e55 amg underated factory figures?
11-02-2009, 11:11 AM
#26
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chesterfield, MO
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 CL55
I was about to mention other external factors that affect numbers on dynos.
11-02-2009, 11:19 AM
#27
Super Member
+1, in a perfect world we could get enough cars together on the same day, same dyno, same track so we could limit the external factors that affect dyno and passes at the track. I still believe that most of these vehicles make about the same power, but there are a handful that make significantly more or less power.
11-02-2009, 11:31 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lafayette, IN
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2008 ML63 2009 SL63 2010 Alpha 7 GTR
another factor is that some of our cars make more or less horsepower BUT these same cars may make more or less torque. So in the end they end up running the same 1/4 times. I know my car was low on HP, but extremely high in TRQ.
11-02-2009, 03:17 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think 119.22 is about as close as I'm going to get to 120 and still have a respectable time. That night of the 119, it was my worst run 12.3@119.22 The stars would have to be in order for me to do it again.
11-02-2009, 03:32 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
well, as people discuss there are a few theories... I believe it is the same as the SL55... I think the dynos prove this -- Some say this does not make marketing sense to show lower HP == but i think it does because they do not want to hurt the sell of the other 55 AMGs that are being sold at the same time.
11-03-2009, 05:28 AM
#32
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 E55 AMG
The diff between an E and SL is the exhaust and intake. You can fix the intake easily for $20, the exhaust just takes $. Remember guys, 469 vs 493 is 24hp, diff is only 5%. some models rated 507 but due to 80mmTB vs 74. So basically what is different between all models? Intake snorkels, TB, and exhaust. Very reasonable to explain diff in HP ratings.
11-03-2009, 09:48 AM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2005 E55 ///AMG
The diff between an E and SL is the exhaust and intake. You can fix the intake easily for $20, the exhaust just takes $. Remember guys, 469 vs 493 is 24hp, diff is only 5%. some models rated 507 but due to 80mmTB vs 74. So basically what is different between all models? Intake snorkels, TB, and exhaust. Very reasonable to explain diff in HP ratings.
11-03-2009, 04:16 PM
#34
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 E55 AMG
Was talking about 55s in the different models. There ARE differences, just doesn't amount to much. They are all underated, which is the german way.
I saw an add for K&N for a Charger and the stock rear wheel HP on the graph was 292 from a 425hp crank rated motor. That's almost 30% loss, or the engine just doesn't make the rated juice.
I saw an add for K&N for a Charger and the stock rear wheel HP on the graph was 292 from a 425hp crank rated motor. That's almost 30% loss, or the engine just doesn't make the rated juice.
11-04-2009, 11:54 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: el clinico magnifico
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63, S550
11-04-2009, 02:24 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
11-04-2009, 03:05 PM
#40
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55 AMG --old cars -- E39 M5, 2.7tt Audi S4, E36 M3 **Ducati 996, 748
faster 0-60 time is the result of better launch control and suspension... If you dont think the power is the same -- look at the top speeds without limiter... or 0-150mph.... Also, I think the E63 is 200lbs lighter
11-04-2009, 03:19 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
First, he E63 is not 200lbs lighter. Second, E63 has a slight advantage in top speed due to having 7-speeds rather than 5.
Third, the faster 0-60 time is due to the fact the 5.4K produces 516lb/ft low down and overwhelms the grip of the stock tires. One has to be gentle with the throttle initially. It's not to do with suspension or launch control.
11-04-2009, 03:27 PM
#42
Super Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55 AMG --old cars -- E39 M5, 2.7tt Audi S4, E36 M3 **Ducati 996, 748
well- the newest E63 according to C&D --- has launch control and better suspension... also it was 4100-4200lbs if i remember correctly --- that is lighter than my E55 but I have pano roof
11-04-2009, 04:26 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
this has been disscussed and proven already.
they all make the same power use the search.
Which AMG line is the fastest?
55k/65 hold the records
they all make the same power use the search.
Which AMG line is the fastest?
55k/65 hold the records
11-04-2009, 04:32 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
This is ALL incorrect.
First, he E63 is not 200lbs lighter. Second, E63 has a slight advantage in top speed due to having 7-speeds rather than 5.
Third, the faster 0-60 time is due to the fact the 5.4K produces 516lb/ft low down and overwhelms the grip of the stock tires. One has to be gentle with the throttle initially. It's not to do with suspension or launch control.
First, he E63 is not 200lbs lighter. Second, E63 has a slight advantage in top speed due to having 7-speeds rather than 5.
Third, the faster 0-60 time is due to the fact the 5.4K produces 516lb/ft low down and overwhelms the grip of the stock tires. One has to be gentle with the throttle initially. It's not to do with suspension or launch control.
I will launch better like 4 sec to 60mph ?
11-04-2009, 04:41 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
11-04-2009, 05:00 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
However, the sizes above are not a match as the 295s you list would be taller. If you currently have 265/35R18s then you'll need to change to 295/30R18 or your car's stance will be like a dragster. 295/35R18 would be too big unless you were changing your front tires to match them.
-Rob
11-04-2009, 06:30 PM
#47
Super Member
This is ALL incorrect.
First, he E63 is not 200lbs lighter. Second, E63 has a slight advantage in top speed due to having 7-speeds rather than 5.
Third, the faster 0-60 time is due to the fact the 5.4K produces 516lb/ft low down and overwhelms the grip of the stock tires. One has to be gentle with the throttle initially. It's not to do with suspension or launch control.
First, he E63 is not 200lbs lighter. Second, E63 has a slight advantage in top speed due to having 7-speeds rather than 5.
Third, the faster 0-60 time is due to the fact the 5.4K produces 516lb/ft low down and overwhelms the grip of the stock tires. One has to be gentle with the throttle initially. It's not to do with suspension or launch control.
11-04-2009, 06:57 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yes, wider tires will help an E55 hit low 4s from 0-60.
However, the sizes above are not a match as the 295s you list would be taller. If you currently have 265/35R18s then you'll need to change to 295/30R18 or your car's stance will be like a dragster. 295/35R18 would be too big unless you were changing your front tires to match them.
-Rob
However, the sizes above are not a match as the 295s you list would be taller. If you currently have 265/35R18s then you'll need to change to 295/30R18 or your car's stance will be like a dragster. 295/35R18 would be too big unless you were changing your front tires to match them.
-Rob
Basicaly, Front 245/40/18 Rear 295/30/18 I guess this will be the best for our car.
11-04-2009, 07:04 PM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
I assumed we were talking about the 07-09 E63 with 7G. The new 7-speed on the all new MY10 does make a difference. The rest of my corrections are 100% on though.
11-04-2009, 07:12 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Actually the best diameter match if you are sticking with 245s up front (which I would) would be 245/40R18 fronts and 285/35R18 rears. That would give you enough extra width to notice an appreciable improvement in grip. It would also ensure there would be no rubbing/fitment issues.
Feel free to PM if you need any more details.
-Rob
