Close

    • Weistec Stage 2 supercharged daily driven C63 AMG goes 10.7@130 in the 1/4 mile

      Daily driven 10 second C63 AMG trapping at 130+ in the 1/4 mile? No problem. This C63 AMG is from Long Beach California and was driven up to the Famoso Drag strip. The owner just changed the rear tires and wheels to a drag setup and the result was 10.794 @ 130.23 miles per hour with a very nice 1.612 60 foot. He clearly is hooking up very well and has just about maximized what he can hit with his Stage II 2.3 liter twin screw.


      As a reminder, the Weistec Stage II supercharger consists of the components listed below and is good for an increase of over 144 wheel horsepower over stock. This car also has long tube headers.

      Weistec Stage II M156 supercharger Key Features:


      • 2.3L Twin-Screw Compressor Module Why Twin-Screw?
      • 1000hp Liquid to Air Intercooler Core
      • High Flow Cast Aluminum T6 Hardened Lower Manifold
      • High Flow Cast Aluminum T6 Hardened Throttle Body Inlet Y
      • 45mm Boost Bypass Assembly
      • Billet Aluminum Direct Drive Cradle System
      • Supercharger Serpentine Drive Belt
      • Hard Anodized Billet Aluminum Serpentine Idlers
      • Johnson CM30 30 Liter/Min Intercooler Water Pump
      • Intercooler Water Recovery Tank
      • Cross Flow Heat Exchanger
      • High Flow Fuel Rail System
      • Molded Silicone Couplers
      • Power-Steering Reservoir Relocation Assembly
      • Weistec Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger System ECU Reflash


      Time slip and photos below, density altitude was +291 at the time of the run.





      This article was originally published in forum thread: Weistec Stage 2 supercharged daily driven C63 AMG goes 10.7@130 in the 1/4 mile started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 161 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        I have a TON of respect for the OEM stock C63.
        But, I would simply buy a CTS-V with a OEM supercharger and bolt ons, and be faster, before I would do an aftermarket supercharger on a C63, and be slower.
        Then buy one.

        Why would you be faster with a CTS-V with bolt ons? You are going to push the stock blower which is a roots out of its efficiency range and generate too much heat just trying to keep up. Not to mention this is the 2.3 liter blower and not the 3.0 twin screw. On top of that, the M156 has the same displacement yet a higher redline and superior heads/valvetrain. The C63 is also lighter.

        I also have no idea why you brought this up as its irrelevant.

        Also, did you even notice that slip you posted is the same trap in negative DA? All that 20 years of experience coming into play? So... how is this car slower again exactly?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        I am hoping the next W205 C63 can duplicate these times with just a tune, and maybe bolt ons.
        If so, and it gets a DCT and AWD, I am in for one.
        I thought you said you would only get one if it had the M157 and the 4.0 would be too disappointing?
      1. TT C6's Avatar
        TT C6 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jacob502 Click here to enlarge
        Sorry but that has to be one of the dumbest posts I have read recently. I have seen NA Bolt-on C63's overtake CTS-V's many times here in Qatar.

        A supercharged C63 would humiliate any CTS-V with bolt ons on the street. I ran a couple of bolt on CTS-V's runnning on methanol with my supercharged SL63 and overtook them easily. @Sirex63 , also ran with a couple bolt on CTS-V's in the UAE with his supercharged C63 and did the same thing
        Slower you say? lol, really shows that you know nothing about both cars.
        Your post is exactly what I would have expected from Qatar.
        Enjoy spending our money while it lasts.
      1. TT C6's Avatar
        TT C6 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Then buy one.

        Why would you be faster with a CTS-V with bolt ons? You are going to push the stock blower which is a roots out of its efficiency range and generate too much heat just trying to keep up. Not to mention this is the 2.3 liter blower and not the 3.0 twin screw. On top of that, the M156 has the same displacement yet a higher redline and superior heads/valvetrain. The C63 is also lighter.

        I also have no idea why you brought this up as its irrelevant.

        Also, did you even notice that slip you posted is the same trap in negative DA? All that 20 years of experience coming into play? So... how is this car slower again exactly?



        I thought you said you would only get one if it had the M157 and the 4.0 would be too disappointing?
        Considering Atco is my home track, I'm obviously aware of the good air. Thanks.
        I posted that link because I'm familiar with that car.
        I'm not going to scour the internet for similar cars in similar DA.
        But, thanks for another one of your responses to my posts that are par for the course.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        Considering Atco is my home track, I'm obviously aware of the good air. Thanks.
        So a bolt on CTS-V traps the same on the East Coast in negative DA and you saying it is faster than a C63 with a 2.3 liter blower in positive California DA? How does this make any sense?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        But, thanks for another one of your responses to my posts that are par for the course.
        Well you've yet to impress me with your automotive knowledge.
      1. TT C6's Avatar
        TT C6 -
        I respect the hell out of the stock C63.
        130mph is fast for a steet car, and more than respectable.

        But, we all know the cost, complexity, and risk of adding FI to a NA car.
        Add to that the complexity of the AMG engine, and the cost of the C63.
        All of those factors considered, I would go with the CTS-V if I wanted FI.
        Although, the Caddy is a fat pig. That's what I asked what this C63 weighed after the addition of the blower.

        Stock Vs Stock, I'd take the C63 over the Caddy.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Well you've yet to impress me with your automotive knowledge.
        I'm crushed.
        I'll have to work on that.
      1. Jacob502's Avatar
        Jacob502 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        Your post is exactly what I would have expected from Qatar.
        Enjoy spending our money while it lasts.
        lol. Keep it technical buddy. Our money? Your from Qatar?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        I respect the hell out of the stock C63.
        130mph is fast for a steet car, and more than respectable.

        But, we all know the cost, complexity, and risk of adding FI to a NA car.
        Add to that the complexity of the AMG engine, and the cost of the C63.
        All of those factors considered, I would go with the CTS-V if I wanted FI.
        Although, the Caddy is a fat pig. That's what I asked what this C63 weighed after the addition of the blower.
        So I still don't understand your comment regarding the Caddy being faster when it isn't. How does what you stated make any sense?

        What about the risk of modifying any car? What is the risk of mild boost on a high VE motor? You can make more power with less heat/boost. Isn't that ultimately safer? Isn't that safer on pump gas? I think you're reaching now.
      1. TT C6's Avatar
        TT C6 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        So I still don't understand your comment regarding the Caddy being faster when it isn't. How does what you stated make any sense?

        What about the risk of modifying any car? What is the risk of mild boost on a high VE motor? You can make more power with less heat/boost. Isn't that ultimately safer? Isn't that safer on pump gas? I think you're reaching now.
        If you're looking for an argument, I'n not giving it to you today.

        Although, your reputation downvotes do make me feel Click here to enlarge..... I have to go grab a tissue.
      1. bigb00st's Avatar
        bigb00st -
        Good times for the C.
      1. 0-60Motorsports's Avatar
        0-60Motorsports -
        Great Results for the Owner of the C63 and WEISTEC. Congrats guy.
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jacob502 Click here to enlarge
        I never said that car couldn't elapse that time without race gas! Only stating what it had, as it WAS on race gas.

        In addition, your car was running A different setup than the setup on the car above. You had race ported heads, and higher boost on your 2.3L. In addition, I recall you had a RACE tune. I remember you were making 664 whp and Jim was making 660. I also recall you ran a 10.8-10.9. So you can't compare your car with the one above as your car was more powerful during that period, and still is :-)
        higher boost? race tune? 10.8 times? all wrong.
      1. Jacob502's Avatar
        Jacob502 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        higher boost? race tune? 10.8 times? all wrong.
        Oh really? Ok Mr. Right

        Isnt this what you ran in Vegas with Jim side by side?

        @0:21s shows you had the following:

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=AN5dWR_ujU8
        -CNC ported Heads
        - Weistec Stage 2 SC
        - 100 octane Race gas
        - ice tank box
        - 16 inch slicks



        you ran a 10.86 on a +5000 DA In Vegas. Your car was making 664whp. So again, don't compare your car with the one above as you were making much more whp. In addition, your boost during that period was around 14psi which is higher than the C63 above which is around 8psi

        where did you run 10.7 on your 2.3L on pump gas? Even if you did, you car was more powerful than the C63 above.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TT C6 Click here to enlarge
        If you're looking for an argument, I'n not giving it to you today.

        Although, your reputation downvotes do make me feel Click here to enlarge..... I have to go grab a tissue.
        Those weren't from me. If they were from me you wouldn't be posting.

        I'm not looking for an argument I'm looking for a logical explanation.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        higher boost? race tune? 10.8 times? all wrong.
        You were running higher boost and race gas though? Maybe you mean not on a particular run? I remember you running race gas...
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        That was the first time racing the car. I was running stage 2 boost and was using 100 octane fuel.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        That was the first time racing the car. I was running stage 2 boost and was using 100 octane fuel.
        I remember I was there. I don't know what pulley was run but I believe you: http://www.benzboost.com/content.php?1589-Two-Weistec-supercharged-CLK63-s-go-to-Vegas-in-100-degree-temps-and-come-back-with-a-pair-of-10-s-in-5000-density-altitude
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jacob502 Click here to enlarge
        Oh really? Ok Mr. Right

        Isnt this what you ran in Vegas with Jim side by side?

        @0:21s shows you had the following:

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=AN5dWR_ujU8
        -CNC ported Heads
        - Weistec Stage 2 SC
        - 100 octane Race gas
        - ice tank box
        - 16 inch slicks



        you ran a 10.86 on a +5000 DA In Vegas. Your car was making 664whp. So again, don't compare your car with the one above as you were making much more whp. In addition, your boost during that period was around 14psi which is higher than the C63 above which is around 8psi

        where did you run 10.7 on your 2.3L on pump gas? Even if you did, you car was more powerful than the C63 above.
        Mr. Right? Don't be so ignorant.

        1. Show me where I was running higher boost?
        2. I will find the vid showing the 10.7...I didn't get the slip.
        3. Why do you think I had a race tune in?
        4. As you can buy 100 Octane fuel at the pump in Vegas I fail how to see that is race fuel.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        4. As you can buy 100 Octane fuel at the pump in Vegas I fail how to see that is race fuel.
        You're intelligent enough to know this is a technicality. 100 octane is considered race gas and 93 octane and 91 are pump gas as that is what cars for sale are designed to run on.

        I know of a pump close to me that has C16. Are we really going to call that pump gas simply because it is pumped?
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You're intelligent enough to know this is a technicality. 100 octane is considered race gas and 93 octane and 91 are pump gas as that is what cars for sale are designed to run on.

        I know of a pump close to me that has C16. Are we really going to call that pump gas simply because it is pumped?
        My point was and continues to be that we did it without MS109 so there is every reason to believe the C could also do it without 109...nothing more, nothing less.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        My point was and continues to be that we did it without MS109 so there is every reason to believe the C could also do it without 109...nothing more, nothing less.
        I strongly agree on that point. Especially considering it was not tuned for MS109. I also believe it would be much easier for the 3.0 liter to do.