OK, there has been lots of contraversy about these cars (for reasons that I frankly do not understand, many people on this site seem to savor all the fratrecide - instead at directing their hostile pent-up energy against the BMW folks they are busily fighting with brothers and sisters on this forum).

I had an E55 (which I loved), and traded it for an E63 last fall at the end of the lease. I could tell instantly that the basic peformance of the cars was remarkably similar, but the "feeling" was very different. I even posted some preliminary comments to that effect, and acceleration results and encountered some demented hostile reaction from some who apparently found the facts to be contrary to their pre-disposition.

Well, the E63 now has been thoroughy broken-in during a long North-east winter and has about 7000 miles. The car feels noticeably more eager now that it has loosened up.

I always felt the E55 was indeed very impressive. Using a well proven (ie. used on lots of different cars and always delivering resonably consistent and credible numbers - similar to the numbers from the various magazines) G-tech accelerometer, I had determined that the E55 could do repeatable 0-60 times in the 4.2 - 4.3 second range. Pretty damned impressive for a 2 ton boxy 4 door Mercedes! Even more impressive, and one trick which I always showed people when I gave them test drives to impress on them the bottomless amount of torque this beast had, was to lock the transmission in a second gear start in manual mode, and rip off 0-60 in 4.7 seconds - without shifting out of second!

So now that the weather has finally improved, and we again have some traction, I dug up the old accelerometer, and did the E63.

Amazingly, the 0-60 time was exactly the same 4.2 seconds (several runs). No too surprising, to me at least. The E63 easily makes up for somewhat less torque, with much better gear ratios and gear spacing in the first three gears. What was surprising, was the second gear trick. The E63 cannot be locked in second gear in manual mode like the E55, but if you are disciplined, in the Comfort mode, you can modulate the throttle (ie. don't floor it because it will snap into first), and still do a decent 0-60 using only second gear, but without the benefit of being able to floor it right off the line.

Well, as you probably guessed by now, the E63's time was an identical 4.7 seconds (several runs again, not a fluky best run only)!

So, I guess i'll just have to keep this baby, until AMG makes a faster one!

OK, you E55'ers, go ahead now, shoot another brother one more time!

PS: Please don't lecture me and each other on the inaccuracies of the G-tech. I am NOT arguing that 4.2 is the correct number. It could easily be 4.4 (or 4.0 for that matter). All I AM saying, is that MY E55, and MY E63, when compared on identical roads, using the same instrument (even if inaccurate) delivered nearly identical performance (which coincidentally is exactly in line with most magazine tests for both vehicles).

 

My friend if i raced your E63 i would murder it! take it to the track, Gtech is a toysrus toy

 

My CLS63 get 4.00 flat on the G-Timer almost every time now (after the filter removal) before the removal best I did was 4.17.

 

Your friends E55 may just do that but this guys 63 is just as quick as his old 55.

Does not matter if he did use a toys 'r' us toy as long as the toy is acurate enough to measure time and he used the same toy to time both in the same way.

Even if it read 6 seconds for 0-60 if it read the same for both then they are the same. Just as long as they are used the same way for both cars.

 

I don't think member on this board meant to attack anybody. They were just stating some facts. The 63 engine is a very strong engine, but so far the 1/4 mile results have been a little slower than the E55. I think even AMG themselves admitted that the E55 is 0.2 seconds faster in 1/4 mile than the E63 during the previous AMGFest06 (search for video on YouTube).
From all the data available on this board so far, it seems that the average 1/4 mile for stock E55 is 12.2 to 12.4 and average 1/4 mile for stock E63 is 12.5 to 12.7.

But just because the E55 is slightly faster than E63 doesn't make it better. E63 definately handles better and can probably take the E55 in 1/2 mile run (instead of 1/4 mile). I myself like the E63 and will be getting one soon.

Your car is very strong, so enjoy it, and post some track results soon...

 

Bold talk for a salvage car.

 

I think all of us here know that the E63 is an better overall car than the E55. I even think it is slightly better looking than the E55. But!!!! I think what all of us want to see (E63 guys included), are real 1/4 mile times of 12.0-12.3 at trap speeds of 115, make that 116+mph.

Now, get to the track and make us proud!!!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the E63 limited by its tranmission with regard to adding hp through mods and that right now, there really aren't many tricks to add serious horsepower to the 63. That's where the 55 really shines...a lot of headroom for more power.

Regardless, I love the 63 and would love to own one.

 

I'm actually not an E63 hater, but I also don't take your results to be definitive. 0-60 times mean little. I'm more interested in time to distance, when determining which is faster.
Also, the 2nd gear protocol is completely warped. You have far too many variables for those numbers to mean anything. You treated each car differently and second gear is a totally different final drive ratio to each car.

All in all, I get your point. I also believe the stock E55 to be pretty close to the E63. The real key is which is faster? Even if it is by a hair? 1/4mile runs or similar are the only way to tell.

 

I have an SL55 2007 model...raced a CLS63..easy kill,that new engine is complete failure for AMG (Full stop)

 

WOAH!!! An SL dude chimes in!!

Keep in mind that the '07 SL55 is actually more powerful than its predessesors due to the 80mm TB that I have been craving so.

I've always assumed the "regular" SL55s to be slower than the E55s.

 

Jangster,

Don't get all excited by this dude.

He also claimed that he got walked by an M6 from 70kph on up in the SL forum. Take a peek there.

 

who cares about 0-60?

c'mon guys.. we are now sounding like we one a 3 seriers bimmers.

All the big boys talk about 1/4 times and trap speeds. Those are real numbers.

E63 same as E55.. it better be! I wished AMG made it faster than my E55 and the M5.. but it did not.

Maybe with the W212 they will correct the issue.

I'm still getting a 63 car.. not becuase is fast or as fast as my E55.. simply due to the fact that I'm tired of kompressor engines.

 

I am curious about why you want a N/A car over your blower car? I understand the upside of big N/A power (one of mine is 650 rwhp) but it is so much more expensive and difficult to modify.

A simple pulley swap and tune on a 55 and you make HUGE gains for the money.

 

i'm planning to keep my cars stock going forward.

I dumped lots $$ into the C32.. and a few problems with aftermarket pullies, kompresor clutch and handful of electrical problems.

I have added the pulley to the E55 and the power is there. But you always have a rough engagement and there is tons of torque early on the rev band, but hp suffers on top. With ASP pulls harder than stock.. but you feel like the engine is running out of steam.

bottomo line: after 3 tickets in 1 year.. going from 469hp to 500hp is not that important anymore.

I rather have a smooth reving engine and 2 extra gears, updated interior and exterior and just about the same performance.

 

I wish there was a 1 mile track b/c my 63 was accelerating harder during the last fifth (1,000-1,320 ft) of the 1/4 mile than the first 1,000 ft. It seems it was building up speed. This car really needs room to run.

 

if you feel like the engine is running out of steam or suffers on top, i would suggest to look for a problem with your car.




btw, i wish the 63 guys would start submitting track data instead of questionable dyno and accelerometer claims. (maybe "questionable" is too harsh...but still, it's useless information without backup.)

 

Seems strange. Not many modding the SL55's......I have to come in here to find out about the good parts........

You would think the opposite.....2D vs. 4D.

 

It is 2D vs 4D, but the SL is a heavy BOAT. I love the ride on one and always assumed the opossite as well, until i got to the AMG challenge. There, I put all the bodys through their paces, and loved the E and SLK. The SLK simply did not have the power, so that left me with the E as my favorite. The CLS rumors were laid to rest there as well.

 

I could not have said it better myself. I would gladly give up 2 or 3/10ths in the quarter for a more involving driving experience.

 

Yea, I would have never expected the SL's to weight more....and I even have the added weight of the pano roof.

A friend on mine on here just got an E and I am sure it won't be too long before we start comparing 1/4 slips.....

 

Nah, it's just a matter of getting the right race conditions.

An SL55 with the top down is much faster than an E55 with the top down.

 

well, well, well.... welcome back salvage boy! I thought the CarFax on your car chased you outta here! I guess not!

Here's the best part though...you've had nothing to say since you got called out and bee-otch slapped and on first post back you chime in about murdering Joe's car and completely missing the point of his write up!! We missed beating on you Nick! welcome back

Joe- Thanks for the write up. I'm eye-ballin an E63 or CLS63 for the next car (in the next 12-18 months) and this is worthwhile insight.

 

Agree quite bold......