Ran out of tobasco sauce and was wondering if anybody here got any weaksauce i can borrow?

 

I am still waiting to race a STOCK E55 at E-town. Have been there dozens of times this year but have not met up with anyone. I consider a wheel swap a mod as I am running the factory Conti's. Judging from my previous runs I am confident I will fair very well.

 

that vid is a joke. they got up to like 90 and then traffic made them slow down

 

Here are links to road tests that show the 63 is faster than the 55

At 113 mph, the 2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG covers a car length in just a tenth of a second. Normally such a ridiculous speed/time/distance calculation would rank on our "Just Don't Care" list, just below American Idol. But not this time. This time we care.

We care because this car length in a tenth of a second makes the E63 AMG the quickest sedan with an automatic transmission that we've ever tested. From a dead stop, it tears through the quarter-mile in just 12.7 seconds at 113 mph, one-tenth of a second quicker than your best friend's SMG-equipped

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=120601/pageNumber=1

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.


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

The CLS63 gets to 60 mph from rest in a blistering 4.1 seconds, a tenth quicker than the CLS55, but is identical otherwise up to 120 mph and shares a 12.6-second quarter-mile time. The 30-to-50 and 50-to-70-mph figures show the benefits of the supercharged motor’s fatter torque curve (2.2 and 2.5 seconds, respectively, compared with 2.5 and 3.1 for the CLS63), while the extra top-end grunt of the 63 comes into play above 120 mph. By 150 mph, the CLS63 is ahead by almost a second and a half.

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...cls63-amg.html

 

Magazine tests? I mean real world.

 

r we quoting magazine tests again...oh my

 

What were your previous runs?

Fair well = not lose by much?

My car is stock. I've run numerous 12.1x-12.2x 1/4s on my stock Contis. 60' ranging from 1.77-1.85.

 

We'll meet up one night. Or a Saturday morning. Do a few runs to make the fans happy Then, if it is OK with you, maybe we can swap cars and see which one of us is a better AMG strip driver.

I put PS2's on my car (stock sizes) after participating in the AMG challenge in Lime Rock and seeing how much more "alive" the car felt. The Conti's were numb by comparison. Made the car feel more like a fast Lincoln.

But I really am not convinced that the PS2's help on the strip. And I mean that sincerely. The biggest problem with the Conti's from a performance driving perspective was their relatively soft sidewall, which is good for a smooth and quiet ride, but not for performance. Having said that, my best Conti time was 12.07 @ 116 mph at e-town - pre-loading the rpm's to 1200, on my first trip to the strip. A great time. Lots of 12.1's and 12.2's at 116 after that. All on Conti's.

After I changed to PS2's, and despite about ten trips to the strip, I was unable to better that 12.07 time until I changed my launch technique. Brake torquing with PS2's, I was almost always tripping the ESP light. I varied my RPM's, but the PS2's would still slip at launch. I complained about the PS2's not being so good for the strip first time I ran on them. This is not revisionist history. https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....0&postcount=20

I changed my launch technique, almost by accident, and was able to launch my way to consistent 1.7's just by rolling into the throttle from idle.

I am confident that if I ran Conti's using the same launch technique, I'd be pulling 1.7's on those as well. Wouldn't enjoy the drive to or from the track as much, but I don't think I'd suffer at the strip.

In any event - even with PS2's, I consider my car "stock". If I was running a stickier tire with a very limited tread life like the Nitto or Toyo sticky tires, then I'd consider it a mod. (By the way, my rear Conti's were SHOT at 6,000 miles. I have 5,500 miles on my PS2's and they look great. So I am not sure that the PS2's have a softer tread)

 

If you are talking "real world"

I have not seen in person a 55 beat a 63. Not on the drag strip, not on the freeway. Every 55 that I have run against has lost to me in the 1/4 mile. Do I think the 63 is "faster"? nope.

The differences are negligible so outcomes will most certainly be driver dependant and not determined by engine. The one high speed run I have done suggested the Car and Driver review accurate. I know the 55 is quicker from 30-70mph so if rolling from 30 you need to take it past 115-120 to catch and pass. Have you ever raced a 63?

HAPPY 4th ,

 

First , great post and thanks for the detailed info.

I am amazed you guys can launch on the CST tire. That rubber at Palmdale would render your car worthless and slow it to 13.5-13.9. I would never change my tires if I could get traction on the Pzero's..It slows the car by .3-.9. Course the sticky tire seems to slow the trap speed, lol. Your car and runs are AMAZING, however Venom in DYNO mode may be interesting..GLTY

 

Happy 4th to you - and all! As I said, I really would like the E63 to be faster. Period. I would hate to think that the newest and greatest AMG developed and built motor could not, on its own, outperform the "slap on a supercharger" approach to the 55 motor. I want to see the performance numbers improve.

I have never raced a 63, yet. Haven't really raced anything on the road, so I can only go by timeslips. We have a pretty good sample of E55 timeslips. Pages and pages, stock and modded, on dragtimes.

I know that the E63's aren't out there in force yet, so there does not yet exist a thorough database of 63 slips. So I am not yet ready to conclude that the E63 is "slower" than an E55. But we have never seen, on any track, on any tires, a 63 post anything quicker than a 12.4 at, I think, 114 mph. That is a respectable time and speed - but that is the best it has to show for it to date. Time will tell if we start seeing 63's posting 11's, or even 12.3's at 117 mph. But one can't simply ignore the fact that many bone stock E55's owned by members here and run at different tracks have run low 12's at 115 plus, and that the absolute best known 63 time and speed are slower than that. So far.

I will be happy to race any 63 at e-town or Atco for a fun comparison. And if my E55 "loses", I will be just as happy to know that there is hope for those of us who might want to upgrade to the latest product. Believe me - knowing what my car is capable of, if I need to worry about losing at the strip to the new 63, I will be quite happy.

As I have said on this and other boards, I don't get tangled up in this "my car is faster than yours" stuff. They are cars. And they come and go. Look at objective data and draw reasoned conclusions. If someone is faster, then kudos.

 

How dare you be rational and level-headed on a thread like this !

 

Enzom is pure "class"

 

My past few runs are all in the 12.6 range with a highest trap of 115.21 (averaging 114.75). I am not looking at the times but the mph which are higher than some of the
E55's trapping much lower. This is all with a BEST 60' time 0f 2.004. I am sure that side by side on the same day and track I will be even with stock 55's

 

Hey Lorenzo, Happy 4th. We definitely have to meet up soon. And sure we'll swap cars and run. Fine with me. Would like to get the feel behind the 55. Let's set a date soon.

 

Couldn't agree more. I still have some Vette owners that give me dirty looks because I sold my Z06 and purchased a Viper. Variety Is The Spice Of Life!!

 

I've run almost 117mph in my stock 06 E55 (12.25@116.70 on a 1.82 60'). That was also "post-flash", which was an issue that was floating around as the E63 was released.

On your BEST runs with the 2.00 shorts, is that traction limited? I've screwed up the launch in my car and run mid 12s, but usually with a higher than 2.00 60'.

The E63s have been out long enough that if they actually ran faster (or even the same) as the E55s, we'd see it in the best posted timeslips. How many E55s have posted 11 second stock timeslips? What about 12.0x? How many 63s have done the same?

I love all the E* AMG cars, but there is no empirical evidence to show that the E63 is quicker than the model it replaced. There are plenty of us with E55s that have posted consistently quicker ETs than ANY E63.

 

Def. have not seen a 63 car beat my car. Friend of mine just got CL63. Dying to race him. I will let all know the outcome

 

Invite him to our next meet and we can get it on video. That's just one more reason to have another meet SOON!

 

Anyone that owns one will definitely agree that the 63 clearly wakes up with around 3000 miles on the clock. I am confident that a 63 with a few more miles on it and a guy who has it in D with the car shifted down to 4th will have much more of a chance in the kind of a race like the first video. If you leave the car in D and it is in 7th or 6th it will shift down twice on you and that is a major power lag. He might have pulled a car in the second video on his first shift down to 3rd before .5 seconds later his car shifted down to 2nd. Just my .02, no need to hate.

 

Enzom it was a pleasure meeting you and thanks for this info. As a result of what you have here I may just leave my Pirelli's on and see how I do using your technique.

By the way,after you left Leslie(Black E55 at E-town) ran a 12.1 @118mph 1.7 or 8 60ft in his K2 55 with Conti's which was actually his first time ever drag racing that car or any car on an organized drag strip. I told him to use your technique. Not too shabby for a first timer. He should be able to run mid 11's with more practice.

Next time at the track we will have two E63's there!

 

I'm definitely not hating. I love the way the 63 sounds and commented on this before. I just want U to read your thread once more. Push this button, turn this dial and make sure it's in this mode!!!!! Sound familiar? Is this a E63 or a M63 that were talking about here?

 

Nice video's! Please share them again next time, when you have made new ones!!

 

Thanks, but I am a d!ck just like the next guy. I just choose not to express it in writing.

 

[QUOTE=joemoney415;2304580]Anyone that owns one will definitely agree that the 63 clearly wakes up with around 3000 miles on the clock. /QUOTE]

While I admit that there is no evidence of this, I also happen to have a feeling that something in the E63 ECU artificially limits performance for a period of miles. I suspect that multiple dyno tests will show a gain in power for the same cat at 3,000 miles vs. 1,000 miles. I have felt with prior MB's in my family that the cars felt like dogs when brand new, but have felt much quicker later in life. Again - pure speculation.