C63 AMG

Page 2 of 2  


I don't think it's just a marketing stunt.
457 hp for 6,2L isn't that bad but isn't extremely impressive either. They still get 525 hp out of basically the same engine, but I don't know which differences else than just the ECU programming (which to my opinion cannot be done without sacrifices - and AMG probably would not detune just for marketing purposes) they do to make the difference. Cam timing, inlet/exhaust design etc. could be the answer. Perhaps someone with exact knowledge could tell.
SL 65 with 5,98L biturbo producing 670 hp at 5.400 rpm and 1.000 NM at 2.200 to 4.200 rpm?...... wild thing! Then you've got hot rod.
Note that it has compression reduced to 9:1 to allow for the boost pressure (without knocking).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/17/2011 8:05 PM, Jens wrote:

The 2 year old SL65 was actually an 06 so it is 5 years old. The new v8 motor 5.5 twin turbo motor might have been a better deal but I don't know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I never quite understand the point of these mods.
The manufacturer has produced an optimised solution of power, fuel consumption, suspension etc. In this case no doubt with a 'sporty' bias, given it's an AMG.
Why on earth would one wish to waste money on fiddling with that and, possibly, degrading the performance of the car as a whole?
DAS
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling' --
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/19/2011 2:07 PM, DAS wrote:

The idea is to get the most from it without doing anything detrimental. If it can't be done I won't do it nor will I do it if it cost an arm and a leg. The thing performs really great. No doubt with the limiter taken off the ecu it would do over the speedometer numbers. I won't be trying to find out though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interestingly, in a recent review in a UK paper your car was the subject. The reviewer thought it was pretty goo but would have been better (from a performance point of view with the twin-turbo motor...
Does that make you feel better?
FWIW, for most 'normal' people these differences will be impercetable in 'real life'? How many actually achieve the 0 - 60 mph figures the manufacturers quote? Who would want to, given the engine-torture involved and fuel consumption involved?
Even in my CLK with an 'ancient' 3.2 l engine with just over 200 hp I reach illegal speeds very quickly...
DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"LilAbner" <-@Daisey.Mae> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just as a little extra comment as comparison on how "little detuned" the AMG is with its 457 hp:
Corvette has 436 hp from its comparable 6,2L engine in its best tuned naturally aspirated version (LS3).... and 638 hp in the supercharged version (LS9).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/20/2011 3:25 AM, Jens wrote:

Well I guess the concept that if a little power is goo then a lot is better. No such thing as too much power, too many women, too much money, or..... The twin turbo v12 would be great, if it didn't cost a new house. Fuel consumption. 15 mpg is not bad. Not worried about 12. In Britain and Europe where taxes are stupid high that would be different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.