Introduction and advice

[Nickster]

Hello everyone!
New to the site and hopefully soon to be new to MB AMG ownership.
I'm looking to satisfy my (yet another ) mid life search for vehicular satisfaction - "crisis" sounds so uncalculated! - and am in the market for an E63 estate, around 12-13 plate. I know the engine changed around this time and have driven a 14 plate which was mighty impressive, but high mileage for the asking price.
Is the 6.2 better/worse than the 5.5? Is there anything I should be particularly looking out for? I've read about issues re. engine bolts....does this affect the E63 of the age I'm looking at?
I currently have a 2.8t Insignia so tax and mpg is not much in it and my mileage is only around 4k a year.
Is reliability generally good if looked after (which I tend to with my vehicles).
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

Many thanks,
Nick

 

[JDL60]

I don’t tend to go on in detail, so my take...

The 6.2 is an epic engine- engine numbers 60658 and over will not have the head bolt issue, i.e. the age you are looking for.
The 5.5 Bi Turbo is just as epic in many ways, and is more tuneable /mappable. The M157 engine so far seems bullet proof. I’ve had mine for 14 , nearly 15 months, 0 issues. I’ve had it recently mapped to 684 BHP/835lb ft torque (dyno figures at MSL). Many others have had many more mods done to (in one case) c905 BHP. My cars power will make your eyes roll back in their sockets so I think that’s enough for me (he said). MSL tend to back off nowadays a little so I think mine is probably closer to 700
Either will give you a reliable car...

 

[WOODYTHEWISE]

Hello and welcome to you.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Best drive both. We have cars with both engines, and genuinely, picking the best would be like picking which of my children is best!

If I was to only own a car with one of the two engines then I would go for th M157 5.5 twin turbo engine, as both the engine and car as a whole will be a later specification and design.

 

[st13phil]

You'll be on the cusp of pre-facelift / facelift cars, and on a 12-plate chances are it will be a Biturbo (definitely for a 13-plate and onwards).

Having owned both a pre- and a post-facelift car I'd be happy with either, although the LED Intelligent Lights on the post-facelift car are a significant improvement over the Bi-Xenon ILS system on earlier cars.

There are quite a few very high spec pre-facelift, early Biturbo cars as many were first registered to the MBUK fleet and were heavily optioned. Well worth seeking out if you like toys

 

[Nickster]

Thanks for your inputs guys.
Yes st13phil, I had noticed quite a variance in early 5.5 pre facelift options between different ones.
The one I drove recently was a facelift and whilst nice enough inside didn't get me thinking "i want this" and tbh I think I prefer the looks of the prefacelift anyway.
One I am looking at the mo seems to have all the bells and whistles incl AMG Performance Pack Plus..... Would that incl the LSD?

 

[tbourner]

I’ve had it recently mapped to 684 BHP/835lb ft torque (dyno figures at MSL).

I'm sure you mean Nm not lbft? Your gearbox would be lunch with over 1100Nm!

 

[st13phil]

One I am looking at the mo seems to have all the bells and whistles incl AMG Performance Pack Plus..... Would that incl the LSD?

The AMG Locking Diff was a separate option to the PPP. You need to check the datacard to see if it has Option Code 471 on it.

 

[JDL60]

I'm sure you mean Nm not lbft? Your gearbox would be lunch with over 1100Nm!

Nope- at the flywheel figure /709 at the wheels
This is pale by comparison to another members beast also done by MSL- these gearboxes can cope
MERCEDES E63 AMG, IMPRESSIVE FIGURES

 

[tbourner]

Nope- at the flywheel figure /709 at the wheels
This is pale by comparison to another members beast also done by MSL- these gearboxes can cope
MERCEDES E63 AMG, IMPRESSIVE FIGURES

Oh I know they're capable, it's just 684 BHP at the flywheel would usually relate to around 650-700 lbft in a turbo engine - they usually sit fairly close together, so Acid's 905 BHP and 1057 lbft sort of make sense - albeit still a very impressive torque figure!
But 650 lbft would be 880 Nm - which is pretty close to your 835 figure. Whereas 835 lbft is actually 1130 Nm!! That would be insane on an engine running 684 BHP.

But hey; it was an assumption because of the numbers. If that's what you got then my cap is doff'd to you - I obviously need to get to know these cars a bit more!

 

[JDL60]

Oh I know they're capable, it's just 684 BHP at the flywheel would usually relate to around 650-700 lbft in a turbo engine - they usually sit fairly close together, so Acid's 905 BHP and 1057 lbft sort of make sense - albeit still a very impressive torque figure!
But 650 lbft would be 880 Nm - which is pretty close to your 835 figure. Whereas 835 lbft is actually 1130 Nm!! That would be insane on an engine running 684 BHP.

But hey; it was an assumption because of the numbers. If that's what you got then my cap is doff'd to you - I obviously need to get to know these cars a bit more!

Got the readout graph from MSL Trev which I’d love to upload but this forum won’t let you post any images or pictures of any size at all! The ‘other side’ let’s you directly post big stuff .... I’m probably not clever enough!

 

[Cyclone1]

I'm sure you mean Nm not lbft? Your gearbox would be lunch with over 1100Nm!

No it’s lb/ft, normal figure on a remapped 5.5 M157