After spending the day racing my E63 at today’s California drag event, I would like to offer my unique perspective on the E63 vs E55 debate.

First of all, let me offer my sincere “thanks” to Loren for organizing this event, and to his wife for dutifully logging the times of the cars to be sure there was a record. Loren also generously shared his helmet with me all day long (My wife asked me if I was seeing another man when she smelled strange aftershave on me). It was also great to meet the other guys that were racing there. It nice to be able to put a face with a screen name. I am going to have to go back and review what you all have said about me or my car in previous posts.

As a lover of the E55, I understand the passion that surrounds the E55 vs E63 debate. I was so interested in seeing for myself how these cars compared that I kept my E55, rather than selling it when I ended up buying an E63, so I could do some informal testing. Most of you have seen my posting on this about 10 days ago
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/161712-confirmed-e63-faster-than-e55.html

Right after that posting came DerekFSU’s disappointment on the track, along with stories of E63’s getting beat by everything from SLK55s to Segways. Plus information (unknown to me) about ECU reset issues for the E55 that might have affected my E55’s ability to be a good reference point for the E63. Then came more about low E63 dyno numbers. Adding all this up, its been quite a crazy 10 days, with very few accolades directed at the E63. Based on all of this, it seemed the sky over the E63 was full of dark clouds this morning as I prepared to test it on the track.

I think the sun was shining brighter on the E63 after the racing. As others have said, on this quarter mile track, today, the stock E63 and stock E55s were damn close. To make myself look better, I intend to loudly point out that one of the “stock” E55s was running BFG drag slick tires, had a K&N snorkel, and a driver that was a full 95 pounds lighter than me (and this was before I personally watched him nibble on a very light lunch!!!!!).

My best time was very late in the day, a 13.279 sec @ 109.27 mph. This was my first time on a dragstrip. I tried all different techniques to launch, throughout the day. Anything other than “Stomp on it with ESP on” yielded slower times for me. The really slow times were my experiments. My car had about 700 miles on it.

In conclusion, I am sure there will be more debate and craziness to come on this topic. With a different track or day or car, the results may be different. I realize I should not have chosen a different title for the post on that original testing I did. Instead of “Confirmed: E63 is faster than E55 “, I should have said “My Unflashed Stock E55 Driven By My Buddy Was Slower Than My Stock E63 Driven By Me Today Only”.

I was fully expecting to be disappointed today, based on all the bad signs in the last 10 days. I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, all things considered, the E63 is a worthy successor to the incredible E55, stock to stock. I love my E63 even more than I did this morning.

 

And you should,its an amazing car!

 

Congrats on the 63! From the pictures and the video your 63 looks and sounds amazing. It's a keeper! Enjoy.

 

[QUOTE=E63AMG;My best time was very late in the day, a 13.279 sec @ 109.27 mph. I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, all things considered, the E63 is a worthy successor to the incredible E55, stock to stock. I love my E63 even more than I did this morning.[/QUOTE]

Am I the only one reading this right? 13.28 sec BEST 1/4mile? What was the worst 1/4? That is W210 territory (I mean it as a compliment to W210 guys!) Most stock W211 E55's do a 1/4 in 12.1-12.5 sec on Contis. Mine does it in 12.35 sec, which is a whole 180 ft or 11 car lengths in front of the E63 on a good day!
No wonder Derek is getting rid of his E63.
Sorry mate, no amount of optimism and encouragement from other Forum members would stop me from a massive attack of "Buyer's Remorse" if I had bought one.

 

Come run your 12.35 at the track we ran at with the conditions we had to deal with. If you can get under 12.9 we will call you God.

 

What conditions? There is no mention of extenuating circumstances, inclement weather, hurricanes or comparable E55 times in this post.
I just read Loren's post and see what you mean, but I wasn't responding to Loren, was I?

 

Of course you weren't responding to Loren because he didn't create this thread. If you read Loren's post then you could probably figure what Loren said applies to the E63 since we all ran on the same track during the same hours.

 

What is your point?
All I am saying that if I had not read Loren's post afterwords, I and everybody else who reads this post, could not have known what you are referring to.
I was responding to this post only, based on the information provided.
I am not a mind reader. You were there? Good for you.

 

You are quoting times from different days on different tracks. Head to Fontana and tell us how you do...

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to see how your car does after your words.

 

For those who are not mind readers.....

https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....94&postcount=1

 

I have been waiting to step to a CLS 63 from me E55. But with all the threads, one wonders if that is a good move.

I am glad to hear that the 63 seems to be just as fast, could be faster, and or could be slower than the 55. I know that traction for me on the normal streets is horrible. My friend's BMW 540 always takes the jump because of the e55 torque down low.

Can you tell me what kind of mpg you are getting? My e55 gets like 13.5-14.5. I think that is lousy because I don't gun it at all to get that kinda of mpg. (although I don't do a lot of freeway driving right now)

amgbg

 

Hi guys, just a question:
Is it at all possible that on a bad preped strip that the 55 couldn't really put down its torque which allowed the stock 63 & 55 to be so close in times and speeds.
Is it also possible then that on regular roads and robot type races that the e63 might have an edge with less torque and power higher up in the rev range?

 

great job with the logging of all the results!!

its well obvious that the track conditions held everyone back..

The 911TT, which model was it?

Cant wait to hook up my K2, which looks like 'easy' elevens on a half decent track?!

 

From my own experience with the new 4valve engines. They have lots of midrange power from about 70mph onwards. So it would be interesting to see an E63 against an E55 from 70mph onwards. I would guess the E63 is faster though it might still be close. But in anycase the E63 has stepped up the game, won't win a drag strip race but it's in gear acceleration will always out jump and E55 since it gets its power down better and has a better transmission. At the end of the day that's what counts. For many you don't get to race someone down a 1/4 mile of highway but you do have to out accelerate the crowd to get the change to cross to the lane you want or to be the first to take the corner so you aren't caught in the traffic. So in the real world the E63 might prove more useful. Another thing I know is the engines open up quite a bit with more mileage. At 5,000miles and at about 7,000miles you feel a difference.

 

With 3 trips to the dragstrip and WOT every single time I drive the car, I have logged 16.3mpg for 13,500 miles.

 

I tend to agree with Rafal , i do not think that a 13.279 is a very good 1/4 mile time, especially for so-called 507hp amg ; just my 2 cents...

 

If there is anything to be learned from yesterday's event, it is that this kind of thinking is faulty. You are missing the point. More truth can be garnered from comparing cars on the same day on the same track, than using numbers from different days and different tracks. You gain no insight in the relative performance of these cars by comparing the numbers you list to what was posted by my car, and others, on this track and day.

 

You are also forgetting one very important thing. The e55 is way more susceptible to heat and bad weather. For example take the e55's that ran with you, on a good day with good weather those e55's will easily pick up 4 to 6 mph and 7 to 8 tenths while the e63 will pick up 1 to 2mph tops and 2 to 3 tenths.

I'm not trying to be a hater just pointing out what i have noticed at the track before. I still think there is a load limit or restriction period in the e63 ecu. When this is resolved we will start seeing e63's dyno at 420 to 430 rwhp and run mid 12's at 117-118 traps.

If their is no ecu limit, no weather or amount of miles will give a n/a motor 30 to 40 hp. IMHO.

 

I actually did not forget that and agree with the concept. However, yesterday was not hot, so heat was not a factor. With the exception of some very brief misting, it was dry...not bad weather. It was a cool day (for Fontana in Sept: 70 degrees +/- my guess?) with good weather.

I hope you are right about the ECU restrictor, but I really doubt it.

I am interested in seeing future head-to-head comparisons on the same day and track to see how the results vary.

 

+1 My Cayenne is faster than 13.2??? I can't see the E63 putting out 507hp.

 

Is this post a joke? Who the hell gets excited in a vehicle after running 13's @ 109?
Another disappointing display of power from MB...and further evidence of NOT HAVING 507 HP!

 

You should perhaps explain to our American friends what "robots" are in South Africa? They all think R2-D2?

 

I may not be a mind reader but looking at these results can't help but wonder if you are thinking of trading the C55 soon...

 

Guys, give me a break! Look at your original post to which I responded and show me where is all that info on weather, track prep, humidity etc that keeps appearing all of a sudden from left right and center.
I am just waiting for someone to post a late newsflash that all these cars raced on square wheels
Since by all accounts the E63 is easier to launch than E55 because of its more benign torque curve, it should have been even more superior on a wet track. The fact that in all cases stock E55's prevailed over E63's means that on a dry track E63 would lose by an even bigger margin. That's just physics,
the rest is excuses from a society of mutual admiration. Amen.

 

No question about that... with good track conditions there is no doubt in my mind that my car would run 11.5 - 116 @ 120++. I've ran better times in Vegas at 2,200 ft. with this car hehe