E63 1/4 Times?
11-09-2006, 10:25 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Emerald City
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55 Black
E63 1/4 Times?
The only drag slips I could find for the E63 was Derek's at around 13.02 and Loren's posting of around 13.2. Are there any real cases of an E63 running below 13?
I'm not trying to start another E55 vs. E63 flame, but I'm thinking of getting an E63 or E550 and wanted to know what the consensus is on the E63 performance. From what I see the E63 is only marginally faster than an E550 (1/4 in 13.4), yet costs $25k more. Way back in 2006, the E55 was dramatically faster than the available E500, but MB has really reduced the gap. The E550 is $15k less than my 2002 E55 was... and it's faster, and better in almost every way except perhaps handling. Any comments on the E550 with sport package also welcome.
TIA
I'm not trying to start another E55 vs. E63 flame, but I'm thinking of getting an E63 or E550 and wanted to know what the consensus is on the E63 performance. From what I see the E63 is only marginally faster than an E550 (1/4 in 13.4), yet costs $25k more. Way back in 2006, the E55 was dramatically faster than the available E500, but MB has really reduced the gap. The E550 is $15k less than my 2002 E55 was... and it's faster, and better in almost every way except perhaps handling. Any comments on the E550 with sport package also welcome.
TIA
Last edited by KenE55; 11-09-2006 at 10:28 AM.
11-09-2006, 11:06 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Potomac, Md
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E320 CDI, 2007 ML 320 CDI, 2008 C63, 2008 G55
A major US auto magazine just tested the E63 at 12.5 seconds. The issue has not been released yet but should hit the newstands soon.
11-10-2006, 10:57 AM
#5
.........also heard from pretty reliable source that a blower for the E63 is in the works and should be available next year. The ATL meet changed my mind about the E63 and CLS63. They are upper to mid 12 sec cars and if you add a blower, then wow!
Ted
Ted
11-10-2006, 02:07 PM
#7
............yes I meant supercharger. Apparently Kleemann thinks that s/c's are less complicated for mass marketting purposes. If all this is true, it will be great to have the option of s/c from one company and turbo's from another.
Ted
Trending Topics
11-11-2006, 08:04 AM
#9
11-11-2006, 12:13 PM
#10
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Emerald City
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55 Black
The HP numbers don't tell the real story, at least not the one I am interested in. It's the torque, and more importantly, the actual ET and trap speed results. The E63 torque specification is 465 lb-ft. The E550 is 391 lb-ft. The E63 is heavier, 4035 lbs vs. 3885 lbs. So on paper, the E63 has 19% more torque and 4% more weight.
But at the track the differences are less impressive. My E55 will run 12.4 all day long on stock tires. With drag radials and a good launch I can run 12.2, and a better driver can do 12.1 or perhaps even better. I have yet to see an actual E63 time slip that is under 13. That's a huge difference. My point is that the E550 is very nearly as fast as the E63 for a whole lot less cash. Once could save almost $30k and use a fraction of that to buy the inevitable Kleemann S/C for the E550 and I'll bet you could eat an E63 for breakfast... maybe even a stock E55, and for less cash.
Also, I believe there is evidence that some E63's are faster than others. I'll bet there is much less variation in the E550's. What if the E63 I buy is one of the slow ones? Ouch! I think Derek has one of those slow ones...
Yesterday I drove the E63 for the second time, back to back with an E550 sport. Unlike the E55k, the acceleration of the E63 "feels" virtually identical to the E550. You literally would need a stop watch to determine the difference between the two; it's less than half a second all the way up to 100+. On the steet, the two drive very nearly the same. I'm sure that comment will draw some flames, but I have owned 2 E55's (2002 and 2006) and if you don't drive one of these cars you don't know what I'm talking about. The E55k was unique in that it has neck-snapping torque right off the line, and the E63 just doesn't feel that way.
11-11-2006, 05:41 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 SLS AMG
KenE55
As I am sure you are aware, as you have stated as much, the E63 does indeed need some time to break in and there seems to be variation. My car has almost 1500 miles and as of a few weeks ago, I am getting chirping in 1st & 2nd gears and the ESP is flashing like crazy when I get on it from a dig. It has never been able to do that before. The acceleration is now more on par w/ the 4.0 - 4.1 secs that mags have been testing. Much, much faster than my M3 which was on par w/ the E550. Just b/c the E63 doesn't 'feel' fast doesn't for a minute mean that it isn't. We are still waiting for the times from this most recent drag day where people keep referring to the 63's pulling mid to upper 12's. No one has posted time sheets or videos but I have seen multiple comments from those that attended.
Either way, E55 vs E63, we all win. I don't believe that you can compare a test drive of the E63 and a test drive of the E550 and make a decision based on that. Even if you go 7/10 ths on both cars, remember that the the E63 needs to be driven hard on multiple runs before it gives up its performance as even S starts in 2nd gear. Whatever, I'm done defending my car. All I know is that it was money well spent. ANY E550 that lines up against my car will be eaten alive. I GUARANTEE that.
Either way, E55 vs E63, we all win. I don't believe that you can compare a test drive of the E63 and a test drive of the E550 and make a decision based on that. Even if you go 7/10 ths on both cars, remember that the the E63 needs to be driven hard on multiple runs before it gives up its performance as even S starts in 2nd gear. Whatever, I'm done defending my car. All I know is that it was money well spent. ANY E550 that lines up against my car will be eaten alive. I GUARANTEE that.
11-11-2006, 06:01 PM
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
1)Colder weather = more dense oxygenated hp & colder roads/streets are easy to loose traction w/cold tires/on cold roads
2)Tire wear easily a factor even at 1500miles giving your esp light a disco show
Last edited by Thericker; 11-11-2006 at 08:49 PM.
11-11-2006, 06:12 PM
#13
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02ml500sport/maxima06-6speed
As I am sure you are aware, as you have stated as much, the E63 does indeed need some time to break in and there seems to be variation. My car has almost 1500 miles and as of a few weeks ago, I am getting chirping in 1st & 2nd gears and the ESP is flashing like crazy when I get on it from a dig. It has never been able to do that before. The acceleration is now more on par w/ the 4.0 - 4.1 secs that mags have been testing. Much, much faster than my M3 which was on par w/ the E550. Just b/c the E63 doesn't 'feel' fast doesn't for a minute mean that it isn't. We are still waiting for the times from this most recent drag day where people keep referring to the 63's pulling mid to upper 12's. No one has posted time sheets or videos but I have seen multiple comments from those that attended.
Either way, E55 vs E63, we all win. I don't believe that you can compare a test drive of the E63 and a test drive of the E550 and make a decision based on that. Even if you go 7/10 ths on both cars, remember that the the E63 needs to be driven hard on multiple runs before it gives up its performance as even S starts in 2nd gear. Whatever, I'm done defending my car. All I know is that it was money well spent. ANY E550 that lines up against my car will be eaten alive. I GUARANTEE that.
Either way, E55 vs E63, we all win. I don't believe that you can compare a test drive of the E63 and a test drive of the E550 and make a decision based on that. Even if you go 7/10 ths on both cars, remember that the the E63 needs to be driven hard on multiple runs before it gives up its performance as even S starts in 2nd gear. Whatever, I'm done defending my car. All I know is that it was money well spent. ANY E550 that lines up against my car will be eaten alive. I GUARANTEE that.
BRO please race a 55 and record it lol because it just pisses me off , the're comparing e63 to a 550 lol compare it to a 350 already e63 IS THE FASTEST E CLASS
11-12-2006, 01:05 AM
#14
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 SLS AMG
I live in SC. It has been 80+ degrees here for the last 3 days. That's not exactly colder weather. If you consider that most tires need 500 miles to burn off the slick and get to the good stuff, my tires are 1000 miles into true traction. They are approx 1/10 of their life. If you can't tell, I highly doubt the reasons above. Even so, it pulls much more violently from a roll than it used to. All I'm saying is that the motor is loosening up.....as most cars tend to do as they get more miles...... is that so hard to believe?
I find it funny that everyone says 'the E55 out of the box was soooo fast etc, etc, etc.....' Has it occurred to you guys that these are completely different motors? From what I can tell most NA motors need time to adjust, maybe the 55's didn't need that based on the S/C. Who knows......
What anyone has yet to explain to me is why did AMG scrap the 55 motor if it was so great? I understand that it still exists in a a couple lines but I foresee it's time has passed.......
I agree NA motors rule! 
11-12-2006, 07:38 AM
#16
I live in SC. It has been 80+ degrees here for the last 3 days. That's not exactly colder weather. If you consider that most tires need 500 miles to burn off the slick and get to the good stuff, my tires are 1000 miles into true traction. They are approx 1/10 of their life. If you can't tell, I highly doubt the reasons above. Even so, it pulls much more violently from a roll than it used to. All I'm saying is that the motor is loosening up.....as most cars tend to do as they get more miles...... is that so hard to believe?
I find it funny that everyone says 'the E55 out of the box was soooo fast etc, etc, etc.....' Has it occurred to you guys that these are completely different motors? From what I can tell most NA motors need time to adjust, maybe the 55's didn't need that based on the S/C. Who knows......
What anyone has yet to explain to me is why did AMG scrap the 55 motor if it was so great? I understand that it still exists in a a couple lines but I foresee it's time has passed.......
I find it funny that everyone says 'the E55 out of the box was soooo fast etc, etc, etc.....' Has it occurred to you guys that these are completely different motors? From what I can tell most NA motors need time to adjust, maybe the 55's didn't need that based on the S/C. Who knows......
What anyone has yet to explain to me is why did AMG scrap the 55 motor if it was so great? I understand that it still exists in a a couple lines but I foresee it's time has passed.......
Ted
11-12-2006, 04:35 PM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
.........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.
Ted
Ted
The real downer for the E55 guys wanting to move onto the newer body style is why bother when the ultimate goal of most E55 guys is SPEED & ease of modability the E63 is indeed slower in these aspects & it just makes you scratch your head as to why Mercedes would make a slower predecessor
11-12-2006, 05:45 PM
#20
I would say successor would be the more correct term.
11-12-2006, 05:52 PM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Websters Dictionary: Suc*ces"sor One who succeeds or follows; one who takes the place which another has left, and sustains the like part or character; -- correlative to predecessor; as, the successor of a deceased king. Chaucer.
I would say successor would be the more correct term.
I would say successor would be the more correct term.
11-12-2006, 05:57 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMGs
.........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.
Ted
Ted
