55AMG+Kompressor or 6.3AMG

[glojo]

Okay oh learned ones,
Do we prefer the new very nice normally aspirated 6.3AMG or the engine it has replaced (on some models) the supercharged 55AMG and why.

 

[splang]

No replacement for displacement! I would prefer the huge lump 6.3 - my old e class had a lovely big lump too (5l) and I love the sheer laziness of it!

(ps I don't count myself as the knowing but I love big engines!)

 

[seymansey]

I vote the 55, the whine and the instantaneous-ness of the engine is addictive

 

[gbjeppm]

John

I would happily take either.

You don't have an option for that

 

[tudu]

Okay oh learned ones,
Do we prefer the new very nice normally aspirated 6.3AMG or the engine it has replaced (on some models) the supercharged 55AMG and why.

Although the 6.2 is a super engine especially in the CLK 63 BS. For sheer affordable power and grunt my choice would be the 55.

 

[RichardM]

I've only driven a 55 so can't really vote.

Have you driven both then John?

 

[glojo]

I've only driven a 55 so can't really vote.

Have you driven both then John?

I have not had the pleasure of driving either and can't really vote on my own poll

I have read many and numerous reviews regarding this topic and most have left me thinking! According to the reviews the 55 has the torque in far more accessible regions of the power band compared to the normally aspirated engine which produces the most oomfff at the upper end of the rev band??

I get the impression that driving though a tunnel with the top down in the latest SL 63AMG will produce a grin from ear to ear? The noise of that V8 is to die for, but that does not relate to performance, although I guess I would NEVER be able to take full advantage of either??

Regards
John

 

[Howard]

But driving through a tunnel in the old supercharged 55 also produced a grin from ear to ear ....

Someone likened it to the sound of a spitfire.

And it had more power

 

[Mark300SL]

But driving through a tunnel in the old supercharged 55 also produced a grin from ear to ear ....

Nothing sounds quite like a Vtec turbo @ full chat in a decent tunnel

 

[mercboiuk]

I my mind, it depends what car it's in.

The ML, CLK and C-Class only came with the N/A 55 Motor, and now come with the 63 Engine - that's a certainly a good thing because they gain just under 100bhp

The 63 motor in the E, S, CL and SL isn't so great. They are down on torque by a tremendous amount, so mid range, the 55 Kompressor cars with beat the 63 cars. OK the 63s are quicker to 60mph, but only by a couple of tenths.

Then, of course, there's the modifying side. The 55 Kompressor (I guess) is alot easier to modifying than the 63 NA motor.

Darren

 

[Mudster]

I like the unstressed nature of normally aspirated engines, especially the detuned version in the C63, you just know that engine will go for years without major mechanical issues.

 

[Howard]

Nothing sounds quite like a Vtec turbo @ full chat in a decent tunnel

I know what my old VTEC CRX used to sound like in the John Lewis underpass in Kingston flat out in 2nd gear .... I used to slow down and let the traffic in front get away and then bury it as i came over the bridge .....

If the turbo sounds better than that , it must be good !!

 

[glojo]

Nothing sounds quite like a Vtec turbo @ full chat in a decent tunnel

Ouch,
Me thinks we might just be travelling at speeds that might cause 'flashing' before the eyes (or perhaps rearview mirror

Reviewers have made particular mention of the 6.3 rumble; are we suggesting it is no more audible than the 5.5?

I have deliberately emphasised the supercharged 5.5 engine otherwise it is an easier question.

John

 

[Satch]

Driven an E55 AMG and a CLS63 AMG so not entirely comparable but I would be happy with either. They do their stuff somewhat differently but is one "better"?

If pushed think would tend to the 6.2. Less to go wrong. Loses some of that mid range surge but it revs so well and has a really nice snarly rumble to it in the process.

But would I "worry" about having the 55AMG engine instead? Oh no......

 

[jaymanek]

63 because i dont like turbo's... end of..

its like breast implants.. look great but you always know its fake..

 

[DansSlk]

Driven different model's with both and when it comes down to the spec's they are fairly evenly matched, what is different is the 5.5K feel's faster even if in reality it's accelerating at the same rate as the 6.2 and that makes a huge difference.

If ultimate power is taken out of the equation however the 63 series win's on all front's, it's just a newer unit and has all the benefits one.

 

[glojo]

its like breast implants.. look great but you always know its fake..

Now about that test drive!!

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I'm fortunate to have driven vehicles with both engines.

The 55 K engines do indeed feel quicker because of the low down torque.

The 63 NA engines are much more progressive in their power delivery, and are just as quick but doesn't feel it.

In simple terms, it comes down to price. You can get a nice E55K for approximately half the cost of an E63. So the budget dictates the model.

I like bargains so the 55K would take some beating!!

 

[Maz]

63 just for the noise it makes.

 

[st4]

To me I'd have the supercharged lump, apparently you have to double to RPM to get the same torque out of the 63. How is that progress?

Depends on the car, in an E/S/CL/CLS car the 63 engine might be too revy/peaky but in a sports car/smaller car the engine may be better suited. Even in its highest state of tune the 63 won't be too stressed, but neither is the 55k motor. I'd go for the E55 over an E63 anyday but a CLK63 would get my nod over a CLK55 (even if it were supercharged).