Okay, a couple of things. You have to compare apples to apples. European car magazines generally have slower acceleration figures compared to U.S. magazines because of two main reasons: 1. They don't do a 1 foot roll out to simulate a drag strip timing light and 2. they do not weather correct the acceleration data. Having a vbox and measuring many runs while simultaneously running on a drag strip has shown me that the 1 ft roll-out is worth between .3 to .4 seconds. I even have pretty much determined that the drag strip affords a 1.25' roll out with the timing lights (literally over a dozen runs recorded and the ET matched up perfectly with the 1.25 foot roll-out). That is why I thought the 100-200km/h time was more relevant in comparison to another time recorded by the same magazine.

I wouldn't make that bet if you are running the test under the same conditions. The S63 13.0 @ 110mph you quoted is from Car & Driver. Car & Driver weather corrects its #'s as well as does a 1 foot roll out. That can easily give it a .5s advantage over the raw data.

Who knows what the weather conditions were when they tested the S63. But I can pretty much guarantee that the temps were not anywhere close to the 44 deg F temps that you ran in, given that the car must have been tested fairly recently in the summer months over in Germany. That can have a huge impact on a twin turbo car.

Tom

 

Depends on how deep you stage

 

LOL..... I choked on my gatorade when I read this

 

True, but I think all the runs were staged shallow to optimize the ET. Maybe it would be closer to the 1 foot roll out if you staged deeper.

Tom

 

You think these TTs will be as susceptible to the heat as the S/C 55s?

 

Same day same road the new TT 63 will not out accelerate the old N/A motor by 4 seconds. That is what was implied in this thread.

You post a test of the new car doing the exact same split in 13.7s

I will bet a ton of jack , the new TT will not be nearly 4 seconds quicker to 125 mph, sorry..

The posters in this thread seem to believe this based on information posted from two different tests on two different days.

I can tell you with confidence , the S63 in its current build does 0-125 in less than 17.3 seconds,

 

You don't know it.
13.7 vs 17.3 are times provided by the same German tester (Autozeitung).
You seem to compare the best ever time achieved by C/D (famous for wild and exagerated acceleration figures like 0-60 in 3.6 s for SL600 or 3.4s for a Ferrari 430) to a typically conservative time posted by a German mag.
Considering that TT S63 is a bit lighter then N/A S63,has tons of torque more and at lower rpms,has significantly more hp (in perf. packge that was compared),a 3.6 sec better time from 0-200 seem to be very reasonable.
All the factors that are known at the moment lead to believe it will be confirmed by all independent tests ,including your favorite ,Car and Driver.

 

+1

Josh:

Here are the #'s from the S63 N/A's road test (a comparison with a Panamera Turbo ...which made no sense ).

1st place: Porsche Panamera Turbo
V8, biturbo, 500 hp, 700 Nm (770 Nm with Overboost)
Weight: 2022 kg
Vmax.: 303 km/h
0-100 km/h in 4,0 s
0-160 km/h in 9,0 s
0-200 km/h in 14,1 s
Quarter mile: 12,07 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,0 m

2nd place: Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
V8, 525 hp, 630 Nm
Weight: 2157 kg
Vmax.: 250 km/h
0-100 km/h in 5,1 s
0-160 km/h in 11,3 s
0-200 km/h in 17,3 s
Quarter mile: 13,39 s
Braking 100-0 km/h (warm): 35,9 m


Maybe the conditions were less than ideal as the Panamera's #'s were also down. Like I said, Autozeitung doesn't weather correct or use a 1 foot roll-out. That 13.39 1/4 mile looks pretty strong for no roll-out...probably a 13.0X with roll-out. The 0-160km/h (99.4mph) time of 11.3s is pretty close to the 10.8s 0-100mph time from Car & Driver if you factor in the roll-out and weather correction. I just don't see a huge deviation in the #'s.

I believe that the S65 with a weight of over 5,140lbs ran a 13.5s 0-200km/h time. I think the new S63 has a couple of advantages over the S65, about 70lbs less weight and the use of the 7 speed tranny. The S65 still overpowers the S63 because of the 40+hp and 70+lbs-ft torque advantage. But a tuned S63 will likely blow past a stock S65 but that is another debate.

You may be right, an S63 N/A may be capable of a sub-17 second 0-200km/h time. However, I also think the S63 Biturbo is also capable of a sub-13 second 0-200km/h time. Head-to-head, the S63 Biturbo may still be 3.6 seconds faster than the S63 N/A (especially if run in colder weather). I wouldn't bet a billion dollars on it, but maybe a small wager may be in order...

Tom

 

The SL in that test was determined to have the Renntech ECU/TCU, 600+ hp.

 

Sorry guys,

I am not buying those tests results.

That is the worlds SLOWEST S63.

Real world runs in an S63

Lets see
0-62.13712 mph.
Porsche 4 seconds
S63 5.1 seconds

Ok so we already have a ONE second gap at 62.13712 mph
perhaps if the Porsche had 150 more HP I could believe that.

AT 99.42 MPH the two cars are 2.3 seconds apart.

At 124.27 MPH the cars amazingly are 3.2 seconds apart.



Think about this,

If both cars were side by side to start, how many feet, miles ahead would the Panamera be by 124.27 mph?

Anybody wanna loan me an S63 for a couple runs in Mexico to disprove this blasphamy

 

Josh:

Not sure why you can't believe the results. The times for the Panamera Turbo are actually pretty slow compared to the US magazines (due again to the lack of roll-out and no weather correction). Since you are trying to disprove the performance of the S63 N/A relative to the Panamera, let's look at the U.S. testing in Car & Driver:


S63:

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE AS TESTED:$136,245 (base price: $130,775)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 379 cu in, 6208cc
Power (SAE net): 518 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 465 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 124.6 in Length: 205.0 in
Width: 73.7 in Height: 58.0 in
Curb weight: 4910 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 27.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g


Panamera Turbo:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...f057ce0f16.pdf

Zero to 60 mph: 3.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 20.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.7 sec @ 119 mph

Let's look at the figures this way... the S63 runs 10.8s 0-100mph while the Panamera covers the same interval in 8.2 seconds. That is a 2.6s difference. The S63 runs 13.0s 0-110 (it's 1/4mile trap speed). According to the Panamera's test sheet, it is hitting 110mph in 9.9 seconds, a whole 3.1 seconds ahead of the S63. In the 100-110 mph interval the Panamera pulled away .5 second faster. By 150mph, the Panamera Turbo is nearly 7 seconds faster to that mark. I just don't understand why you can't come to grips with the fact that the old S63 is just not going to put down super #'s because of its weight. It is a fast car, and a 17.3s 0-200km/h time isn't bad at all given their test procedures.

Tom

 

I guess Im so used to heads up it is hard for me to imagine such a gap?

are the tests same day same road?

There is something skewing the 0-124.27 number in the German test.

I have run plenty of modded cars much faster than a Panemera t bo and hardly was ever trounced by 3 seconds.

I bet we could squeeze a 13.0 at 112-113 out of an S63, I guess my point is how on Earth could it take an additional FOUR SECONDS to gain 9mph?

 

Down the 1/4 assuming 11.7 vs 13.0 is about 13 car lengths. That's getting stomped.

 

http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=88120


That would be getting beat pretty good, but unfortunately looks like the magazines do not do heads up comparisons, when they actually do the numbers are MUCH CLOSER with similar weighted and hp cars.

The 63 will pull up top on the Panemera as indicated by many tests. While there is still a gap up to 200 km the gap is closed on the Panemera Turbo by the E63 which is equipped with the same engine as the S63.

Whilst I would expect the S63 to be slower than the Panemera it most certainly is not 4 seconds slower.

When the new S63 is available , Id love to organize a stock for stock 1/4 mile race and see if the car can actually do a 1 second gap.

 

Josh:

I fail to see how the E63's performance, a car that weighs nearly 600lbs less than the S63, has any bearing on an S63's performance compared to either the new S63 or the Panamera Turbo.

Tom

 

600 lbs is quite a bit but not 4 seconds worth when the E63 is EVEN with the Porsche Turbo, same day same track.

As you can see from the test the 63 does BETTER from 160km/hr-200km/hr this would be no different in the S63.

Why it is relavant?

We are talking about hitting 124 mph not 158 or 186, there is no way an E63 is 3.3 seconds faster than an S63 to 124 mph , not in Germany and not here.

The 570 hp variant of the S63 should be faster but what kind of standard do we have when we are simply trying to beat a 17.3? I will go rent one, buy a vbox and post the result. If it is 17 plus seconds I will run down the left lane at Sacramento raceway naked.

 

I, for one, am praying the S63 does it in less than 17sec....

 

Regardless of what the real number for current S63 is,the point is the new TT will beat it by more then 3 sec (o-200km/h).
Why would anyone doubt it?
More efficient and faster tranny,over 100 lbs more torque and almost 50hp advantage,a bit lighter engine?
The new car would be an absolute FAIL if it did not "destroy" the old one in every performance category....

 

+1...

lot of confusion about this for some reason

-Rob

 

Interesting topic! I'm excited for the new S63 and especially the engine, and I can't wait to see it in the lighter AMG cars.

A question about weight: As said, this new S63 weighs in at over 5,000 lbs. My 2001 S55 weighs around 4100 lbs or so - what in the world is making that almost 1,000 lbs difference? It's not like the W220 S classes were bare and had no safety or technology components in them - so that's definitely a huge increase in weight. The current S63 seems to get a 13 second quarter mile, and my S55 gets 13.9 seconds - but with 349hp vs 518hp. That goes to show you how much the weight on the S63 keeps it from being a night and day difference that it should be with that much power and newer technology.

 

Look at the E63's time 0-200km/h in the link you provided, it is 14.9s. That is only a 2.3s difference from the S63's 17.3s...not 3.3s. I agree, same day side-by-side is more accurate, but this the best data we have available at this time.

Even if you look at Car & Driver's times for the W212 E63, they are substantially faster than the S63:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...ef8ea98893.pdf

Once again, the S63 does 0-100 mph in 10.8s, the E63 does it in 9.5s (a 1.3s difference). The S63 does 0-110mph in 13.0s, the E63 in 11.4s (a 1.6s difference). I think it is reasonable that over the next 14+mph that the E63 would extend its advantage by another .7s. The E63 reaches 150mph 3.9 seconds faster than the S63. Is it that hard to believe that 2.3s of that difference occurred between 0-124.2mph...and the remaining 1.6s difference occurred between 124.2mph and 150mph?

Tom

 

Your car is lighter then current E63.
Even the same body style,2003 S55 was heavier by 300lbs then 2001.
Total weight also varies with liquids and different equipment,for comparison sake the new S63's weight should be used as "dry" at 4750lbs (in long wheel base that is standard in US),so about 600lbs more then E63.If you compare 2011 S63 vs 2001 S55 side by side,equally fueled,the real difference in weight should be about 600-700 lbs ,not even close to 1000 quoted.
Continouus safety requirements,side airbags,knee bags,larger body,bigger wheels,etc,etc all add up.......

 

Keep in mind that Car & Driver corrects for altitude and temp in their results, so even if they're not same-day runs, they should be pretty representative.

 

Thanks for all the answers, I still am going to rent one and run one of my buddies in the new TT version. I disagree with many here in believing the new S63 will trounce the numbers of the old car. I believe the margin to be under .7 second in the 1/4 mile and .2 0-60. The 50 extra hp will not be enough to achieve the exaggerated gap presented in the thread.


Are we getting a 530 hp version and a 570 hp version? will the 530 variant destroy the M156???

 

Sounds like a fantastic motor! My dream car is an S65 which you can tune to 750 HP and 900 ft/lb!

This is why I love MB and didn't even consider a BMW, Audi. Give me Horsepower and Torque!