Top 10 1/4 mile runs
E55 vs E63 AMG

E55 12.02@116.37
E63 12.05@116.99

The numbers reflect how truly close the two AMG cars are

 

bah humbug.

j/k. this is great to see but i still think the bar should have been raised instead of just transitioning away from the kompressor or trying to play bmw's game.

 

No AMG stock can play your game LOL... Did you see the CLS TT???

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...-full-shot.jpg

Such BS I deal with here on a daily basis

 

AMGs are sweet.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the bar being raised. I could be wrong but isn't the '63 motor' the first inhouse motor built by MB. Could it be they just wanted to see what they can produce on their own?

 

... well it took you long enough

j/k nice work 63's

 

My 2 cents but I agree, the bar was raised with the introduction of the 211 platform over the 210 platform. So with the rest of the AMG lines over the previous models. Even BMW's have done it look at the M5, the E39 to the E60 platform. What was done is more so a lateral move. Don't get me wrong a na with almost the same performance number as a F/I are good to but should be better. At least road coarse number should be better. Are they?

 

this issue's been clubbed to death. However, you're clearly not stirring up s$it so I'll say that the E63 is the more rounded car unmodded. That is to say natural aspirated engines are easier to maintain, while the suspension is tightened up and brake feel improved. It's also 7-speed and all this means it will likely be SLIGHTLY quicker over a road course. This is unmodded and also dependent on drivers

That being said, as you know the 55k is a 516tq beast that can be wound up to 600bhp with comparative ease.

Engineers generaly make bg strides every two gens. ie. E36-46 was a small jump, to E90 bigger. Same for E34-E39 and big jump to E60. Next gen 5 will not be radically different.

Merc did this before with C32 and C55.

Remember E63 was facelift not all new model like 32/55C, so next gen coming next year will likely give EVERYONE what they want including a more inolving gearbox

What I do know is the E55s epic thrust and ease of use in a midsize will make it long remembered. Buying one second hand like the 65s is never a bad move so long as you have manufac's warranty. The green brigade will at some point bring an end to power and we'll all be electric

 

First production in-house motor for AMG, designed from the proverbial clean sheet of paper.
(the only paper used to design the 63 was a bar napkin at the local beer garden)
It is a fantastic engine, as up to date as any in the market. It truly has all the right stuff.

The bar? here is the riff, owners of the 55 expected the new engine and transmission to be more, not the same and the face lift ya 5 pieces of plastic is new and fresh. Still so close so same same it was/is hard to justify the $40-$50K up charge. If AMG made the 63 with 575 HP the bar would again assume the natural progression of being raised. The sad part is rumors out now of MBs new found green side may leave us 55 & 63 owners at the last known point of high horsepower V8 family cars.

 

First by AMG

 

I think the motor is great. N/A being = to a V8 plus SC it a tremendous accomplishment.

This thread is about numbers, they paint a clear picture that if you 55 owners chose to run a 63 it will not be as lopsided as once believed here in this very place.


I think if I ran the numbers to the top 30 the numbers would stay just as close. 3/100ths on 10 slips on two different motors is quite frankly INCREDIBLE.

The 63 variance is actually larger from model to model than it is from motor to motor. I find this very interesting indeed.

 

Thanks. Read in some magazine it was the first of something. It's my first MB, I'm still polishing up on 'AMG History 101'

 

Where are you getting these numbers, Josh?

 

But you are using multiple runs by the same cars. What is the value of that?

If I posted my top 10 times, I'd have an average of 11.811 @ 118.48 mph. How does that serve as a basis of comparing two different models? It can't.

Those averages can't serve as a basis of any comparison. Sorry.

 

If you drop an E55 and an E63 on the moon they still hit the moon at the same time.

Of course a Yugo would as well.

 

Juicee -

If you had said in your original post -

"I took the top 10 recorded times on dragtimes for E63's and for E55's and averaged them out. They include multiple runs for the same cars, so this isn't really the best times for 10 different cars. It is an interesting comparison."

That would be one thing.

But you make a declarative statement, WITH NO EXPLANATION, and leave it at that. Extremely misleading. When asked, you reveal how you got there. And it takes all of three seconds to realize that the comparison isn't really a comparison. It is an average of the top 10 timeslips, including multiple runs by the same cars. Not anything close to a "true statistical comparison".

My example is simple - If I took my top 10 time slips, sent them to Fikse to post on drag times, and then averaged out those top ten times, I could replace your original post with what turns out to be MY average (but not tell anyone they are all from my car), and call it the average of the top 10 runs for E55's. Heck, I will throw out my 11.775 run and add my 11th best slip - an 11.836 @ 118.54 - to the mix. The average would still be an 11.82 something.

Again - the "comparison" of who has the most slips posted on dragtimes, isn't really a comparison of best times. To suggest otherwise is, imo, highly misleading.

You are doing wonderful things to create enthusiasm for taking AMG's to the track, and we all share with you your desire to find every hundreth of a second. And I am not trying to take anything away from Gixxer and Venom and their runs.

But you are taking the shine off of your own accomplishments when you do something like this because it is obviously misleading. And I am certain that I am not the only one who sees it that way. Sorry to sound harsh.

 

 

This thread is a bit confusing ......but i would have probably taken the top/fastest time slip from 10 different 55's/63's and then averaged them out. Now sometimes a really low time can skew a BELL curve and should be thrown out ..say you run ONE 11.7 then your next ten runs are all 11.9, that 11.7 is not very representative and gets thrown out. An even better AVERAGE is to take the average of ten runs from ten different 55/63's and post the average of those...does this help?

 

Or you can just leave out enzom's car b/c it's a freak!!

 

Chris I'm feelin yer new sig big-man!

 

Thought you might like it!!

 

Its all good I will take in to consideration Enzom's concern, I respect him so that is the least I can do. He set the bench mark and hopefully one day another 55 or 63 can match or break it..

 

Over and over again... wtf is the point of this. And no one who knows statistics would call that anything close to a statistical analysis... Why are pepole still hung up on comparing the two cars still... I can understand the new members, but same ***** from same people over and over again...

 

I think you may have just insulted The Juice.

Okay, here are the numbers when taking the ten top stock cars from each group (Sorry but one best run/car)

E55 average 12.06 @115.97

E63 average 12.49 @113.96

 

Some of these 55 owners are a sensitive bunch. They just can't face the reality that there is a new king of the mountain lurking around the next corner. They had to know this day was fast approaching. At one point in time my 1995 M3 was one of the baddest pieces of machinery you could buy, but now it is just a pathetic, excuse of a car compared to the newer M3's. Hell, I think a new Honda Accord can out perform my 95 M3. Times change, it's a reality, and in 4-5 years, if not sooner there will be something out there that will make the 63's look like a joke...it's called progress, and if the car companies where not always raising the bar, we would be complaining about that, wouldn't we?