Jeff SD

Thanks

J

AMG Chris

The CLS55 was produced from 2005-06. (Google searches yield a 2004 model, but I've never seen one). In 2007, Mercedes switched to the 6.3 liter motor and the CLS63 was born. Sadly the current 5.5 TT motor is still called the 63. I still cant figure that one out.

abiazis

Usually the new German car models, i.e. Porsche, MB, AUDI are released one year ahead of time for the rest of the world....thus a 2004 listed.......things are changing now with "global" launches more and more......

Ali_E55

we had cls500 in 2004 and CLS55 started in 2005 in middle east.

erifly

It came out in 2004..but it was a 2005 model right? Like it's a 2005 CLS500, no such thing as a 2004 CLS500

Ali_E55

yup that it is strue.

build in late 2004.

TopEndS62

weird because there are 2007 SL55 here in the U.S.

also the new 5.5tt is called a 63 for marketing reasons... numbers should always stay the same or go up... going down (to them) is like going backwards.

m_berman

New mandated gas mileage requirements 012s bi turbo with more HP than 55s get better mileage
New feature with 012s-
Engine stops/starts in traffic-neat trick to up mileage

Nola

In europe, car model is based on when the car is made. I have a facelift E90 that is a 2009 in all the paperwork, built and bought in 2009, but in the US this car would be a 2010.

SCTraumaDoc

My mechanic told me the supercharged CLS55 has a more reliable engine than the CLS63 twin turbo despite having less HP. Has anyone else heard this?

ajag

A tad premature for him to make that statement isn't it?

SCTraumaDoc

I have no idea what he was basing that on. Maybe supercharger vs turbocharger in general? Just curious what others think...

Ali_E55

55k engine is a reliable engine, but we can't compare it with 55TT untill time passes on and M157 are being modified and abused.

it is to early to judge on these engines.

_AMG_

+1

francoisisp

ok i think you guys are missing the point here this is juset a basic conversation about whats better SC or turbo which the answer would be it depends well this case here is the differece the 5.5 SC the SC gives the engine gradual boost as its going through the RPM which makes it really easy and verry reliable to tune to make more power you get a smaller sc pulley or a bigger drive pulley which is usually allot of work ( but no accidental over boost)

with the turbo exauhst gases from the engine spin the turbo to creat boost needing allot of cooling mods. which is controlled by a boost controler in this case to make more power one will just have to adjust the boost controler and to make more power you will just have to tune the car ( booset for turbos are usualy not as stable throught the rpm range as a supercharger

MARIOCLS55AMG

Very good conversation going on guys and I agree with Ali E55 that it is too early to know if the 55SC engine is better than the 55TT or vice versa. SCTraumaDoc made a very knowledgeable point about the difference on turbos vs. superchargers but what we all can agree on is that the 5.5 engine's displacement is the right answer. What baffles me is why AMG would mess with something good to begin with???!!! When the 55 supercharged engine came out in 2005 (2004 is simply production year, 2005 is actual sale year in Europe, 2006 in US) the auto world was going crazy with the amazing power, agility and efficiency of this new engine. It has more torque than larger engines and consumes less gas. Both the CLS55 and E55 had rave reviews about their engines and some even went as far as saying it was the best V8 engine produced to date by AMG. Then why the hell would AMG change to a 6.2 naturally aspirated engine?? You lose the explosive torque created by the super charger, you consume more gas and your emissions are worse. All for a little more HP? That is BS because by simply modifying the ECU and the super charger, which would easily give you an extra 30 horses, AMG could have increased HP and still maintain a much better and efficient engine. That is why now they went back to the 5.5 engine but this time with TTs. Although I'm a fan of the supercharger, turbos are just as efficient and in the end produce more or less the same torque which is in the end what is important, HP can be increased in both although with turbos a little more. All I know is that the CLS55 AMG does 0-60 in 4.2 secs and the new CLS63 AMG has the same time, maybe .1-.2 sec difference depending on who's driving.
Thanks for the great dialogue and long live AMG!!

Ali_E55

55K engine started in Germany in mid 2002, so it is old and not in 2004.

however, the reason behind AMG to switch to 6.2NA engine is not eco friendly or HP more, it is because 55k engine cost them more. SC is bought from Japan and it cost them.

that is the only reason for it + new 7 speed gear can't handle the TQ of the 55K.

so to make it short thay changed the engine to save some cost $$$.

MARIOCLS55AMG

Ali the engine might have been produced in mid 2002 but it was new at that time when it was put into the E55 and CLS55 in 2003 tests for production in 2004 in Europe, that was my point.
It makes sense they could have changed the engine to save some money but then why would they go to turbos now which is also more expensive than a NA engine? It boils down to performance and AMG knows that in order to compete with the M5s and with the RS8s they need the extra performance of turbos or superchargers. I've driven both and I prefer the torque of a supercharged engine to that of turbos but that is entirely up to each individual's taste.
Thanks for the response

Ali_E55

they changed to turbos for 2 reasons
1) more power
2) less GAS

because the 63 NA can't pass Euro 5 standard within the performance range they want.

so now they are cutting cost on diffrent things ( same audios/ electronics/ suspension between cars) etc.

ER1

Actually the main two reasons why the 55K engine was discarded and MB switched to the 63NA engine were:
1. As stated, the 7-speed auto gearbox used with the other engines could not handle the 700Nm torque of the 55K engine. This is the reason they used the old 5-speed Speedshift gearbox with the 55AMG and 65AMG cars throughout the lineup (S-class, CL-, CLS-, E-class).

2. The 55K engine did not comply with the EU/EURO-NCAP pedestrian crash safety standards. Apparently the engine was too high or close to the bonnet, so if there was a crash with a pedestrian, serious damage would be caused to person run over, because he/she would hit the hard engine directly. These days there is more space between the engine and the bonnet to protect the pedestrians if there is a runover accident.

Ali_E55

the first reason is so lame because untill now they are using th 5 speed on 600s and 65s.

thats not a reason to change an engine.

do you really think they can't make a 6 speed that can handle the TQ !!

are AMG engineers that lazy or not knowledgable to make one !!


the second reason i can understand it + 63 NA engines cost MB less than 55K.

AMG Chris

Just as in drag racing, automatic transmissions are known to more consistent and reliable over the long term. AMG engineers are not lazy, they most likely favor the automatic due to the substantially reduced likelihood of their engines being over revved or blown. Think about it, their are auto trannies supporting 65 series motors with 800 ft lbs of torque. Merc drivetrains can take abuse, but a few drops at 4K (with a manual) would leave shattered bits all over the road.

Again, what high horsepower vehicle (even the Bugatti) has a manual to support and put down high horsepower? No one!

Ready2roll

Well said!
Same reasons I converted my C6 ZO6 to an automatic

Ali_E55

i didn't mean 6 speed manual.

i meant all automatic.


it is not an excuse for them to change 55k enfine to 63 NA because the 7 speed can't handle the TQ.

than why the didn't change the 65/600 engines to lower TQ and installed that 7 speed on them.

the could he continue used the 5 speed on 63s NA. but the car will be slower with that gear.

no one will ever wan't to drive a manual DD luxury car.

i am just saying that i am not buying the excuse of changing to 63 NA engine because the gear they are using can't handle high TQ.

if it was thee opposite than yes changing a gear to handle an engine power is more realistc than changing to low power engine for the sake of a gear that even beening screwed from 63 NA engines.

AMG Chris

I've read (but couldn't find sources to quote) that Mercedes engineers didn't want supercharged engines to be their future (back in '2005).


The 55K engine was a beast; consider the numbers 469hp/507 ft/lbs tq. Obviously, long term reliability was questionable once these cars were modified. If you think about it, the switch to the lower out put 63 motors with 7 speed trans make sense (507hp/465 ft/ lbs tq). Not only did the extra gearing lower rpms on the highway, the output was essentially the same. The seven speed was NEVER designed to support forced induction. The 63 is (depending on the driver) tenths faster than the 55K.

The 55K trans is known to support more torque - hence its continued use in 65 cars. It's design and materials were built with forced induction in mind.

*Keep in mind my original statement.

If Mercedes engineers were trying to get away from supercharged motors, the N/A 63 was the buffer before switching to the now common 55TT motors. I'm unsure of the hp/tq numbers of the new engine. In my mind, this is why the 7 speed was never offered and why we no longer have 55K motors as options.

Think about it, the supercharged motor is power all the time. The turbo motor isnt on all the time, once it spools up- its game over. Supercharged cars generally require a beefier drivetrain and consume MORE fuel when compared to a turbo car.
*This was another claimed advantage 12-15% better fuel economy - when compared to the 63.

*Turbo engines generally respond better mods, and have already eclipsed the 55K motors in terms of output. Renntech already has a 55TT in the 10's, and the cars been out less than a year!!

For a company like Mercedes, this makes sense and keeps them competitive. Even BMWs M line is now turbo charged. Why do you think that is?

I could go on and on, but I think this helps.