ecm

Anyone have any info on how these cars would compare? Apart from body, interior styling, and the E63's larger back seat (seats 3), its larger trunk and more headroom in back seat, are there any mechanical or performance differences expected? Maybe just a matter of taste in styling?

King335i

I believe the E is around 250 pounds lighter than the CLS, aside from that they have the same engine, gearbox, etc. I remember reading somewhere that the new CLS is based on the C-Class chassis, not sure if there's any truth to that one.

KEMA

I haven't seen a confirmation on the weight difference but if the E is indeed 250 lbs lighter than the CLS it will be an absolute monster with the PP (or ecu tuning). The CLS is clocking some mighty impressive 3.8 sec 0 - 60 times.

Ken

looney100

The CLS is based on the E class, not the C class. As a result the cars are very similar.

K-A

Same cars, different sheetmetal and bit and pieces.

In actuality, the E is the superior car, on a functionality level. At 6'4, I don't have enough headroom in the front of a CLS to drive comfortably, which is pretty ridiculous for a 4,000+ lb 4-Door. I've driven in lower slung Coupes that have more front headroom.

The E is a more efficient design and package, with lower weight, better sight-lines, more room, better drag coefficient, etc. etc. The CLS's premium is mostly built into the fashion (which in itself is subjective), the slightly more plush grade interior materials, and the fact that with that premium, comes more "exclusivity".

hyperion667

wow........the cls is a beaut......as is the 63.......
I wish I had a cls......guess I better start saving up!

masonaw

The CLS63 AMG is quick.. I mean the 2012 CLS 550 is quicker than some AMG models..But I dont know if you've seen one in person, but i think the body lines dont match up. I think they got rid of something that was perfect. They should of just tweeked the older body style for this year.. thats just me.

E63 On the other hand is all around better car..
Which is why im going to order one.

bigben320e

+1

I know you prefer the E, but of course this always comes down to preference and functionality.

Honestly, I like the previous CLS body-style more, but the 2012 model is growing on me, especially since I saw and played with it in person. The E is awesome as well, I think you encapsulated a lot of the differences between the two. People will have to make a decision from there.

hpgn

Just received my 2012 CLS63 four days ago. Sold a 2010 E63. The styling is in fact a matter of opinion, personally I prefer the CLS. However I'm 6'3 and have to say that I miss the extra headroom that the E has. It is indeed a very annoying issue for those that are over 6'3.

For me to fit in the front seat (the back one is simply unusable) I have to take the base all the way down and tilt the back more than what is normal.

However I must say that this car is simply the quickest AMG I have ever driven by far. (Before the E63 I had a C63 with Renntech ECU).

Regards,

H.

K-A

Yeah I agree, but I just think that the E is a superior car on a functionality and efficiency tip. Nothing wrong with that though, as the CLS openly sacrifices many things in the name of added unconventionality to a 4-Door (which is ironically how they price it so high, lol) to style it the way they do. I think the 1st gen CLS55 and CLS63 are beautiful cars, and I've looked into some Used prices (incredible value for the visual, relative exclusivity, and performance and luxury). For some reason, I really think the CLS design really "works" when in full AMG form best.

The new CLS's jury is out to me. I love it, then some of the lines just don't work right. I'll have to see them on the road regularly to see how well they hold up as designs, compared to the 1st gen, etc.

hpgn: I agree, and was shocked at how uncomfortable I was at 6'4 in that thing. I fit fine in many Sports Cars, but the CLS's lack of headroom would be both very uncomfortable on long drives for me, and also generally very unsafe, as a hard head on collision could leave you in a bad position (pun intended) if your seat back is too far leaned back.... In which the Pre-Safe would actually bring it up for you, so that your head is now able to get mangled by the roof that's sitting right above it. That's my sick and twisted way of seeing it at least.

bigben320e

Hmmm..just a little objection. The CLS looks great with the AMG Sports kit or full AMG form best. The regular styling is rather...blah. Agree there!

Yes, the CLS is just not for tall or really big people. It is better on the 2012 with it's additional headroom (about 2 inches if I recall correctly) but was it still a tight fit for you? For me, at 5'10" it works great back or front with the previous and new model.

K-A

Actually the new one has the exact same front headroom as the first one, from what I gather (36.9 I think).

Yeah, very tight up there, I could probably have one to cruise around with a G lean, but if I want to get really comfortable, or sit optimally, or take long drives, it would be an ill fit. I guess it's a good thing and bad thing. The S-Class is too pointlessly big for me (I like my Sedans big, but I guess there's a max limit point to an extent, especially with parking and stuff), the CLS can't fit my head, so my decision is easy! E-Class. Saves me money too, lol. The bad part is, that I couldn't get a CLS no matter how much I would want it.

Yeah, the CLS design needs the AMG Package big time.

transferred

Really good post. Yeah, I'm 6'3" 230 and if I take the plunge and get one of the new 5.5 twin turbos next year it'll be in an E-Class body as I do prefer the styling (with power pack, naturally).

The new CLS I do prefer to the old one (amg body anyway) but, as well as the above, another reason is a black sedan helps keep the police at bay too

As goes the S being too big, I here you there 100 percent but it's amazing when you have growing kids as kicking the back of the seat gets old FAST.

K-A

Ah, and yes I can understand about the kids and S-Class being a much better fit. I really do love big-body Sedans, but every time I drive an S, I just feel like I'm chauffeuring. With enough people to make use of the size though, I'd definitely want to go S-Class over E-Class though (size wise). Nothing more uncomfortable than a crammed in, claustrophobic space. Although, I will say that when I had 4 adults in my car once, it actually was pretty damn roomy and still airy feeling.

transferred

Yes, the E is a perfectly good 4-seater even for long journeys and has a HUGE trunk (seems bigger than the S). It's more the kicking but with them growing out of that I'm sorely tempted by a 2013 E w/ 5.5tt power pack. I end up with the S-classes (my last was an 06 65) because a best friend gets sick of his cars every couple of years and these are so pristine and I get a great deal. I prefer new, but the list of the V12 S is prohibitive. But, with it often being me alone in the car, I am thinking a W212 AMG would make for a more fun daily drive even though the S is ridiculously comfortable (not that Es aren't comfy too).

transferred

Yes, the E is a perfectly good 4-seater even for long journeys and has a HUGE trunk (seems bigger than the S). It's more the kicking but with them growing out of that I'm sorely tempted by a 2013 E w/ 5.5tt power pack. I end up with the S-classes (my last was an 06 65) because a best friend gets sick of his cars every couple of years and these are so pristine and I get a great deal. I prefer new, but the list of the V12 S is prohibitive. But, with it often being me alone in the car like a limo driver, I am thinking a W212 would make for a more fun daily drive even though the S is ridiculously comfortable (not that Es aren't comfy too).

CharlyE500

Is 2012 CLS63 with 55TT engine ?

hpgn

Just an update...

Although the headroom thing is a bummer I have know reached 400miles and gave up on the break-in following MBs instructions. By no means I wish to discuss if its good or bad for the car. What I wanted to say is that this car is fast!!! On my VBOX, without race start, I can get 3.9 (0-60) every time. But that isn't enough to describe how fast it feels. I have had a Renntech tuned C63 and an E63 and they don't even come close!!! Either MB is lying about hp or this is the best engine ever! As for the lag, it is barely noticeable, much less so than in the panamera turbo. Actualy haven driven a panamera turbo I'm looking for one to race. I honestly believe that form a rolling start this car will beat it.

Regards,

H.

transferred

I would totally think the e/CLS 63 PP 5.5TTs are faster from a roll than the Panam Turbo....don't see why you're so surprised.

I'm also confused why you're surprised it feels better than your "Renntech tuned" 6.2s. They are NA and I doubt are putting out anymore bhp than your new car and I'll guarantee a whole lot less torque.

Any pics?

hpgn

Took some pictures the day the car arrived. Pictures are attached.

I agree it is expected that the 5.5TT is faster than the 6.2 NA. What I meant by mentioning the C63 and E63 was that I didn't expect this big a difference.

Regarding the Panamera I drove one a few weeks before receiving my car and I agree... Although the 0-60 numbers are impressive I believe that much of it is in the PDK and 4wd... as I said from a rolling start I think the CLS will beat it.

Cheers,

H.

K-A

Looks beautiful, congrats. Maybe it's worth the sore neck from driving around with your neck kinked.

6.3AMG

Looks great in silver. Post your pics in the CLS section in the 2012 picture thread

transferred

Thanks HPGN, good to see non-official photos....the car looks great. Certainly from a launch the AQD PanTT is a tough one but you have a monster from 20mph and up. Congrats again on the purchase.

turbotom1

My registration says 4153 lbs and Mercedes dropped the price $4,150 bringing it closer to the E63.


2012 E63: Curb weight (C/D est): 4200–4300 lb
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

2012 E63: Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 4,057
http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-b...and-video.html

"The 2012 E63 AMG is essentially a mechanical doppelgaenger for the CLS63 AMG. Both have the same hand-built, direct-injection V-8 that makes 518 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque. Both have the same seven-speed wet clutch transmission, the same electrohydraulic steering system, and upgraded suspension and electronics. Unlike the CLS63, which had dramatic plastic surgery along with its heart transplant, the 2012 E63 receives only the tiniest of Botox injections, primarily new 10-spoke wheels and V-8 BITURBO badging.
Curb weight 4100-4300 lb (mfr)"
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1YSElK4mW


The world's first all-LED active headlamps
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...nology#modules

The CLS63 AMG rips off 60-mph sprints in 3.8 seconds, the quarter mile in 12 flat and 100 mph comes up in just 8.3 sec.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/up...benz-cls63-amg

the CLS63 ripped to 60 mph in 3.8 seconds, 100 in 8.5, and 150 in 19.5. Add 0.1 second to those times if launch control is used. The quarter-mile is 12.0 seconds away, at which point you’ll be going 121 mph. The 4275-pound, four-door CLS63 will dust a Corvette Grand Sport and hang close to a Z06.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

during the 0-60 and quarter-mile runs. Those millisecond shifts helped push the 4256-pound CLS63 to a rarified 0-to-60 time of 3.9 seconds, with the quarter coming in 12.1 seconds at 121.3 mph

the 2012 CLS63 is $4,150 less expensive than before.
http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-b...cls-class.html


.

turbotom1

2011 - E550
Front Headroom 37.9 in
Shoulder room 57.8 in
Legroom 41.3 in
Cargo capacity 15.9 cu.ft

2012 - CLS550
Front Headroom 36.9 in
Front Shoulder Room 57.1 in
Legroom 42.1 in
Trunk capacity 15.3 cubic feet


http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...specifications

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...specifications


.