So we dyno-tested the 2011 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG, the first AMG car that we've had in our care sporting the company's new 5.5-liter biturbo V8.
Yeah, uh, can you say "torque"?
There's a certain upside to the world's ever-increasing scrutiny of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions: turbos.
Mercedes-Benz' AMG division has relied on normal aspiration in recent years, its 6.2-liter V8 playing the role of workhorse for virtually every model in their range including the silly R63 and ML63 SUV things.
That engine is gradually being phased out in favor of a direct-injected, twin-turbo 5.5-liter V8 that stirs up 536 horsepower and 590 lb-ft of torque. Not only does the turbo engine -- called M157 -- belt out more grunt than the erstwhile aspro mill, it's also more fuel-efficient.
And if that's not enough for you, there's an optional AMG Performance Package that ups the boost to 15.6 psi for a stonking 563 horsepower and 664 lb-ft of torque. The Performance Package functionally is nothing more than different calibration that gets uploaded at the factory. It's a $7,300 option that's equipped on our S63 test car. So, yes, AMG knows how to make money.
It also knows how to make torque. To wit:
Holy slab-o'-torque! This thing just serves the stuff up as if it mistook the Stanley Cup for a ladle. Torque hovers around 600 lb-ft from 2600 to 4600 rpm before progressively ramping down to 426 lb-ft at the 6300-rpm fuel cut. This is no fluke run, either, as the car just kept making more and more power before stabilizing at this output. Power peaks at 537 horsepower at the wheels. Strong? You betcha.
Due to the dollop of boost, there's less of a need to rely on revs to make power, so the new engine checks out several hundred rpm sooner than the 6.2-liter engine. Some will miss the delicious sound of that engine, but this turbo engine is surprisingly vocal in its own right, with an unexpected basso profundo to its exhaust note.
The bare numbers don't convey just how much stronger the turbo engine is than the outgoing 6.2.
Here, this is how the S63 stacks up to the SLS we dyno-tested last year, which boasts the M159 engine, the highest-output version of the normally aspirated 6.2-liter V8. It's a straight-up ass-whooping.
Still miss the 6.2? Yeah, okay, I do too, in a way. It's a helluva engine.
Geeky tech note: Chassis dyno plots of turbo engines rarely match the shape of those published by automakers. In the latter case, you see these perfectly flat tabletop torque plateaus that appear drawn with a ruler, and the plateau usually starts at a lower engine speed than what you see on a chassis dyno plot.
One big reason for this is that the automakers use engine dynos. These load the engine much differently than do chassis dynos.
On an engine dyno the operator can load the engine at very low engine speeds for as long as he/she likes, which gives the turbos all the time necessary to reach the speed they "want" to reach for that condition. Engineers call this "quasi-steady" operation.
Inertia chassis dynos -- like the Dynojet 248 we use here -- don't have load-holding capability. The engine speed during a pull is continually changing in real time, and the turbos have to play catch-up to the accelerating engine. And the shorter the gear, the more pronounced this catch-up effect.
To demonstrate this effect I performed a single pull in fifth gear after doing all of the other runs in fourth.
Again, when in a higher gear, the load on the engine is prolonged, and so the turbos spool up sooner (with respect to engine speed), resulting in more torque at lower engine speed. This is expected, and this is why you see the torque crossing 600 lb-ft about 400 rpm sooner in fifth gear (blue) than in fourth (red).
The jump in peak torque to 644 lb-ft in fifth gear -- up from 611 lb-ft in fourth -- is more of a surprise. A welcome one, I'd say.
--Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
ptcdawg says:
09:00 PM, 05/ 9/11
Wow....strong...
louiswei says:
09:06 PM, 05/ 9/11
Is that the flat silver paint? Saw that paint on an E-class coupe at the LA Auto Show and it was STUNNING!
mercedesfan says:
09:39 PM, 05/ 9/11
I drove an S63 back in 2006 when I bought my S550 and was blown away by the power that thing put to the ground. I can't even imagine how this thing would feel. Guess I'll have to find out. :)
andrewss60r says:
09:47 PM, 05/ 9/11
I bet this thing will idle its way up I70 to the Eisenhower tunnel at 1700 RPM in 7th gear. Amazing.
In fact, I bet this beast will go up ANY grade in the US at 1700 RPM.
Edmunds, please do a test like this. Take this beast up and see if this thing ever downshifts. Also, pass other people going uphill in top gear. Yea, just for kicks.
90in55 says:
09:58 PM, 05/ 9/11
Great car if you happen to live near the Nurburgring. Still, I'd have to wonder how long this horsepower race will last. It surpassed the realm of the ridiculous a long time ago. I wish auto makers would turn their attention to weight-saving technologies.
dgmail says:
10:33 PM, 05/ 9/11
For a $135,000+ any chump can make a car have 500hp at the wheels.
Not impressed.
altimadude05 says:
11:02 PM, 05/ 9/11
"For a $135,000+ any chump can make a car have 500hp at the wheels.
Not impressed."
Not many chumps can make a Civic engine put out 600 Bruce-Lee-kicks-to-your-chest.
When's the next lottery?
pengwin says:
11:39 PM, 05/ 9/11
why isnt thee a video.....
pengwin says:
11:39 PM, 05/ 9/11
why isnt there a video.....
omairkhanzada says:
11:49 PM, 05/ 9/11
In any S class, torque is where it's at! They don't rev much, heck my W220 redlines at 6000 RPM. I'd love to drive this thing! I'm sure with that AMG performance software, the S63 keeps up to the S65. Remember off the line these things are very traction limited because IIRC they only come with 275 series tires so don't expect quarter mile times to be that off. If I was paying MSRP for this car, I'd get the S63 for sure. You can option it with all the same packages as the S65 besides the expensive analog clock and still come out being 45k ahead.
lostboyz says:
04:04 AM, 05/10/11
That is impressive but completely useless power, and unfortunately nobody who owns these has ever pushed the throttle passed 10%.
can they at least fix their numbering scheme?
jlh3 says:
05:18 AM, 05/10/11
@Lostboyz
I think some of the guys over a MBworld.org can prove you wrong when it comes to that statement.
roscoe108 says:
05:33 AM, 05/10/11
@90in55:
I agree with you completely. Sure, it's a ton of fun to see the horsepower wars rage on, but seriously, enough is enough. It's like those makers of digital cameras who are pumping out 20+ megapixel shooters, even though the human eye cannot physically perceive any resolution greater than 12 megapixels or so. It all seems to be about bragging rights among the automakers too; companies like M-B are making cars solely to outshine other brands, not to appease consumer demand. A car like the S63 would be as much or more fun to drive with 100 fewer horsepower and 750fewer pounds to haul around.
ziggerman says:
05:40 AM, 05/10/11
@lostboyz: I suggest you drive a high-torque car daily for a year and then let's see what you think. I can tell you from experience, it is VERY usable. Passing power, avoidance, lane slotting, on-ramps...everything gets so much easier. I'm not talking about breaking speed limits. I'm talking about effortless, instantaneous adjustment of speed within the limits based on traffic conditions.
Driving a <300 TQ car afterwards will make you feel nervous and less safe.
lostboyz says:
06:14 AM, 05/10/11
ziggerman, if you feel inadequate with less than 300ftlbs of torque, you shouldn't be driving. I know the difference and its a wonderful feeling but its utterly useless.
audisport says:
06:28 AM, 05/10/11
That torque "curve" almost puts a tear in my eye.
Forced induction FTW.
altimadude05 says:
06:50 AM, 05/10/11
"Driving a <300 TQ car afterwards will make you feel nervous and less safe."
Must be nice.
louiswei says:
07:22 AM, 05/10/11
"Driving a <300 TQ car afterwards will make you feel nervous and less safe."
Regardless of the weight?
kosmo69 says:
07:32 AM, 05/10/11
BMW are you listening?!!!! We want an M7!!!!
bodyblue says:
08:05 AM, 05/10/11
"I wish auto makers would turn their attention to weight-saving technologies."
+1000
""Driving a <300 TQ car afterwards will make you feel nervous and less safe."
Only if you are the worlds worst driver.
brian_k says:
08:10 AM, 05/10/11
I have to agree with the comment about weight savings. My A8 has been down on power and displacement to the other Germans for the last few years but with only a small performance penalty. The all aluminum construction results in a large car that weighs less than the new BMW 550. Amazing. I can't believe that we have not seen more trickle down regarding light weight design and construction with aluminum, magnesium, even carbon fiber. (Though I just read a technical piece in IL about the new type of carbon finer being used by Lamborghini that is less labor intensive). I think the results speak for themselves- the 750 is slighty faster than the new A8 but it gets 21mpg highway vs A8 at 26-27mpg. I believe they even use the same transmission.
With the amount of tech and safety systems that we require on modern cars, the industry has to start to look at weight reduction as much as horsepower wars.
ziggerman says:
08:28 AM, 05/10/11
louiswei says: Regardless of the weight?
You are right, my comments apply to heavier vehicles only (>4000lbs).
@lostboyz, bodyblue: LOL, all I said is that there are cars with usable high torque and that it is wonderful. And you guys get your panties all twisted, calling me the worst driver and that I should not be driving. You are hilarious!
gloss says:
08:49 AM, 05/10/11
@roscoe108
"It's like those makers of digital cameras who are pumping out 20+ megapixel shooters, even though the human eye cannot physically perceive any resolution greater than 12 megapixels or so."
While I get what you're trying to say, this is an absurd statement. The reason you want as many megapixels as possible because it allows for a) more room cropping and b) more flexibility with print size. The human retina has nothing to do with it.
arumage says:
08:50 AM, 05/10/11
@brian_k:
Exactly! Reduction in weight could provide similar performance, while simultaneously requiring less horsepower/torque. With less power on tap and smaller displacements, gas mileage would go up without killing the performance. Unfortunately, the luxury markets are generally more about conspicuous consumption so more is better.
@jlh3:
I think lostboyz was generalizing a bit, but the boys over at MBworld.org constitute a very small portion of Mercedes owners.
626gt says:
08:59 AM, 05/10/11
Leaving all the discussions about numbers, engineering & power to weight discussions aside for a moment - credit to Mr. K for the following line:
'Holy slab-o'-torque! This thing just serves the stuff up as if it mistook the Stanley Cup for a ladle'
cause the only thing I'd want more than an S63 AMG in my garage, is the talent to earn the right to have the Cup in my house! (also cause if I had that talent I could probably buy the car as well!)
ed124c says:
09:36 AM, 05/10/11
I guess my life took a wrong turn somewhere along the way. (Actually, I know when it happened) Because I would need to sell my house to even remotely afford this car. Hmmm.... now that I have it in print, it doesn't sound all that bad. Gotta get the calculator out. Wait, wait-- I forgot, I don't buy Geman cars. I guess my car choices took a wrong turn somewhere along the way. (And I know when that happened also, Audi)
stingray454 says:
09:36 AM, 05/10/11
That is impressive torque. It is common with direct injected turbo engines however. Just about all direct injected turbos, regardless of their size, have similar torque curves (just their numbers are different). Direct injection and turbo goes together like peanut butter and jelly.
ptcdawg says:
10:09 AM, 05/10/11
Agreed about better ways to get performance that just putting on turbos. Weight reduction needs to be the next step..economy would improve, we would burn less gas.....etc..lots of benefits.
trollson says:
11:36 AM, 05/10/11
"Is that the flat silver paint? Saw that paint on an E-class coupe at the LA Auto Show and it was STUNNING!"
Are you kidding? That looks like primer. But maybe you're into that sort of thing.
chavis10 says:
11:39 AM, 05/10/11
Love this car and StingRay hit the nail on the head as far as DI/turbos. DI enables much high compression ratios for turbos so you automatically see improvement in power versus an old port injected turbo. I'm pretty mad that AMG charges $7k plus for what is essentially a computer re-flash. Does the Peformance Pack include any addtional hardware besides a recalibrated ECU that makes more power and raises the speed governer?
I know the S-Class is old but i'd still take this over any 7 series or A8 and especially the hideous XJ.
coolb944 says:
12:34 PM, 05/10/11
@dgmail
You could make a lot of cars have 500 whp for a lot less than $135,000+. Luckily, all that money is not JUST buying you horsepower. It also buys you the car the horsepower is encapsulated in, and this happens to be one incredibly luxurious, fully loaded, and meticulously put together and engineered vehicle. Sure, you can pour the money into getting the horsepower from a much cheaper car for less money, but you wouldn't get the seamless, completely integrated experience of ultra luxury and performance that this S-Class offers. Maybe luxury seems absolutely pointless to you, but for those who want it, this car gives it to them in spades.
On the topic of less weight, etc., this is Mercedes-Benz we're talking about. If you've seen anything from this company, it's "ladle on the tech and luxury, but keep it traditional." Their customer base is not as concerned with consumption or high tech materials as they are with solid luxury they can count on as well as any and all luxury amenities currently available. Mercedes has that tradition to uphold, and they're not the type to veer too far off unless government regulations mandate it, hence the switch to turbo engines for improved consumption. However, because emissions and consumption regulations are getting stricter, you can bet the next generation of the lineup will show some sort of weight saving efforts to help improve these. But again, it's not because they want to, or rather their customer wants them to, it's because the law is dictating it.
tempesting says:
03:08 PM, 05/10/11
dgmail is the worst troll here
desmolicious says:
04:03 PM, 05/10/11
Edmunds
Can you please dyno the Fiat 500 and overlay the graphs with that from this S63.
Just so we know how they compare.'
'
Thank you.
chuckdaly says:
04:11 PM, 05/10/11
Who's BMW 2002 is in the background?
patengineer says:
12:31 PM, 05/11/11
The Bentley Mulsanne actually put out better torque numbers.
Its ridiculously low redline however prevented it from being this in HP.
calspecial68 says:
09:36 AM, 05/12/11
Absolutely stunning car. I wager it goes as good as it looks. The '04 S430 I own can keep up with a lot of these "performance" cars on the road, so this will undoubtedly smoke 'em. If I got my hands on one of these, I'd do all the dieting at home. It would be nice if the automakers lightened their cars up before we buy them though. Like everyone has said, better MPG, and better performance overall. Faster acceleration, easier braking, quicker handling. Win-win-win.
ayabe says:
01:45 PM, 05/12/11
S-class is a large car, filled with sound deadening, safety, and luxury features you can only make it so light without making it even more expensive. I'm sure there's plenty of aluminum used throughout but no carbon fiber monocoque, sorry kids, it's not a track machine.
There is no such thing as a "make it lighter by 1000lbs" button in the real world.
zackd44 says:
04:34 AM, 05/13/11
Can u dyno a 2011 civic si vs 2012 civic si?
wjtinatl says:
07:14 AM, 05/16/11
WOW. If M-B history is any barometer, when this motor finds it's way into the lighter E class, look out M5. Although BMW has begun worship at the alter of torque as well, their twin-turbo V8 is a similar delight. Ford states a new "halo" car is in the works to replace the GT. May I suggest a luxury 4-door coupe (suicide door T-bird?) with a supercharged 5.0 to provide some domestic parity?
cb_racer says:
11:42 AM, 05/17/11
I wouldn't mind commuting with it.
kyolml says:
07:45 PM, 05/25/11
How is the horse power and torque measured? 5th gear has more torque than 4th? 5th gear should have lower torque because the transmission ratio reduces the torque at the wheels, but it spin faster so the horsepower should be the same. What is the factor for the torque??