5.5 liter V8 supercharger VS 6.2 liters V8 N/A engine?

[Zafiro]

Regarding the 5.5 liter V8 supercharger vs 6.2 liters V8 N/A engine.

- Do you think the Supercharger engine is too good for the new N/a engine?

- What do you think. Is MB doing the right thing to abandon the 5.5 liter V8 supercharger for the 6.2 liters V8 N/A engine?

- What advantages does the new N/a engine has over the old supercharger?

Many MB fans seem to miss the old supercharger and saying its a better engine than the new N/A.
We only seen one test so far but it seems the new engine (E63) is fast as the old one (E55).

Members, express your thoughts and opinions regarding these two engines.

 

[PC Valkyrie]

Way too early to jump to any conclusions. Here are the claimed numbers to help with the discussions.

In the E/CLS55, the 5.4L supercharged 3-valve V8 made 469HP and 516lb-ft torque.

In the S/CL55 and pre-facelifted SL55, the same engine produced 493HP and 516lb-ft torque.

Many people on mbworld.org who have dynoed their cars pretty much confirmed that the E55's engine actually has the same output as the SL55 and that the 469HP number is just a marketing ploy to prevent S/SL/CL55 owners from getting upset. So for arguements sake, let's assume ALL older supercharged 5.4L V8's made the higher 493HP number.

In the 2007 facelifted SL55, the output has increased to 510HP and 531lb-ft torque from this old supercharged engine with some upgrades.

In the new E/CLS63, the new 6.2L natrually aspirated 4-valve V8 makes 507HP and 465lb-ft torque.

Compared to the upgraded 5.4L supercharged V8 in the new SL55, the 6.2L V8 makes LESS peak HP and torque. No real room for debate here, as the new 6.2L V8 loses out in terms of output.

Compared to the older 5.4L supercharged V8, the 6.2L V8 makes a bit more HP but a lot less torque. Whether the E63 is faster than the E55 will depend heavily on the gearing and final weight of the two cars.

Time will tell as more instrumented tests are performed on the new E63.

 

[Deutsch]

it is quite simple in my eyes, the 5.5 liter V8 was more fun and less efficent, the 6.2 is more fun and more efficent. Especially considering the elimination of torque overwhelming the rear wheels.

 

[GTA45E]

Way too early to jump to any conclusions.

lOl, I couldn`t agree more! Just_me is reading from MBworld.org too much..

Seriously, it is just too early cause we simply don`t have enough tests to make an accurate type of judgement.

 

[Zafiro]

I said in my first post, just one test so far but it doesnt mean we cant talk about those engines.

Talk away, dont be afraid to discuss these two engines. We can talk even if we dont have much facts yet.

 

[YoungWarrior]

I think those old balding men from MB world dont really have a clue on whats benificial.

Its lighter, revs more, and eats less fuel, that to me combined with 7 speed gearboxes is a result.

More sporty, more exciting.

Maybe a bit too exciting for those rich old men, who like to kick back with the oldschool 5 gears which is easy to drive, but the new model has more than enough torque, more than they will ever require on public roads.

 

[siko]

If the performance is the same... i'd look to fuel efficiency and acoustics as my determining factors of preference.

 

[Snake Vargas]

I don't mind speculating on the basis of hearsay and one review - as long as everyone realises that things may change in future.

Well, the new engine is being assessed with the 7-speed 'box, whereas IIRC the old one had the 5-speed 'box. In a way, you could say that therefore, if they both used the same 'box, then the old engine would win out.

However, it's not always that simple. Perhaps the extra torque of the old one necessitated a sturdier, more robust and heavier transmission than this new one. The lightweight parts of the 6.2L are also a factor in helping it to rev higher.

As someone said, the gearing (and weight) will determine the performance as much as anything else, really. I call it a draw, in performance terms.

Therefore, the driving nature would be the main difference. I imagine that the 5.5L SC was quite relaxed and had an 'effortless motion' nature - you press the throttle and you get a surge of acceleration. I imagine that it goes well with what many people think a Mercedes should drive like.

On the other hand, the new 6.2L is getting a little closer to what people have been saying about BMW's 5.0L V10 - somewhat less urge at the lower end. It might take people time to get used to it, if ever. Outright, ten-tenths performance might be the same, but there might be a difference in everyday driving.

 

[Merc1]

I think part of this is because all those E55 owners are feeling jealous that MB would change out their engine of choice mid-way through the E's production run.

That said I too would miss the torque and sound of the old engine, but this would be until I heard the new one. Every single writeup I've seen says the new engine has an even fiercer growl and is just as brutal. Overall if there the 63 models tend to be a few tenths slower to 60 mph than the old 55 models, they're likely to handle/steer better and they'll still have that NASCAR or WWII fighter plane sound so many loved in the 55 cars.

The final verdict won't be in though until the U.S. magazines have their way with a CLS63 or E63. No such worries about the CLK63 vs the CLK55 since the new CLK550 is likely faster than the old CLK55 due to a whopping 30hp increase!

If the E63 can pull off some victories over the M5 (which it has) where the E55 could not then that is progess right there.

M

 

[SDNR]

Well I will be brave and say of course the 6.2 will prove to be superior to the 5.5 -- lets remember that this new engine is the first to be fully developed by AMG ....I think we can only expect it to be absolutely outstanding.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I think part of this is because all those E55 owners are feeling jealous that MB would change out their engine of choice mid-way through the E's production run.

That said I too would miss the torque and sound of the old engine, but this would be until I heard the new one. Every single writeup I've seen says the new engine has an even fiercer growl and is just as brutal. Overall if there the 63 models tend to be a few tenths slower to 60 mph than the old 55 models, they're likely to handle/steer better and they'll still have that NASCAR or WWII fighter plane sound so many loved in the 55 cars.

The final verdict won't be in though until the U.S. magazines have their way with a CLS63 or E63. No such worries about the CLK63 vs the CLK55 since the new CLK550 is likely faster than the old CLK55 due to a whopping 30hp increase!

If the E63 can pull off some victories over the M5 (which it has) where the E55 could not then that is progess right there.

M

Well I agree, except for the fact that the E63 didn't win against the M5 at performance & driving dynamics and feeling, much like the E55 didn't win here either.

 

[SDNR]

Hehehe ....don't mind me guys, I'll just watch from over here in the corner ...where it's safe.

 

[Merc1]

Hehehe ....don't mind me guys, I'll just watch from over here in the corner ...where it's safe.

No, no nothing like that. What is your opinion on the new V8 vs the old?

M

 

[SDNR]

I already posted earlier .....I'm not as technical as some of you guys, I often feel out of my depth commenting on the finer aspects of advanced engineering ...but from what I've read,the 6.2 is probably the finest V8 in the world.

 

[Merc1]

I said it before, the methodology used by (some) magazines has changed. The more enthusiast orientated magazines won't give the victory to the E63, much like the all rounder won't give victory to the M5.
On a personal not,e I once almost cried when an M6 won a comparison against the 996TT for being all rounder.

Yikes that must have been some comparison test. Even I can't see that one because the cars are supposed to be so different, but oh well.

Actually the V8 produces more power and torque but with less cylinders but more displacement (6.3 vs. 5.0 ).
Ofcourse they're made to diferent phylosophies.

I stated that in the previous post IE. They're not that far apart in theme or operation either. They're both high-rev screamers compared to the old AMG V8.

M

 

[Merc1]

I already posted earlier .....I'm not as technical as some of you guys, I often feel out of my depth commenting on the finer aspects of advanced engineering ...but from what I've read, it is probably the finest V8 in the world.

You being out of your element? Now that is a new one on me!

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I gues we're all stating/reposting here the obvious.
The V8 NA is better and diferent than the supercharged V8.

 

[SDNR]

You being out of your element? Now that is a new one on me!

M

LOL, I learn a great deal of stuff from you guys.

 

[Merc1]

It appears (in the CL thread) that the CL63 is going to be naturally aspirated and have "only" 525hp. Not sure if I'm pleased with that, I was expecting about 570hp from a turbocharger or at least 550hp in naturually aspirated form. The CL63's performance isn't going to be that much greater than the old CL55, IMO.

M

 

[Merc1]

LOL, I learn a great deal of stuff from you guys.

Likewise!

M