MBWorld Editor

Haven't we all wondered what the real-world difference is between the older RWD E63 AMG and the newer AWD model of the same name?

Read the rest on the MBWorld homepage. >>

PeterUbers

Editor in case you missed yet another discussion on this a week ago

https://mbworld.org/forums/w212-amg/...uned-14-a.html

Always a great discussion

otakki

The AWD one looks like a non-S due to the caliper color. Maybe the S will bridge the gap to the RWD one with PP.

gaspam

its the non-s but thats the point... to run equal HP on same cars and see

otakki

I thought the performance package has more hp and tq than the facelifted non-S.

gaspam

i think both the p30 pre-facelift and the post face lift non-s both are rated at 550 to the crank

2012-2013 non p30 = 518
2012-2013 P30 = 550
2014+ non-s = 550
2014+ S-model = 577

PeterUbers

2012-2013 non p30 = 518
2012-2013 P30 = 550
2014+ non-s = 550
2014+ S-model = 640

kponti

There is certainly some truth to that with these S models dynoing in the mid to low 500s stock.
The P30s typically dyno b/n 480-490 stock
I haven't seen or heard much of the AWD non-S models dyno numbers

jahquan3

I've read similiar theories but never saw it put to the test. Great to see the RWD can make up the difference as the race goes on.

gaspam

before and after S-model (mine) ..stock was 513 whp = about 590 CHP if drivetrain loss = 15%... far cry from 640 chp... maybe on a uncorrected dynojet a sea level in 30F weather could see 640 chp ....

PeterUbers

I thought I had seen someone dyno a 540whp on a Mustang dyno, stock

Yup-- dynojet on a cold Chicago day (good call) and we are at like 700ft I think; not sure if its corrected or not; maybe AMS can chime in

https://mbworld.org/forums/w212-amg/...3-s-model.html

kponti

^^^Yup and found a couple others dynoing around 520-540 stock sae corrected

proxygeek

The 2014+ E63 S AMG 4 Matic cars I have seen on the Internet all dyno in the 520-540 AWHP range. That's approximately between 640 and 675 CHP depending on whether you use a 15% or 20% drivetrain loss. I have heard it's much closer to a 15% loss than a 20% loss. The Motor Trend guys got 676 CHP near where I live in CA. All of the tuners know the M157 E63s are way underrated for HP. I think it's extra power for the AWD drive train and to keep insurance rates lower.

kponti

Since 2012 (or earlier in some models) the M157 have had different outputs all from mostly software manipulations. Seems to me they just bumped the power up (P30 vs stock non S awd version) viola rwd and awd have similar performance. Of course in an all put drag, the AWD being more underrated will come out on top.
Remember MB isn't known for high performance AWD cars, theirs is more durability and off road. If anything, I think the MB AWD may not be as efficient as the manufacturers known for such, but a little software manipulation later, MB cars perform similarly or better as compared to their own RWD versions

TMC M5

Trying to derive the crank hp from chassis dynos is an exercise in futility. Is 15% the "right" drivetrain loss on that particular dyno? Who knows. If you use 17% loss, you are looking at 618hp at the crank. if you use 20% loss, you are looking at 641hp at the crank.

For me it is all meaningless anyway (and I have dynoed my cars dozens of times). I now just use my vbox and the same private road and try to test in similar conditions to track my cars' relative performance increases.

gaspam

I agree, I really never use CHP as what matters is what you're putting to the ground and even that a lot of times doesn't tell you how fast your car is gonna be on the street as there's a lot of Dyno queens that do great on the Dyno but not so hot on the street

drexappeal

Is there a weight difference between the rwd vs. awd?

gaspam

ive seen varying numbers but most put the AWD at 130-150 lbs heavier... motor trend tested both, when they first came out and they had awd at 164 lbs heavier

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2012-...mg-first-test/

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-...ck-comparison/

raudiace4

Makes sense, RWD less drive train loss and on a roll when traction isn't an issue should pull ahead. AWD for digs, RWD for rolls. Anyone seen what a tuned M157 RWD car does against a tuned AWD M157? RWD should still be a bit faster in the long run 1/2 mile or mile races IMO.

gaspam

only one I've seen rwd tuned vs awd tuned is this one, but not exaclty apples to apples as the awd weistec car has its w3 turbo kit which should put it around 650whp (though i have read of a few people on the east coast not getting the advertised results and disappointment with that kit)... vs renntech rwd car has 624whp (e.french's car and seems to be a bit of an outlier as he is the only e63 i've seen trap 130+ on stock turbos)

Tommyboy928

AWD is for people that live on a ice hill, so booring drive a 4 wheel drive car with alot HP , would never buy one, no fun to play . if y have a SUV and need take a boat out of the water, or difficult vinter condition is only reason to have one.

otakki

I'm not a fan of MB's fixed tq splitting. I would prefer Nissan's ATTESA ETS-Pro or Ferrari's 4RM, both of which will get the car to be RWD as much as possible while having 4WD for certain challenging situations.