Video - E55 v. E63
10-21-2006, 07:54 AM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Video - E55 v. E63
Two new vids of races somewhere outside of the US.
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
10-21-2006, 08:09 AM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Two new vids of races somewhere outside of the US.
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
10-21-2006, 08:24 AM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two new vids of races somewhere outside of the US.
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
these clips where posted by me on this forum and then transfered by some dude to the m5board.
read blue arrows post
tested e63 and m5 run e63 vs e55
10-21-2006, 10:02 AM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
10 Posts
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
Just don't get it, this just ain't what is happening at the tracks.
The Siswati posts pretty much wrapped it up for me. The 63 was smoking at the track, just not a fast as the 55.
E63 sure sounds sweet though. Perhaps that E55 had the famous "flash of death" installed.
The Siswati posts pretty much wrapped it up for me. The 63 was smoking at the track, just not a fast as the 55.
E63 sure sounds sweet though. Perhaps that E55 had the famous "flash of death" installed.
10-21-2006, 11:42 AM
#7
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 E63
Im new to this but I just wanted to give my opinion on the issue. I traded in my 06 e55 for an e63 and it is faster and smoother through the entire rpm range. My 55 was the best car I ever owned but I have to say MB and AMG r on to something with this car. The 7 speed trans is awesome so far. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better!
Trending Topics
10-21-2006, 11:52 AM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMGs
10-21-2006, 11:58 AM
#9
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 E63
Had a hard time giving up the supercharger but, wow this car moves and shists through the gears like a true supercar. the only complaint I ever had about my 55 was that at full throttle it stayed in 1st gear way to long.
10-21-2006, 12:02 PM
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2017 S63 Coupe Iridium Silver
Two new vids of races somewhere outside of the US.
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
Came across them on M5board (thanks to MGUY)
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
http://s96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...t=Video076.flv
10-22-2006, 10:20 AM
#12
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
10-22-2006, 10:25 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
Jackpro,
The 55 might be quicker in 1/4 in ideal prepared conditions.
In real world driving its just not the same. The 63 does not battle for traction on the street so it has a good balance for initial acceleration as a result it does not have much more to give on a prepared track.
My car has not been reflashed, on the street the 63 is faster. What altitude was Siswati running at? That could have an influence on his results.
10-22-2006, 05:21 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I mean... that in the US your outcome is not the same.
There is no video in the US or proof that the E63 is consistently faster or quicker then the E55.
There have been videos, but they have been from Europe, Dubai, S Africa,
Here in the US, the head to head races at the 1/4 tracks and highway, the E63 or CLS63 was even with the E55 or CLS55. At the drag track the E55 or CLS55 was slightly better. On the open road, it is too hard to make a call.
Your video shows a car NOT in the U.S.A ... therefore your outcome contradicts all the evidence here in North America.
Even C&D tested the CLS63 and only trapped 114. This tells me, that the 7sp automatic is not helping as much as we thought. It might quicker to 150, but to the margin is not as much as we once thought.
from the same source;
0 to 150
E55: 24.5
E55 wagon : 24.0
CLS63 : 23.5
By contrast the M5 0-150 is about 21.xx seconds.
AMG really didn't do a good job to stay closer in high end speed vs the M.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...ecs-page2.html
There is no video in the US or proof that the E63 is consistently faster or quicker then the E55.
There have been videos, but they have been from Europe, Dubai, S Africa,
Here in the US, the head to head races at the 1/4 tracks and highway, the E63 or CLS63 was even with the E55 or CLS55. At the drag track the E55 or CLS55 was slightly better. On the open road, it is too hard to make a call.
Your video shows a car NOT in the U.S.A ... therefore your outcome contradicts all the evidence here in North America.
Even C&D tested the CLS63 and only trapped 114. This tells me, that the 7sp automatic is not helping as much as we thought. It might quicker to 150, but to the margin is not as much as we once thought.
from the same source;
0 to 150
E55: 24.5
E55 wagon : 24.0
CLS63 : 23.5
By contrast the M5 0-150 is about 21.xx seconds.
AMG really didn't do a good job to stay closer in high end speed vs the M.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...ecs-page2.html
Last edited by TopGun32; 10-22-2006 at 05:33 PM.
10-22-2006, 10:16 PM
#17
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Florida
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'10 Panamera S, '06 AMG CLS55, '07 Miata MX5, '02 MB SPRINTER, '99 Spec Miata Race Car (2X)
greetings from the US - trying to recognize the roads you were testing on - guess you guys are somewhere near Mt Edgecombe or somewhere near there
My Tests - 55k vs 63NA done 8 weeks ago near Palm Beach
regarding my tests with the CLS63 vs CLS55 they were run at sea level, just like your runs.
Drag Strip - multiple runs
At the track it was abosloutly no contest - 55K walked the 63NA - not even remotely close. The 55k was clear at the 1/8 and the gap stayed the same through the trap - both cars exhibited SIMILAR trap speeds, but 55k ET's were 1/2 second faster
From a Roll - 3 runs
On the road, from a 40mph roll they were identical to 100mph - absolutely neither had any margin - whoever got the jump stayed that way - neither gaining nor losing. Did not test at speeds above 100mph (160kph)
55k vs M5 V10
I have gone against an M5 at the track. 55k gets the launch and is clear at the 1/8th, but the M5 is coming on real strong at the end and traps about 3-4mph faster. And its clear that if we went much further than the 1/4 then the M5 would own the 55k - so from a dig to 120mph the 55k rules - anything over 120mph the M5 rules - NO QUESTION
Strange situation
Lets assume that the M5 has 500Hp and
Lets assume that the E63 has 505 HP plus more torque
(of course gearing is a varaible to be considered)
This iss where the story is strange for me.
- IF the M5 comes on strong and traps at higher speeds than the 55k, whats up with the 63NA motor that theoretically has more HP and more torque - why is it not catching the 55k at the end of the strip?
- M5 owns the 55k from a roll - why doesnt the 63NA do the same?
Could possibley be something going on with the US cars, but I for one would like to know
On the track
On the track at the various AMG Challenges I definitely liked the feel and gearing of the 63NA's over the 55k's, but the instructors were quite open saying that the 63 was slower than the 55.
However I was runing with an SL55 one day on the open laps and IAT went high (intercooler pump failure?) and the compressor shut off never to return again - had to switch out to another car. So not having the supercharger failure issue is definitely a plus for the 63NA, but not enough to negate the ease of inexpensive power addition that is possible on the 55k motors.
Remember I have no agneda here - I am just trying to figure out whats going on and trying to avoid speculating - I am only interested in real tests (just like yours) no hearsay, not speculation.
I feel we need way more data points for the 63NA cars and then we will be able to understand the differences. Chappy's event in Atlanta in two weeks should add some more data to the files.
10-23-2006, 01:21 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean... that in the US your outcome is not the same.
There is no video in the US or proof that the E63 is consistently faster or quicker then the E55.
There have been videos, but they have been from Europe, Dubai, S Africa,
Here in the US, the head to head races at the 1/4 tracks and highway, the E63 or CLS63 was even with the E55 or CLS55. At the drag track the E55 or CLS55 was slightly better. On the open road, it is too hard to make a call.
Your video shows a car NOT in the U.S.A ... therefore your outcome contradicts all the evidence here in North America.
Even C&D tested the CLS63 and only trapped 114. This tells me, that the 7sp automatic is not helping as much as we thought. It might quicker to 150, but to the margin is not as much as we once thought.
from the same source;
0 to 150
E55: 24.5
E55 wagon : 24.0
CLS63 : 23.5
By contrast the M5 0-150 is about 21.xx seconds.
AMG really didn't do a good job to stay closer in high end speed vs the M.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...ecs-page2.html
There is no video in the US or proof that the E63 is consistently faster or quicker then the E55.
There have been videos, but they have been from Europe, Dubai, S Africa,
Here in the US, the head to head races at the 1/4 tracks and highway, the E63 or CLS63 was even with the E55 or CLS55. At the drag track the E55 or CLS55 was slightly better. On the open road, it is too hard to make a call.
Your video shows a car NOT in the U.S.A ... therefore your outcome contradicts all the evidence here in North America.
Even C&D tested the CLS63 and only trapped 114. This tells me, that the 7sp automatic is not helping as much as we thought. It might quicker to 150, but to the margin is not as much as we once thought.
from the same source;
0 to 150
E55: 24.5
E55 wagon : 24.0
CLS63 : 23.5
By contrast the M5 0-150 is about 21.xx seconds.
AMG really didn't do a good job to stay closer in high end speed vs the M.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...ecs-page2.html
10-23-2006, 01:38 AM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-23-2006, 02:39 AM
#20
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
Hey Blue Arrow
greetings from the US - trying to recognize the roads you were testing on - guess you guys are somewhere near Mt Edgecombe or somewhere near there
South Coast near Durban international airport. Gonna do more vids soon so you all can see our beautiful country side with some good cars.
Drag Strip - multiple runs
At the track it was abosloutly no contest - 55K walked the 63NA - not even remotely close. The 55k was clear at the 1/8 and the gap stayed the same through the trap - both cars exhibited SIMILAR trap speeds, but 55k ET's were 1/2 second faster
On a strip i know a 55's going to be quicker, traction.
From a Roll - 3 runs
On the road, from a 40mph roll they were identical to 100mph - absolutely neither had any margin - whoever got the jump stayed that way - neither gaining nor losing. Did not test at speeds above 100mph (160kph)
In the 6 or so runs we had 4 were rolling to 200km plus and i always waited for the 63 to go first because we were testing here. If the 55 could come back it was faster, if it could hang on and maintain the gap it was also slighty faster initially but if the 63 pulled away then it was faster. In all our rolling runs then the 55 will hang on upto about 140-160 and then the 63 will start pulling slowly and above 220 a little faster. you did not test speeds over 160 on the road, i think you will be surprised at the agility of the 63.
55k vs M5 V10
I have gone against an M5 at the track. 55k gets the launch and is clear at the 1/8th, but the M5 is coming on real strong at the end and traps about 3-4mph faster. And its clear that if we went much further than the 1/4 then the M5 would own the 55k - so from a dig to 120mph the 55k rules - anything over 120mph the M5 rules - NO QUESTION
Totally agree, bare in mind though that the m5 power peaks later than the 63 and has around 100nm less torque.
Strange situation
Lets assume that the M5 has 500Hp and
Lets assume that the E63 has 505 HP plus more torque
(of course gearing is a varaible to be considered)
This iss where the story is strange for me.
Could possibley be something going on with the US cars, but I for one would like to know
On the track
On the track at the various AMG Challenges I definitely liked the feel and gearing of the 63NA's over the 55k's, but the instructors were quite open saying that the 63 was slower than the 55.
However I was runing with an SL55 one day on the open laps and IAT went high (intercooler pump failure?) and the compressor shut off never to return again - had to switch out to another car. So not having the supercharger failure issue is definitely a plus for the 63NA, but not enough to negate the ease of inexpensive power addition that is possible on the 55k motors.
Remember I have no agneda here - I am just trying to figure out whats going on and trying to avoid speculating - I am only interested in real tests (just like yours) no hearsay, not speculation.
I feel we need way more data points for the 63NA cars and then we will be able to understand the differences. Chappy's event in Atlanta in two weeks should add some more data to the files.
greetings from the US - trying to recognize the roads you were testing on - guess you guys are somewhere near Mt Edgecombe or somewhere near there
South Coast near Durban international airport. Gonna do more vids soon so you all can see our beautiful country side with some good cars.
Drag Strip - multiple runs
At the track it was abosloutly no contest - 55K walked the 63NA - not even remotely close. The 55k was clear at the 1/8 and the gap stayed the same through the trap - both cars exhibited SIMILAR trap speeds, but 55k ET's were 1/2 second faster
On a strip i know a 55's going to be quicker, traction.
From a Roll - 3 runs
On the road, from a 40mph roll they were identical to 100mph - absolutely neither had any margin - whoever got the jump stayed that way - neither gaining nor losing. Did not test at speeds above 100mph (160kph)
In the 6 or so runs we had 4 were rolling to 200km plus and i always waited for the 63 to go first because we were testing here. If the 55 could come back it was faster, if it could hang on and maintain the gap it was also slighty faster initially but if the 63 pulled away then it was faster. In all our rolling runs then the 55 will hang on upto about 140-160 and then the 63 will start pulling slowly and above 220 a little faster. you did not test speeds over 160 on the road, i think you will be surprised at the agility of the 63.
55k vs M5 V10
I have gone against an M5 at the track. 55k gets the launch and is clear at the 1/8th, but the M5 is coming on real strong at the end and traps about 3-4mph faster. And its clear that if we went much further than the 1/4 then the M5 would own the 55k - so from a dig to 120mph the 55k rules - anything over 120mph the M5 rules - NO QUESTION
Totally agree, bare in mind though that the m5 power peaks later than the 63 and has around 100nm less torque.
Strange situation
Lets assume that the M5 has 500Hp and
Lets assume that the E63 has 505 HP plus more torque
(of course gearing is a varaible to be considered)
This iss where the story is strange for me.
- IF the M5 comes on strong and traps at higher speeds than the 55k, whats up with the 63NA motor that theoretically has more HP and more torque - why is it not catching the 55k at the end of the strip?
- M5 owns the 55k from a roll - why doesnt the 63NA do the same?
Could possibley be something going on with the US cars, but I for one would like to know
On the track
On the track at the various AMG Challenges I definitely liked the feel and gearing of the 63NA's over the 55k's, but the instructors were quite open saying that the 63 was slower than the 55.
However I was runing with an SL55 one day on the open laps and IAT went high (intercooler pump failure?) and the compressor shut off never to return again - had to switch out to another car. So not having the supercharger failure issue is definitely a plus for the 63NA, but not enough to negate the ease of inexpensive power addition that is possible on the 55k motors.
Remember I have no agneda here - I am just trying to figure out whats going on and trying to avoid speculating - I am only interested in real tests (just like yours) no hearsay, not speculation.
I feel we need way more data points for the 63NA cars and then we will be able to understand the differences. Chappy's event in Atlanta in two weeks should add some more data to the files.
Could be fuel octane level being sensitive on the 63 or could be lower spec'ed
units for the us market as they reflashed the 55's too. I don't understand the reasoning though. Why did'nt the m5 get our launch systems as well? Are the american drivers deemed irresponsible ort something for these decisions to be made??
10-23-2006, 09:48 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 E55 K1
Meaningless Comparisons
Frankly, I don't know how to compare any car to E55's with the variability of the E55's performance due to reflash, octane, weather, engine temp. issues and God knows what else. My 2003 has gone from slug to uncontrollable beast in the past 5 months. After reflash, I wouldn't want to go against a stock E500. After replacing ECU and pulley (stock), many miles of hard driving, and changing octane setting to 93 and back to base, car has so much power and torque, I can't floor it anywhwere in first gear, even with ESP on without losing all traction and I have relatively new PS'2. If you have this much variability with the same car, how can you compare different cars, especially if cars are within a couple of tenths to begin with.
10-23-2006, 10:23 AM
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,732
Received 563 Likes
on
372 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
The differences in top end speed between the M5 and the E63 are solely due to gearing. The new MB 7-Speed has five somewhat-close gears and two very long overdrives that (particularly 7th gear) are just about useless in a performance application. They're really designed for fuel economy. Think about it in this manner, the 55k motor displaces the better part of a liter less than the 6.2NA, and fuel economy is created by disengaging the blower. The 6.2NA has no blower, its gets its power through vacuum/displacement and has to dump a ton of fuel at high rpm's (think of the exponential increase in fuel usage at 7,200 rpm as compared to 6,000) to make power. The thinking behind the two overdrives is to bring up highway gas mileage, not to smoke an M5. Despite having you think this was a more "sporty" move, the gearing choices depict a car company still primarily concerned with grand touring comfort and economy than track days.
The BMW transmission on the other hand is not designed for fuel economy, nothing on the car is. At 80mph in 7th gear I'm at nearly 3k rpm's, its difficult to explain just how close these 7 gears are, sometimes I think I could use an 8th. There's no respite in sight for the engine ever and my consistent 14mpg average is a testament to that. If its not working hard, it must be parked.
The BMW transmission on the other hand is not designed for fuel economy, nothing on the car is. At 80mph in 7th gear I'm at nearly 3k rpm's, its difficult to explain just how close these 7 gears are, sometimes I think I could use an 8th. There's no respite in sight for the engine ever and my consistent 14mpg average is a testament to that. If its not working hard, it must be parked.
10-23-2006, 02:03 PM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
The differences in top end speed between the M5 and the E63 are solely due to gearing. The new MB 7-Speed has five somewhat-close gears and two very long overdrives that (particularly 7th gear) are just about useless in a performance application. They're really designed for fuel economy. Think about it in this manner, the 55k motor displaces the better part of a liter less than the 6.2NA, and fuel economy is created by disengaging the blower. The 6.2NA has no blower, its gets its power through vacuum/displacement and has to dump a ton of fuel at high rpm's (think of the exponential increase in fuel usage at 7,200 rpm as compared to 6,000) to make power. The thinking behind the two overdrives is to bring up highway gas mileage, not to smoke an M5. Despite having you think this was a more "sporty" move, the gearing choices depict a car company still primarily concerned with grand touring comfort and economy than track days.
The BMW transmission on the other hand is not designed for fuel economy, nothing on the car is. At 80mph in 7th gear I'm at nearly 3k rpm's, its difficult to explain just how close these 7 gears are, sometimes I think I could use an 8th. There's no respite in sight for the engine ever and my consistent 14mpg average is a testament to that. If its not working hard, it must be parked.
The BMW transmission on the other hand is not designed for fuel economy, nothing on the car is. At 80mph in 7th gear I'm at nearly 3k rpm's, its difficult to explain just how close these 7 gears are, sometimes I think I could use an 8th. There's no respite in sight for the engine ever and my consistent 14mpg average is a testament to that. If its not working hard, it must be parked.
Until the 7sp in AMG models are geared better, the overall top speed crown will stay with the M boys. (stock vs stock)
10-23-2006, 02:15 PM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
My argument is the following: Is the E63 a CLEAR, undesputed, faster car than a E55. NO (not in the US of A)
Your finding with your two beast was one probable outcome.
However your car did not perform better or worse than the other stock E55's at the FONTANA event. So that is another possible outcome.
The track was not prep correctly, therefore the conditions were identical for both cars.
From Siswati's test, the E55 and E63 ran even as well, with the 1/4 advantange to the 55k motor.
This debate can continue, with more test and more evidence. Looks like Atlanta is the next "lab location".
