Everything being equal, the 55 engine is not significantly faster than the 63 engine, PERIOD. I am sure there are certain MPH race ranges that favor the 55 engine. Thanks for sharing, but your one isolated event just proves that someone with a lot of experience in a well broken in e55 barely beat someone who probably has little experience in their brand new e63. Let's also not forget that every car, even of the same exact model and year, can vary on power. The transmission that that 63 engine cars have is far superior than the one the 55 engine has. That alone makes it the better choice if someone is going to keep their car stock. As for your 5-10k mods argument, the 63 is brand new and eventually there will be forced induction mods for it which will put its power far ahead of the 55 with mods. Both cars are indeed great.

Aaron

 

It's about Torque! The 63 engine needs a 7-speed to come close. Ask the people have driven both, they know.

 

Feel free to get started, because it's not bull**** at all. The car in the video didn't lose by buslengths and motors get progressively more powerful as they're run in. That E63 could very well beat the same E55 by the same margin or more when it has another 10-20k miles on the odometer.

DISCLAIMER: I do not, nor have I ever owned, a 6.3L Mercedes-Benz.

 

I haven't run an SL65, so I can't speak of it, but I have run a bunch of E63's & it was never close. The 55 pulls on the 63 the whole way.

 

E63 = E55 under 120 or so. Over 120 the E63 pulls. Mercedes knows it and anyone else who owns both cars knows it. Mercedes buyers wouldn't tolerate a slower car for a newer model. My E63 is broken in with the latest transmission, so if anyone is in Southern Cal with a stock E55, send me a PM. We can rent Willow Springs and do a thorough comparison. Here's what Car & Driver says:

"Historically convenient addition or not, there was certainly nothing disappointing about the E63’s power. AMG has long since discovered that massive thrust pleases its customers — no surprise there — and can also cover for so-so handling. Not to mention making short work of dicey passing situations. Although it’s not a torque monster like the supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 that powered the E55 AMG — 516 pound-feet — the naturally aspirated 6.2-liter is no lightweight in the grunt department, generating 465 pound-feet, and it makes lots of horsepower: 507 at 6800 rpm versus a mere 469 for the E55.

Paired with the Mercedes seven-speed automatic, the AMG V-8 delivers 4.2-second 0-to-60-mph runs and covers the quarter-mile in 12.6 seconds at 115 mph — about the same as the E55 AMG, even though the E63 weighs in some 80 pounds heavier. The seven-speed automatic has a paddle-shifted manumatic function that really knows how to follow orders, no independent decisions, unlike the Audi’s six-speed auto. As an aside, we have a confession to make: As much as we like the sense of involvement that goes with a good manual gearbox, we have to admit that the latest manumatic and automated manual transmissions are pretty compelling, particularly allied with big-output powerplants such as the ones under scrutiny here."

 

+1 i've heard this numerous of times too

 

Except for the SLR, which is also supercharged. The SL55 is too heavy and that's why it's slower. See the chart I posted in the "How to Pick an AMG" thread.

 

man, im bumed. i wanted the 63

 

Aaron,

You are reaching for excuses. Now this E63 was down on power? You think the car is going to gain 15hp from being broken in? Give me a break Aaron, don't take what you read on the internet about breaking in engines too seriously. These aren't big block chevy motors being built by the local speedshop. These are modern day engines built by the the best technology available with tolerances once only dreamed of. They will not gain significant horsepower after being broken in. You sound like the E60 M5 guys who were hoping for 100 more hp when they got to 5k, 10k, whatever miles. News flash: their cars have not gotten appreciably faster. Oh, and there also is no tooth fairy.

The day we raced it was 95F outside and the N/A 63 had the advantage. Yes, there was only 1 E63 that day, yes, but 4 different E55s raced him and running from a 30mph roll doesn't leave much driver error. This isn't an isolated incident. You put my stock E55 next to any stock E63 and I will walk all over one. Before buying my '05 I drove an E63 and I know it is slower than my 55. I had an '03 and was thinking of moving into a '63, but after driving one no thank you.

Goto MBWorld and look at the posts, highest trap from an E63 is 114-115mph, with some freak above there, highest for E55 is 117-118mph bone stock. I trapped 114 in my 2003. The E55 is not a 469hp car, it's a 493hp car just like the other 55k cars. The E63 might squeeze a few ponies on top but it's the torque on the 55 that will keep it out in front. Maybe a race to 200mph will give the 63 the edge it needs but that, in my mind, is irrelevant.

The 63 has some nice facets and refinements over the E55, but do not confuse those with performance.

-m

 

F**k - find me one dyno that shows a car built post 2000 has made significant more horsepower at 500mi versus 5000mi with all things being equal. They don't make appreciably more horsepower with the manufacturing processes of today.

I have owned new cars, and cars with fresh motors. Never have I been able to feel a difference after 500 or 5000mi, nor have I in all my years around cars seen a dyno actually show significant gains in power after some arbitrary "break in period" - I'm well aware of the "theories" behind it and they do apply in some instances, but not for the E63 - just like it did not apply for the E60 M5. Please do not post "butt-dyno" impressions either, because any engineer will tell you that they mean absolutely ZERO.

-m

 

Reaching for excuses? I couldnt care less if there's an E55 that is faster than an E63. I would never own either. I only pointed out that in general the E55 is not SIGNFICANTLY faster than the E63, they are virtually even. And that your video didnt show anyone walking all over anyone. Now if .1 seconds in the quarter mile means the world to you, then so be it. I dont really care about .1 in the quarter. I have an ML63 that I bought for my WOMAN to drive around, and the 63 engines are nice coupled with the 7 speed auto. Huge improvement overall compared to the E55 I drove. I know the ML63 was SIGNFICANTLY faster once the car was broken in because I have experienced it. Now that may not all be from the engine breaking in but also from driving the car hard for a lot of miles, and it (tranmission/computer) learning a more aggressive style of driving. I think they are both great engines, very close in performance, but the 7 speed auto alone puts the 63 over the 55 in my book.

 

Everyone knows the CLS63 is faster...

 

We are splitting hairs now. Regardless of what you would and would not own is irrelevant. I would never live in Franklin, Tennessee? I would never own a Lime Green Murcie? Who cares?

I think the E55 is faster than the E63, in some cases significantly faster. You are now saying that the E55 is faster, just not significantly. However you want to cut it is fine with me. You also brought up a very good point about the feel of a car after xxx miles - the adaptive nature of most ECUs these days explains a LARGE part of the different feel a car has after it has learned and adapted to each individual driver. It's not the motor itself, or transmission, or whatever that has changed significantly.

On a side note - how is the ML63? I haven't been able to drive one yet but also have thought of replacing the S4 with one for the woman. She is somewhat against an SUV but I think if she drove the ML63 she'd realize it's not your everyday SUV. How is the suspension? Brakes? Have you had it in the snow?

-m

 

Yah we can just agree to disagree on the e55/e63 stuff.

The ML63 is probably the best all around vehicle on the market today. (my opinion of course) It's a smaller SUV so it's easier to drive/park than most, yet still has plenty of room for 5 people and decent space in back. It's the fastest SUV in production (yes faster than a stock Turbo S and yes faster than the Jeep), while handling and braking very well. The car rides suprisingly well, more comfortable than a Cayenne with 20 inch wheels and slightly better than the SL65. Has pretty much all the options one would want, and I read somewhere that the ML is the safest SUV on the market. This was the primary reason I wanted it for my woman, and of course I didnt want to drive a car that wasnt fun/fast/luxurious. The AWD and 7 speed auto on top of everything else made it a no brainer. Exhaust sounds really good as well.

As for driving it in the snow, I have not had a chance to do that yet, so maybe someone else can comment on that. One thing to note about the brakes is while they are really great, they take some getting used to with the automatic brake assist. Women seem to love this feature because it takes less effort, but for me I like my braking to be a bit more linear as I press the pedal. If you want to do serious offroading or some serious towing which 99.99% of people dont, then the ML63 would not be a good choice. It does ok with the normal stuff.

 

has it occurred to anyone that we're splitting hairs? Both cars are at least twice as fast as you need them to be, and 0.2 seconds difference in 0-60 time just doesn't matter.

What matters most is how YOU can DRIVE them.

FWIW, I have an E55 and its infinitely more modifiable than the E63, so why bother with the 63?