KenE55

Did anybody see this article in car and driver online:

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...amg-wagon.html

They claim the wagon does 0 to 60 in 4.0 seconds flat and the 1/4 in 12.5. That's astonishing for a wagon. I would assume the sedan would do even better due to the lower weight.

OK, maybe there is hope for my next car being an E63.

Ted Baldwin

.............it turns out that the E55 wagon at least as tested by the magazines was also faster. The explanation was better weight distribution.

Ted

Lady Wolf

I keep saying this and no one believes me. The wagon IS faster on the 1/4 mile as the extra weight is all over the back tires so it helps to keeps them down on the launch.

Carl Lassiter

correct

Tuskir

This is only true with stock tires though, replace them with stickier tires and the sedan will be faster.

BlkE63AMG

Better traction, less torque of the E63 from launch may actually result in better numbers of the sedan. It does not have the launch issues seen in the E55 and the E55 wagon. Time will tell.....

KenE55

Launch issues? The E55 is ridiculously easy to launch. Just leave the TC on, and don't mash the throttle too fast. Using about 1 second or so to go from zero to full throttle will launch you perfect every time.

Also, I just don't buy this idea about weight distribution. If adding 200 pounds over the rear wheels would yield a better ET, then all the E63 needs is 200 pounds of iron plates in the trunk. I'd love to see any willing E63 pilot run with and without weights in the trunk and thus prove this theory... or is the next argument going to be the superior dynamics of the wagon?!

Also, the E55k wagon is slower than the E55, no doubt about it. I've seen them run at the same track on the same day by skilled drivers.

Lady Wolf

I just can't agree with this. I wish I could put this to the test myself to put an end to the discussion but I am just not convinced the E55 is faster than the E55T if all other things were the same. I think if you got 2 cpmperable drivers and everything else was the same it would win more often than not.

WayneE

I've been to the track where my E55 was dead hooking. I could not feed in throttle fast enough to break the tires loose off the line. If you walked across the launch pad, it would pull your shoe off your foot In that situation, the extra weight of the wagon would slow it down and the sedan would be quicker.

Maybe in a low traction situation the extra weight of the wagon can be beneficial. Since most magazines don't test cars at the drag strip, where there is VHT for grip, the magazines will get better times out of cars that are easier to launch in low traction situations.

silversurfer

I hope you're not talking about my wagon Ken?

Lady Wolf

Heck, your car woud make mine look like the slow stepchild

silversurfer

appreciate that..unfortunately my car has only been able to churn out a 12.1 @119...I'm wondering if that is the basis of Ken's comments

KenE55

OK, You caught me. Note that I did say you were a skilled driver... I just think a K2 E55 would do better than 12.1. As you know, stock E55's are running E55 around that. I concluded that since you are an experienced and talented driver, and that K2 is surely a hot set up, the only explanation for the slower ET was the extra weight of the wagon.

I really didn't mean to insult any wagon owners! My apology to all affected!

But if the extra weight over the rear wheels was some magic recipe for better performance, we could all put some dead weight in the trunks of our E55's and match that benefit... and I just doubt that's true. Adding 200 pounds or so (what exactly does the wagon weigh?) is equivalent to a 5% decrease in torque/horsepower on a 4000 pound car. The traction only helps for a fraction of a second; the weight slows you down the entire race.

silversurfer

I would certainly agree with you that my wagon is capable (and should be running) better times. However, I don't think that because my car is an anamoly, we should be generalizing against a widely accepted (and logical) claim that a wagon would nudge out a sedan (all other things being equal). There are so many factors that contribute to why my car is not putting down better times.... just like the bone stock sedans that put out monster times, it should not necessarily be seen as representative of the norm.

For one thing...I've not found the magical equation to get my 60ft. below a 1.8. I'm sure that a few hundredths or a tenth better on my 60ft. will net me the times on the back end I've been looking for.

Lady Wolf

I will say this. WHEN I finally convince Wolf to mod my car (note use of when and not if) I will have an experienced driver take it on the track and will also dyno it so I can track it's preformance as things go along.

M3Cab

"The 6.2 negligibly outperforms the old car in every acceleration test, reaching 100 mph in 9.5 and 150 in 23.5 seconds; 0.2, and 0.5 seconds quicker. The 12.5-second quarter-mile time is identical between the two cars, but the 63 carries one extra mph through the lights." - Car and Driver

Haven't seen much discussion on here about this. Seems the 63 is not such a dog after all. My G-tech is returning results of 4.0 - 4.1 0-60's, and 12.6-12.7 quarters at 112-115.

Even if it's no faster, it is smoother and better handling. I think the 55's are great, and the leftover 06's are probably a better buy, but I made the right choice with my E63. If I was into modding, E55 would be the easy choice, but I'm a stocker.

I consider C&D a reliable source given their testing procedures, so for me the 63 is officially the better car.