Amg63-

was this also on pump gas?

were you running DPs or catless DPs at the time of 10.8@128?

Stiffmeister

Interesting thread. I have this car but so far only put air filters on it. The motor is toast and I'm guessing it was driven hard with an empty meth injection tank. It only has 90k miles on it. I was never able to get any info from Powerhaus regarding ECU, etc. Fun car but smokes bad when on the boost!

http://www.boostaddict.com/content.p...n-the-1-4-mile

chiromikey

Did you post in the wrong thread perhaps?

gaspam

i THANK our forum is getting trolled a lot lately

Stiffmeister

It wasn't my intention to change topic. I bought the CLS55 TT last year but haven't pulled the motor yet.

That being said, it's nice to read about other bad *** Mercedes builds. That's all.

wolves.creed

ok, this is all good and interesting but there is still one thing i dont understand.
CLS63 vs E63, cls will always be faster. How i know? I have about 10 friends with cls63 and about 15 friends with e63s and we live in one city. First of all stock e63s runs 100-200km/h starting from 8.1 sec till 8.6sec ( the difference will be due to options that you can order the car with which adds weight to the car.... panorama, double windows and so on) Stock to stock cls is faster by 0.5 sec. Tune to tune all the e63s st2 that my friends have run 100-200km/h 7.0sec (best 6.8) but usual results will be 7.2 sec
The cls63 st2 runs 100-200 km/h 6.3 sec.
This has been tested so many times, we went even further we weighed the e63s because we were thinking the difference is due to weight, it weighed the same as cls63.
So what's making these w212 run slower than cls?

TTMerc

Maybe the CLS drag coefficient is lower? Also Lowering the car helps even more.

wolves.creed

You know what 0.5-.0.7sec 100-200km/h difference look like when you are racing ? Its like a bus long difference. Cls and E are almost the same height. There is no way that it makes so much difference

TTMerc

Have you ever seen a 1/2 or 1 mile event when someone who does a run and then Tapes up every tiny open space and seem in the car and makes another run? It makes a huge difference. A corvette and mustang (Even if they were same weight with same power) Mustang will get drug down the hwy in a big way and get worse as speeds increase. Aero plays a big part.

wolves.creed

If you would of read the thread its been discussed already, and w212 has better aero

TTMerc

I thought you were speaking about aero in general my mistake.

Amg63-

I just asked recently in another thread the difference in aerodynamics between CLS and E and was told E is .025 and cls is .026 so E should have the advanatge there.

As for weight, I read from multiple sources that the cls is about 200+ lbs. heavier than the E so I'm surprised they both came out to equal weight.

final drive is also 2.65 for both, so the difference can't be gearing either.

And again most videos showing CLS vs E has the cls being faster, it makes absolutely no sense at all. This is insane

Zod

It....is.....DESTINY!
All shall behold the glorious booty!

even though i prefer the front angles for this particular girl , but still!

BOOOTY wins the day nuff said
It is hard coded in your DNA, else life would not continue

gaspam

thats weird because i have 18.5 friends with CLS63 and 28.5 friends with e63 that live in the same apartment complex and the e63 is always faster

now for real facts

fastest tuned stock turbo cls63 10.8 @ 130 even with skinnys up front

http://dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-C...lip-24569.html

fastest tuned stock turbo e63 10.85 @ 129.3 with full size tires up front
http://dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-E...lip-26676.html


looks like tune for tune its a dead heat... actually E63 would of been faster if the CLS was not running drag skinnies up front.... now that facts has been added, back to more hearsay and conjecture

TTMerc

I agree with Gaspam though, I dont think there is one faster than the other enough to differentiate the two. A ton of factors from just watching youtube videos to decide. Lots of different techniques to roll race these cars, lots of different packages adding more or less weight including weight of drivers and even passengers. The only thing I've noticed lately is a bunch of 6 series BMW's walking away from both E63s and cls63s .

Amg63-

are you comparing both with AWD?

I know there's not a big difference between the AWD and RWD but there is still a slight advantage for RWD on the traps.
@wolves.creed the same question applies to your comparison as well. Are you comparing a mixed bag of AWD and RWD cls/e or are they all the same drivetrain?

Amg63-

do tell about the m6 walking the e63/cls63?

do you mean your seeing this happen frequently on YouTube in Russian roll racing? Lol

wolves.creed

All i was trying to say was that we raced them against each other, not that i have friends with amg cars

Amg63-

It's very weird how cls can be faster. Isn't there a substantial weight difference with the cls being over 200lbs heavier than the E?

that alone should make the E walk it when they both have equal power. And aero is better on the E as well. It doesn't compute

TTMerc

Do you have any pics of the custom intake? Is it just like the AMS design or more like the RK

wolves.creed

stock to stock 100-200km/h CLS63 always faster
tune to tune 100-200km/h CLS63 always faster

wolves.creed

m5 f10 walks away after 140km/h
I raced m5 f10 st2 with my car and we go even from 80km/h till 140km/h then it just drives off. Different story if we try to race from 0km/h e63 just launches off. M6 times 100-200 is around 5.8 sec where any tune e63 or cls63 run best 6.5-6.8sec




m5 f10 st 2 100-200 5.8sec



m6 st2 5.9sec


its obvious that rwd is better for roll racing

Amg63-

but gaspam did show above how trap speeds in the 1/4 mile are in fact as good if not higher for the E.

they should be fairly even based off what we see there.

How can it be explained that the E which is lighter with better aero and same final drive is significantly slower than the CLS?

im not saying your wrong but physically speaking it can't be that way unless we have an explanation

i asked this before but did not get a response. Are you sure your not comparing a 4matic e63 to a RWD cls63 and starting the race from high speeds?

Only way it could sort of make sense but still should not be a difference of bus lengths for cls

watching this it's obvious its simply a drivers race between these two cars

Amg63-

Will also add this video here from the other CLS thread that I started.

Both are equally tuned race starting from 50km/h and cls63 is dead even with m5. If both are equal in mods at these power levels at least, it doesn't seem any different. AWD probably would of been just slightly behind the m5 as it also hangs close.


http://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=R1neuDKFdc0

kponti

The quarter mile times gaspam posted for the CLS and the E was indeed comparing RWD and 4WD respectively.
Skinnies up front on the CLS and 4WD on the E. Obviously skinnies will only hurt the E so that is a moot point.
RWD is more difficult to drive in the quarter mile than the 4WD. This means rwd trap speeds can vary greatly depending on driver skill.

I don't see why this debate still rages on? Obviously the 4wd will win through the quarter mile, the rwd will catch up and pass before the half mile. A roll start where traction is not in question will mean the rwd will pull.
The decrease in efficiency of driving all 4 wheels gets worse as the speeds climb. There is no set percentage. Factors like weight of the car, how fast you are going, ambient temp, etc etc can all affect how much the rwd can pull on the 4wd. You won't see those types of things in a dyno or quarter mile. There is no 10, 2, 23% difference between the two drive train cos it varies with speed and other factors. Those factors affect the different drive trains differently at the same time