E63PWR

I've owned, modified and dyno tested both cars on the same chassis dyno. My '04 E55 stock made 407 rwhp cold. It continued to drop power as it got heat soaked. My E63 made 410 and never dropped run after run. I pullied the E55 and it made 457 rwhp and felt much faster then my 63. I would say stock for stock from a 50 roll race, the slower car would be the one who has more gas in their tank! People who say they "dusted" or "smoked" an E63 from a roll in a stock E55 is full of crap as I know the 63 is no slouch from 50 and up!

From the modability standpoint, the E55 is a better car for that. From a refined driving experience standpoint and sharper appearance, the E63 wins hands down. Bother are terrific cars.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

+1 sums it up, someone close this mess.

Mathmik

[QUOTE=You spend too much time on the board to be managing billions. and if you do, maybe your customers should pull the money out.[/QUOTE]


Now that was a good one!!!!

juicee63

Trez63 hit 441 RWHP on the Evosport dyno in his 63. He then raced my car which dynoed at 408 and got whooped LOL

MB_Forever

Why do I get the feeling you were going to jump on that

Ok, maybe not -1000 ft average, but you got to admit, most of the Atco dates from October through December produce -750 ft to -1000 ft DA and at least 25 degrees cooler temperatures. And I think this last time out, 2 different sources quoted the DA to be -1200 to -1400 ft.

Vic55

Like I said: drivers, conditions, dynos, health of car, blah blah ... so many variables

MB_Forever

LOL.... no prob

The SLR 722 is definately my dream car, but I can't afford one yet. Maybe in a few years and if the prices drop far enough, I'll definately go for one......

juicee63

Brunette +10000

Fast55

But I believe he was modded? In any case, let's let this thread die a quick painless death. Vic?

MB_Forever

I'd love both

But I think in the end I'd lean towards a naughty burnette

juicee63

No he was stock. There have only been two stock 63's dyno over 430 in this forum the rest 370-420. We should merge all the 63 vs 55 threads into a sticky and stop making new threads discussingthe same crap for the new kids

MB_Forever

Now we're really off topic

Vic55

I feel like the lockmaster lately- this sucks ... actually all Trez had was the filters pulled.

As long as the members are professional and respectful Ill allow the thread to continue but this doesnt mean start attacking each other to get it closed

MB_Forever

I don't understand why every once in a while, someone comes along and starts a thread that either talks trash about the E63 or E55, and then gets all these members fighting over a topic that has been discussed to death over and over again so many times and always ends at the same result. I wish people would use the search option a bit more.

juicee63

The post about Trez's car was simply to illustrate that dyno really is meaningless to predict winner of a race or speed contest. Trez has a very fast 63 and it likely produces more horsepower than other 63's its still not enough alone to crutch on. Stock for stock as VIC has said several times the cars are too close to say either way. This also bring me to a very famous song "Where have all the stock 55's gone" Sadly the debate will never have a concrete solution cause as soon as you decide either way something will Rock your belief set..

I need a beer now

Vic55

I agree, there are times where the "use the search key" statement is needed and then there are times where a friendly debate or in this case, redebate ad naseum, occurs.

AlbertM

I think it turns into one because people misunderstand each others points.

Next:
Cylinder_Head says that MB underrated E55 for marketing purpose. I happen to disagree since today most 63AMgs are within 10hp of one another -- where is the hierarchy? Also if I am buying SL why would HP advantage or disadvantage matter? I think most people who buy SL buy it because it is a sexy convertible roadster with lots of power, if E63 had 50 more HP would it make buyers of SL convert to E -- I don't think so. Also people who buy S63 would not buy E63 to replace S, if E63 had more power then say S. True some would, but in my view most would not.

HP alone does not establish the hierarchy -- at least not for me. While I see his point, I don't buy the "marketing" explanation. Why would anyone buy porsche Carrera 4 with less HP then E63 -- it is not all about HP.

So still I just don't see why MB would underrate E55 -- I don't see a good reason. Do we have anyone on this board that knows AMG intimately that can comment on this, otherwise all we do is speculating.

Anyway this topic is way overdone. E55 vs E63 vs M5 to each their own, enjoy it

oldgixxer

This thread STILL SUCKS!

enzom

(Deep breath) I don't know - because maybe I thing it is important to be factually correct?

You just basically said the same thing. No - the average DA for the track during the cold months is likely not even a negative number, let alone negative 750. It just isn't. I go through the trouble of noting my DA's. And the particulars of my runs. Check out my posts. The data is there. And people choose to ignore it.

And my e/t and trap were both slower than what I was running with a DA of -200. What does that tell you about the DA excuses?

I really can appreciate that people have different opinions and preferences on matters. That's cool. But let's try to keep the facts straight.

deaguero

AlbertM: Were not trying to challenge you but make you aware of the dyno numbers that we have on our E55's and E63's. I know that you are new here but at least look at the almost 5 years of data from countless dyno runs on both E55's and E63's. On my dyno on my stock E55 I put out 427hp to the rear wheels. This is well in line with the countless other dynos that have been done on healthy stock e55's. This equates to over 500hp at the crank using a 15% driveline loss. Please accept our factual conclusions as we respect you and your curiousity into this. My dyno number jumped to 485hp at the wheels after the 80mm TB upgrade and VRUS shorty headers. that equates to over 560HP at the crank. Everybody who has made these type of mods has seen similar results. Please enjoy your E63 since it is a great car and is capable of great/good numbers at the track. Enjoy my friend!

oldgixxer

And now,after wasting 10 minutes of my life reading these 3 pages over again I can easily surmise one thing which I think we can ALL agree on:

CylinderHead for President!
I love this F'in guy!!

AlbertM

deaguero: I am not challenging E55 dyno numbers. I am just curious as to why MB underrated E55, nothing more nothing less and it looks like nobody knows why, other then a speculation that it is an MB's marketing trick.

enzom

Seriously. He is my write-in candidate come November.

MB_Forever

I'm not using that as an excuse, I was just explaining to CWW why the west coast numbers are generally slower than east coast. Are you saying higher DA makes the car faster or slower? There is a huge difference in DA and humidity between west coast and east coast. When we ran at 3000 ft DA here in California, almost every stock E55 and E63 were 13.0 to 13.2 seconds, then using the same cars and same drivers and same track but at lower DA (1800 ft), these cars dropped to 12.4 to 12.5 seconds. Then at 1400 DA, the cars dropped to 12.30 seconds, then at 500 DA the cars dropped to 12.20 seconds, etc....

What was the DA this last time out?

When we looked it up, we got 3 different results? Some websites listed it as -920 ft while others listed it at -1200 ft while others even listed it as low as -1400 ft. Then some people said it was only -700 ft while others said more like -900 ft

AlbertM

Looks like this thread just wont die