Review: 2012 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
01-18-12, 04:55 PM
#31
Your 600 is a cruiser, the extra silky V12 would make it "feels" faster then it is. So on paper, the new TT 63 is faster, but by "feels", your V12 would still feels better due to the V12.
The 63 is more sporty in every ways since everything is sport tune.
The decision is, you want silky V12 or a sporty V8?
The 63 is more sporty in every ways since everything is sport tune.
The decision is, you want silky V12 or a sporty V8?
I saw a guy with a cl600 punch it with a bike-what a sight! They were gone in an instant
01-18-12, 05:26 PM
#32
Your 600 is a cruiser, the extra silky V12 would make it "feels" faster then it is. So on paper, the new TT 63 is faster, but by "feels", your V12 would still feels better due to the V12.
The 63 is more sporty in every ways since everything is sport tune.
The decision is, you want silky V12 or a sporty V8?
The 63 is more sporty in every ways since everything is sport tune.
The decision is, you want silky V12 or a sporty V8?
01-18-12, 05:46 PM
#33
Oh yes absolutely, especially with the performance package, look at the specs:
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
01-18-12, 05:55 PM
#34
Last edited by BNR34; 01-18-12 at 05:59 PM.
01-18-12, 06:05 PM
#35
Oh yes absolutely, especially with the performance package, look at the specs:
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
01-19-12, 12:05 AM
#36
Lexus Champion
Originally Posted by rominl
yup i would be interested in knowing too. my feeling is they still don't have a good solution on tranny against high hp/tq setup
Still, if MB can't do it, then I can't blame them. I reckon that the cost of development is really a lot and/or the amount of engineering as well as the strength and durability of the materials for the gearbox/transmission that is needed to keep up with the absurd amount of torque.
Either way, MB makes their own transmissions and gearbox so they definitely cannot or would not resort to using stuff from other manufacturers or companies.
01-19-12, 10:41 PM
#39
Lexus Champion
Oh yes absolutely, especially with the performance package, look at the specs:
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
50 more hp and tq, 2 more gears, 50 less lbs................
CL63
563 hp @ 5,250 rpm
664 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm
7-speeds
Weight 4599 lbs
CL600
510 hp @ 5,000 rpm
612 lb-ft @ 1,800 rpm
5-speeds
Weight 4650 lbs
The old NA 63 might be a bit slower due to the much lower torque, but not much slower, just a hair.
LMAO but now a visit to the Renntech facility for some stage 1 goodies might give me a advantage
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
