CTS-V vs E63 on Speed tonight...
08-30-2010, 10:14 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
Also the fully loaded-pano roof,19s on the e63 was under 4100lbs
And the ctsv was almost 4300. How could they **** that up? But they are about the same lbs. Another thing your e63 is about 300lbs over my c63. But you have almost 70hp more. Surprisingly we run even way up top.
BTW I think the e63 in the show was in comfort mode.
And the ctsv was almost 4300. How could they **** that up? But they are about the same lbs. Another thing your e63 is about 300lbs over my c63. But you have almost 70hp more. Surprisingly we run even way up top. BTW I think the e63 in the show was in comfort mode.
Seems like MCT while provides quicker shifts and more enjoyable ride is most likely robbing E63 of its full potential. I think that is the only reasonable explanation, since on paper we should see E63 > C63, and CTS-V ~> E63. But we see is E63 ~ C63 and CTS >>>> E63.
08-30-2010, 10:52 PM
#27
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hainesport, NJ
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 CTS-V (6spd, phantom grey), 2010 Cadillac Escalade ESV (black raven)
There's more to it than simply horsepower.
The E60 M5 has "only" 500hp, but due to it's gearing, it is a highway terror. Not many cars will be able to pull on it at speed.
Porsche has questioned the validity of the horsepower ratings of the GTR not believing the numbers it is capable of at its hp/weight.
Whether or not you are capable of explaining it; it happened. There were two professional hotshoes, both satisfied with the performance that each car provided, no excuses that one car was not running up to par. And the CTS-V won the day.
In matters of sheer performance, the Caddy is better.
If you want to discuss fit and finish, I'm sure the Merc will come out on top.
09-01-2010, 11:33 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Dude,
There's more to it than simply horsepower.
The E60 M5 has "only" 500hp, but due to it's gearing, it is a highway terror. Not many cars will be able to pull on it at speed.
Porsche has questioned the validity of the horsepower ratings of the GTR not believing the numbers it is capable of at its hp/weight.
Whether or not you are capable of explaining it; it happened. There were two professional hotshoes, both satisfied with the performance that each car provided, no excuses that one car was not running up to par. And the CTS-V won the day.
In matters of sheer performance, the Caddy is better.
If you want to discuss fit and finish, I'm sure the Merc will come out on top.
There's more to it than simply horsepower.
The E60 M5 has "only" 500hp, but due to it's gearing, it is a highway terror. Not many cars will be able to pull on it at speed.
Porsche has questioned the validity of the horsepower ratings of the GTR not believing the numbers it is capable of at its hp/weight.
Whether or not you are capable of explaining it; it happened. There were two professional hotshoes, both satisfied with the performance that each car provided, no excuses that one car was not running up to par. And the CTS-V won the day.
In matters of sheer performance, the Caddy is better.
If you want to discuss fit and finish, I'm sure the Merc will come out on top.
09-03-2010, 02:18 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
09-03-2010, 09:24 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Stock Ctsv traps around 117. Stock C63 around 115. Also the Ctsv is over 300lbs compare to the C63. Explain why my buds E63(similar lbs as the Ctsv) with about 70hp+ over my C63 we run dead even way up top??
09-04-2010, 03:05 AM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
The CTS-Vs tested have all been in the 12.0-12.2 max range in the quarter, trapping closer to 119-120. Most C63s are trapping at 113-115 @ 12.5+. You did a 12.6. That's over a half-second difference & 5mph+ just in the quarter. Maybe your definition of "murdered" is different from mine...?
Go run a V stock vs stock and let us know how you do. In the unfortunate event the V has even $1000 in mods, he will wipe his a$$ with your car.
I'm a MBZ guy but I'm acknowledging reality.
Last edited by VCA_AMG; 09-04-2010 at 05:56 AM.
09-04-2010, 09:20 AM
#33
Senior Member
Stock vs stock, the V will murder your C63. Light to light or at the strip.
The CTS-Vs tested have all been in the 12.0-12.2 max range in the quarter, trapping closer to 119-120. Most C63s are trapping at 113-115 @ 12.5+. You did a 12.6. That's over a half-second difference & 5mph+ just in the quarter. Maybe your definition of "murdered" is different from mine...?
Go run a V stock vs stock and let us know how you do. In the unfortunate event the V has even $1000 in mods, he will wipe his a$$ with your car.
I'm a MBZ guy but I'm acknowledging reality.
The CTS-Vs tested have all been in the 12.0-12.2 max range in the quarter, trapping closer to 119-120. Most C63s are trapping at 113-115 @ 12.5+. You did a 12.6. That's over a half-second difference & 5mph+ just in the quarter. Maybe your definition of "murdered" is different from mine...?
Go run a V stock vs stock and let us know how you do. In the unfortunate event the V has even $1000 in mods, he will wipe his a$$ with your car.
I'm a MBZ guy but I'm acknowledging reality.
09-05-2010, 09:09 AM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes
on
244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
Since it is so hard to understand for you ,I will rephrase:
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
09-07-2010, 03:50 PM
#37
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2010 E63, 2008 Range Rover Sport, 2010 GLK350
Since it is so hard to understand for you ,I will rephrase:
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
09-08-2010, 08:32 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Stock vs stock, the V will murder your C63. Light to light or at the strip.
The CTS-Vs tested have all been in the 12.0-12.2 max range in the quarter, trapping closer to 119-120. Most C63s are trapping at 113-115 @ 12.5+. You did a 12.6. That's over a half-second difference & 5mph+ just in the quarter. Maybe your definition of "murdered" is different from mine...?
Go run a V stock vs stock and let us know how you do. In the unfortunate event the V has even $1000 in mods, he will wipe his a$$ with your car.
I'm a MBZ guy but I'm acknowledging reality.
The CTS-Vs tested have all been in the 12.0-12.2 max range in the quarter, trapping closer to 119-120. Most C63s are trapping at 113-115 @ 12.5+. You did a 12.6. That's over a half-second difference & 5mph+ just in the quarter. Maybe your definition of "murdered" is different from mine...?
Go run a V stock vs stock and let us know how you do. In the unfortunate event the V has even $1000 in mods, he will wipe his a$$ with your car.
I'm a MBZ guy but I'm acknowledging reality.
With stickys low 12s is possible. Stock for stock the #s are close. Go look at Dragtimes.com newbie
BTW a bolton Ctsv trapped similar as the bolton C63.
09-08-2010, 11:55 PM
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Darien, CT
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2010 e63 Amg, Ferrari 430 Scuderia, BMW M3 Convertible, Maserati GTS
Since it is so hard to understand for you ,I will rephrase:
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
On which road course,here in US or anywhere else in the World ,E63 can beat (current)CTS-V?
Not your speculation,just proven fact?
As far as I know it never happened but maybe, as you say,I was "absent" and missed such an event.....
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/CAR-Fea...The-Year-2009/
Videos of track laps of Car Magazine's 2009 PCOTY. Same track (Rockingham), Same time, Same (professional) driver.
Lap times:
CTS-V" 1:38.85
E-63: 1:36.22
09-09-2010, 05:22 AM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
Stock vs stock they are not "close," much less similar. The V smokes your car stock by nearly a 1/2-second and 4-5mph+ trap speeds in every test available. If your 12.6 was such a poor time, why do you have it listed in your friggen signature?
If you've done better, wouldn't you list it? Stock C63s regularly clock in at (gasp!) 12.4.12.6 regardless. Your time is average.The CTS-V has 100hp & 100TQ more than the C63. Every test I've found has the V's ET and trap speeds killing the C63. Show me one that doesn't, I'd be interested to read about it. Good luck finding it.
Now you're adding "stickys" to the mix..."with stickys low 12s are possible." Good for you, that means you'll run ALMOST (but not quite) as fast as a stock CTS-V on street tires. Since you are so experienced, I'm sure you realize that the V will run mid/high 11s @ over 120 with DRs. With "boltons"--do you mean bolt ons?--the difference gets ugly really quickly. A simple SC pulley swap and tune on the V takes it into territory that will make you and your wallet cry.
This all started with you saying you'd love to run against a CTS-V. Like I said, knock yourself out and go race a V stock vs stock, it's not that difficult to find one. Prepare to have your a$$ handed to you.
Last edited by VCA_AMG; 09-09-2010 at 05:34 AM.
09-09-2010, 05:44 AM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'15 E63S wagon
Hey Jons...
Here's one example you can watch to prepare yourself:
Stock CTS-V vs modded ($9k) C63 that traps at the V's stock trap speeds...guess who wins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPi5e...eature=related
Here's one example you can watch to prepare yourself:
Stock CTS-V vs modded ($9k) C63 that traps at the V's stock trap speeds...guess who wins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPi5e...eature=related
09-09-2010, 09:28 AM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes
on
244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
I am not sure you actually mean e63, in case you do, here's a pretty definite result:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/CAR-Fea...The-Year-2009/
Videos of track laps of Car Magazine's 2009 PCOTY. Same track (Rockingham), Same time, Same (professional) driver.
Lap times:
CTS-V" 1:38.85
E-63: 1:36.22
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/CAR-Fea...The-Year-2009/
Videos of track laps of Car Magazine's 2009 PCOTY. Same track (Rockingham), Same time, Same (professional) driver.
Lap times:
CTS-V" 1:38.85
E-63: 1:36.22
Could it be a "slow" CTS? Who knows?
Back in 2003 I had an early Kompressor E55,did a dyno baseline and got barely 360hp(way below what anyone else got).
Service could not find anything wrong,neither the MB rep that I requested.
Finally I replaced the pulley and put Renntech ECU to a 390hp ,still a mediocre result ,even comparing to stock cars.
Car never impressed me with it's power either, in regular driving.
I went the easy way and traded it for a new one (dealer did all he could to accomodate me ,with minimal $$ expense).
The moral is that you don't necessarily always get what you expect based on "official" specs.....
09-09-2010, 01:53 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2009-feature
The CTS-V was 2.5 seconds faster around Virginia International Raceway's Grand West Course than the C63 (on the same day). Also look at some of the other notable cars that weren't as quick around the track (i.e. Porsche 997TT.1, Lotus Exige S, Audi R8 and BMW M3). Admittedly, the longer the track, the more it favors the CTS-V as the longer straights allow it to stretch its legs.
I saw the Car PCOTY test video before. It doesn't look like they were trying 100% to extract the best time out of the CTS-V. You could see it in some really slow transitions.
Tom
The CTS-V was 2.5 seconds faster around Virginia International Raceway's Grand West Course than the C63 (on the same day). Also look at some of the other notable cars that weren't as quick around the track (i.e. Porsche 997TT.1, Lotus Exige S, Audi R8 and BMW M3). Admittedly, the longer the track, the more it favors the CTS-V as the longer straights allow it to stretch its legs.
I saw the Car PCOTY test video before. It doesn't look like they were trying 100% to extract the best time out of the CTS-V. You could see it in some really slow transitions.
Tom
Last edited by TMC M5; 09-09-2010 at 01:56 PM.
09-09-2010, 03:39 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes
on
244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2009-feature
I saw the Car PCOTY test video before. It doesn't look like they were trying 100% to extract the best time out of the CTS-V. You could see it in some really slow transitions.
Tom
I saw the Car PCOTY test video before. It doesn't look like they were trying 100% to extract the best time out of the CTS-V. You could see it in some really slow transitions.
Tom
09-09-2010, 04:55 PM
#45
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E 63,E55 (gone) E46 ///M ,B5 stage 3 S4 ,E36 ///M , 03 EVO (800 WHP)
Cts-V falls on its face up top...!!! The ///M5 walks past it like its standing still... so would the E63 speeds above 130+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uVCPRd11pI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uVCPRd11pI
09-09-2010, 08:39 PM
#47
Registered User
Cts-V falls on its face up top...!!! The ///M5 walks past it like its standing still... so would the E63 speeds above 130+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uVCPRd11pI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uVCPRd11pI
09-09-2010, 09:14 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E 63,E55 (gone) E46 ///M ,B5 stage 3 S4 ,E36 ///M , 03 EVO (800 WHP)
The trap speed means he didnt drive the car to its capabilities ... but he was 2 cars out on the m5 and got reeled in and pasted... if he would have got a better launch probably would have been like 4 cars out on the m5 and trapping where it was supposed to and still would have gotten pasted. supercharger = Lots of tq =1/4 .... once past the 1/4 mile its all a horsepower / gearing race...!
09-09-2010, 10:28 PM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
That is the absolute worst trap speed for a 2009-2011 CTS-V ever. This is an exact illustration of what Absent mentioned above...how the Europeans seem to have a bias against American cars....and apparently causes paralysis in their right foot. Just check out Autocar's ZR1 vs GT2 video...
Tom
09-09-2010, 10:49 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
The trap speed means he didnt drive the car to its capabilities ... but he was 2 cars out on the m5 and got reeled in and pasted... if he would have got a better launch probably would have been like 4 cars out on the m5 and trapping where it was supposed to and still would have gotten pasted. supercharger = Lots of tq =1/4 .... once past the 1/4 mile its all a horsepower / gearing race...!
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...7836a597b1.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...f074f1b9f0.pdf
The M5 hits 150mph in 20.7s while the CTS-V takes 21.5s. However, back at the 1/4 mile mark the CTS-V has a .3s advantage. That is at least a 3 car length advantage. Any advantage of distance is harder to overcome as speed builds unless there is a huge difference in horsepower. The CTS-V has a 50hp advantage over the M5. Yes, the M5's gearing is better suited for high speed acceleration. But like I said, the CTS-V has a significant lead over the M5. The M5 would slowly reel it in. But it better hope to catch it before it hits it 155mph speed governor (at least here in the US), as the CTS-V automatic is limited to 175mph and the manual hits 191mph. Now if you want to delimit the M5 ....well then lets talk modded to modded cars...and the M5 gets handily stomped.
Tom
