jamie140

I'm so struggling with this issue right now. I just sold my M5 after 31k kms and almost 12 months. I loved the car.

Drove a CLS63 and E63 the last couple days, but didn't feel comfortable getting on them because they both had less than 100 kms. Wish they rev matched the downshifts! Very lovely and luxurious inside. Cool and stately outside.

Didn't seem quite as quick as the M5, but I couldn't care less about a tenth or two anyway.

REALLY want to love the E63...

Bones

In this months Motor Trend, the head of AMG commented that they are working on a soloution regarding the rev matching on downshifts. In my opinin they need to add this feature quickly, it will add to the whole sporty experience. From everything I have read, AMG's future path is towards more balanced/involving cars. Exactly what I am looking for.

Cheers

MikeRPA

yo how about we meet up , and you'll say it to my face tough GUY ???
i will make the video , but your boyfriend will be the one sticking fingers in his *** iiite ?

jamie140

That would prolly push me over the edge! I wonder if it's likely a retro-fittable patch?

chiromikey

yes lets meet up so I can go to jail for abusing a 12yr old. be sure to bring your dad...actually you better bring both your dads.

if you want t continue this banter, send me a pm so the rest of the forum doesn't have to put up with this.

AMG 17GT

Awwwwww.....just go to the club and get 10 bottles of Bubb..............

MikeRPA

Listen 1st of all i wasn't disrespecting nobody and im not 12 , 2nd of all i was just trying to prove my point that 63 is faster WOW IF YOUR SO OLD AND SMART why can't u just think of this, its n/a engine with a 7 speed transmission , 7 speed transmission is the reason why the car is faster and torque is not playing much of a role here , m5 has liek 388 of torque and its still faster than e55 . why ? 1) n/a engine 2) 7 speed transmission) 3) more h/p and the engine has more liters, and damn 55 has a LIIIITLE TINY bit torque more dan the 63 , lol if i was sick laying on my bed i would argue about it 24/7 , but some1 already proved my point , dont we have a video of a 63 smoking da s*it out of 55 ? YE WE DO , there aint nothing else i can say. there is no possible way 55 can keep up to a 63 , now m5 vs 63 is the real deal. and i dont care what ya'll think that im 12 11 10 its up to you , but at least i make sence , and if you have the 55 its slower than the 63 face it =] , and im not sayin the 55 is bad its f****cking awesome .

ewuwu ///AMG

[QUOTE damn 55 has a LIIIITLE TINY bit torque more dan the 63 man...ur good

MikeRPA

465 and 516 is not a big deal , like lets say m5 has 388 thats already a big difference

2MANYCARS

How intersting this board is. It brings all kind of people here, including someone with no experience of the M's or AMG's make comments about them. I believe in no replacement for displacement, but given the same displacement or similar, how is an N/A engine better than F/I? We see more and more F/I engines appear on the market so people can have better performing cars to choose from. For example, BMW's 335ci/i, turbocharged inline-6 making 300hp/300tq & Acura's RDX, turbocharged 4 cyl i-VTEC making 240hp/260tq, aside from auto manufacturers, why do you think aftermarket companies like HKS, Blitz, or Greddy make supercharger/turbo kits for various models? Because there's simply no road going production car with N/A engine can produce the power an F/I engine equipped vehicle can. Again, given both engines are similarly displaced. The video posted on here showing the E63 beats the E55 is because of traction. With the 7 spd and less torque, the E63 can get out from the hole nice and smoothly, while the E55's 5 spd and massive torque mean "transfer tire from wheel to pavement, please". With an upgraded differential and wider tires, the E55 can beat an E63 in the quarter. Also, please leave the attacks in PMs only, I am sure not everyone on the board here wants to read about fingers sticking out from asses.

chiromikey

apparently our newbie hasn't been around long enough to have viewed the video of the amg rep ADMITTING the e55 is quicker/faster through the 1/4mile (which is the american standard to measuring a vehicles acceleration). what happens after that is really of no consequence to me as i've already shut down and am patiently waiting for the ricer flyby.

KenE55

I don't think we need any videos or rep's comments, actually. We have timeslips. There are many E55 timeslips that show ET's in the very low 12's, typically from 12.1 to 12.4. I have yet to see an E63 time slip under 13. That's no small difference.

You can't judge a car's acceleration by the HP numbers, curb weight, and gear count you find on the manufacturer's web site. You get those numbers only at the track.

I really, really, want to see the E63's potential; I'd love to buy one if the performance is proven. I just have not seen it yet.

2MANYCARS

Good point, the fastest time to date was from DerekFSU, with a 13.01 if I remember correctly. I really want to see what an E63 with 3000+ miles on the clock can do.

limitup

Stock for stock you think an E55 is that much faster than an E63? Not.

I just recently traded my M5 for the E63 I have now. The stock M5 consistently ran right around 12.5. If the E63 ends up being any slower than that in the 1/4 I'm guessing it won't be by more than a tenth or two at most. 60' times in the M5 are relatively horrible ...

I don't have a timeslip yet, but I will soon.

KenE55

Umm... There are stock E55's breaking into the high 11's, and an unskilled driver can break 12.4 fairly easily. That is, well, faster than 12.5, and if the E63 is a few tenths slower than that, well then yes, that is still slower than an E55. This is not a complicated concept people.... no one has produced an E63 timeslip that is within 1.0 second of the faster E55 ET's... that's a huge gap.

Here are just stock E55 runs on dragtimes.com:

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

Show me a single E63 run that is even in the 12's.. much less below 12.4 where E55's are plentiful.

MikeRPA

lol well 1st of all stock e55 with its regular wheels wont ever do 11's and 2nd of all ALL THESE NEW 63 ARE F****CKING new with bellow 1000 miles or so , lets see what the results will be after 5k miles , and only few of them were tested , i've seen plenty of e55's doing 13's on the track

Rock

Angry Teenager,

Your passion for the E63 is eclipsed only by your skillfully crafted prose.

It sounds like your missing the point in this comparison. Do you realize that a stock E55 is a 12.0-12.5 car right out of the box? No break-in and no special driver skills are required. Just push the gas, hang on and BOOM!!!! a 12 second run every time.

No one is suggesting that the E55 is superior. We understand that the E63 is the better overall car but until you can provide time slips showing lower ETs and higher trap speeds..........it AINT faster.

2MANYCARS

Back in the days when I used to go to the tracks, E55s there were nothing worse than 12s, where did you see those 13s? If you insist on the E63s are faster than the 55s, bring us some proof, your argument is nothing but talks without any time slip.

limitup

Clearly you've never driven an E63. If you think a stock E55 is 1 second faster than an E63 in the quarter you are living in your own little dream world.

waxking1

".........at the Atlanta AMG meet, we were informed by AMG reps that future front impact regulations prompted the replacement of the s/c motors. It definitely was not scrapped because AMG was displeased with it. You are correct that it will eventually be phased out completely. Having said that, the CLS63 and E63 represented themselves well at the meet both at the dyno and at the dragstrip. Several 55 series and E63 and CLS63 did many many dragstrip runs at the meet. I think the best phrase is to say that the E63 is almost as fast as the E55 in a straight line. The idea that the E63 is a 13sec car does not seem valid any more. It is a mid to upper 12 sec car. The E55 is a low to mid 12 sec car. I think the point is that for most people, there isn't any reason to ditch their 55 and get 63. For new buyers, I think the E63 will be just fine."

This was posted by Ted Baldwin in the E63 1/4 times thread. I think this pretty much sums it up.
Same track, same day.

MikeRPA

Ok is any from NY NJ area would run their 55 against a 63 ? if yes let me know ill try to get one of my boys on the new m5 aswell

Carl Lassiter

Cylinder Head from this board has an E60 M5.