C55 amg / C63 amg 6.2
Discussion
I plan to purchase one of this vehicle for daily use, the c63 is considerably more appreciated by all and faster. legendary engine.
The C55 is smaller and discreet with an interior that I like better.
I know the 6.2 is legendary is one of the best na made.
the purchasing and operating costs of the c55 are much less and I know it is slower but at what point does it feel slower in terms of acceleration? Are the thrust felt and the torque much less strong? or the gap is not so "huge"
The C55 is smaller and discreet with an interior that I like better.
I know the 6.2 is legendary is one of the best na made.
the purchasing and operating costs of the c55 are much less and I know it is slower but at what point does it feel slower in terms of acceleration? Are the thrust felt and the torque much less strong? or the gap is not so "huge"
The C63 is quite a bit quicker, much louder and less discreet.
I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
MickyveloceClassic said:
The C63 is quite a bit quicker, much louder and less discreet.
I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
Micky has it pretty much spot on.I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
The 55 is a great engine in its own right.350 bhp and a wall of torque but no comparable to the 63.
I moved from 55 to 55K ( supercharged) which has quite similar power to the 63 but with more torque.
Difference definitely noticeable. More go everywhere. Bottom end, top end, mid range.
63 is a very " shouty" engine. 55 a lot more subtle.
If going for a C55 take a look at the C32. All the best Merc engines are supercharged don't you know!!!
ok I see, often you feel the acceleration better on a car with more torque/weight in general. hence the stronger feeling on the 55k than the 63. the engine is more subtle on the c55 is it to say ? Is there enough torque and power on the c55 to push you back into the seat when accelerating even if it's less than the c63/e55k obviously?
Yes, almost certainly, but these things are very subjective.
It’s worth a mention that the C32 which preceded the C55 was a quicker car. Mercedes under-reported the acceleration figures of the C32 to distance it from the E55 when it was launched, but it was timed by Autocar at 4.6 seconds to 60, which is what the non-Performance Pack C63 will achieve.
The C32 interior wasn’t as nice as the C55, and finding an unabused car these days would be tricky.
It’s worth a mention that the C32 which preceded the C55 was a quicker car. Mercedes under-reported the acceleration figures of the C32 to distance it from the E55 when it was launched, but it was timed by Autocar at 4.6 seconds to 60, which is what the non-Performance Pack C63 will achieve.
The C32 interior wasn’t as nice as the C55, and finding an unabused car these days would be tricky.
I'm three years into C55 ownership, however unfortunately I don't have experience of the others.
The 5.4 needs to rev out a bit to really haul, as you'd expect with n/a; mostly the autobox kicks down and lets it do this effectively. It pulls well and progressively through the range with a nice muted beat towards the top end. There aren't many overtaking opportunities which I would forego in the C55 for want of power, and it's not really a track car, so it's only really on the autobahn where you could use more power on the public road. Mine is my 'daily driver' and I think it's a very good amount of power for that.
Ownership costs of the C55 are hugely variable depending on the condition of car you buy; the newest cars are 16 years old now and many have been run-down somewhat. The last owner of mine put five figures into it over 18 months, and it's not exactly been cheap in my ownership either. There aren't many C55s out there and quite a few are probably money pits.
Compared to that, the 26mpg on a motorway run (the 5-speed auto is quite short geared) and £400 or £700 tax are less the issue.
I personally ruled out the C32 because they predate Mercedes improving their build quality from abysmal to mediocre around the W203 facelift, and because a V6 isn't a balanced configuration like a V8 is (the M113 spins out smoothly). However as stated they're quick and tend to command less money.
Finally I have to comment that the AMG seats in the C55 I find super-comfortable, like relaxing into a favourite leather armchair by the fire with the seat heater on low. No idea how the others compare on this front!
The 5.4 needs to rev out a bit to really haul, as you'd expect with n/a; mostly the autobox kicks down and lets it do this effectively. It pulls well and progressively through the range with a nice muted beat towards the top end. There aren't many overtaking opportunities which I would forego in the C55 for want of power, and it's not really a track car, so it's only really on the autobahn where you could use more power on the public road. Mine is my 'daily driver' and I think it's a very good amount of power for that.
Ownership costs of the C55 are hugely variable depending on the condition of car you buy; the newest cars are 16 years old now and many have been run-down somewhat. The last owner of mine put five figures into it over 18 months, and it's not exactly been cheap in my ownership either. There aren't many C55s out there and quite a few are probably money pits.
Compared to that, the 26mpg on a motorway run (the 5-speed auto is quite short geared) and £400 or £700 tax are less the issue.
I personally ruled out the C32 because they predate Mercedes improving their build quality from abysmal to mediocre around the W203 facelift, and because a V6 isn't a balanced configuration like a V8 is (the M113 spins out smoothly). However as stated they're quick and tend to command less money.
Finally I have to comment that the AMG seats in the C55 I find super-comfortable, like relaxing into a favourite leather armchair by the fire with the seat heater on low. No idea how the others compare on this front!
ArmaghMan said:
MickyveloceClassic said:
The C63 is quite a bit quicker, much louder and less discreet.
I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
Micky has it pretty much spot on.I’ve owned a 2013 C63 as a daily, but I’ve experienced the C55 on the road and track too.
I sold my C63 as the image was diverging quickly from one I’m comfortable with, but the C55 is delightfully discreet to the point of anonymity. It has a slightly modified front end compared to the standard W203 cars, but most wouldn’t notice.
The 55 engine in this unsupercharged form seems to be unstressed and broadly reliable too, so it should prove much cheaper to run.
Parts for both are freely and reasonably available from Autodoc etc, and fuel probably slightly better on the 55, which will also cost £200 a year less to tax if it’s pre-March 2006.
In terms of performance, the 63 is almost 100bhp up on the smaller engine, and it feels it, especially mid- range.
The 55 is a great engine in its own right.350 bhp and a wall of torque but no comparable to the 63.
I moved from 55 to 55K ( supercharged) which has quite similar power to the 63 but with more torque.
Difference definitely noticeable. More go everywhere. Bottom end, top end, mid range.
63 is a very " shouty" engine. 55 a lot more subtle.
If going for a C55 take a look at the C32. All the best Merc engines are supercharged don't you know!!!
I have heard a lot of good things about the M156 as the best AMG engine. after the m113k does it have instant throttle response? the prices of the e55k are very attractive
The problem with the 55 is that the power delivered doesn't seem strong to me at high revs, a bit like an M5 E39. I was looking for something that increases in power crescendo with the revs like an M3 E46, but with a lot of torque and thrust unlike the M engine and Honda etc. the 6.2 seemed ideal to me, Lots of low end torque and an even stronger high end. a bit of the best of the world in my vision, even if I haven't tried it
Murci.sv said:
The problem with the 55 is that the power delivered doesn't seem strong to me at high revs, a bit like an M5 E39. I was looking for something that increases in power crescendo with the revs like an M3 E46, but with a lot of torque and thrust unlike the M engine and Honda etc. the 6.2 seemed ideal to me, Lots of low end torque and an even stronger high end. a bit of the best of the world in my vision, even if I haven't tried it
The 55 is not for you.Tried an M3 (2 actually) when I was rady to move on from both my M5's. On both occasions I dsscrthe cars as gutless. You had to rev them to get any sort of response. As you rightly say just like a bigger Vtec engine.
I like my power instantly hence my love for the 55 and 55k. Neither is a screamer.
The N/a 55 is a great engine ( in my humble opinion) but doesn't need to rev to 9000 rpm to do its stuff.
Can't speak for the 63.. just too shouty for me
Murci.sv said:
The problem with the 55 is that the power delivered doesn't seem strong to me at high revs, a bit like an M5 E39. I was looking for something that increases in power crescendo with the revs like an M3 E46, but with a lot of torque and thrust unlike the M engine and Honda etc. the 6.2 seemed ideal to me, Lots of low end torque and an even stronger high end. a bit of the best of the world in my vision, even if I haven't tried it
An engine with lots of low end torque that then rises from that to a crescendo at the top will necessarily have a big power figure; it sounds like you're looking for something with around 500hp, i.e. the M156 6.2 (or the M113K s/c).IMO the C55 has a good balance of torque and power for a 362hp engine, it's got a sensible amount of response low-down without overwhelming the tyres too easily, and it does build nicely through the rev range. But ultimately it's not got as much of either as a more powerful engine might.
yes it's true and that's why the 6.2 seemed ideal to me, according to numerous testimonies. If the C55 offers that feeling of increasing progression with revs, it might suit me very well.
I'm not looking for an engine that has to rev up first to feel it pull strongly but I want to feel the strength of the engine building up as it climbs in rpm. which is not ensured by a flat torque curve like the m5 e39 which accelerates constantly without any real crescendo.
I'm not looking for an engine that has to rev up first to feel it pull strongly but I want to feel the strength of the engine building up as it climbs in rpm. which is not ensured by a flat torque curve like the m5 e39 which accelerates constantly without any real crescendo.
If a two-door would suit, there's always the W209 CLK63 which combines the more elegant lines of the earlier cars with the power of the 6.2 engine.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202207278...
Not much good if you need an estate, though!
I had a 55 saloon a while ago, my current car is a 63 Estate with the AMG Performance Pack and LSD. You will be looking at about £85 per tank in the 63 with a range around 250 miles.
The 63 covers all bases if fuel is not an issue (gearbox & newer comand), one thing you will need to decide is wheel size (18"/19"). Mine is on 18" which came with the car and is exactly what I wanted. They are both special cars, however the 63 at over 7k rpm is unforgettable.
Factor in Road Tax and Brake pads/discs on the 63.
The 63 covers all bases if fuel is not an issue (gearbox & newer comand), one thing you will need to decide is wheel size (18"/19"). Mine is on 18" which came with the car and is exactly what I wanted. They are both special cars, however the 63 at over 7k rpm is unforgettable.
Factor in Road Tax and Brake pads/discs on the 63.
I had a CLK55 and a CLK63.
The problem with the 55 is that old 5G gearbox. It's awful, but that aside l actually preferred the rest of the 55 as a package. It sounded great and went well enough for the chassis.
The 63 is much quicker but for daily use it was too effortless to be fun. You're at 80 without really noticing.
The problem with the 55 is that old 5G gearbox. It's awful, but that aside l actually preferred the rest of the 55 as a package. It sounded great and went well enough for the chassis.
The 63 is much quicker but for daily use it was too effortless to be fun. You're at 80 without really noticing.
Murci.sv said:
ok, but do you feel the acceleration push on the first three gears? even if it doesn't feel very fast
It's more of a swell. It isn't really a crescendo like a high-revving NA engine, for example the M3 of the period or a Honda VTEC. Very smooth. Quick but not particularly exciting.Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff