e55 vs c63
. Of course, a couple of years down the road, you'll see the superchargers, turbo chargers, NOS, and other extreme tuning come into play
but until then, I don't see a stock C63 walking a stock E55.
I find people who don't get the results they want tend to be dyno shy.
I think there is more to do than just an ECU tune. Sure the C63 can get to 550 but it will take a lot more than just a tune.
. Of course, a couple of years down the road, you'll see the superchargers, turbo chargers, NOS, and other extreme tuning come into play
but until then, I don't see a stock C63 walking a stock E55.Trending Topics
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
The similar thing happened between me and a friends CLS55 AMG and that time the weather was cold as I am sure the CLS was in its full potential. I got the lead upto 100mph and then the CLS is gaining on me. The race was basically a drag race.
When the E63 came out, everybody was saying the same thing. It was a slow pig and just wouldn't go fast. They were getting walked all over the place by E39 M5's, etc. But now, even the bone stock ones have loosened up to where they're down in the 12s.
So I would say it's way too early to write the C63 off yet. It's much lighter than the E63, which after getting broken in turned out to be a strong performer. The C63 has the same motor and weighs less. It's not rocket science that it should be faster eventually.
I also don't think Mercedes' claims of "de-tuning" are anything more than marketing hype designed to avoid the possibility of steering E63 buyers into buying the cheaper E63. The E55's were allegedly 469hp instead of the 500 or so that the same engine produces in CL and S class applications, for the same marketing reasons. However, the dyno comparisons of S55's and E55's proved they are exactly the same...and I bet the same thing is happening with the C63 vs. E63 numbers.
And even if they did manage to de-tune it, getting the ECU done will fix that immediately for almost no money, at which point it's a no-brainer that the C63 will outperform the E63 because of the weight difference. Personally, I think the C63 is going to be a very strong performer when they get broken in.
That would be kinda interesting. 6.3 is strong from a roll. Lighter car with slightly less hp VS heavier car with 50more hp.
GET VIDS!!! I wanna see!!!
When the E63 came out, everybody was saying the same thing. It was a slow pig and just wouldn't go fast. They were getting walked all over the place by E39 M5's, etc. But now, even the bone stock ones have loosened up to where they're down in the 12s.
So I would say it's way too early to write the C63 off yet. It's much lighter than the E63, which after getting broken in turned out to be a strong performer. The C63 has the same motor and weighs less. It's not rocket science that it should be faster eventually.
I also don't think Mercedes' claims of "de-tuning" are anything more than marketing hype designed to avoid the possibility of steering E63 buyers into buying the cheaper E63. The E55's were allegedly 469hp instead of the 500 or so that the same engine produces in CL and S class applications, for the same marketing reasons. However, the dyno comparisons of S55's and E55's proved they are exactly the same...and I bet the same thing is happening with the C63 vs. E63 numbers.
And even if they did manage to de-tune it, getting the ECU done will fix that immediately for almost no money, at which point it's a no-brainer that the C63 will outperform the E63 because of the weight difference. Personally, I think the C63 is going to be a very strong performer when they get broken in.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...lip-15204.html
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...lip-11853.html
Or maybe they didn't:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-9842.html
Last edited by blacke55101; May 31, 2008 at 03:38 PM.
P.S.- Comparing dyno sheets from different machines,done on different days&with different operators is moot.There are WAAY too many variables to throw the outcome
Last edited by oldgixxer; May 31, 2008 at 04:40 PM.
Surprised nobody brought this up yet. Cramming a 6.2 liter lump into a C-Class makes for some difficult header design. I don't think an ECU tune cuts the mustard in this case, you're going to need to do headers and an ECU.
I would bet it's the exact same setup, except for marketing hype or, maybe, different ECU programming. I really doubt there are very many differences between the E63 and the C63, if for no other reason than that would cost them more money.
the C63's are indeed producing less power compared to the other 63's, they are making in the 380 range, while the others are making in the 410's....
When the E63 came out, everybody was saying the same thing. It was a slow pig and just wouldn't go fast. They were getting walked all over the place by E39 M5's, etc. But now, even the bone stock ones have loosened up to where they're down in the 12s.
So I would say it's way too early to write the C63 off yet. It's much lighter than the E63, which after getting broken in turned out to be a strong performer. The C63 has the same motor and weighs less. It's not rocket science that it should be faster eventually.
I also don't think Mercedes' claims of "de-tuning" are anything more than marketing hype designed to avoid the possibility of steering E63 buyers into buying the cheaper E63. The E55's were allegedly 469hp instead of the 500 or so that the same engine produces in CL and S class applications, for the same marketing reasons. However, the dyno comparisons of S55's and E55's proved they are exactly the same...and I bet the same thing is happening with the C63 vs. E63 numbers.
And even if they did manage to de-tune it, getting the ECU done will fix that immediately for almost no money, at which point it's a no-brainer that the C63 will outperform the E63 because of the weight difference. Personally, I think the C63 is going to be a very strong performer when they get broken in.
the C63's are indeed producing less power compared to the other 63's, they are making in the 380 range, while the others are making in the 410's....
Ditto on the dyno numbers...the early figures for the 63 were pathetic, but they increased with time and break-in. And I'm not talking about 500 different cars under different circumstances, I am talking about (in a lot of cases) comparisons of the same car on the same dyno under similar conditions, without anything changing except time and mileage. Do a search for some of the larger threads about it. One of them was titled something like "Where are my missing ponies?", and there were a lot of others...
Ditto on the dyno numbers...the early figures for the 63 were pathetic, but they increased with time and break-in. And I'm not talking about 500 different cars under different circumstances, I am talking about (in a lot of cases) comparisons of the same car on the same dyno under similar conditions, without anything changing except time and mileage. Do a search for some of the larger threads about it. One of them was titled something like "Where are my missing ponies?", and there were a lot of others...







