: E55 vs CTS-V



E55AMGGG
09-27-09, 05:20 PM
Hey guys I'm from the MB forum and I love the new CTS-V. I really would love to do a side by side comparison vs the CTS-V. Win, lose, draw doesn't matter me to me it's all fun for me. I live in queens, NY if anyone is interested.

ctsv5005
09-27-09, 05:30 PM
Stock e55 vs Stock V, no chance for the e55.

E55AMGGG
09-27-09, 05:41 PM
Stock e55 vs Stock V, no chance for the e55.

I believe that if a CTS-V can beat my STOCK E55 it is not going to be by much. My main goal is to see the difference bewteen the 2.

cts-v2009
09-27-09, 05:52 PM
you are from where ?

manciniat
09-27-09, 06:03 PM
I live in queens, NY

^^^there^^^

E55AMGGG
09-27-09, 06:06 PM
Yes I live in queens, NY.

Florian
09-27-09, 07:39 PM
having driven both, the V will destroy the E....however, the E is much more comfortable to drive.


F

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 08:44 PM
I believe that if a CTS-V can beat my STOCK E55 it is not going to be by much. My main goal is to see the difference bewteen the 2.
Welcome to the forum, and by the way that you upper cased the term "STOCK E55" and brought attention to it being stock, I would be very surprised if it is stock. Not even a tune?

SLPR 6.0L
09-27-09, 09:19 PM
I think it would be a drivers race. E55s are faster than E63 AMGs and run like Gen II vipers (Gobs of TQ). If its modded it will beat a stock V2. There are stock E55s in the high 11s

ctsv5005
09-28-09, 12:24 AM
Noway your car is stock!

E55AMGGG
09-28-09, 12:39 AM
My car is absolutely stock. I'm on the Mbworld forum and I'm known for being 1 of the fastest stock E55's on my forum. I have run many cars till now. I raced a tuned C63 and have beaten him by not even a full car length. He told me he raced a CTS-V and that he beat the V how I beat him which got me thinking. I just dynoed my car 411whp and 456wtq. I also raced a fully modded 335i (jb3 tune, downpipes, exhaust, intakes, FmiC, race gas, no seats in the car) and lost 1 car length.

I used to have a IC pump failure on my car which was resulting into my supercharger shutting off and turning back on( Very Common on E55's). My car was running alot slower and overheating quicker. I upgraded to a CM30 pump which cost me $150 and ever since then my car has been running like a beast. I raced a stock C63/modded 335i with the failing pump and then re-raced with the upgraded pump and the results were in favor of my car, Most of the E55's dyno in at around 490-500hp and 550tq. It is underrated in #'s from benz.

cts-v2009
09-28-09, 02:00 AM
I raced E55 ( beaten him by 5 car length ) - CLS55 ( beaten him by 3 car length ) - Raced C63 ( 2-3 car length ) -
Raced E55 tuned around 580 hp ( lost 2 car length )

Z06ified
09-28-09, 09:55 AM
I raced E55 ( beaten him by 5 car length ) - CLS55 ( beaten him by 3 car length ) - Raced C63 ( 2-3 car length ) -
Raced E55 tuned around 580 hp ( lost 2 car length )

Sounds about right. I've raced an E55 in my '02 Z06 which when stock had similar 1/4 mile stats as an 09 CTS-V. I easily beat the E55 - wasn't close - 5 car lengths sounds right.

Florian
09-28-09, 10:59 AM
supercharger shutting off and turning back on( Very Common on E55's). .

Superchargers are always ON.


F

Jpjr
09-28-09, 04:26 PM
Superchargers are always ON.


F

superchargers (boost) can be bypassed in almost all late model vehicles especially if the system senses detonation

E55AMGGG
09-28-09, 04:41 PM
I raced E55 ( beaten him by 5 car length ) - CLS55 ( beaten him by 3 car length ) - Raced C63 ( 2-3 car length ) -
Raced E55 tuned around 580 hp ( lost 2 car length )

A e55 is faster then a cls55 and its a known fact in mbworld. Thatt was not a healthy e55 that you raced for sure.

E55AMGGG
09-28-09, 04:50 PM
Superchargers are always ON.


F

There was a issue with the pumps on the w211 and the superchargers were shutting down due to heatsoak. You can do a search on my mbforum. I can't beat a maxima wheb s/c was shutting down.

CTSV2
09-28-09, 06:12 PM
I have raced an E55 with my cts-v and until 80mph im only half a car ahead, but after that i start to pull ahead.

mpouls1
09-28-09, 07:47 PM
^^^what he said^^^

If you are talking stock for stock I would say pretty dead even from a stop up to 100. I ran mine in July at Byron Dragway and best was 12.29 @ 114.55mph. DA was 2171. I found a stock 2006 E55 AMG that ran at Great Lakes Dragway, DA was 1300 that ran a 12.27 @ 113.76mph. From a dead stop seems pretty even up to 100. Not much of a difference when it comes to tenths of a second. If you really want to argue semantics correct for DA and you're left with pretty much track prep and the driver. Don't know after that. From a roll one would think the V has an advantage due to obviously more hp and tq, unless you're in that mushy 40-50 mph range that you can't get a good jump on.

CVP33
09-28-09, 10:30 PM
I don't think you'll find anyone. I tried to get someone local to me to do the same. Just line up and do a few runs from a stop, 20 roll, 40 roll, etc. I just don't see it happening. My bud with the same setup as mine just went to the track and ran a traction limited 11.87 at 125. Fast cars in a straight line are pretty easy to come by. Finding one with the balance of the V is hard to come by. I know I could kill a stock E55, E63, CTS-V or M5. The problem is the first hard corner and the V and M would kill me. The E's, not so much.

E55AMGGG
09-28-09, 11:57 PM
I have raced an E55 with my cts-v and until 80mph im only half a car ahead, but after that i start to pull ahead.

This sounds more realistic. A CTS-V is not going to beat a E55 by 5 car lengths stock vs stock for sure. It is possible that it can happen especially if that e55 was running with a failing IC pump how used to.

So no 1 in the NY area is willing to give it a go ?????

E55AMGGG
09-28-09, 11:58 PM
I don't think you'll find anyone. I tried to get someone local to me to do the same. Just line up and do a few runs from a stop, 20 roll, 40 roll, etc. I just don't see it happening. My bud with the same setup as mine just went to the track and ran a traction limited 11.87 at 125. Fast cars in a straight line are pretty easy to come by. Finding one with the balance of the V is hard to come by. I know I could kill a stock E55, E63, CTS-V or M5. The problem is the first hard corner and the V and M would kill me. The E's, not so much.

What kind of car do you have ??

aceofblitz
09-29-09, 06:50 AM
The pump issue is real, I've seen it happen to EVERY 55 AMG that I know about.
Everyone sold their AMG55s a long time ago, you see some CLS 55s here and there, modded of course.
But the only car I tested with stock vs stock was the M5, and I was like 1/2 to 3/4 a car length in front.
I think the M5 is faster than an AMG 55 stock vs stock though.

Z06ified
09-29-09, 09:13 AM
This sounds more realistic. A CTS-V is not going to beat a E55 by 5 car lengths stock vs stock for sure.

Depends how long you stay in it. 1/4 mile? Probably far less than 5 car lengths. To 130-140+, 5 car lengths is to be expected.

1BlinkGone
09-29-09, 11:13 AM
"He told me he raced a CTS-V and that he beat the V how I beat him which got me thinking."

This guy might well have raced a CTS-V, but was it a 2009 CTS-V? I could see validity to the claim if it was an earlier year. Not a 2009, though.

Surfer-Dude
09-29-09, 12:03 PM
We had an E55, but looking at buying an 09' V now. I def give the quickness and fast factor to the V, down low it's close as the E55 has massive torque as well... but once rolling the V to me pulled harder and faster (this was dirivng my neighbors 09' auto V). Thats saying something as the E55 is no slouch lol. The V is a beast from a roll at highway speeds, pulls f'n hard for a sedan lol. I don't know about 5 lengths though in a normal race, maybe when speeds exceed 130-140 or at that point, 5 lengths is a pretty big gap.. I don't see that happening below 100.

I just loved the way it drove, handling/feel was so much better then the E55, and was so smooth yet handles so well for no light weight of a car, drives

E55AMGGG
09-29-09, 01:08 PM
"He told me he raced a CTS-V and that he beat the V how I beat him which got me thinking."

This guy might well have raced a CTS-V, but was it a 2009 CTS-V? I could see validity to the claim if it was an earlier year. Not a 2009, though.

Definetly not the older version. We were talking about the new v and I get mixed comments. I don't believe for my life I will be 5 car lengths behind a cts-v to 150mph. I do believe on a roll the v will pull but not by too much. When it comes to the 55 kompressors if you don't find a healthy one it will not run to full potential. This is why I want to try out my amg vs the v. I will be modding my amg within the next month or so I would like to get some results before I do.

Torxila
09-29-09, 01:36 PM
Superchargers are always ON.


F

55K motors use a clutch actuated SC. They free wheel under no load and also disengage if heat soak occurs. So they are not always ON.

Same sytem is used on the Crossfire SRT6 etc.

GG:thumbsup:

Z06ified
09-29-09, 03:14 PM
2005 Mercedes E55 AMG: 1/4 mile 12.4@116mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0412_2005_bmw_m5_mercedes_benz_e55/specification_comparison.html

2009 Cadillac CTS-V: 1/4 mile 12.3@119mph

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0809_CTS-VvsXFR_compchart.pdf

These are the fastest test times of BOTH cars by major publications.

So, the bottom line is, the CTS-V is faster, but not by much. The trap speeds demonstrate the higher power level and torque of the V, which means the V's lead will increase past the quarter mile, and the speeds climb.

If a V lost to an E55, it would mean the V driver screwed up (even a little), or the E55 wasn't exactly stock (few are).

That's the end of that story.

gnxs
09-29-09, 04:08 PM
2005 Mercedes E55 AMG: 1/4 mile 12.4@116mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0412_2005_bmw_m5_mercedes_benz_e55/specification_comparison.html

2009 Cadillac CTS-V: 1/4 mile 12.3@119mph

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0809_CTS-VvsXFR_compchart.pdf

These are the fastest test times of BOTH cars by major publications.

So, the bottom line is, the CTS-V is faster, but not by much. The trap speeds demonstrate the higher power level and torque of the V, which means the V's lead will increase past the quarter mile, and the speeds climb.

If a V lost to an E55, it would mean the V driver screwed up (even a little), or the E55 wasn't exactly stock (few are).

That's the end of that story.
:thumbsup: Agreed.

I did notice though that earlier this year C&D tested an Auto CTS-V that was slightly quicker (although not faster) at 12.2 @ 119.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q2/2009_cadillac_cts-v_automatic-short_take_road_test

If the CTS-V's strengths vs an E55 lie mostly above 100 mph, I can see easily that ~2 car length 1/4 mile advantage reach ~5 lengths at 150 MPH.

Like you said, ultimately the cars are close enough in performance that small errors on either side could change the results, but driven with equal skill the V is the quicker/faster car.

Out of curiousity I checked dragtimes.com for stock vehicles and saw both an E55 and CTS-V both at 12.0x, but as expected there are still only a handful of entries for the new V. Of the 5-6 "V"'s listed though, the trap speeds were 3-5 mph higher on average. No doubt a qualified V pilot in good air could get easily get one in the 11's.

My $0.02.

SILVER-V
10-06-09, 08:01 PM
Its kinda hard to get a good launch with the V, it has too much power. I really haven't practiced much with the V but last time I ran it went 12.6@114mph. For reference I ran a E55 AMG with Nitto Invos and an upgraded pulley, intake and he ran about .2 tenths quicker than i did in the 1/8 mile. The V is an amazing car inside and out, you'll enjoy it. Again i haven't really driven any RWD at the track that much, as I'm used to my AWD Evo IX and its 2-step launch control, which kicks in low 1.7's 60' compared to the 2.0s and high 1.9s I get with the V.

mmmbacon
03-26-13, 12:02 AM
i raced my stock 2009 cts v against my buddy who has a 2001 e55 amg , we did a highway pull from 20 mph to 120 we were almost dead even . i just got the car and it is stick so im still learning the shift points but i feel like i started to pull top end .

LeeH
03-26-13, 05:25 AM
Somebody had to go pretty deep to resurrect this thread! :D

baabootoo
03-26-13, 11:15 AM
Yes, especially since the new twin-turbo E63 will slaughter us now.

Xaqtly
03-26-13, 11:59 AM
Funny this thread came up, I had an E55 testing me on the freeway the other day. I was pretty clearly faster though, I could pull away from him at will. Not like a freight train, but a steady pull. As far as the new E63 it'll absolutely be faster from a stop because of the AWD, we can't compete with that without drag slicks. But on the freeway? It'll probably be faster but I don't think by a huge amount. It's still real heavy, and the only real difference is that the base E63 has 550 HP now instead of 518, but the S version is almost identical, power-wise, to the outgoing E63 with the performance pack. Same torque and about 15 more HP. Curb weight is ~4350 lbs.

So I really don't think "slaughter" is applicable. Remember, 0-60 is a measurement of traction, not power. The V can easily do 3.6 when traction issues are taken out of the equation. It just means the E63 is able to put the power to the ground more effectively at low speeds.

Eswat
04-11-13, 10:49 PM
So what's the result of this race? Is it happened?
Just curious.

mmmbacon
04-11-13, 11:17 PM
i would love to compare cars my email is chefnyc82@yahoo.com

austin
04-12-13, 02:38 PM
My friends stock 2004 E55 AMG is wicked fast.. I have been in it plenty of times.. I have not raced him in my "V" yet.. His E55 has gobs of monstrous torque.. It would be a close one for sure. That car is no slouch. :)

neuronbob
04-13-13, 12:39 AM
I have much respect for the E55 and more respect for the new E63. Mercedes put together a monster with both. I'd love to see Cadillac step it up with the next gen V just to keep the luxury sport sedan HP war going for just a little longer, before peak oil forces us all into hybrids *ugh*.

Eswat
04-13-13, 01:29 AM
I have much respect for the E55 and more respect for the new E63. Mercedes put together a monster with both. I'd love to see Cadillac step it up with the next gen V just to keep the luxury sport sedan HP war going for just a little longer, before peak oil forces us all into hybrids *ugh*.

Here at my land, 1 liter 91 octane gas would cost you 1.1usd:ill:
But I still hate hybrids:annoyed:

mpouls1
04-13-13, 06:10 PM
My brother has an E55 AMG and we have played around a few times. Digs and rolls. I've posted on the 'other' forum so I won't go into details of the results. It seems Car and Driver are spot on...

JFJr
04-13-13, 06:51 PM
Hybrids are crude, stupid, more expensive and Rube Goldberg technology. It will take a quantum leap in technology to surpass the highly refined internal combustion engine. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells or other technologies are the future, but "feel good" technology won't hack it. Just like existing and planned rocket technology won't do much for space travel. Sorry to ramble off subject.

Jud

Stillborn
04-14-13, 06:41 PM
Hybrids are crude, stupid, more expensive and Rube Goldberg technology. It will take a quantum leap in technology to surpass the highly refined internal combustion engine. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells or other technologies are the future, but "feel good" technology won't hack it. Just like existing and planned rocket technology won't do much for space travel. Sorry to ramble off subject.

as long as your happy with the fact your info is for public consumption for the gen pop/sheeple. the IMC is easily 50-60yrs ahead of what the general public
knows about. we've been to mars (we have colonies there :research 'jump room') we have reverses engeneered e.t. spacecraft, and are now traveling faster than the speed of light (bending the time space fabric). keshe technology ( Iranian mag grav tech) renders all petroleum based modes of transportation obsolete. time will reveal all lies and truths. the truth cares not about your personal opinion as it stand alone all by itself for eternity. there is no money in free energy nor is there money in a healthy populace. connect the dots and you'll see the matrix (lies) for what it is...ever wonder why we are still living in 1890 as far as our energy resources? and for those who think oil/petroleum comes from decaying dinosours and is limited in it's abundance are dumb as dirt. petroleum is a natural byproduct of the earths inner core made from bacteria in a cyclical ever replenishing system (think earths blood). if your cheese slid off your cracker from this info it's time to step into the new paradigm of truth and leave the lies government (greek:govern=control. ment =mind.) spews for the beta-maxes(sheeple) of the world.

JFJr
04-14-13, 07:08 PM
as long as your happy with the fact your info is for public consumption for the gen pop/sheeple. the IMC is easily 50-60yrs ahead of what the general public
knows about. we've been to mars (we have colonies there :research 'jump room') we have reverses engeneered e.t. spacecraft, and are now traveling faster than the speed of light (bending the time space fabric). keshe technology ( Iranian mag grav tech) renders all petroleum based modes of transportation obsolete. time will reveal all lies and truths. the truth cares not about your personal opinion as it stand alone all by itself for eternity. there is no money in free energy nor is there money in a healthy populace. connect the dots and you'll see the matrix (lies) for what it is...ever wonder why we are still living in 1890 as far as our energy resources? and for those who think oil/petroleum comes from decaying dinosours and is limited in it's abundance are dumb as dirt. petroleum is a natural byproduct of the earths inner core made from bacteria in a cyclical ever replenishing system (think earths blood). if your cheese slid off your cracker from this info it's time to step into the new paradigm of truth and leave the lies government (greek:govern=control. ment =mind.) spews for the beta-maxes(sheeple) of the world.

WTF, Ha haaaaa? I rest my case.

RaVeNous
04-15-13, 12:46 AM
as long as your happy with the fact your info is for public consumption for the gen pop/sheeple. the IMC is easily 50-60yrs ahead of what the general public
knows about. we've been to mars (we have colonies there :research 'jump room') we have reverses engeneered e.t. spacecraft, and are now traveling faster than the speed of light (bending the time space fabric). keshe technology ( Iranian mag grav tech) renders all petroleum based modes of transportation obsolete. time will reveal all lies and truths. the truth cares not about your personal opinion as it stand alone all by itself for eternity. there is no money in free energy nor is there money in a healthy populace. connect the dots and you'll see the matrix (lies) for what it is...ever wonder why we are still living in 1890 as far as our energy resources? and for those who think oil/petroleum comes from decaying dinosours and is limited in it's abundance are dumb as dirt. petroleum is a natural byproduct of the earths inner core made from bacteria in a cyclical ever replenishing system (think earths blood). if your cheese slid off your cracker from this info it's time to step into the new paradigm of truth and leave the lies government (greek:govern=control. ment =mind.) spews for the beta-maxes(sheeple) of the world.


Ill try one of whatever this guy is on, but only one.

thebigjimsho
04-15-13, 10:15 AM
I just p00ped faster.

Purple87SS
04-15-13, 12:28 PM
CTS-V vs e55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEax8I7Ndfg

I have an Airaid and SW catback only, on Hankook Ventus 19" tires, my buddy's E55 is bone stock with 90+k miles on it.
I went 11.82@119 vs his 12.36 @113

Not saying his car was slow but there have been few 11 second stock Vs

Here the full time slip of that video above...
http://www.turbobuicks.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54153&d=1365349950

mpouls1
04-16-13, 12:31 AM
CTS-V vs e55

I have an Airaid and SW catback only, on Hankook Ventus 19" tires, my buddy's E55 is bone stock with 90+k miles on it.
I went 11.82@119 vs his 12.36 @113


Cool to see some head to head action. That 11.82 is a good run.

blaine321
05-02-13, 10:45 PM
A e55 is faster then a cls55 and its a known fact in mbworld. That was not a healthy e55 that you raced for sure.

OMG... BMW and Merc owners are the WORST losers on the PLANET!!! They just can't admit when their cars are beat. Reason #1 I enjoy embarrassing them on the street... and making fun of owners who take them in for repairs out of warranty. Priceless. 99% of them believe nothing on the Planet can outrun a BMW or Merc since they know next to nothing about cars. I had one owner who swore up and down his new 3 series could outrun my 700 rwhp C6 Z06. LOL. Then went on to state the BMW can out handle the Z06 because American cars can only go in a straight line.

The E55:

Zero to 60 mph 4.5 sec
Top speed (governor limited) 156 mph

The CTS V

0 - 60: 3.9
Top Speed: 175/191

setherman5000
05-03-13, 12:33 AM
as long as your happy with the fact your info is for public consumption for the gen pop/sheeple. the IMC is easily 50-60yrs ahead of what the general public
knows about. we've been to mars (we have colonies there :research 'jump room') we have reverses engeneered e.t. spacecraft, and are now traveling faster than the speed of light (bending the time space fabric). keshe technology ( Iranian mag grav tech) renders all petroleum based modes of transportation obsolete. time will reveal all lies and truths. the truth cares not about your personal opinion as it stand alone all by itself for eternity. there is no money in free energy nor is there money in a healthy populace. connect the dots and you'll see the matrix (lies) for what it is...ever wonder why we are still living in 1890 as far as our energy resources? and for those who think oil/petroleum comes from decaying dinosours and is limited in it's abundance are dumb as dirt. petroleum is a natural byproduct of the earths inner core made from bacteria in a cyclical ever replenishing system (think earths blood). if your cheese slid off your cracker from this info it's time to step into the new paradigm of truth and leave the lies government (greek:govern=control. ment =mind.) spews for the beta-maxes(sheeple) of the world.

I guess my cheese has slid. I thought this forum was for car lovers, not radicals who listen to too much talk radio.

Xaqtly
05-03-13, 12:29 PM
For the record, if anybody was wondering, I recently gathered some empirical data regarding the acceleration capabilities of a brand new 2013 BMW Alpina B7, with paper temp tags still on it, vs my V wagon... in Mexico. Anyway it turns out paying $130,000 for a BMW doesn't mean it's faster than a $70k CTS-V. In fact it isn't, and this may cause the new owner of said brand new BMW some distress, and possibly buyer's remorse.

If it had been closer that might have been different, but in the end there was a solid 20 car length gap. I could tell the driver had a nice gold watch as I passed him and proceeded to make him a small spot in my mirror though, so that was nice.

CTS-V Dragon Wagon
05-04-13, 06:52 AM
The CTS V

0 - 60: 3.9
Top Speed: 175/191

Was that 0-60 time done in with an automatic transmission, set in Sport mode? Also, can someone explain why the automatic only achieves a top speed of 175mph, vs. the manual's 191?

Trapspeed
05-04-13, 07:23 AM
Was that 0-60 time done in with an automatic transmission, set in Sport mode? Also, can someone explain why the automatic only achieves a top speed of 175mph, vs. the manual's 191?

I believe it's redline limited by gearing.

Thunder Gray STS
05-04-13, 10:07 AM
Was that 0-60 time done in with an automatic transmission, set in Sport mode? Also, can someone explain why the automatic only achieves a top speed of 175mph, vs. the manual's 191?

The auto won't shift into 6th.

shchow
05-04-13, 12:12 PM
Top speed in auto achieved in 5th gear do to gearing and limited to redline.
6th gear in auto dies out. Not sure if tranny will automatically downshift to 5 or not since I've never had the car above 145...