When we strapped the 2011 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG to the dyno we were, well, impressed. Extremely impressed.
It's not that we expected the 5.5-liter twin-turbo V8 to do poorly, especially not when equipped with the performance pack that ups the boost to 15.6 psi and the power to 563 horsepower and torque to 664 pound-feet. It's just that, well, the sound and fury of the 6.2-liter naturally aspirated V8 is still burned into our collective brain.
But when the rollers stopped rolling and the numbers flashed -- 537 horsepower and 611 torque at the rear wheels -- we giggled a bit and forgot about that cute little 6.2 and its lightning-quick responses and primal wail. Alright, not totally...
So we know how well the 2011 S63 does on the dyno, but how does it do when the wheels are on the ground at our test facility? Follow the jump to find out what $167,385 worth of super-sedan does to the track.
Vehicle: 2011 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
Date Tested: 4-26-2011
Driver: Mike Monticello
Specifications:
Drive Type: Front-engine, rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Seven-speed automatic with paddle shifters
Displacement (cc): 5,461cc
Redline (rpm): 6,250
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 563 horsepower @ 5,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 664 lb-ft @ 2,250-3,750
Steering System: Rack-and-pinion power steering
Suspension Type (front): Independent four-link, active suspension
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, active suspension
Tire Size (front): 275/35 ZR20
Tire Size (rear): 275/35 ZR20
Tire Brand: Continental
Tire Model: Sport Contact 2
Tire Type: Summer performance
Wheel material (front/rear): Cast aluminum
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,941
Test Results:
Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.0 (2.2 with T/C on)
0-45 (sec): 3.2 (3.3 with T/C on)
0-60 (sec): 4.3 (4.5 with T/C on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.0 (4.2 with T/C on)
0-75 (sec): 6.2 (5.9 with T/C on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 12.3 @ 116.4 (12.5 @ 116.2 with T/C on)
Braking
30-0 (ft): 28
60-0 (ft): 111
Handling
Slalom (mph): 65.9 (63.2 with T/C on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.85 (0.84 with T/C on)
Sound
Db @ Idle: 46.6 (39.9 with engine stopped -- auto start/stop)
Db @ Full Throttle: 76.0
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 66.3
RPM @ 70: 2,000
Comments
Acceleration: 4.3 seconds to 60 is downright amazing for such a heavy car. Sport transmission mode is good for a couple extra tenths. Quickest launch was with ESC Off, going straight from brake to throttle, with barely a chirp from the tires. Power braking proved slower, as it seemed to upset the ESC system. Manual shifting via steering wheel paddles; will hold gears to rev limiter; blips throttle on downshifts.
Braking: Absolutely stonking good brakes here. Very short stopping distances considering the S63's weight; firm pedal, ultra secure and stable stops, and very consistent. Minimal nosedive.
Handling: Skid pad: Lots of understeer here, and very little front-end feel. It's obvious how well the Active Body Control system works because the difference in times between counterclockwise and clockwise was less than usual. Still, chassis not overly responsive. ESC On was quite intrusive, severely cutting throttle. Slalom: Still not a fan of Mercedes' ABC active suspension system, as it feels odd to have too little body roll; massively takes away from the car's feel. But it is a tribute to the ABC system that a car this long and heavy and with such slow steering can go around the cones as quickly as it does. The S63 is very controllable at its limits with ESC Off, power oversteering around the last cone. ESC On required super-smooth driving, or the system would dramatically cut power.
ddark13 says:
09:21 PM, 05/17/11
and what is the point of the v12 s65 again?
mercedesfan says:
09:23 PM, 05/17/11
Okay I really have to drive one of these now!
Also, 5900lbs?! And I thought my 550 was heavy. Seriously MB, it's time to go on a diet. The 4-5,000lb range is good for a full-size Benz, but when you start touching 6,000lbs it's time to start making weight a primary design consideration.
hc307 says:
09:28 PM, 05/17/11
I think the curb weight is a typo. Should be about 4900 lbs according to other sources.
cz_75 says:
09:28 PM, 05/17/11
"and what is the point of the v12 s65 again?"
Bragging rights. When you've got the money, then the minor differences become important if you don't really NEED any of these kind of cars to begin with.
lt1boy says:
09:50 PM, 05/17/11
Yes, the curb weight should be 4900 lbs. Just another one of Mr. Magoo Magrath's many informative and grammatical errors.
12.3 is damn impressive for a car this heavy. That's GT500 speed, even though the car weighs 1,000 lbs more.
kyolml says:
10:50 PM, 05/17/11
With these extra turbos, it ever getting closing the gap to S65, which means the S65 will probably getting something update as well soon, the S65 getting the SL65 Black's engine maybe
jsimzo says:
11:32 PM, 05/17/11
are you guys serious quibbling over 41lbs? i hope i'm not sensing sarcasm.
thaitanium15 says:
02:25 AM, 05/18/11
Wow, look at how composed it is in the slalom.
jlh3 says:
05:28 AM, 05/18/11
Wow, every time I see one of these big sedans go around the skid pad and slalom course with almost no body roll, it is impressive. It also sounds like they did a good job of maintaining the engine sound with the turbos.
frank908 says:
05:49 AM, 05/18/11
That thing looks ridiculous going around the cones. I miss the days of low and wide luxury sedans cars that actually sat close the street like in the 60's. I know that government mandates prevent cars from being designed like this anymore, but someone's got to figure something out. Sedans are starting to look like chopped SUV's now. Even the new CLS looks inflated now.
Those blingadeebling wheels look utterly retarded on that overgrown body and only heighten an already too tall silhouette.
The driving pilot looked like a child behind the wheel.
bodyblue says:
07:14 AM, 05/18/11
Still trying to get the point of this car.....
mercedesfan says:
08:03 AM, 05/18/11
Aha, thanks for updating the curb-weight Mike. 4900lbs isn't excessive for this class of vehicle, 5900lbs was ridiculous.
@bodyblue,
If you have to ask.... ;)
kevm14 says:
08:25 AM, 05/18/11
"12.3 is damn impressive for a car this heavy. That's GT500 speed, even though the car weighs 1,000 lbs more."
Well a more relevant comparison would be the 700lb lighter CTS-V. Same performance as that, too. Well, maybe not as good in the braking, skidpad and slalom but a larger, more luxurious car to be sure.
kosmo69 says:
08:28 AM, 05/18/11
275 tires on the FRONT? thats dam impressive.
jameswilliard says:
09:23 AM, 05/18/11
First of all, why is everyone talking about the naturally aspirated 6.2L AMG V8 like it was the greatest engine ever?? Several magazines have said the same thing about how greatly it will be missed. I have driven several CL63 and S63's with that engine and yeah it sounded ok, but it was a huge guzzler and it def lacked the kind of torque that made the previous supercharged 5.4L and the V12 bi-turbo engines so great. Secondly, please tell me that you didn't run the slalom and skid pad with the ABC system in its highest position(car looks like it is sitting awfully high)....i honestly don't think i could ever take you seriously again if you screwed up that big.
missmymiata says:
09:34 AM, 05/18/11
Wow... who put Mazda fenders on a Merc? Looks funny.
lmbvette says:
09:44 AM, 05/18/11
OK, first of all, this car is mighty impressive both performance-wise and and luxury-wise. With that said, my CTS-V is still faster and I get to spend the remaining 100k on a ZR1.
goober88 says:
10:12 AM, 05/18/11
Blah, blah, yes there are better performers out there, but they're not 17 feet long. This has massaging seats, and a back seat with more leg room than most first-class areas in domestic flights.
Love the sound! If a submarine had a sound this would be it. Try getting into a Corvette at 70 years old--it's impossible.
I am in love with the new matter paint finishes.
cr_driver says:
10:35 AM, 05/18/11
$170k for this perfomance?
Oh well, you really must want a big and heavy car after all.
Enjoy it then!
mercedesfan says:
11:30 AM, 05/18/11
@jameswilliard,
IL didn't screw up. That is simply how ABC works. To counteract roll the system raises the outside of the car to be level with the inside during a corner (in extreme cases even leaning into the corner). It's easier to counteract roll by pushing the outside edge of the vehicle up than trying to pull the inside edge down. This is particularly noticeable in the slalom with the series of fast transitions. Regardless, there would have been no way for them to test at the highest ride height because the car automatically lowers for increased stability above 50mph.
@cr_driver,
People don't buy an AMG-tuned S-Class for performance. They buy it for bragging rights. An E63, M5, or CTS-V are about as big as you can get and still have an honest sport sedan. Regardless of how you slice it, an S63 is a big car that can be a bit hard to manage on a twisting road. These were built to eat up highway miles at Autobahn speeds while coddling the occupants with the utmost luxury.
desmolicious says:
01:08 PM, 05/18/11
It would be very cool if IL could do a comparo test of this Benz vs the Alpina BMW 7 vs the Porsche Panamera Turbo S.
All about the same money. All about the same size.
bgsntth says:
01:26 PM, 05/18/11
Heck - throw the Cayenne Turbo in the mix as well. Seems about the same weight and equal or better performance. XJ L Supersport?
cb_racer says:
06:38 AM, 05/20/11
This looks like a really fun cruiser for the Autobahn.
bimmerjay says:
09:55 AM, 05/20/11
I absolutely love this car. I don't think I'd want it to be my only car since I'd also want something small and nimble, but I can't think of a better long-distance cruiser than this. Though if I could afford $160K of S-Class I'm guessing that's not all I'd have in the garage.