As you said I thought the superior torque would rule, but it never transpired. Also it struggled for traction off the line.....no such probs for meadsgreen wrote:Don't see why people are surprised...
Sure, the AMG has more power but nothing dramatically more and it's heavier resulting in a similar power to weight ratio.
I would imagine the auto clutch on the amg is locking but they are generally far from instantaneous when changing.
I've dug out my old spreadsheet and put in the stats for the c63 based on some info.
http://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w204/ ... urves.html
(Interesting how the peak falls off so even though there is a bucket of torque when you are accelerating to full power you end up using much less. Gear changes appear to be between 5krpm to 7k rpm and the average torque here is about 310 at the wheels). The extra massive torque advantage is only there low down not in the main engine zone. Be good to see if it really does change at 7k rpm under full power.
Anyway, the results are yes the c63 is fractionally quicker until it hits 4th gear and it's noticably longer and the rs claws back.
But we're talking tenths here and a couple feet there.
C63 AMG
-
- 1st Gear
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:36 pm
Re: C63 AMG
-
- 1st Gear
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:36 pm
Re: C63 AMG
No mate it doesn't have the performance pack, but by the way my mate was talking it will soon have a remap ! Then he will demand a rematch......then it will be bye bye RS4D_K wrote:they remap well
take it it doesnt have the performance pack ?
with performance pack and MRC they can do 520PS ... bye bye RS 4
Re: C63 AMG
789bhp and only getting 3.7 0-60. Was it really worth caps lock???blackphantom wrote:BRABUS BULLIT C CLASS COUPE 789 BHP 0-60 3.7 230 MPH http://www.brabus.com/en/index.html
previous- Pug 205 gti, 306 gti, 309 gti Goodwood.
Audi S3, S4 V8 avant.
Porsche Macan Turbo.
Gone but NEVER forgotten - C5 RS6 Misano red avant.
Now - Empty garage
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there!
Audi S3, S4 V8 avant.
Porsche Macan Turbo.
Gone but NEVER forgotten - C5 RS6 Misano red avant.
Now - Empty garage
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there!
C63 AMG
And what's the cost of Brabus C63 vs mapped S4?! Could have two or more S4s for the same money I guess!
Mercs just don't do it for me, they scream old fart or binary talking suit. They seem to go for massive V8s and V12s, just comes across as brute force and ignorance to me.
Mercs just don't do it for me, they scream old fart or binary talking suit. They seem to go for massive V8s and V12s, just comes across as brute force and ignorance to me.
Re: C63 AMG
But sometimes driving involves wet roads.... and bends....
Wasn't the 'designed for the racetrack' CLK63 AMG Black 'Top Gear' lap time more than 1:25.7?
Wasn't the 'designed for the racetrack' CLK63 AMG Black 'Top Gear' lap time more than 1:25.7?
2013 Ibis White RS7¬
¦ParkingPackPlus¦Sunroof¦HUD¦AudiConnect¦HeatedRearSeats¦RearSideAirbags¦RedBrakeCalipers¦QuattroPuddelights¦SoftCloseDoors¦NightVision¦Dynamic Package¦CarbonPackage¦CarbonMirrors¦21" GlossBlack¦ACC¦Stop&Go¦PreSensePlus¦SideAssist¦LaneAssist¦B&O¦BlackOptics¦OEMBlackBadging¦Gyeon Q2 Duraflex¦
¦ParkingPackPlus¦Sunroof¦HUD¦AudiConnect¦HeatedRearSeats¦RearSideAirbags¦RedBrakeCalipers¦QuattroPuddelights¦SoftCloseDoors¦NightVision¦Dynamic Package¦CarbonPackage¦CarbonMirrors¦21" GlossBlack¦ACC¦Stop&Go¦PreSensePlus¦SideAssist¦LaneAssist¦B&O¦BlackOptics¦OEMBlackBadging¦Gyeon Q2 Duraflex¦
Re: C63 AMG
I also think I saw the MRC S4 do 0-60 in 3.38 then it would still beat the Brabus C63 off the line for a fraction of the cost.chunky79 wrote:789bhp and only getting 3.7 0-60. Was it really worth caps lock???blackphantom wrote:BRABUS BULLIT C CLASS COUPE 789 BHP 0-60 3.7 230 MPH http://www.brabus.com/en/index.html
2014: 8V S3, Scirocco (mistake)
2013: B8 RS 5, 3.0T S5 coupe, B8 S5 cab - temp, B8 S4 avant
2011: 2.0T FL Octavia VRS
2010: 1.8T Octavia VRS
2013: B8 RS 5, 3.0T S5 coupe, B8 S5 cab - temp, B8 S4 avant
2011: 2.0T FL Octavia VRS
2010: 1.8T Octavia VRS
Re: C63 AMG
....ah ha that explains it.....add in the standing start traction challenges with the C63 and the RS comes out on top.BruceBanner wrote:Mine is running 440 had the MRC treatment! Worth every penny after seeing my mates faceNickyboy wrote:I must say I'm a bit surprised by this. Is yours stock?
Either way nice one!
Must say once you've lived with the C63 its feels significantly quicker than the RS stock vs stock, no question. Love them both, choices, choices
Re: C63 AMG
This is the problem when comparing torque in that it doesn't take into account gearing. With everything the same (mass, gearing, tyres etc) and assuming no wheelspin, the higher torque car will always accelerate more. That isn't in dispute. The problem is that the torque drops off in the "happy" range where the engine lives between shifts at full throttle... coupled with the extra weight, traction limits and automatic transmission losses (ok, reduced a degree by the locking torque converter) the gap is nowhere as clear cut as you'd think.BruceBanner wrote:As you said I thought the superior torque would rule, but it never transpired. Also it struggled for traction off the line.....no such probs for meadsgreen wrote:Don't see why people are surprised...
Sure, the AMG has more power but nothing dramatically more and it's heavier resulting in a similar power to weight ratio.
I would imagine the auto clutch on the amg is locking but they are generally far from instantaneous when changing.
I've dug out my old spreadsheet and put in the stats for the c63 based on some info.
http://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w204/ ... urves.html
(Interesting how the peak falls off so even though there is a bucket of torque when you are accelerating to full power you end up using much less. Gear changes appear to be between 5krpm to 7k rpm and the average torque here is about 310 at the wheels). The extra massive torque advantage is only there low down not in the main engine zone. Be good to see if it really does change at 7k rpm under full power.
Anyway, the results are yes the c63 is fractionally quicker until it hits 4th gear and it's noticably longer and the rs claws back.
But we're talking tenths here and a couple feet there.
However if you both accelerated from say 20mph in 2nd the AMG would simply dissappear as it has buckets more torque at that point of the engine curve and the RS4 needs revs being smaller displacement. AMG will feel feaster as it's much easier to go quickly.
Interesting to see (with a pinch of salt) that the B7 is pretty evenly matched against the Merc... Some tracks the merc wins but interesting that the ring time is much slower (15 seconds) than the audi.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ ... 3_amg.html
Edit: In fact I think this shows how torque is not as critical to performance driving as first is thought.
C63 AMG
Weight: 3924lb (1783 kgs)
BHP: 451 = 252/ton
Torque: 443 = 248 /ton
B7 RS4 Saloon
Weight: 3638lbs (1653 kgs)
BHP: 414 = 250/ton
Torque: 317 = 191/ton
So the power to weight is virtually identical but the torque to weight is considerably different (The RS4 is approx only 75% that of the Mercedes) and yet track times are broadly similar.
Re: C63 AMG
Nice informed summary adsgreen.......
In everyday driving the significant torque advantage of the C63 makes itself so very evident in more easily accessible acceleration, consistent with your points....
In everyday driving the significant torque advantage of the C63 makes itself so very evident in more easily accessible acceleration, consistent with your points....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests