I find it interesting that the C63 has less horse power and torque than the larger vehicles with the same engine. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the C63 is not heavy enough to transfer all of that power to the pavement, but I wonder if there are any benefits to tuning down the engine. ???
the manufacturers purposely do that so that the lower model that is cheaper can't simply out perform the more expensive heavier models. The SLK55, CLK55 were never supercharged because the SLK55 supercharged will smoke a SL55 with the weight difference. They Detuned the E55 supercharge so it didn't beat the CL55, etc. How would you feel if you spent $120k for a performance car and a $75k car of the same manufacturer passes you.
Performance is just another car option like having distronic cruise control or 20 inch premium wheels. They want you to pay extra to get it, thus the lower models don't have all of it.
Vehicle: 2002 ML 500, 1994 Ford Explorer donated to Doctors without Borders
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUEY220
the manufacturers purposely do that so that the lower model that is cheaper can't simply out perform the more expensive heavier models.
I'm not sure that I agree with you. I can understand your point with respect to other MBs, but why design yourself into a disadvantage with competitors (BMW M3, Audi S4)? I imagine putting my foot into the C63 and finding that it has so much torque and power that the wheels spin furiously as I anxiously sit there unable to grip the road.
I'm not sure that I agree with you. I can understand your point with respect to other MBs, but why design yourself into a disadvantage with competitors (BMW M3, Audi S4)? I imagine putting my foot into the C63 and finding that it has so much torque and power that the wheels spin furiously as I anxiously sit there unable to grip the road.
It's an interesting thought, though.
hes right...i watched a special on Speed where they drove the piss out of a couple of C63's and thats exactly what the AMG rep said. They don't want the little car in their stable to be more powerful and therefor more attractive then their bigger cars. What disadvantage do you speak of? The M3 sedan is in good competition with the C63 and S4, just as the M5 is in good competition with the E63 and S8...
Vehicle: 2002 ML 500, 1994 Ford Explorer donated to Doctors without Borders
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by laxman0324
What disadvantage do you speak of? The M3 sedan is in good competition with the C63 and S4, just as the M5 is in good competition with the E63 and S8...
I mean only that the 63 engine, as found in the ML/S/SL/etc. will smoke the M3 and S4... and E63 and S8 and so on...
Do BMW, MB and Audi all have an agreement that they will not unleash the full mercy of their most powerful engines in their smaller cars? If so, and one of them ever decided to violate such an agreement, he would win!... That's what Porsche is known for. In fact, it is my opinion that Porsche is the reason we have our super powered SUVs. When Porsche announced that they were developing the Cayenne (several years before it's production), both MB and BMW worked feverishly to put out their super SUVs first. It was sort of like fighting to temporarily claim a newly discovered throne, knowing that the real king was on his way. Every SUV before that time could be characterized as sluggish and unstable. Of course, this no longer applies, since the new ML63 is in the same power class as the Cayenne TT. Now the real battle for the throne begins.
I mean only that the 63 engine, as found in the ML/S/SL/etc. will smoke the M3 and S4... and E63 and S8 and so on...
Do BMW, MB and Audi all have an agreement that they will not unleash the full mercy of their most powerful engines in their smaller cars? If so, and one of them ever decided to violate such an agreement, he would win!... That's what Porsche is known for. In fact, it is my opinion that Porsche is the reason we have our super powered SUVs. When Porsche announced that they were developing the Cayenne (several years before it's production), both MB and BMW worked feverishly to put out their super SUVs first. It was sort of like fighting to temporarily claim a newly discovered throne, knowing that the real king was on his way. Every SUV before that time could be characterized as sluggish and unstable. Of course, this no longer applies, since the new ML63 is in the same power class as the Cayenne TT. Now the real battle for the throne begins.
Just my thoughts... not necessarily so.
Oh no I agree with what your saying there...i just wonder if its smarter to have many various tuning of the same engine (MB) or to use the same block with different amount of cylinders (BMW) or to borrow and enginer from lamborghini for your top car (Audi)...I personally think Porsche is a wonderful brand, but the Cayman S being faster I believe then a Carrera and tens of thousands cheaper is just not smart IMO. Even though the looks of the Cayenne are not for me, Ive seen the TT in person and that thing is an absolute monster...and talk about the exhaust note of the Cayenne GTS in that commercial...and people say american cars are the only ones with good V8 exhaust notes
I'm not sure that I agree with you. I can understand your point with respect to other MBs, but why design yourself into a disadvantage with competitors (BMW M3, Audi S4)? I imagine putting my foot into the C63 and finding that it has so much torque and power that the wheels spin furiously as I anxiously sit there unable to grip the road.
It's an interesting thought, though.
A lot of it has to do with marketing. The E55 AMG was rated by MB as 469hp, while the SL55 or S55 were rated at 493hp. Dynos on the E55 revealed they made as much, and sometimes more than what MB said it made (>493 bhp).
I'm not sure that I agree with you. I can understand your point with respect to other MBs, but why design yourself into a disadvantage with competitors (BMW M3, Audi S4)? I imagine putting my foot into the C63 and finding that it has so much torque and power that the wheels spin furiously as I anxiously sit there unable to grip the road.
It's an interesting thought, though.
there's no disadvantage when the pricing points are relatively the same, and if you compare brands vs brands, bmw always will print better numbers than the competinng line of MB. C63 vs M3, E63 vs M5. But on the higher end, it's a completely different niche.
If you want to get a Benz that burns tires like you said, they want you to pay $160k+ for an SL65. Notice that BMW doesn't reach the higher end pricing point and compete against it because less of the higher end market is willing to pay for a $100k+ Bimmer. I was a roundel member and knew the market, it is much different from the MB enthusiast and they have completely different followings. One may argue it's the same, but comparing the two would be like comparing two human beings and saying they both have hair and a pulse, but the details may vary. Bimmer owners will always argue why Bimmers are better and vice versa. There's many factors why people chose to buy a car, if it was solely on specifications and numbers,
I mean only that the 63 engine, as found in the ML/S/SL/etc. will smoke the M3 and S4... and E63 and S8 and so on...
Do BMW, MB and Audi all have an agreement that they will not unleash the full mercy of their most powerful engines in their smaller cars? If so, and one of them ever decided to violate such an agreement, he would win!... That's what Porsche is known for. In fact, it is my opinion that Porsche is the reason we have our super powered SUVs. When Porsche announced that they were developing the Cayenne (several years before it's production), both MB and BMW worked feverishly to put out their super SUVs first. It was sort of like fighting to temporarily claim a newly discovered throne, knowing that the real king was on his way. Every SUV before that time could be characterized as sluggish and unstable. Of course, this no longer applies, since the new ML63 is in the same power class as the Cayenne TT. Now the real battle for the throne begins.
Just my thoughts... not necessarily so.
i hope you don't take my comments as argumentative or personally to put your ideas down, but really, you need to look into the car business no different than any other business. I have a best friend that I debate with all the time and I tell him always to get his facts straight and pay attention to detail before he argues a point, so no offense intended.
First off, you are right they had a special agreement MB, Audi, BMW to not go over certain performance numbers Manufacturers may lift 155-mph limits - Autoblog
Japanese companies have similar restrictions but I understand that is because of local laws.
If you solely think that the cars are about strictly competing against each other's performance spcs, then why does not all car buyers end up buying the Corvette ZO6?
There is a lot more detail that compels someone to buy a particular product aside from choosing the one that does a 1/4 mile .03 secs faster than the other. The car manufacturers have ranked their own priorities towards how much emphasis they put into the product to accurately target their niche market. They take a gamble on what they believe their target market would prefer and have their car sell more than the closest competing product on the market. It's not just the performance number as you see in the example above.
Some companies such as Ferrari know majority of their customers buy their car simply because it is a ferrari, and they time and time again post lower performance numbers than something like a Porsche (excluding supercars like Enzo, F50 etc. which are their pride to try the best and prove they have theh best). MB also considers the fact that some will only buy it because it's an MB, and not to lose their loyal base due to sluggish performance numbers, they also compete in a close chase to the performance gain. This was evident when Mercedes started losing market share to Lexus when they made better performing more bang for the buck cars in the late 80's. The Lexus Ls460 was 10 years ahead of its time. Lexus worked heavily not to develop a new luxury large sedan buyer market, but to chip away at Mercedes' large marketshare. BMW also attacked them on the mid sized market with the M5. Mercedes fought back and teamed up with porsche on the 500E.
Vehicle: 2002 ML 500, 1994 Ford Explorer donated to Doctors without Borders
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUEY220
no offense intended.
None taken... We've hit a topic I've always wondered about.
I am imagining an attempt to accelerate hard from a stand still on slippery ice. You'll get nothing but wheel spin. I don't know anything about the marketing side of the auto industry, but speaking as an engineer, the amount of power you can lay into the pavement is limited by the ability to maintain friction with the surface. That's why Porsche started making 4X4 sports cars. It allows for more traction.
>>>> When Porsche announced that they were developing the Cayenne (several years before it's production), both MB and BMW worked feverishly to put out their super SUVs first. It was sort of like fighting to temporarily claim a newly discovered throne, knowing that the real king was on his way. Every SUV before that time could be characterized as sluggish and unstable. Of course, this no longer applies, since the new ML63 is in the same power class as the Cayenne TT. Now the real battle for the throne begins.
Not sure if I agree with you. MB came out with their 55 when the cayenne was probably on the drawing board. I drive a 2000 Ml-55 and I dont feel it to be sluggish and yes I never forget that I'm after all driving a 2+ ton SUV ....
__________________
AMG 19X9.5 Wheels,
Stock AMG 18X8.5 Wheels
Yokohama Advan S/T 295/45/19 Tires,
Bridgstone Dueller 285/50/18
SCHATZ Chrome Rear hatch handle,
SCHATZ Chrome Headlight Trim
Chrome AMG License Frame,
SCHATZ Chrome Side Light Surrounds,
German Howell Chrome Door Lock Surrounds,
German Howell Chrome Indash Air vent surrounds,
AMG Stem Valve Caps LED Tail Lights
Linear Mode
