09-27-2013, 01:25 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Have you driven a 2014 E63?
I am interested in getting a 2014 M5 w/ZCP.
I spent some time in a friend's car and I like it. Before I take the plunge, I'd like to look at a 2014 E63 sAMG. The AWD appeals to me but in pictures the car is, well, let's say uninspired in the looks dept. They're also very hard to find so I haven't seen one, never mind driven one. Has anyone here spent some time in one? Any thoughts? Pat |
09-27-2013, 02:17 PM | #2 | |
Knight Commander
554
Rep 5,948
Posts
Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 Porsche 911 Tu ... [10.00]
2015 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] 2015 Jaguar F Type R [0.00] 2014 BMW M5 [0.00] |
Quote:
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-27-2013, 02:20 PM | #3 |
Knight Commander
554
Rep 5,948
Posts
Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 Porsche 911 Tu ... [10.00]
2015 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] 2015 Jaguar F Type R [0.00] 2014 BMW M5 [0.00] |
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray |
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 01:34 AM | #5 |
Private
5
Rep 72
Posts |
E63 is beautiful outside, makes a wonderful noise, and is even more powerful. And faster. But that interior...it's not my style personally. I like VAG/BMW interiors much more usually. And COMMAND is a joke right now. But the E63 is a nice car, to be sure. Only way to make a decision is to drive one of each.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 06:16 AM | #7 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
If we use third party time (Sport Auto), both the CLS63 (8:03) and the E63 S (7:55) are faster than the M5 (8:05). |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 10:14 AM | #8 |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 10:22 AM | #9 |
Private First Class
23
Rep 101
Posts |
I dont' get how the M5 is that much faster than the E63... I mean the E63 does have more power and a lot more torque
__________________
Cars: 2000 Lexus LX470, 2000 Mercedes E430 4MATIC, 2005 Toyota Camry LE, 2013 F10 M5
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 10:29 AM | #10 |
Knight Commander
554
Rep 5,948
Posts
Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 Porsche 911 Tu ... [10.00]
2015 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] 2015 Jaguar F Type R [0.00] 2014 BMW M5 [0.00] |
BMW lies about how much power the car really puts out. The M5 is a 620hp car.
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray |
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 11:21 AM | #12 |
Second Lieutenant
19
Rep 216
Posts |
What about the S6? It beat both of those cars in head to head comparison.
__________________
2014 535i
Past Vehicles 2011.5 E92 M3, 2009 E93 M3, 2008 335xi, 2004 Mustang GT,.... |
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 12:04 PM | #13 | |
Private First Class
4
Rep 108
Posts |
Quote:
You must be joking yea Audi S6 is not even a direct competitor for M5 or E63 AMG. RS6 is closer car in terms of performance. Straight line and track E63 AMG and M5 murders Audi S6. The rag magazine review (Car and Driver) was purely subjective choice, intangibles and what not. Win for S6 was definitely not performance related because S6 is underpowered and not even in same class price and prestige than E63 or M5. Sure go ahead and buy S6 because Car and Driver said it is better
__________________
"I am ripper, tearer, slasher, gouger. I am the teeth in the darkness! The talons in the night! Mine is strength! And lust! And power! "
Last edited by Falcao; 09-28-2013 at 12:09 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 12:11 PM | #14 |
Private
5
Rep 72
Posts |
Those videos, more than anything, would seem to support that. We know the E63S is a very fast car...the fact that the M5 embarrasses it at high speed shows the real story. Isn't the M5 heavier than the awd E63 as well?
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 12:43 PM | #15 | |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
Torque is irrelevant in a drag race. The two things that matter are power and weight. The cars are similar in weight so the following are likely true: - M5 makes more wheel horsepower - E63 parasitic losses are higher (AWD, planetary gear transmission) Pat |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 12:47 PM | #16 | |
Knight Commander
554
Rep 5,948
Posts
Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 Porsche 911 Tu ... [10.00]
2015 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] 2015 Jaguar F Type R [0.00] 2014 BMW M5 [0.00] |
Quote:
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 12:55 PM | #17 | |
Knight Commander
554
Rep 5,948
Posts
Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2014 Porsche 911 Tu ... [10.00]
2015 Mercedes-Benz ... [0.00] 2015 Jaguar F Type R [0.00] 2014 BMW M5 [0.00] |
Quote:
http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=679580
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 04:58 PM | #18 | |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 421
Posts |
Quote:
Calculating the hp needed to produce those trap speeds with a weight of 4300 lbs comes in around 620hp. Taking the claimed hp (560) and the weight (4300 lbs), the car ought to trap around 116-117. So my hp/acceleration model is mis-calibrated or the car seems like it's under-rated. Cool. Pat |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 08:49 PM | #19 |
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Sport Auto did a dyno on E63 S and it came in with 604 HP, FYI.
While we are at it, I pulled put my SA magazine and here are some figures: E63 S: 0-100km 3.7, 0-160km 7.8, 0-200km 11.9 M5 (pre LCI): 0-100km 4.3, 0-160km 8.7, 0-200km 13.0 New RS6: 0-100km 3.5, 0-160km 7.7, 0-200km 12.1 E63 S: 80-120km (4,5,6 gear) 3.3/4.5/6.6 80-160km (4,5,6 gear) 6.8/9.6/13.0 CLS63 with performance package: 3.2/4.5/6.5 and 6.7/9.4/12.7 M5: 3.5/4.5/5.6 and 7.3/9.6/11.8 RS6: Not available yet but I am sure it will suffer the same fate as the E63 S. No doubt the CLS63 and the M5 (both RWD) has advantage at higher speed. Just don't race a E63 S (or the new RS7/RS6) from a standing start, hehe. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2013, 01:23 AM | #20 |
Second Lieutenant
49
Rep 280
Posts |
The litmus test that should be applied here is real world driving.
Also consider that perhaps MB rate their engines properly while M favors the more conservative approach of posting hp/tq numbers which reflect the engine's output in the worst possible conditions. Either way, while I do respect the AMG engine and its note, its appearance puts a hurt on my eyes. In short, there is no way the F10 makes a paltry 60 hp more than the outgoing E60. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2013, 06:23 PM | #21 |
Second Lieutenant
49
Rep 280
Posts |
More. Paltry means insignificant or a very small amount. So, in essence, I am saying that the F10 has much more power than the E60. Probably on the order of 100+ hp more. See stealth's comment from a few days ago.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2013, 07:44 PM | #22 | |
Captain
61
Rep 776
Posts |
Quote:
In what test did the F10 trap 123? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|