track is pennies on the dollar compared to what we pay for these cars,so if anybody wants to get another group together,count me in.Hopefully the air and track will be better.
I agree with you about the et but the 113.5 mph is indicative of a 410 to 425 sae rwhp. Which is the trap a stock e55 would run in those conditions.
