2012 E63 vs. 2012 CLS63?
Ken
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".
E63 On the other hand is all around better car..
Which is why im going to order one.
Trending Topics
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".
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.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
). 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.
Last edited by transferred; Sep 1, 2011 at 09:09 PM.

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.

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.

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.
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.
Last edited by hpgn; Sep 6, 2011 at 12:23 AM.
Regards,
H.
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?
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.
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.
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

.
Last edited by turbotom1; Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Clarity
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
.
Last edited by turbotom1; Sep 23, 2011 at 09:56 PM.








