Oldgixxer, please swap your tires for PS2 before this coming event. I'm sure you'll be in the very low 12s or maybe even very high 11s

 

ESIX3POWER, E55 does have 500hp, it has been verified on independant dyno's countless times. E55 dyno's in the 410-420whp range, which translates to 500bhp. This has been proven since 2003 and is a generally accepted fact by everyone on this board.

The reason why E55 is stated to have 469hp instead of 500hp is simply due to marketing reasons. Since E55 is inferior to S55/CL55/SL55, which cost a lot more, its stated to have less power than the "high-end" models in order to make those models more appealing.

The same goes for current 63 cars, which all have the same 500hp. C63 is said to have only 450hp, while E63 is said to have 500hp (because its a "high-end" model is supposed to be more powerful). However, in reality, they all put down the same power and C63 is actually much faster than C63. Facts are facts.

As far as the acceleration goes, there have been countless meets at the dragstrip to compare E63 and E55 and E55 won every time. Here is a link to one of the meets:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...hlight=results
The difference is not huge, but E55 consistently runs low 12's in the 1/4 mile, while E63 consistently runs mid to high 12's in the 1/4 mile. Its extremely easy to compare how different cars accelerate by looking at www.dragtimes.com .. all you do is enter two cars you want to compare, click the "stock" button and there you go:

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

You have stock E55's running 11.7 in the 1/4 mile and you're still saying that E63 accelerates faster... that's just pure denial

Then you can look up modded E55 vs modded E63 and the difference is enormous:
http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

Pretty much no E63's on the first 4 pages there, only E55's...


P.S. This thread does SUCK, but maybe Mercedes execs are reading it and will hopefully introduce a twin-turbo version of the 6.3L engine soon. AMG owners expect an upgrade, not a sidestep (or a downgrade)

 

In Fontana, Famoso, Sacramento, and Palmdale, the results were completely opposite. Every stock E63 beat every stock E55 in trap and ET except for Hammer Down's superior trap on the last Sacramento meet.

The 0-60 times for the E63 are better than the E55 simply because of tracion, but that's where the advantage end. From 30 to 70 mph, the E55 will pull, then from 70 to about 95 both cars seem to keep their distances equal, then above 100 mph, the E63 does start pulling slowly.

 

Did I hit a nerve or something ? You seem agitated. Your car bone stock cant beat an M5, My 63 can. You'll be the one seeing heels and tail lights. Get over your self.

 

You just make yourself look like an ***. From a stop the E55 will give the E63 an *** whooping. If we are rolling the E63 has a chance and it really shines above 100mph, partly due to gearing and the design of the motor.

The E55 is what you want at dragstrips and stoplights. Our E63's dont stand a chance. Accept it FWIW.

 

Too many conflicting stories from different people. My opinion in regards to these cars is very much like your's MB4EVER. Thanks for the input.

In a race from 0-150 MPH who takes it ? 55 or 63

E63

 

From a start ? From a start the 63 gets out of the hole quicker and hits 60 before the 55. You 55 guys want a real race ? Lets race to 150 MPH and see who is ahead.

 

I strictly went by the numbers presented by MB which was 469 HP. Thanks for the feedback, I was not aware of this.

 

On average, the E55 is faster to the 1/4 mile by 0.1 to 0.2 seconds but not to 60 mph.....

In west coast (at least so far), the E63 (on average) is slightly faster than E55.

Above 100, the E63 will definately pull.

I say, it is mostly a driver's race than a car's race.

 

I know you're right, but what the hell causes that anyway? Is the E63 less susceptible to gravitational pull or something? Or is just that California emissions is a real B!&ch on the 55's?

Honestly, why the east vs. west difference?

 

Guys why so much confusion around E55 vs E63 HP numbers. HP is a simple formula calculated as follows:

HP = rpm x T(torque)/5252(constant)

Now for E55:
Power (SAE Net)… 469 bhp@6100 RPM,
means that torque=HP*5252/6100=403 lb/ft of torque at 6100 RPM
Torque (SAE Net)… 516 lb-ft@2650 RPM, HP=260HP at that RPM

Now for E63:
Net power 507 hp @ 6,800 rpm, torque=391
Net torque 465 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm, HP=460hp

All this means is that E55 rating for 469HP is simple computation. I dont understand why so many argue that E55 has 500HP. HP is a computed number, what matters is torque and RPM. Th reason why E55 has lower HP rating then say SL55 is due to its torque/RPM calculation.

Check out formulas: http://www.elec-toolbox.com/Formulas/Motor/mtrform.htm
Albert.

 

you're tarded.

I just said the same thing in the first page, but you obviously still don't understand what I meant.

 

CWW- One word, GAS. Cali's crappy gas is what's killing the F/I cars. It's not some magical voodoo or any proof that the E63's are faster. Blown cars hate low octane so they make less power. Anywhere that 93 octane is available, the 55's rule the roost.


AlbertM- You're not picking up what we're putting down here.

E55's DYNO at 420+ WHEEL HORSEPOWER, that's REAL WORLD NUMBERS, not ones made up by Mercedes' marketing department

That means E55's make 500 Horsepower

This is a researched FACT that we've known for 5 years.

ESIX3POWER- You say you've taken E55's and M5's, why don't you come take mine? Have you seen the vids of me going at it with Sunny55's Kleemann K2 beast? He had me by ONE LENGTH with 100 more ponies than your car makes and a boatload more torque. Let's do this, tape it, highway run, 70-150, you've finally pissed me off enough to want to put this BS to rest.

 

I think I am getting what you are saying. All you are saying is that E55 is really 500hp instead of 469 as MB says and it is all a marketing ploy. If that is true then how do we know if any HP numbers published by MB are true or just marketing ploys? Maybe E63 is not making 507hp but 450 and 507 is just a a way to sell more E63s. The problem with this thinking is that once MB lies about numbers you can not trust any number they put out. Second, I am sure there are regulations around this that would prevent companies from doing stuff like that.

Second why would not they underrate current E63? So maybe it is not making 507, but 544hp. I can argue either way.

As you can see all I am doing is speculating. I trust more MB numbers then some dyno numbers. Do we know what dyno was used, under what conditions, and what is the margin of error? If the marging of error say 10% then you would expect almost +-40hp, which is exactly the difference between 460 and 500.

Guys all I am saying is that I trust MB numbers first, before anything else. The point about marketing ploy is nothing but a speculation -- NOT A FACT. Show me proof that states that MB underrated E55 for markreting purpose.

Common guys, numbers are numbers.

 

3....2......1...........: eek:

 

The...point...is...rear wheel numbers are MEASURED at specific conditions that can be documented. Published MB numbers are not rear wheel and don't stipulate the conditions.

Furthermore, HP is ALL that matters because one can generate whatever level of torque they like at the rear wheels through gearing, within the limitations of the power available. Torque can be transformed, HP cannot be.

 

AlbertM, you're clearly not understanding me here. Maybe I should give you a little info about myself to help you understand that I'm not some moron. I've been building and racing cars for almost ten years now. I have a stack of dyno sheets in a chest somewhere. Dyno's are the only way to prove IN REALITY how much power a car makes. I have personally seen Sunny55's E55 and SL55 dyno'd, both baselined at approximately the SAME NUMBERS.

The 55k motor is unchanged across the entire line yet Mercedes lists the 2005 S55 at 493 horsepower, the SL55 at 493, and the E55 at 469. Why? Because people would complain if they paid the extra money for an SL55 that was SLOWER than an E55. All of those cars DYNO in the same range.

The dyno numbers I mentioned are not a few isolated runs, but COUNTLESS dynos over the years. Do a search, stop making yourself look like a fool, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.

 

I can't believe how many dumb peoplpe thre are in here. Its the same god damn motor as the SL55 with the excecption of the air intakes being slightly different. A dyno does not lie much, and I am willing to put my money that the E55 motor is also producing 500hp.

 

You see it does not matter. The point is, you have to use the same insturment under the same conditions in order to make comparisons. So using MB tools under (lets hope) factory conditions E55's engine rated 469hp and E63's 507hp. That is all. You can not compare apples and oranges and then say MB is understating numbers. That does not mean that E55 is slower in 1/4 mile. All I am saying that this whole argument that E55's are purposefully underated by MB is A PURE SPECULATION.

Even with 5% marging of error during measurement you will get close to 500 on the dyno.

If anyone can really prove that MB is outright lying about their HP numbers -- I suggest get a lawyer and file a suite against MB -- I am sure there is money to be made on this. And for those that swear by it -- SHOW ME THE MONEY.
I am almost certain that there are strict regulations govering this type of stuff -- almost 100% certain.

Sorry, but I just dont buy it.
Albert.

 

It is the low octane, bad air, and tracks at altitude that kill both cars. But the 55 suffers in heat and picks up a ton in the cool air. The 63 also likes 93 and cool air but it is all motor and the gains are not as significant as noted in the 55.

All cars are slower in California. The Corvette runs 10.90's at MIR (Z06) it just recently recorded a California record of 11.2, 3/10th's. The air, fuel and prep seem to be superior in the East.

 

Listen, check out the specs for S63-- it states 518HP -- same 63 engine. So what are you saying? MB is lying again??? Or maybe E63 is not really 507 but 518?? Why not apply the same argument to E63/S63 now??? Same engine right?

I think we caught MB lying again (a clever marketing ploy) by MB.

I understand why E55 owners would want their cars to be 500HP stock, but that does not mean that it is (atleast not according the makers of E55 -- MB). However you seem to take someone elses measuremants and readily apply any time it is convinient.

AlbertM.

 

Mercedes Benz does not "SAE-certify" it's engines?

 

I understand your point, but, there is no point anchoring the discussion to the MB published numbers for either car when there are a significant number of dyno data points for both cars, with conditions specified, that facilitate a more accurate comparison. And that comparison seems to be indicating more or less the same horsepower at the rear wheels, SAE corrected.

 

BHP?

 

Vadim where the hell are you when we need you to explain things to n00bs?