Tested E63 & M5, Run with E63 vs E55
10-20-2006, 02:32 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,764
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
'03 G500, '13 G63, '17 GLS63,
The fact is, that I am happy with my E55 and will probably not get an E63 because my E55 fulfills my priorities better than an E63 would. I'm not saying the E55 is better than E63, or vice-versa. In fact, I think the 63 engine is a great engine and the cars it is installed in are equally nice cars.
However, the power delivery the new 63 engines provide is not what I am looking for in this type of car. I love fat lazy torque and they simply don't have enough of it for me. It's not a case of which car is better. It just happens to be that the E55 is the better choice for me. But hey, if it makes you feel better to judge me because I am not "jumping to the E63", go right ahead...
10-20-2006, 02:47 AM
#27
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
How right you are. This car is far from a step back or even sidewayz for amg/mb, its a step forward. Only a drive to feel the whole package as one will convince us, as it has with me.
10-20-2006, 03:06 AM
#28
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'07 E63, '07 E350 Sport (wife), '04 Range Rover (for sale), '05 Audi A8 (sold), '02 Lotus Esprit V8T
Thanks for proving my point too!!!
Over a week ago I posted a thread where I mentioned that I got my E63. Since I am the sales manager @ MB dealer and I had both cars in stock my friend and I drove them 0-110 mph and 40-120mph..we even switched drivers and the E63 was ahead by 2-4 car lengths every time...On the 0-110 runs E63 was ahead by 3 car lengths but once it hit 120+ the gap got bigger...
will be posting pix soon!!!
will be posting pix soon!!!
10-20-2006, 08:30 AM
#29
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
Blue Arrow, these videos and the write up comparing the E55 with the E63 give me a strong sense of deju vu. Its the same exact result I had with my 2 cars when I posted this thread: https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/161712-confirmed-e63-faster-than-e55.html
Thanks for confirming that my informal results were not crazy, that my E55 was not slow from improper flashing, that my buddy knew how to drive, etc, etc, etc.
I was going to say that, but you beat me to it.
Thanks for confirming that my informal results were not crazy, that my E55 was not slow from improper flashing, that my buddy knew how to drive, etc, etc, etc.
I was going to say that, but you beat me to it.
10-20-2006, 08:36 AM
#30
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 SL63 AMG, sliver
Over a week ago I posted a thread where I mentioned that I got my E63. Since I am the sales manager @ MB dealer and I had both cars in stock my friend and I drove them 0-110 mph and 40-120mph..we even switched drivers and the E63 was ahead by 2-4 car lengths every time...On the 0-110 runs E63 was ahead by 3 car lengths but once it hit 120+ the gap got bigger...
will be posting pix soon!!!
will be posting pix soon!!!
PT
10-20-2006, 09:41 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 E55 K1
Good write-up and not surprising. I would expect 7 speed tranny to offset E55 torque advantage for roll ons at certain speeds. I know my car can feel like a slug just after it shifts to second, but is a beast at higher speeds.
10-20-2006, 09:44 AM
#33
I'm still not convinced. I've seen at least as much evidence to support the 55 being faster. I'm not saying that the 63 is not a very quick car but I would like to see more.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
10-20-2006, 09:51 AM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Well dunno if you saw my writeup of my E63 test drive and runs vs SL55.
They were evenish - but SL55 seemed to be marginally quicker.
When I drove my 55 the following day it felt sort of faster and slower - so I dunno - until I run against my friends SL55 I wont know.
Happy you found the car you like ... !!!
As I said there the 63 motor is lurvly - but the box to me was not gr8 - it could be so much better with tighter 4567 gears.
They were evenish - but SL55 seemed to be marginally quicker.
When I drove my 55 the following day it felt sort of faster and slower - so I dunno - until I run against my friends SL55 I wont know.
Happy you found the car you like ... !!!
As I said there the 63 motor is lurvly - but the box to me was not gr8 - it could be so much better with tighter 4567 gears.
10-20-2006, 10:27 AM
#35
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55
I'm still not convinced. I've seen at least as much evidence to support the 55 being faster. I'm not saying that the 63 is not a very quick car but I would like to see more.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
Since your seem so doubtful, why don't YOU go out and do a comparison and write it up for us.
10-20-2006, 11:11 AM
#36
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
I'm still not convinced. I've seen at least as much evidence to support the 55 being faster. I'm not saying that the 63 is not a very quick car but I would like to see more.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
Every car is different. This could have been a very quick 63 and a slow 55. I've seen too many dyno's on this board where a 55 was reflashed with serious loss of power. I've also seen where the 55 is slow when its been driven slow for a while and needs readapting. The intercooler pump on the 55 may not have been working at optimum.
Too many variable, but I think this is a piece of evidence that supports the 63 being faster for most speeds, but I would like to see more. Time will tell.
10-20-2006, 11:19 AM
#37
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
Well dunno if you saw my writeup of my E63 test drive and runs vs SL55.
They were evenish - but SL55 seemed to be marginally quicker.
When I drove my 55 the following day it felt sort of faster and slower - so I dunno - until I run against my friends SL55 I wont know.
Happy you found the car you like ... !!!
As I said there the 63 motor is lurvly - but the box to me was not gr8 - it could be so much better with tighter 4567 gears.
They were evenish - but SL55 seemed to be marginally quicker.
When I drove my 55 the following day it felt sort of faster and slower - so I dunno - until I run against my friends SL55 I wont know.
Happy you found the car you like ... !!!
As I said there the 63 motor is lurvly - but the box to me was not gr8 - it could be so much better with tighter 4567 gears.
The box seems quicker than the 55's, could be in my mind though as the car revs like a bike. You're right about the gearing, they should have shortened 4th onwards but spacing upto 200kmh seems good, better than the 55 and after that into 5th the motor really does its work well, unlike the 55. I will prefer a fifth that goes to 265kmh.
I run 95oct unleaded and we ran sea level, literally right next to beach. Being a normal aspirated and supercharged both were at there best. Not sure if i mentioned the 63 had 4900km on it.
Picking up an M5 on Monday and going to video that too.
10-20-2006, 11:22 AM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-20-2006, 11:46 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
That yellow 1.3 corolla is fabulous !!!! The 1.3 badge is just priceless.
You must get allot of - "I dont believe it !!!" from guys in ferraris etc when you leave 'em standing ...
How do u get the power down and how much rwhp have u got ?
Whats its best 1/4m time?
You must get allot of - "I dont believe it !!!" from guys in ferraris etc when you leave 'em standing ...
How do u get the power down and how much rwhp have u got ?
Whats its best 1/4m time?
10-20-2006, 11:52 AM
#44
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 stage 300hp nos
ford v8 9inch diff lsd
11.2 sec turbo only @ 220km/h on street tyres.
10-20-2006, 12:51 PM
#46
I would like to see some more 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from the 63. If the car is faster it should trap at similar or faster speeds. I think the jury is still out. I love Mercedes and would have no qualms about buying a 63 when the time comes.
Its not that big of a deal to me and I believe overall that the 63 is a better package than the 55.
10-20-2006, 01:49 PM
#47
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
e36 bmw m3 supercharged 460whp, 1.1bar boost.
vw polo 2.9vr6, with t66 1.5bar boost, 440whp
nissan silvia fully built sr20det with t58 1.7bar boost, 420+whp.
10-20-2006, 05:51 PM
#49
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
10-20-2006, 06:38 PM
#50
That's what it seems like to me. The ones outside of the US are quicker. If this is truly the case, then it should just be a matter of remapping the ECU for more power shouldn't it?
