Ran a CL63 with my 'o7 Cl600 from a roll and...
06-02-2007, 07:38 AM
#51
the 63 engine makes sense in smaller cars like C, CLK, and SLK... but I can't understand why anyone would want a big car with that engine, especially when you can have a V12 bi-turbo for almost the same price. As far as handling, I bet you most people wouldn't be able to tell a difference between CL63 and CL600... plus the car is a freakin boat, nobody buys these things for handling. If anything, CL600 is more comfortable, which is a plus in my book for a luxury coupe. As far as looks, again, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. If you're self-concious about looks, order the 600 with an AMG kit and get quad muffler and it looks 100% the same. And finally, now that the 6.3L V8 is finding its way into the entry-level C-class... I certainly wouldn't want my top of the line Mercedes to have the same engine they use in a C-class.
Ted
06-02-2007, 07:47 AM
#52
...........reminds of when there was a rumor of a CLS65 in the works. I was ready to sell my right kidney to get that car, but it never came. So I still have my kidney. For an E600, i'll let them have my spleen. Brabus has already done this with the EV12, but at $300,000.00 its costs considerably more than my spleen. Whats a guy to do?
Ted
06-02-2007, 07:53 AM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Well my race was awesome but why buy the cl63 when for 6k more you can have 150 more lb/ft of torque in the cl600? the only thing the cl63 has is looks... all show and no dough if you ask me. it really showed on the street. while my 600 might weigh slightly more, it is not enough to offset the huge torque deifference.
mercedes knew this and in the US does not offer the sport package on 600's. S or CL.
but 2++ car lengths from 20-100 is alot! and i would bet my bottom dollar he had it floored.
we both jumped forward and i just methodically walked him the whole time it felt like the faster we got the faster I was pulling away too!!
do the math a NA v8 vs a twin turbo v12. I have to say it was not even close.
63 is a dumb engine choice for an S and CL.
mercedes knew this and in the US does not offer the sport package on 600's. S or CL.
but 2++ car lengths from 20-100 is alot! and i would bet my bottom dollar he had it floored.
we both jumped forward and i just methodically walked him the whole time it felt like the faster we got the faster I was pulling away too!!
do the math a NA v8 vs a twin turbo v12. I have to say it was not even close.
63 is a dumb engine choice for an S and CL.
two diffrent cars though, imo
06-02-2007, 11:54 AM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
........I don't undersand why we are re-arguing already settled facts. The 600 is consederably faster than the 55, period, end of story, settled. Many including me, have seen these cars run side by side many times. Sl600 vs E55, Cl600 vs E55. It was never even a contest.
........Now, the only way the 63 is as fast as the 600 or "close" to the 600 is if you believe that the 63 is faster than the E55. This of course is not true. I think the issue of acceleration is settled. Arguing that point just makes 63 owners loose more credibility because the answer is obvious.
......However, acceleration is not everything. The Cl63 looks nicer than the CL600. in my opinion it explains why in the USA the CL600 does not come with AMG trinklets. If it did, very few will buy the CL63. MBUSA saw this coming.
......As far as handling, I share everyone's view that the CL63 and 600 are too heavy for this to be an issue. No one buys a heavy CL63 or CL600 because they handle very well. So whatever advantage the CL63 may or may not have in this department is insignificant. Mentally, if this makes a CL63 owner feel better about their purchase, so be it.
Ted
........Now, the only way the 63 is as fast as the 600 or "close" to the 600 is if you believe that the 63 is faster than the E55. This of course is not true. I think the issue of acceleration is settled. Arguing that point just makes 63 owners loose more credibility because the answer is obvious.
......However, acceleration is not everything. The Cl63 looks nicer than the CL600. in my opinion it explains why in the USA the CL600 does not come with AMG trinklets. If it did, very few will buy the CL63. MBUSA saw this coming.
......As far as handling, I share everyone's view that the CL63 and 600 are too heavy for this to be an issue. No one buys a heavy CL63 or CL600 because they handle very well. So whatever advantage the CL63 may or may not have in this department is insignificant. Mentally, if this makes a CL63 owner feel better about their purchase, so be it.
Ted
I did not know the stock 600 was faster than a stock 55, my apologies. If thats the case than of course it is faster than a 63 but is it really OBLITERATING a 55 or a 63? I track my 63 3 times per week and it weighs near 4600 lbs. I dont talk about speed and how fast my car is , I RUN IT. I do not see any 600 series vehicles EVER at the track and I do not think I ever will. My car does not belong there but for as slow as she is she sure hammers on some "fast " cars. The AMG cars look better and sure a guy can do some simple mods and make the 600 look like a AMG , great nice to have that option. The posted and tested times for the 600 would not make me beleive it was faster than a 55. I mean really is .2 tenths gonna make you decide the 600 over the 63? Look at the two cars side by side. I stand by my opinion that they appeal to a completely different type of driver. While the CL 63 likely wont be headed to WILLOW it could and it has some upgraded parts that make it a more responsive vehicle. I f you buy a car for straight line accel you would be better off in a Z06 IMHO. I would take a 600 in a heart beat but I would rather have a CL65!!!!!!!! I hate this thread.
Fast company
Fire it up and a basso-profundo, un-Merc-like rumble from a quartet of oversize exhausts hints of wickedness under its sharply raked hood. Although the CL63 AMG gives away 36 hp to the Bentley Continental GT W12, Mercedes says it trounces the heftier Brit GT to 60 mph by 0.4 second and is just as quick in that sprint as the lighter BMW M6. The last M6 we tested hit 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds. Even better, Benz says the CL63 AMG is nearly as swift to 100 mph as Ferrari's 612 Scaglietti, for about half the sticker.
Like many German high-liners, this car's top speed is electronically limited to 155 mph, but you can opt for a Porsche-chasing performance package with a 186-mph limit.
06-02-2007, 12:03 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
...........reminds of when there was a rumor of a CLS65 in the works. I was ready to sell my right kidney to get that car, but it never came. So I still have my kidney. For an E600, i'll let them have my spleen. Brabus has already done this with the EV12, but at $300,000.00 its costs considerably more than my spleen. Whats a guy to do?
Ted
Ted
OMG a CLS TT...will I be the first?
A CLS 65 even better
That would be incredible, I could lose one of my two ****
06-02-2007, 03:59 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
The problem with looking at 0-60 and the 600 vs 63 is with the 600 you run into the same problem as with the 55k cars except worse. The 55k is traction limited at launch in many cases with 516 ft/lbs of torque @2650 rpm. The new 600 has 612 ft/lbs of torque @1800 rpm, a considerable difference. You need a good set of slicks to harness the power of a 600 at launch. Much less so with the 63. After traction is obtained it will be no contest between 63 and 600 just like there isn't much of a contest between 55k and 600. I've raced an E63 and beat it on a highway roll, I was still pulling away at 120 ever so slowly. I've also raced a stock SL600 that someone at work owns. He easily pulled away from me. Also note that the 600 engine in the new body CL600 is more powerful than the 600 engine in the SL600 that I raced by about 20hp and 20ft/lbs making it all that much easier to walk a 63.
06-02-2007, 07:34 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,546
Received 1,066 Likes
on
855 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
The problem with looking at 0-60 and the 600 vs 63 is with the 600 you run into the same problem as with the 55k cars except worse. The 55k is traction limited at launch in many cases with 516 ft/lbs of torque @2650 rpm. The new 600 has 612 ft/lbs of torque @1800 rpm, a considerable difference. You need a good set of slicks to harness the power of a 600 at launch. Much less so with the 63. After traction is obtained it will be no contest between 63 and 600 just like there isn't much of a contest between 55k and 600. I've raced an E63 and beat it on a highway roll, I was still pulling away at 120 ever so slowly. I've also raced a stock SL600 that someone at work owns. He easily pulled away from me. Also note that the 600 engine in the new body CL600 is more powerful than the 600 engine in the SL600 that I raced by about 20hp and 20ft/lbs making it all that much easier to walk a 63.
06-03-2007, 09:48 AM
#58
Senior Member
Thread Starter
put slicks on a 600 and you could lose .6 seconds easy through the quarter and i am guessing 5-9 mph trap speed.
my cl600 walks my e55 both bone stock...
but traction is key ,if either dont "hook Up" it is the others race for sure.
my cl600 walks my e55 both bone stock...
but traction is key ,if either dont "hook Up" it is the others race for sure.
06-03-2007, 10:23 PM
#60
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I think the bottom line on this thread has sort of already been stated....Mercedes knew that by putting the sport package on the CL600 no one would buy the CL63 because there would be no reason to( becasue the 600 is faster on the highway and from a dig). However, I do see a reason to buy the 63, not on the street (going fast) but in the parking lot, from simply a looks standpoint.
Mercedes basically admitted to me that the 600 engine is superior in all aspects to the 63 engine...
I ma not a hater of the 63 though...afte reading the road and tracka rticle about the e63 wagon 0-60 in 4.1!? wow i might buy one no joke...only if they offered the 63 wagon with 4matic.
once again 63 is a great engine just not in the extremely heavy cars...s and CL
thanks for all the interest fellas...
Mercedes basically admitted to me that the 600 engine is superior in all aspects to the 63 engine...
I ma not a hater of the 63 though...afte reading the road and tracka rticle about the e63 wagon 0-60 in 4.1!? wow i might buy one no joke...only if they offered the 63 wagon with 4matic.
once again 63 is a great engine just not in the extremely heavy cars...s and CL
thanks for all the interest fellas...
06-04-2007, 12:38 PM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think the bottom line on this thread has sort of already been stated....Mercedes knew that by putting the sport package on the CL600 no one would buy the CL63 because there would be no reason to( becasue the 600 is faster on the highway and from a dig). However, I do see a reason to buy the 63, not on the street (going fast) but in the parking lot, from simply a looks standpoint.
Mercedes basically admitted to me that the 600 engine is superior in all aspects to the 63 engine...
I ma not a hater of the 63 though...afte reading the road and tracka rticle about the e63 wagon 0-60 in 4.1!? wow i might buy one no joke...only if they offered the 63 wagon with 4matic.
once again 63 is a great engine just not in the extremely heavy cars...s and CL
thanks for all the interest fellas...
Mercedes basically admitted to me that the 600 engine is superior in all aspects to the 63 engine...
I ma not a hater of the 63 though...afte reading the road and tracka rticle about the e63 wagon 0-60 in 4.1!? wow i might buy one no joke...only if they offered the 63 wagon with 4matic.
once again 63 is a great engine just not in the extremely heavy cars...s and CL
thanks for all the interest fellas...
Yeah that wagon is SIK...Hey I think after seeing my fat car run I would agree adding weight to the 63 engine by placing it in a S or CL it should be given 50 more HP!!!! So my apologies to everyone the V-12 is a better engine choice for the cars over 4500 lbs. I was mostly thinking the 63 AMG looked better out of the box. Sorry if I came off defensive.
06-04-2007, 01:21 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,546
Received 1,066 Likes
on
855 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Yeah that wagon is SIK...Hey I think after seeing my fat car run I would agree adding weight to the 63 engine by placing it in a S or CL it should be given 50 more HP!!!! So my apologies to everyone the V-12 is a better engine choice for the cars over 4500 lbs. I was mostly thinking the 63 AMG looked better out of the box. Sorry if I came off defensive.
06-04-2007, 03:48 PM
#63
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The V12 tt would be a better choice in all the cars. However, Mercedes, for marketing reasons, does not put it in anything other than the S and CL. You must look to Brabus if you want the V12 tt in the other models. An E class with a modified V12 tt would be a ball on the highway. All the extra torque of the V12 would make it even more difficult to launch so you would probably be slower to 60 unless you were running slicks or super wide tires.
