Chris Harris from EVO magazine has posted a new entry into his blog comparing the 5.5 biturbo in the CLS and the 6.2 in the E63. Interesting read.

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Mon...MG-with-the-62

 

Thank you, Istanl.

 

Nothing like instant gratification!!

 

Both engines are winners!

Choosing between them would be like deciding between Cindy Crawford and Rachael Hunter (in their prime of course).

 

Thanks you very much for this post! This is a great comparison. I can't wait until the new E63 pricing and order guide come out!

 

cool post bro. makes me feel a lot better about my 6.2 baby.

I agree with your statement... choosing between then is like choosing **** or ***... cant do it bro.

 

The mod community is going to absolutely love those force-induction puppies in the M157.

 

Nice post. Bottom line the new turbo engines are flat out beasts. The CLS550 was tested going to 60 in 4.3sec! That's sick fast for a non-amg car. Oh, and 12.8 in the quarter. Not..too..shabby.

After mods these cars will be untouchable. Bravo MB!

 

Woah, the CLS550 did 4.3?

That's also a biturbo motor and rated at 400-something horses if I'm not mistaken.

Bravo indeed!

 

Apparently the AMG engineers are sad to see the first and last all-AMG built motor finally go away thanks to tougher regulations (I realize the AMG built M159 will still be in the SLS for now, but it's based on the original AMG built M156.)

It's also interesting that they kept the M156 in the new C63 BS coupe. That car has a major new tuned suspension (with coil overs) to make for a great track car. No doubt the better throttle response of the NA motor with had a role in the decision to use it in the new BS.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...56_engine.html

 

Better throttle response?

Try 590lb/ft at 2000RPM.... That's throttle response

 

which one is Cindy?
PL

 

That's simply the peak torque band which comes on at lower rpms in any FI car. I'm talking about throttle response. Drive a NA motor with the rpms in the high end of the power band and you'll understand what that means in the world of road racing. The new BS is designed to be a track car (not a drag strip track); there's even a track package option that includes Dunlop R compounds. Not sure if that will be actually available in the US, but it's possible.

 

Being a previous owner of the M156 motor, in a '07 CLS63, I will say it sure had a nice mid-to-top end.
Throttle response certainly was very good especially when the motor was at 3,800RPM and up. I just love the way she sings at the top. I will miss that sound.

Thank you for the link.

 

That's exactly my point...the peak torque and hp of our 63's is at the top of the rev range hence the high-end power band....

The 5.5TT comes out of the basement with everything giving you insane throttle response all the way through the rev range

2012 E63&CLS63 will walk around their 2011 counterparts in a road race. That's apples to apples

 

I'm not sure you're quite understanding what I'm trying to say. The C63 BS is designed for the road track (they even have the road track package option.) In road racing you want the power band to be peaky at high rpms and not flatten out. You know this since you have the motor yourself; at high rpms in a NA motor (keeping the motor spinning at 5-6k) you have precise throttle response and throttle control. That's ideal. "Coming out of the basement" and going thru the "rev range" isn't how the cars are driven. You keep them at high rpms (like in F1 racing.)

In addition, on a road track over several laps you will get over heating (heat soak) in a forced induction motor and lose power over laps. That can be a real problem with a forced engine. They make great street cars (actually ideal in fact, since on the street you don't want to be revving the motor... and also using up gas.) And they're great as drag cars, but for road racing, you'll have to be prepared for the large heat losses.

It's why people complain about the NA V8 of the M3 when used as a street car. To get any feel of the power and torque you have to have it spinning at high rpms. That's no fun on the street. But the M3 is very much at home on a road track and so the motor is perfect for that purpose. It's a great platform for a road racing car.

A blown motor is a lot of fun on the street. But a NA is more at home on the road course. In fact Porsche decided to abandon the GT2 (twin turbo) for motorsports use, and instead concentrating on using the naturally-aspirated GT3 for those very reasons I mention. The GT2 had been used successfully but the GT3 is their road racing champion model of the 997 platform.

If you don't follow what I'm trying to say, then instead listen to what Friedrich Eichler says about the new C63 BS and why they are using the 6.2 liter V8. He's the head of power train development at AMG, and it was his choice of motors. He says exactly what I'm trying to explain but in a much more articulate manner. He also explains that's why they use the M159 NA V8 (based on the M156) in the SLS GT3 track model (that consumers can buy for the track.) Anyway take his word for it. I'm probably not explaining it very well anyway, sorry.

This new BS with an enhanced and tuned 6.2 NA motor will be a great track car. Also since the nose is heavy, the track package option will come with a huge rear wing to help keep the tail to the ground.

But for a street car, I totally agree with you that the new TT motors will be super. However, the new C63 BS was designed with the road track in mind.

 

Trust me...i do understand your point, but the majority of us use our cars as street drivers, not road track racers, so road race comparisons only serve the minority....

Don't get swallowed up by the marketing material...the C63BS is a street car, hence the full options but no cage? (M3 GTS....911 GT3). 98% of the ones sold will never see a track. And that's probably why they havent posted any "record breaking/approaching" Nurburgring #'s in it...

The 5.5TT is a better, more powerful, more efficient all round motor....

 

The new BS will be serving a minority. Just like the other 3 versions in the past. It's a limited production car like all the previous BS cars. And each model version had it's own specific (minority) market target and emphasis. This will be the fourth, with the last one being the SL65 BS (with the biturbo V12), and also marketed towards a "minority" with a run of 350 over an 11 month period (and with no emphasis on potential track use; it was marketed as a supercar roadster.) This new C63 version will be limited production just like all the others (the first being the SLK55 BS which wasn't even available in the US.) So yes, it's not a "street car" for the masses. They don't crank out the BS models every year and as mass production cars.

Anyway you're shifting the dialogue. All I had originally said was that throttle response is more precise in the NA motor than FI motors. And that was it. So I tried to explain why. It's not an issue of "being swallowed up by marketing" but simply an observation of the choice of motors for a specific intent (and not about whether the intent itself is disingenuous by the manufacturer.)

The idea that this car is just a street car and will never be used on the track may very well be the case but it's a debate for another day. Whether it's all simply smoke and mirror marketing to sell a limited production car isn't the issue here. The issue is using NA motors for road racing and hence the use of the NA 6.2 in the C63 Black Series, not whether the reality is that it's never going to see a track day in its life. Porsche went to the NA GT3 for a reason and it's that reason I'm discussing. And the same reason AMG built the SLS GT3. And why Friedrich Eichler talked about this when developing the C63 BS. But this has no bearing on whether or not the car will ever be actually used on a road track in the end. It was designed and marketed as such; it's actual end use is certainly debatable.

If you're disappointed that the latest BS doesn't have the 5.5TT and you were intent on trying to get on the list hoping to actually own one for driving on the street, then I can understand that. Like I said, the power band of the FI motor is clearly much more desirable for street use (and why people complain about the M3, etc..) And the motors are certainly more efficient and potentially more powerful (we've known that since WWI when they were used in fighter planes; Daimler even had the first patent. It's not news.) But they have a different throttle response and power band which is the simple, basic thing I said from the very beginning. And not about one better than the other, but simply better considering the intent of end purpose. The C Class will eventually get FI motors (CAFE regs dictate it more than anything.) Be patient.

 

On a side note here, I had an observation I wanted to share and get your guys' opinions on.
Recently I've been watching videos on youtube from automotive magazines, or AMG track days, and there is something I've noticed about the 5.5 bi-turbo.

The first video I noticed it in was an in-car camera on an AMG track day, a driver in a '12 CLS63 AMG tries to gun it out of a corner and the 5.5 gives very little power, even the AMG driving instructor notices it and notes that the car was not giving full power for some reason.
The second video I noticed this same thing in was from R&T or C&D I think, the reviewer hits the straightaway in the '12 E63 with the 5.5 and notes that the car will not give him full power, that there is no punch.

So, what gives?

 

I just watched the same clip. the guy is driving around Paul Ricard with ESP on and in Sport+ and he's not even using the paddles....

I dont understand the point of an "automotive journalist" being on a fu<ken race track with a super sedan, and then blatently stating, "i'm scared to turn the ESP off"???

My response to that would be...



How do you comment on the actual performance limits of the car with out pushing it to the limit???

 

Lesson learned: Be careful with who your sources are.

If what you're saying is true, that journalist is utter FAIL!

I would love to watch this...link please.

 

Are these guys STILL using "Seat-of-your-pants" as their objective measurements?

 

Can't believe the CLS550 did the sprint to 60 in 4.3

Unreal

 

do you have a better one?