E63AMG

Lets focus in thread very directly on the factory speed claims, since there seem to be many comments flying around this site that they misled the public. I underlined the word "speed" because for this one thread, PLEASE, lets focus on speed claims and not get sidetracked talking about claimed HP or other issues, OK?

To the best of my knowledge, AMG has made one published speed claim for the E63: They say it will do 0 – 60 in 4.3 seconds (or 0 - 100 km in 4.5 secs). If the car can do this or better, they have told the truth. Did they or didn’t they? Yes or no? That is the question.

To the best of my knowledge, Mercedes has made one published speed claim for the E55: I believe they said it will do 0 – 60 in 4.5 seconds. Again, if the car can do this or better, they have told the truth. Did they or didn’t they? Yes or no?

I think this is the point at which we need to stop drawing additional conclusions, such as “Mercedes is saying that the E63 is faster than the E55” by these two numbers. They made 2 claims….We deduced the 3rd one (that the E63 is faster). It may be that the power delivery of the E63 makes for more consistent 0 – 60 times for the average driver. This may make Mercedes more comfortable quoting a number for the E63 with a smaller amount of padding in it. The point to remember is that these are 2 separate speed claims. They are not on the same Mercedes page anywhere that I know of. We are linking them and making the third deduction. If I am wrong, politely enlighten me.

The only place I have seen an independent 0 – 60 time test for the E63 was in a German car magazine, AutoBild, that compared the Audi A6, BMW M5, and Mercedes E63. It is unfortunate that the link to that story that I posted no longer works. Luckily, I printed out the results in this article. The E63 result is exactly what Mercedes claims for 0 – 100 km:

......................Audi S6.....BMW M5...MB E63
0 – 100 km/h.......5.4 s.......4.7 s........4.5 s
0 – 130 km/h.......8.2 s.......6.9 s........6.9 s
0 – 160 km/h.......11.6s.......9.4 s........9.7 s
0 - 200 km/h.......18.0s.......13.5s.......15.0s

Quarter Mile
0 – 402.34m.......13.52s......13.14s......12.7s

We all agree that the factory E55 0 – 60 speed claims were truthful. The car can do what the factory promised. Until there is some legitimate data to show the factory E63 0 – 60 speed claim was not truthful, withhold your accusations about the factory’s integrity, at least on their speed claims.

You may well be disappointed in the quarter mile time above, but I do not believe the factory promised better.

Thank you for keeping this thread focused on speed claims, not HP or other issues.

FlyByNight

Factory speed claims are a joke in my opinion. Not only should they not be padded for any reason, but they are calculated using professional drivers in perfect conditions. And even then they are off.

Quoting factory E55 times, for example, is inaccurate becasue most every independent test had the E55 as faster than factory claims! 4.2 for the wagon in C/D, 4.3 for the sedan.

Lastly, we'll have to wait for those same mags to do their same GPS based 0-60 and 1/4 miles testing on the E63... that's the bottom line. We've already proven that no matter how hard WE try to confirm stats, we'll still leave the door open for tons of debate.

But I never trust factory claims.



Loren

E63AMG

I agree with everything you have said. What I want to point out is that there is far more integrity in a factory claim that is conservative, maybe with some padding, than a claim based on the time for their best race car driver.

Both may be off from reality, but one is far more honest, in terms of delivering what is promised, than the other.

jamusa

I agree with you on MB giving us the speed the claimed........but i think everyone is saying that the E63 is not that better or faster than the car it replaces.

While we agree that the E63 might be better handeling with margineally more power that the E55,we are saying that we are not happy with the E63 as a replacement car for the E55.We were expecting more of a BMW fighter .
BMW did it right when they upgraded the E39 with the E60.To some the car could not even place in a beauty contest,but it more than made up for what it lacks in the performance department.
Seeing that BMW had thrown down the gauntlet,everyone was expecting MB to do one better.I am sure that those of you who has a E63 was expecting the E63 to perform much better than this.
Lets face it gentlemen........the E63 is a dissopointment,we were expecting much better performance.......AMG messed up on this one.
Guys quit justefying the fact that AMG came up with a winner in the E63,they need to go back to the drawing board with this car.
We buy AMG b/c we want a MB that performs,so AMG needs to do just that.give us a better performance "E" car.

regor60

choosing to focus on HP is no less legitimate than choosing to focus on 0-60 times, given your criterion of factory claim. Both are factory claims, right ?

bfnnrgn

If AMG was indeed going after the M5 they have failed, and failed miserably. The M5 would outhandle the E55, but at least the E55 could crush it in the 1/4 mile. Now with the E63 the M5 can outhandle (it's still the same old E chassis with some minor improvements) the AMG E class and can outrun it in the 1/4 mile as shown by the drag results from Friday. The M folks can have thier cake and eat it to thanks to AMG and the 63 engine. Way to go Mercedes!

E63AMG

Of course! I could not agree more. I am delighted to see there is a parallel thread on HP.

The reason for my reference to keeping HP claims out of this thread is so that we can focus on this topic, to hopefully get some clarity. If the topic is "A" and people incessantly discuss "B" its hard to get anywhere.

Rock

Speaking of speed, if we look at the rags test results, you will see that Road and Track had the E55 smoking to 60 in a mere 4.2 sec., on to an astounding 12.4-sec. quarter mile at 116.4 mph. Car and Driver had almost identical runs. From what we have seen and heard thus far, I will be shocked if the 63 can duplicate those results. Mercedes is going to have a lot of unhappy customers if this new car cannot generate at least the same speed numbers as the outgoing car.

I will continue to believe my conspiracy theory as to why no major US car mags have tested the 63 yet.

getbitten

Please discuss here...

https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/163325-e63-factory-hp-claims-truthful.html

Ted Baldwin

.........you started your post appearing to be objective but you actually want someone to agree with you. You totally forget that there have been two actual timed speed trials for the E63 in the USA where you bought your car, not in Europe. One admittedly was not on a well prepped track. the other was on a well prepped track and the E63 was driven by an experienced driver. In both cases, the E63 failed to get below 13secs in the quatermile. This of course is well below the factory figures. So until there are actual timed speed runs of the E63 in the USA where you bought your car that are better than thefactory figures shouldn't you reserve judgement and say that the E63 is below factory speed figures?

Ted

FlyByNight

I agree... I mean, WTF? Why aren't articles popping up all over the place, with new test data and all the stuff you'd normally see with a new highly touted engine? Its so very strange. I mean, with the E55 and most every other "event" like this, they were getting test cars before general public release. Now I've even sat in one (sorry, when you weren't looking I messed around with your 63... hehe). I've played with one, others have bought them, and yet none of the big mags have actually tested the thing?

Sumtin' fishy going on I think as well.

Loren

E63AMG

I am unaware of a published factory quote for the quarter mile. Is there one? Please point me in its direction.

If so, then I agree we can start comparing their promise with these 2 poor times.

If not, then we are back to comparing the 0 - 60 times with data collected.

E63AMG

Heeey. Did you put my parking brake on when you were in my car?????

Germancar1

This theory about the E63 hasn't been tested yet by the mags is ridiculous. If you look at how many new cars MB has introduced for 2007 you'd see why no one has had a chance to test them yet. The S550, S600, SL550 have all been tested in the last 3-4 months as will the E63, CLK63, ML63 in the coming months seeing as how they just went on sale last month. This about the mags not testing the 63 because of hp is nonsense at best when you look at the normal test pattern of how the carmags test cars. In a few months time they'll be a "63" something in all 4 of the major U.S. publications or they'll be test of all the new "550" versions of the CLK, E, CLS, etc.

M

Ted Baldwin

............I see your point. Interesting how you narrow your enquiry to one that narrowly suits your purpose. No I too am unaware of factory claimed 1/4 mile times. Therefore, the E63 is a true beast. It is faster than a Ferrari Enzo. I am sure you are happy now. Forget that the e63 has twice done 0-85mph in almost 9 secs. No, that does not give you the info you need. I actually believe that the E63 is probably a high 12sec car in the quatermile, so I agree that the results so far are probably lesss than its potential. But going 12.8 or 12.9 in the quatermile is one thing, but talking about 12.2 and 12.3 which is what stock E55's have done is another. Oh yea....we are talking about 0-60 times only. Sorry.

addendum: You may wish to read this too. https://mbworld.org/forums/clk55-amg-clk63-amg-w208-w209/163332-auto-test-clk-63-amg.html


Ted

E63AMG

I plead "guilty" to the charge of narrowing my inquiry here. I am simply trying to compare what they promised in speed with what we have seen delivered.

I am not trying limit discussion to 0 - 60 times, only to FACTORY claims. Many have claimed the factory has somehow lied about promised speed. Maybe they have. Others here may have more information and factory speed claims I have not seen. Hence, the thread. Lets talk about it here. My goal is to have clarify the facts, not to pretend the E63 is an Enzo.

I did review this thread but came away with the same question that was left unanswered by the single response. Was that a car magazine or what? Its a bit sketchy.

As we start getting more data back on the speed of the E63, we can better judge these factory claims. With the exception of the AutoBild Magazine article I posted, I have not come across any other cross checks to the factory quotes.

Is anyone else aware of either A) more 0 - 60 test times or B) different factory quotes?

FlyByNight

I didn't mean to imply that car mags haven't been doing testing because of horsepower issues... hell no... if anything, there are lots of car mags that would LOVE to JUMP on a story like that and actually practice journalism by revealing this to the world.

These two issues are independent of each other. I am wondering why the hell the reviews have been so slow to come. And while the other cars you mention are important to review, its the 63 engine across the lineup that is the BIG story performance wise. Its been on their site forever now, its been the talk of the AMG world as a stepping stone to AMG-only design... it IS the arm wrestle with other manufacturer's cars in this HP war, and the self admitted future of AMG.

And yet, we're looking through tiny Euro mags to look for testing while the cars are in our driveways. It was the exact opposite with all the 55 and 65 motors. Your theory about testing patterns doesn't make sense when I look back at those reviews. The 65 was tested by the major mags well before the cars even entered the US dealerships. Same with every 55 model.

So, either MB isn't handing out test cars like it used to, or the mags aren't as interested in the 63 lineup as everyone thought they'd be.



Loren

FlyByNight

And this just in... today's Road & Track came out with a big huge special road test of...

The E350 Sport.

getbitten

425 HP...for God's sake
1/4 Mile ET: 12.809
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.432

http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge-Charg...slip-9469.html

FlyByNight

I have a Jeep SRT8... the Mopar intake did wonders for the thing. In addition, my friend has a charger SRT8... and the exhaust really helped it as well. The two together do help a LOT on that car, so its HP is past 425 easily. Hennessy does those two things and adds some head work to bring the SRT8s to 500 hp quickly. So, its between there somewhere.

But I do see your point completely.... it still shouldn't be in the same hemisphere as the E63...



Loren

getbitten

I'm saying the 425 HP STOCK SRT-8 is dynoing the same and running the quarter the same as the 507 HP E63.
Anything can be modded. I'm making a fair example of two stock cars using the same chassis with similar weight.

No way they should be anywhere near each other if the HP numbers were correct.

FlyByNight

I am specifically referring to the car and slip your are referring to. If you look at the dragtimes page in your link, he has the mopar intake, which I have... and he did the exhaust... e.g., it is not stock. Its closer to 450/60 hp.

That's why I mentioned those things above... because this car has them.

Loren

getbitten

Loren,

Sorry...you are correct. I was also looking at some stock 300C SRT-8 numbers and crossed the information. The 300C SRT-8's were running very low 13's at 108 and a freak bone stock one posted 12.5's @ 118 (very questionable so I threw it out)

deaguero

AMG owes the E63 buyers an explanation!