: Mercedes S65 AMG



Mystical_Ice
07-21-11, 01:35 AM
So i'll be honest, i didn't know anything about the S-65 AMG, and then a friend of mine traded his C6 Z06 in for one, as it's "just as quick".

Now i did some basic research, and seems the 2010 model year (that he has) is actually ridiculous in terms of power and torque. Granted, it has a twin turbo V-12, but it produces 602 HP, and (here's the ridiculous part) 738 lb-ft torque (!!!!).

I have the V, and so of course everyone thinks the mercedes will spank the V, but then i'm thinking, i don't hear about the S65 even being a CONTENDER in the whole "sedan wars - fastest sedan in the world", so maybe it's just too heavy to be a real contender?

What do you think? I have a very lightly modded (exhaust and airbox mod) 2009 CTS-V. He has a 2010 S65. In terms of acceleration (0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile), and in terms of handling, how does this monster of a car compare with the V?

laynrockers
07-21-11, 02:00 AM
IF your buddy has one put the two side by side on a sunday and see what happens !!

shade
07-21-11, 02:05 AM
while the numbers are good the car weighs 5035
Which means about 8.3 lbs per HP. It also rolls 20" tires and is a 5 speed transmission which doesnt help the acceleration stats
CTSV is about 8lbs per HP @ 4400 curb weight


That does necessarily mean its faster but the 2 cars are comparable

mannyz
07-21-11, 03:52 AM
That is one heave V you got there at 4400lbs.

1madstsv
07-21-11, 04:40 AM
What is a new s65 $215,000 I think that's why no one includes it. I had a 98 750il v12 n/a it weighed with me in it 4925. It ran the 1/4 14.2@104. My stock stsv only ran 13.0@106 with over 100hp more those v12 pull like freight trains up top. Ran a worked up cl65 with my 3100lbs vette that runs 11.7@120 and after 100 I had nothing for it. So I would like to see a ctsv and s65 that would be fun to watch.

amunderdog
07-21-11, 05:37 AM
Quick search says it should be a drivers race in the quarter mile. After that?
Mercedes S65 AMG = 1/4 mile = 12.4s
Cadillac CTS-V Runs 12.5-Second Quarter-Mile

M5eater
07-21-11, 08:43 AM
So i'll be honest, i didn't know anything about the S-65 AMG, and then a friend of mine traded his C6 Z06 in for one, as it's "just as quick".

Now i did some basic research, and seems the 2010 model year (that he has) is actually ridiculous in terms of power and torque. Granted, it has a twin turbo V-12, but it produces 602 HP, and (here's the ridiculous part) 738 lb-ft torque (!!!!).

I have the V, and so of course everyone thinks the mercedes will spank the V, but then i'm thinking, i don't hear about the S65 even being a CONTENDER in the whole "sedan wars - fastest sedan in the world", so maybe it's just too heavy to be a real contender?

What do you think? I have a very lightly modded (exhaust and airbox mod) 2009 CTS-V. He has a 2010 S65. In terms of acceleration (0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile), and in terms of handling, how does this monster of a car compare with the V?
I would guess it'll come down to the driver. Owner-reported 0-60 times are in the sub 4 second range, stock, and 0-100 times are inthe sub 9seconds range . I would imagine considering the refined nature of the car, acutally posting those numbers is much easier in the S65 than the V however. Chipped V12 biturbos churn over 740hp and 850ish torque(if he has done such), and it was publicized that it was the worlds most powerful production sedan, which it is, but nothing more... the S63 and BMW 760LI are bested by stuff like a Z4 and golf R32 on the top gear test track, and even though the S65 brings a lot more grunt, I don't see it making up another 8 seconds time to beat the the M5, or the V, as presumably it's a smige faster than the M5.

however..

I think, that my ego would not the least bit be hurt if a $209,000 car that's competing with Bently is a tiny bit faster than a $63K rag-muffin from the states.

Also, I'm sorry.., it may be as fast in a straight line... acutally, no, it's not, 0-60 yes, maybe, after that though the Z is leaving the S65 behind. Also, around any sort of corner, a Z06 is faster than a S65.. by a lot I'm not sure how you even make that sort of transistion or comparison.



I have the V, and so of course everyone thinks the mercedes will spank the V, but then i'm thinking, i don't hear about the S65 even being a CONTENDER in the whole "sedan wars - fastest sedan in the world", so maybe it's just too heavy to be a real contender?


that would be because, the S65 is a luxury Yaht with a jump suit and $100 training shoes. You're talking about two totally different demographs and platform expectations, aside of course from the fact that it simply wasen't the fastest sedan in the world, the most powerful yes, but not the fastest. .

shchow
07-21-11, 09:52 AM
Because of it's weight, the S65 is equivalent to Caddy in terms of speed.
Also, no one buys the S65 new. If you've haven't seen depreciation, go look up the prices on used S65s.
I believe you can pick them up well under 100k...

TMC CL65
07-21-11, 11:07 AM
I would say that stock for stock, the S65 and CTS-V are pretty close in performance. I am very familiar with the S65's 6.0L V12 Biturbo engine, as it was the same one that resided in my old CL65's engine bay. My stock CL65 dynoed 521rwhp on a Dynojet, bone stock (couldn't get a tach signal which is extremely difficult on these cars...so no torque figures). In the nasty DC summer humidity, my CL65 ran an 11.751 @ 118+mph on drag radials. With an ECU tune and drop-in BMC airfilters (and DRs), it put down 576rwhp and ran an 11.209 @ 123.7mph. So a tune makes a huge difference (as it does on all turbo cars).

My '05 CL65 weighed less than a '10 S65 by about 400lbs (4,655lbs vs 5,035lbs). Although I have seen some of the post '07 65's push out higher dyno numbers (usually in the 530-545rwhp range) even thought the engine is rated at the same hp and torque. The newer 65's have an ugraded Bosch motronic software, which may have helped the cause. I don't know of any '07-present S65 true drag strip times. Although the car magazines have tested it in the 12.4s range in the 1/4 mile. I am sure that number would go down in the right conditions.

Tom

Busabob
07-21-11, 11:56 AM
Any Bi-turbo AMG 65 is going to be a beast. I'd bet it would come off the line slower but on the top end those things are absolute beasts. I saw a video in Eastern Europe of an CL65 and a ZR1 going from a stop to top speed and the ZR1 pulled it by a car or two up to 100, then by 160-170 the CL65 was starting to walk it by a length or two. I was surprised to say the least, not sure what mods either had.

M5eater
07-21-11, 02:39 PM
Any Bi-turbo AMG 65 is going to be a beast. I'd bet it would come off the line slower but on the top end those things are absolute beasts. I saw a video in Eastern Europe of an CL65 and a ZR1 going from a stop to top speed and the ZR1 pulled it by a car or two up to 100, then by 160-170 the CL65 was starting to walk it by a length or two. I was surprised to say the least, not sure what mods either had.

That's surprising, because aernt' they still using the old 5speed autos?

Busabob
07-21-11, 06:42 PM
That's surprising, because aernt' they still using the old 5speed autos?

Ya know I'm not sure. The video was taken from the cockpit of the ZR1 and you could see his speedo going north of 170 and 65 inched past him to 2-3 lengths past. Like I said, not sure what mods, might have had a bunch of Renntech goodies or something on it.

M5eater
07-21-11, 07:16 PM
Ya know I'm not sure. The video was taken from the cockpit of the ZR1 and you could see his speedo going north of 170 and 65 inched past him to 2-3 lengths past. Like I said, not sure what mods, might have had a bunch of Renntech goodies or something on it.

the non-v12's use the 7speed and i'm pretty sure the bi-turbos use the 5speed as they're built more heavy duty.

Busabob
07-21-11, 08:28 PM
I found this on YouTube, this isn't the video I remember (because it was from inside the ZR1) but is IS the same ZR1 (I remember the gay neon tape work). Not sure if it is the same CL65 but as you can see the thing hauls booty even in the loss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlL9A9u-ERU&feature=fvst

googleberry
03-15-12, 01:55 PM
This is not intended in any way to discredit the CTS V, only to point out a few points. It's not really fair to compare the CTS V with the S65... A better comparison would be the E63 or even the C63 AMG, as they are "sporty" cars as opposed to luxury flagships. The CTS V would beat the S65 in a race, but that's not what Mercedes was going for when they produced this car. They were going for an ocean-liner complete with any and every luxury known to man that can also produce mind-boggling performance. There's a reason that the average age of S Class owners is somewhere around 10,000 years old lol. They want comfort, not sporty. While the S65 AMG kind of blurs this line, it still remains an S Class, a big, heavy car that's primary purpose is to display class and prestige. The Cadillac isn't built this way. It IS more of a sports car at heart, having a V8 as opposed to the buttery smooth V12, having sports exhaust with a beautiful parting piece. However, there's the point, the S65 will whisper, not shout. A simple search of a comparison of these two cars' standard options (as well as available options) will show that the comparison of performance really doesn't do the Merc justice. The CTS V is a fantastic car for the money, being less than a third of the cost of a bare-bones S65, however the levels of comfort and refinement in the Cadillac are not up to Mercedes' standards.

buddyg
03-15-12, 03:20 PM
Get a pulley and tune on your car and then run him. If he is stock you will beat him.

Speedtrapped
03-15-12, 03:25 PM
I have owned a v12 bi turbo, a 05' CL65 AMG(and even for a coupe I believed weighed over 5k lbs.) I had it flashed, thats it....the cars torque was insane, impossible to hook ....but as I shared earlier, and no disrespect to any MB owners, it was a fat pig in the turns....straight line highway passing, forget it it crushed a lot of cars, but driving aggressively with a heavy v12 in front, the understeer was horrendus......I always thought it drove on a cloud, never really gave good road feel at all.