Moving from a CLS55 to a ML63 - test drove one today but wasn’t what size expected

[Teego]

But with all things equal, n/a, supercharger and turbo charger, I always assumed the n/a would be faster off the mark (0-20mph) than all of the above. I’ve never heard that a supercharger is above the n/a

Supercharger gives more instant torque than NA without lag of a turbo. Problem I have with my CLS55 is traction control intervention even on a half bore take off in 2nd. Maybe I should switch it off.

 

[KILOCHARLIE]

Supercharger gives more instant torque than NA without lag of a turbo. Problem I have with my CLS55 is traction control intervention even on a half bore take off in 2nd. Maybe I should switch it off.

Cool. Thanks for the info. I never knew that.

I haven’t had that experience myself with my cls55, not that I’ve done it on more than a couple of occasions. Maybe try new tyres first. I feel the car would be a complete handful if I ever turned traction off.

 

[E55BOF]

You have now, but only in that particular instance. The thing is, because a supercharger is directly driven with the engine, it comes on boost very quickly, and the M113K engine was designed to produce sledgehammer torque from low revs.

 

[AMGeed]

There is no lag at all on an M157 biturbo engine. I found the boost is just as instant as an M113k.
If there was, then I suggest there was a fault with it.
We have moved on a lot since the days of Sierra Cosworths and turbo lag.

 

[KILOCHARLIE]

There is no lag at all on an M157 biturbo engine. I found the boost is just as instant as an M113k.
If there was, then I suggest there was a fault with it.
We have moved on a lot since the days of Sierra Cosworths and turbo lag.

I think there must have been. It certainly was more lag than a cosworth and it was far more noticeable. Glad I walked away.

 

[whitenemesis]

You have now, but only in that particular instance. The thing is, because a supercharger is directly driven with the engine, it comes on boost very quickly, and the M113K engine was designed to produce sledgehammer torque from low revs.

Not forgetting the supercharger is clutch driven and only locks up at approx 1.8k rpm and load dependent.
I miss that engine....

 

[Teego]

Not forgetting the supercharger is clutch driven and only locks up at approx 1.8k rpm and load dependent.
I miss that engine....

I bet you do. Especially when you hear and feel the lockup and the S/C comes on song.

 

[whitenemesis]

I bet you do. Especially when you hear and feel the lockup and the S/C comes on song.

That s/c whine is music to the ears, only to be drowned out by the V8 growl

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

On modern forced induction motors the torque is limited in low gears, in part to protect the gearbox but importantly to enable a cleaner getaway - the “sledgehammer” torque is not helpful when traction is the limiting factor.

Compared with forced induction, naturally or normally aspirated motor of equivalent capacity usually has less torque to begin with, but importantly the delivery is much more progressive over a wider range, meaning that torque need not be limited.

For that reason, given an FI and NA motor with the same power output, I would fancy my chances more in the NA off the line. Once traction is no longer limited - say 70 MPH plus - then FI will be quicker thanks to the greater torque.