Dragstrip speed vs real world street speed
11-09-2006, 10:57 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Based on Derek's E63 numbers, some were expecting worse dyno numbers and track times than the CLS63 and E63 produced. As it turned out, the E55 and E63s produce extremely close numbers on the dyno and at the track when the same ambient conditions are present. They are working on posting all the times, etc. over on the Private Lounge...it should be up soon.
11-09-2006, 11:50 AM
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s amazing how you guys saw right through me. This whole thread is just my attempt to justify my purchase decision. I find doing so soothes my fragile ego and makes me feel better about my multiple inadequacies.
Seriously, the point of this thread is to try understand the truth about the speed of the E63, using the very limited data we have up to this point. Before and after I purchased the E55, I was similarly interested in understanding its speed. With the E55, the picture was clearer.
The current discrepancy between the experiences of owners testing both cars and the dragstrip results is very interesting, at least to me. I think its worthy of discussion. I would like to know the truth. That’s also why I tested my 2 cars and took my E63 to the dragstrip for all to see. I didn’t just sit at my keyboard spouting invective and issuing long-distance psychological diagnoses.
11-09-2006, 12:18 PM
#29
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey.
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55, 2007 GL450
E63AMG,
You've started half a dozen threads over the last few months with a similar topic.
Regardless of what your personal experiences are in racing your 55 against your 63, the track times that have so far been achieved do not prove the 63 to be a quicker car.
What more is there to discuss?
The dealer where I bought my 55 also had a beautiful, black 63. I still wanted the 55, because quite frankly, the blown 5.4 liter powerplant is more appealing to me.
S.
You've started half a dozen threads over the last few months with a similar topic.
Regardless of what your personal experiences are in racing your 55 against your 63, the track times that have so far been achieved do not prove the 63 to be a quicker car.
What more is there to discuss?
The dealer where I bought my 55 also had a beautiful, black 63. I still wanted the 55, because quite frankly, the blown 5.4 liter powerplant is more appealing to me.
S.
11-09-2006, 12:37 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Seriously, the point of this thread is to try understand the truth about the speed of the E63, using the very limited data we have up to this point. Before and after I purchased the E55, I was similarly interested in understanding its speed. With the E55, the picture was clearer.
If you really cared, you'd go to the track and figure it out, rather than posting a bunch of threads on a message board speculating about the performance of your car.
I had the flash done on my car while everyone was speculating about the performance losses associated with it. You know what I did? Went to the track! Holy ****, what a concept - I actually measured the performance of my car under controlled conditions and figured out it was the same, if not quicker, than before the flash!
Get off the bench and race. All of your questions will be answered
11-10-2006, 08:54 AM
#31
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
If you really cared, you'd go to the track and figure it out, rather than posting a bunch of threads on a message board speculating about the performance of your car.
I had the flash done on my car while everyone was speculating about the performance losses associated with it. You know what I did? Went to the track! Holy ****, what a concept - I actually measured the performance of my car under controlled conditions and figured out it was the same, if not quicker, than before the flash!
Get off the bench and race. All of your questions will be answered
I had the flash done on my car while everyone was speculating about the performance losses associated with it. You know what I did? Went to the track! Holy ****, what a concept - I actually measured the performance of my car under controlled conditions and figured out it was the same, if not quicker, than before the flash!
Get off the bench and race. All of your questions will be answered
WayneE, you are missing the point questioned. Its track vs street E55/E63.
He is questioning in normal street conditions, unprepped strips. Whats so hard to understand there??
Snorman, here in S.A. we have roads that may allow this(although illegal) and we do this quite often, Like M5Russ in russia does as well. May sound silly to you but thats your opinion, we enjoy that here.
11-10-2006, 09:48 AM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
That's not measuring the performance of the car, but rather the drivers. On the street, there are just too many variables. I have easily beat much more powerful and faster cars in street encounters. But line up with them at the drag strip and it's a different story.
If his position is that the 63 is a quicker car on the street because it's easier to drive and it's performance is more accessible to average drivers, then just come out and say it.
If you compare measureable performance at the drag strip, I haven't seen where the 63 is superior.
11-10-2006, 10:00 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
I tried to make the same point in my thread when we tested these cars. I feel that the 55 has a lot more to give on a good strip that the 63. The 55 has so much low down torque that in most cases can only be put down properly on a prepared surface hence the good 1/4's. The 63 however has less torque initially with a linear build on the powerband. The 63 will be far more consistent on the street as well as quicker which i saw for myself. Also the street races can go to 160mph where stock to stock the 63 is more efficient.
This is the point i've already tried to make. I'm not talking about driver skill, i have first hand experience with both the cars and this is my opinion.
11-10-2006, 11:29 AM
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63AMG,
You've started half a dozen threads over the last few months with a similar topic.
Regardless of what your personal experiences are in racing your 55 against your 63, the track times that have so far been achieved do not prove the 63 to be a quicker car.
What more is there to discuss?
S.
You've started half a dozen threads over the last few months with a similar topic.
Regardless of what your personal experiences are in racing your 55 against your 63, the track times that have so far been achieved do not prove the 63 to be a quicker car.
What more is there to discuss?
S.
If it were just my experiences testing my 55 vs my 63 in the street, I would agree with you that it is pointless to continue discussing. However, it seems like the ONLY other street experiences reported to date validate my results. Now why is that?
If you find the discrepancy between the reports from the street and the poor E63 track results so far interesting, stick around this thread and join in the discussion. If not, you will likely be happier elsewhere.
If you really cared, you'd go to the track and figure it out, rather than posting a bunch of threads on a message board speculating about the performance of your car.
I had the flash done on my car while everyone was speculating about the performance losses associated with it. You know what I did? Went to the track! Holy ****, what a concept - I actually measured the performance of my car under controlled conditions and figured out it was the same, if not quicker, than before the flash!
Get off the bench and race. All of your questions will be answered
I had the flash done on my car while everyone was speculating about the performance losses associated with it. You know what I did? Went to the track! Holy ****, what a concept - I actually measured the performance of my car under controlled conditions and figured out it was the same, if not quicker, than before the flash!
Get off the bench and race. All of your questions will be answered
11-10-2006, 03:14 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey.
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55, 2007 GL450
11-10-2006, 04:05 PM
#36
Super Member
That’s amazing how you guys saw right through me. This whole thread is just my attempt to justify my purchase decision. I find doing so soothes my fragile ego and makes me feel better about my multiple inadequacies.
Seriously, the point of this thread is to try understand the truth about the speed of the E63, using the very limited data we have up to this point. Before and after I purchased the E55, I was similarly interested in understanding its speed. With the E55, the picture was clearer.
The current discrepancy between the experiences of owners testing both cars and the dragstrip results is very interesting, at least to me. I think its worthy of discussion. I would like to know the truth. That’s also why I tested my 2 cars and took my E63 to the dragstrip for all to see. I didn’t just sit at my keyboard spouting invective and issuing long-distance psychological diagnoses.
Seriously, the point of this thread is to try understand the truth about the speed of the E63, using the very limited data we have up to this point. Before and after I purchased the E55, I was similarly interested in understanding its speed. With the E55, the picture was clearer.
The current discrepancy between the experiences of owners testing both cars and the dragstrip results is very interesting, at least to me. I think its worthy of discussion. I would like to know the truth. That’s also why I tested my 2 cars and took my E63 to the dragstrip for all to see. I didn’t just sit at my keyboard spouting invective and issuing long-distance psychological diagnoses.
Well, the truth is... and has been for some time.. that the two cars are so close in performance that further discussions on it are merely an exercise in futility. We've seen 55s vary greatly from one car to another performance wise on the dyno, so there is no absolute truth. I'm sure there's a bit of variation on the 63 side as well. The bottom line is that there is no absolute "truth" about the speed of each car. Even excluding driver error, there are still variations.
I'm sorry, but mags and strips and street testing have all proven one thing: We are all a bunch of rich guys haggling over 1/4" differences in ***** size. Sure, John over there had a different result when he really pulled hard with his ruler at home, while Tom did it on a cold day, so that's not fair. Labratory testing let them stroke before measurement, blah, blah, blah. THAT's the Gustav part... its rehashing the same old sheyit!
The cars are very close, guys.... so close that only samples of mutliple cars averaged might give you that 2/10th approximate difference... or 1mph trap speed advantage... you're scratching for. I can promise you this: When they race, the winner will not be overcome with the glory of victory, and the loser won't be crying in despair. They'll see that 1/4" for what it was... a very, very small variation.
hehe,
Loren
11-10-2006, 04:44 PM
#37
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the truth is... and has been for some time.. that the two cars are so close in performance that further discussions on it are merely an exercise in futility. We've seen 55s vary greatly from one car to another performance wise on the dyno, so there is no absolute truth. I'm sure there's a bit of variation on the 63 side as well. The bottom line is that there is no absolute "truth" about the speed of each car. Even excluding driver error, there are still variations.
I'm sorry, but mags and strips and street testing have all proven one thing: We are all a bunch of rich guys haggling over 1/4" differences in ***** size. Sure, John over there had a different result when he really pulled hard with his ruler at home, while Tom did it on a cold day, so that's not fair. Labratory testing let them stroke before measurement, blah, blah, blah. THAT's the Gustav part... its rehashing the same old sheyit!
The cars are very close, guys.... so close that only samples of mutliple cars averaged might give you that 2/10th approximate difference... or 1mph trap speed advantage... you're scratching for. I can promise you this: When they race, the winner will not be overcome with the glory of victory, and the loser won't be crying in despair. They'll see that 1/4" for what it was... a very, very small variation.
hehe,
Loren
I'm sorry, but mags and strips and street testing have all proven one thing: We are all a bunch of rich guys haggling over 1/4" differences in ***** size. Sure, John over there had a different result when he really pulled hard with his ruler at home, while Tom did it on a cold day, so that's not fair. Labratory testing let them stroke before measurement, blah, blah, blah. THAT's the Gustav part... its rehashing the same old sheyit!
The cars are very close, guys.... so close that only samples of mutliple cars averaged might give you that 2/10th approximate difference... or 1mph trap speed advantage... you're scratching for. I can promise you this: When they race, the winner will not be overcome with the glory of victory, and the loser won't be crying in despair. They'll see that 1/4" for what it was... a very, very small variation.
hehe,
Loren
Good one, Loren!
11-10-2006, 04:56 PM
#38
It is true that the performance of E55 and E63 is so close that either particular car could win. However, you can't disregard the fact that you can modify an E55, with very simple mods to make it undeniably quicker than E63. People who care so much about performance do generally modify their cars, especially if its only a pulley/ecu. With E63, you are limited to 500hp. This is a HUGE disadvantage....
11-10-2006, 05:42 PM
#39
Perhaps you didnt read my post above, but I did take my car to the track. Unfortunately, all my questions were not answered because the track was slippery. I wish it were easy to do it again, but there are no other nearby tracks and I dont want to risk wasting a day testing on the same slippery track.
Sounds like you got a slow time.
11-10-2006, 10:35 PM
#40
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that day at the track, I did try everything including traction control and burnouts, but the slipperiness prevented ANYONE from getting good times even modified E55s and a Porsche turbo. All the details are in the archives if you want to dig them up.
11-10-2006, 11:48 PM
#41
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 SL63 AMG, sliver
Seems like this question has been answered at the Atlanta AMG meet. They had two 63's, both ran 12.5-12.6 1/4 mile with 112mph. This was very close (within 0.1 sec) of what the stock E55's were running that same day at the same track.
So we now have two different tracks with different conditions, and in both cases the 55 and 63 were very close.
What is really impressive is that the 63 can do the 0-60 faster than the 55 (4.0 sec in Car and Driver) and the 1/4 mile in basically the same time and trap speed, but using a lot less torque. This does seem like quite a feet of engineering.
Here is a recap of the last several months on this forum re: the 55 vs 63 debate:
E63 began to ship, but was not yet tested on track or real world- E55 onwers were sure that their car was much faster.
E63 owners began to test car and first run by one person was a bit on the slow side (13.01 by Derek) - E55 owners now had iron clad proof the 63 was slower.
E63 taken to a track and compared head to head with 55, where on slick conditions the cars were basically the same - 55 owners also saw this as proof the 63 was slower, despite the data that showed them to be the same.
E63 taken to track in atlanta, CLS63 also tested in Atlanta and other locations, C+D tests E63 wagon, all show the 0-60 and 1/4 mile to be at least as fast as the 55 - OK, the car is maybe as fast but you can't mod it and everyone (meaning about 10 guys on this board) buys an E class AMG to mod it, so the 55 is still superior.
I guess we have to wait to the E63 mods to come out before we will know why modded 63's that are faster than modded 55's are still inferior....
PT
So we now have two different tracks with different conditions, and in both cases the 55 and 63 were very close.
What is really impressive is that the 63 can do the 0-60 faster than the 55 (4.0 sec in Car and Driver) and the 1/4 mile in basically the same time and trap speed, but using a lot less torque. This does seem like quite a feet of engineering.
Here is a recap of the last several months on this forum re: the 55 vs 63 debate:
E63 began to ship, but was not yet tested on track or real world- E55 onwers were sure that their car was much faster.
E63 owners began to test car and first run by one person was a bit on the slow side (13.01 by Derek) - E55 owners now had iron clad proof the 63 was slower.
E63 taken to a track and compared head to head with 55, where on slick conditions the cars were basically the same - 55 owners also saw this as proof the 63 was slower, despite the data that showed them to be the same.
E63 taken to track in atlanta, CLS63 also tested in Atlanta and other locations, C+D tests E63 wagon, all show the 0-60 and 1/4 mile to be at least as fast as the 55 - OK, the car is maybe as fast but you can't mod it and everyone (meaning about 10 guys on this board) buys an E class AMG to mod it, so the 55 is still superior.
I guess we have to wait to the E63 mods to come out before we will know why modded 63's that are faster than modded 55's are still inferior....
PT
11-11-2006, 12:39 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
the low dyno numbers didn't help the e63's cause either. we all wanted the 63 to be faster (not just better) than the 55...after all mb claimed it was going to be, and it's the successor to an icon. and after all the hype, it simply wasn't (faster)!?!? it's not that we don't like the 63, it's the fact that mb fudged the performance numbers a little bit and we felt slighted.
it seems obvious that mb/amg's target was the new m5 instead of the e55. even so, i'm still wondering why they didn't do to the e60 m5 like they did to the e39 version...beat the **** out of it in acceleration to make up for handling concerns. when you think about it, that's the market they created and should have played to.
it seems obvious that mb/amg's target was the new m5 instead of the e55. even so, i'm still wondering why they didn't do to the e60 m5 like they did to the e39 version...beat the **** out of it in acceleration to make up for handling concerns. when you think about it, that's the market they created and should have played to.
11-11-2006, 08:23 AM
#44
the low dyno numbers didn't help the e63's cause either. we all wanted the 63 to be faster (not just better) than the 55...after all mb claimed it was going to be, and it's the successor to an icon. and after all the hype, it simply wasn't (faster)!?!? it's not that we don't like the 63, it's the fact that mb fudged the performance numbers a little bit and we felt slighted.
it seems obvious that mb/amg's target was the new m5 instead of the e55. even so, i'm still wondering why they didn't do to the e60 m5 like they did to the e39 version...beat the **** out of it in acceleration to make up for handling concerns. when you think about it, that's the market they created and should have played to.
it seems obvious that mb/amg's target was the new m5 instead of the e55. even so, i'm still wondering why they didn't do to the e60 m5 like they did to the e39 version...beat the **** out of it in acceleration to make up for handling concerns. when you think about it, that's the market they created and should have played to.
............AMG provided a CLS63 and an E63 for the just concluded Atlanta AMG meet. They both dynoed at 426RWHP and ran 12.7secs at the track. I was there. Either AMG sent us ringers or Dereks results are incorrect. I now believe the later. Still, the E63 is not faster than the E55 as AMG claimed and does not seem like an upgrade to most people.
Ted
11-11-2006, 09:52 AM
#45
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
............AMG provided a CLS63 and an E63 for the just concluded Atlanta AMG meet. They both dynoed at 426RWHP and ran 12.7secs at the track. I was there. Either AMG sent us ringers or Dereks results are incorrect. I now believe the later. Still, the E63 is not faster than the E55 as AMG claimed and does not seem like an upgrade to most people.
Ted
Ted
11-11-2006, 12:11 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I think its official... we have another C55/C32 problem in our hands.
The C55 is slightly faster, handles better and has improved interior.
ditto for the
E55 vs E63.
================================================== ======
If the E63 would of been the M5 and E55 killer we though it would be, we would not be having all these discussions.
But sadly, this car will never hit 11's STOCK or beat then M5 to 150mph. I really attribute the problem to the 7sp automatic, since its gearing helps for 0-60, does not help for the 1/4 mile or top speed. AMG went LEXUS on us and gave us a luxury sport sedan not a luxury sports monster.
There is not excuse why this car should beat the M5 in speed. (About the same weight, 507hp, more torque, 18' vs M5 19's, and 7spds.).
I'm leaving the CLS63 out of this discussion, since that competes against the M6 and the upcoming 4 door coupe from BMW (See Autoweek).
The C55 is slightly faster, handles better and has improved interior.
ditto for the
E55 vs E63.
================================================== ======
If the E63 would of been the M5 and E55 killer we though it would be, we would not be having all these discussions.
But sadly, this car will never hit 11's STOCK or beat then M5 to 150mph. I really attribute the problem to the 7sp automatic, since its gearing helps for 0-60, does not help for the 1/4 mile or top speed. AMG went LEXUS on us and gave us a luxury sport sedan not a luxury sports monster.
There is not excuse why this car should beat the M5 in speed. (About the same weight, 507hp, more torque, 18' vs M5 19's, and 7spds.).
I'm leaving the CLS63 out of this discussion, since that competes against the M6 and the upcoming 4 door coupe from BMW (See Autoweek).
11-12-2006, 08:11 PM
#47
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 SL63 AMG, sliver
[QUOTE=TopGun32;1836209]
But sadly, this car will never hit 11's STOCK or beat then M5 to 150mph. I really attribute the problem to the 7sp automatic, since its gearing helps for 0-60, does not help for the 1/4 mile or top speed. AMG went LEXUS on us and gave us a luxury sport sedan not a luxury sports monster.
QUOTE]
I just don't get these comments. The E55 does not do 11's stock either. it is a 12.3-12.5 car stock. Everyone posting lower numbers than these are modded in some way.
The E63 is 12.6 at the atlanta meet and C and D got the wagon to do 0-60 in 4.0 and 12.5 1.4 mile. So are you saying that .1 seconds on a 1/4 mile track is the difference between and luxury sedan and a "monster"?
Why does the 63 have to be an E55 "killer"? Seriously, we are talking about full sized sedans that go 0-60 in 4.0!!! These cars are all monsters!
PT
But sadly, this car will never hit 11's STOCK or beat then M5 to 150mph. I really attribute the problem to the 7sp automatic, since its gearing helps for 0-60, does not help for the 1/4 mile or top speed. AMG went LEXUS on us and gave us a luxury sport sedan not a luxury sports monster.
QUOTE]
I just don't get these comments. The E55 does not do 11's stock either. it is a 12.3-12.5 car stock. Everyone posting lower numbers than these are modded in some way.
The E63 is 12.6 at the atlanta meet and C and D got the wagon to do 0-60 in 4.0 and 12.5 1.4 mile. So are you saying that .1 seconds on a 1/4 mile track is the difference between and luxury sedan and a "monster"?
Why does the 63 have to be an E55 "killer"? Seriously, we are talking about full sized sedans that go 0-60 in 4.0!!! These cars are all monsters!
PT
11-13-2006, 11:10 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'08 CLS63
[QUOTE=pterion;1837882]
i was waiting for someone to call me out...my car completely stock ran 12.01 @116 with 5xx miles on it...best 60' was 1.80…on dragtimes.com
went back about 10 months later and ran 11.84, 11.87, 11.91 completely stock with the exception of the goodyear GSD3's which had a SLOWER 60' time…on dragtimes.com
my times are good and probably the exception but at sea level (houston) in good air i believe the 55's will run 11.90's - 12.00's all day long.
i've had a couple of people question my car...but it seems nobody ever wants to meet me at the drag strip (HRP) and put their money where their mouth is...
john
went back about 10 months later and ran 11.84, 11.87, 11.91 completely stock with the exception of the goodyear GSD3's which had a SLOWER 60' time…on dragtimes.com
my times are good and probably the exception but at sea level (houston) in good air i believe the 55's will run 11.90's - 12.00's all day long.
i've had a couple of people question my car...but it seems nobody ever wants to meet me at the drag strip (HRP) and put their money where their mouth is...
john
11-13-2006, 12:01 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey.
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55, 2007 GL450
housclass,
Can you give a brief synopsis of your process (burnout? shift mode? launch?). Are you icing the blower or otherwise cooling the car between passes?
Thanks.
S.
Can you give a brief synopsis of your process (burnout? shift mode? launch?). Are you icing the blower or otherwise cooling the car between passes?
Thanks.
S.
11-13-2006, 12:17 PM
#50
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)
Many Stock E55's have run way faster than 12.3 - absolutely BONE STOCK - just check out dragtimes - I ran 12.169 at Moroso (not the greatest track by any means) with a 1.78 60ft.
REMEMBER - THIS IS BONE STOCK - speak to Fikse and others and they will all bring out their time slips to prove it.
Last edited by siswati; 11-13-2006 at 12:53 PM.
