First time taking C43 to drag strip
06-11-2014, 05:18 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
C43 Drag run US131 Motorsports Park - YouTube
here is a vid my buddy just sent me from that night, i THINK this was the fastest run, i remember my fastest trun came against this car that was running 11's so it was bittersweet, haha.
the car inst bogging, if i launch with any more revs it will spin too much. I have about 16 runs in the strip under my belt, 5-6 this night with the new tires.
i dont think this car is capable of uner 2.0second 60' times IMO. maybe with slicks and soft rear shock setup etc. the gearing in first i dont think will get it there. anything under 2.0 60' is pretty darn quick out of the gate. unless you are in a FWD honda or something you arent gonna get under 2.0 in the 60" and then not break 14.4 in the quarter.
awd subarus and lancers easily do sub 2.0 and high power musclecars, but they dont have the gearing issue, or if they do they have enough power to push through it.
everything that is being thrown out as being able to do 2.0 or under are all cars wtih at least 40 more hp/tq and at least 4/10ths faster in the overall 1/4 mile. so i dont see how anyone is expecting this car to run 14.4 with a sub 2.0 60 foot time considering how strong it is on the top end. if it was possible for this car to do 2,0 it would be able to go faster than 14.4 in the quarter.
not arguing just discussing.
here is a vid my buddy just sent me from that night, i THINK this was the fastest run, i remember my fastest trun came against this car that was running 11's so it was bittersweet, haha.
the car inst bogging, if i launch with any more revs it will spin too much. I have about 16 runs in the strip under my belt, 5-6 this night with the new tires.
i dont think this car is capable of uner 2.0second 60' times IMO. maybe with slicks and soft rear shock setup etc. the gearing in first i dont think will get it there. anything under 2.0 60' is pretty darn quick out of the gate. unless you are in a FWD honda or something you arent gonna get under 2.0 in the 60" and then not break 14.4 in the quarter.
awd subarus and lancers easily do sub 2.0 and high power musclecars, but they dont have the gearing issue, or if they do they have enough power to push through it.
everything that is being thrown out as being able to do 2.0 or under are all cars wtih at least 40 more hp/tq and at least 4/10ths faster in the overall 1/4 mile. so i dont see how anyone is expecting this car to run 14.4 with a sub 2.0 60 foot time considering how strong it is on the top end. if it was possible for this car to do 2,0 it would be able to go faster than 14.4 in the quarter.
not arguing just discussing.
Back in the day(a decade ago) when I had my stock SRT-4, I was able to run 14.1@98.xx on a 2.1 60', with another one of my SRT-4's with Solid Motor mounts I was able to cut a 2.0.
I think your car as it sits has low 14's in it, given the right launch.
When I was at the track with my CLK55 and my friend with his C55, he was running 14 flats and high 13's. 60' in the 2.2-2.4 range He stated the car could not get traction, then had me try.
1st try, I cut a 1.99 60' and ran 13.1@107.
Give it time, I am sure your 60's will drop. All this talk about drag racing, really makes me wan to start doing it again.
With all the cars I have, I have 100's of runs. Once I hit my goal of 12's in my CLK circa two years ago, I haven't been back. That needs to change.
06-12-2014, 10:29 AM
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
with the tires i should be able to hypothetically get a couple more tenths on the launch but that would put the best at 14.2 MAYBE
also i have the euro spec springs and bilstein sport shocks, so with the slightly stiffer suspension setup i may be giving back another tenth on the launch.
i have K&N's and removed secondary cats and resonators in the exhaust, so again hypothetically maybe im making that half tenth back there?? or a half MPH trap?
still not sure if 2.0 is attainable, maaaaybe 2.1, again i need to dig out those slips from the track to see how far i am off. if i can get 2.1 60" might also be able to hit 100 trap! also, i dont run race gas and 1/4 tank or remove the spare etc. i think i had a half tank of gas. but both times i went to the strip my weight was withing 5 lbs so that would make the times pretty comparable.
06-12-2014, 12:54 PM
#28
Super Member
06-12-2014, 01:08 PM
#29
Super Member
agreed, after the 2-3 shift the car pulls hard. but of course drag radials will greatly increase the times especially in a car with any real power. the car hooked up quite well, the 3-4/10th improvement was all due to the RE-11's, the weather was very similar to the first time i took the car out. its not like the stiff walls of the re-11's caused major spinouts at launch.
its just the way this car is geared that hurts it in the 1/4 i think. as discussed in many other threads here there is just really no excuse for a car with the power and weight that a C43 has runs that slow of a 1/4 mile time. shift times of the automatic probably account for 2/10ts vs great shifts in a manual or just a faster shifting auto, but then also the gearing i think has something to do with it as well, but im not an expert there.
its just the way this car is geared that hurts it in the 1/4 i think. as discussed in many other threads here there is just really no excuse for a car with the power and weight that a C43 has runs that slow of a 1/4 mile time. shift times of the automatic probably account for 2/10ts vs great shifts in a manual or just a faster shifting auto, but then also the gearing i think has something to do with it as well, but im not an expert there.
Look at Mustang Cobras of the same vintage, they had a similar motor, 305hp 4.6, low torque, in a much better dragstrip chassis and they run about the same time stock for stock, and that's with a manual trans.
It's not like that 43 is a power house. Times were very different in 1998, the C43 was fast then. Fast forward 15 years and you can't expect them to still be a fast car. Imagine a computer made in 1998, even the best fastest 1998 computer, my cellphone is faster than it. Think of a tv from 1998 compared to current. Look at the old classic muscle cars, even the top dog cars with big blocks, super fast for their time, but they are not fast in todays world if stock original.
The problem with the c43 is not the gearing, it's geared fine. The problem is that it has no torque. Put a 55 in and that will erase thoughts about poor gearing.
06-12-2014, 04:07 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
I think your expectations are out of line. 14.4 for 300hp in a 4 door sedan is not out of line.
Look at Mustang Cobras of the same vintage, they had a similar motor, 305hp 4.6, low torque, in a much better dragstrip chassis and they run about the same time stock for stock, and that's with a manual trans.
It's not like that 43 is a power house. Times were very different in 1998, the C43 was fast then. Fast forward 15 years and you can't expect them to still be a fast car. Imagine a computer made in 1998, even the best fastest 1998 computer, my cellphone is faster than it. Think of a tv from 1998 compared to current. Look at the old classic muscle cars, even the top dog cars with big blocks, super fast for their time, but they are not fast in todays world if stock original.
The problem with the c43 is not the gearing, it's geared fine. The problem is that it has no torque. Put a 55 in and that will erase thoughts about poor gearing.
Look at Mustang Cobras of the same vintage, they had a similar motor, 305hp 4.6, low torque, in a much better dragstrip chassis and they run about the same time stock for stock, and that's with a manual trans.
It's not like that 43 is a power house. Times were very different in 1998, the C43 was fast then. Fast forward 15 years and you can't expect them to still be a fast car. Imagine a computer made in 1998, even the best fastest 1998 computer, my cellphone is faster than it. Think of a tv from 1998 compared to current. Look at the old classic muscle cars, even the top dog cars with big blocks, super fast for their time, but they are not fast in todays world if stock original.
The problem with the c43 is not the gearing, it's geared fine. The problem is that it has no torque. Put a 55 in and that will erase thoughts about poor gearing.
My friend had one when it was fairly new, ran 13.8 stock. Then was running low 13's with just gears and a couple bolt ons (UDP, and EWP).
I still do think the C43 was quick for the time though.
06-12-2014, 06:35 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America
Posts: 2,339
Received 171 Likes
on
139 Posts
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
Nevermind that 68 factory hemi dart or barracuda could run 9's all day long.
But you're right about the C43 being pretty impressive for 1998. I was in high school then and 300-400 hp was a lot back then.
06-12-2014, 06:59 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
What is the launch strategy you use?
Ive heard stock c43s breaking into high 13s but its not easy...
Also how healthy is your car and did you make sure your transmission is fully reset and adapted to agresive shifting before you drag your car?
Dont you always wonder why most reviews state that 0-60 times for these cars are mid to high 6s and the 1/4 mile times are high 14s?
Thats a big gap there when compared to what these cars can do according to mercedes
These people cant be that bad at doing this....after all its their job...
Ive heard stock c43s breaking into high 13s but its not easy...
Also how healthy is your car and did you make sure your transmission is fully reset and adapted to agresive shifting before you drag your car?
Dont you always wonder why most reviews state that 0-60 times for these cars are mid to high 6s and the 1/4 mile times are high 14s?
Thats a big gap there when compared to what these cars can do according to mercedes
These people cant be that bad at doing this....after all its their job...
Last edited by PJmak; 06-12-2014 at 07:05 PM.
06-12-2014, 10:11 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America
Posts: 2,339
Received 171 Likes
on
139 Posts
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
Dont you always wonder why most reviews state that 0-60 times for these cars are mid to high 6s and the 1/4 mile times are high 14s?
Thats a big gap there when compared to what these cars can do according to mercedes
These people cant be that bad at doing this....after all its their job...
Thats a big gap there when compared to what these cars can do according to mercedes
These people cant be that bad at doing this....after all its their job...
06-13-2014, 11:23 AM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Only a few very valuable points of a second and they can be lost easilly when a tranny doesnt know when to shift, and honestly you wont know the downside of an adaptive tranny unles you drive a car with one for a long time
But unfortunately our cars are not fast of the line as it is but they are such enjoyable drive though. When the tranny shifts as it should the little v8 drives with no effort. This is what sets the 43 apart from the 36 even though they have identical performance stats. I spend every day driving my car, i dont live at the race track and the c43 makes every commute enjoyable
due to a pretty linear throttle response...
But unfortunately our cars are not fast of the line as it is but they are such enjoyable drive though. When the tranny shifts as it should the little v8 drives with no effort. This is what sets the 43 apart from the 36 even though they have identical performance stats. I spend every day driving my car, i dont live at the race track and the c43 makes every commute enjoyable
due to a pretty linear throttle response...
06-13-2014, 01:33 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America
Posts: 2,339
Received 171 Likes
on
139 Posts
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
Some kid in a riced Altima 2.5 was trying to get me to race him on the interstate from an 80mph dig 2 weeks ago. It literally took less than half-throttle and without gearing down to dust him. I could hear his fart-cannon exhaust screaming through the gears.
06-13-2014, 04:47 PM
#36
Senior Member
Thread Starter
ive never seen these cars quoted as 6.0+ sec 0-60. everything i cound from car and driver, automobile etc were between 5.6 and 5.9. mid to high 6'secs is not what this car runs.
Last edited by Dziner82; 06-13-2014 at 05:03 PM. Reason: wrong numbers
06-13-2014, 04:59 PM
#37
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I think your expectations are out of line. 14.4 for 300hp in a 4 door sedan is not out of line.
Look at Mustang Cobras of the same vintage, they had a similar motor, 305hp 4.6, low torque, in a much better dragstrip chassis and they run about the same time stock for stock, and that's with a manual trans.
It's not like that 43 is a power house. Times were very different in 1998, the C43 was fast then. Fast forward 15 years and you can't expect them to still be a fast car. Imagine a computer made in 1998, even the best fastest 1998 computer, my cellphone is faster than it. Think of a tv from 1998 compared to current. Look at the old classic muscle cars, even the top dog cars with big blocks, super fast for their time, but they are not fast in todays world if stock original.
The problem with the c43 is not the gearing, it's geared fine. The problem is that it has no torque. Put a 55 in and that will erase thoughts about poor gearing.
Look at Mustang Cobras of the same vintage, they had a similar motor, 305hp 4.6, low torque, in a much better dragstrip chassis and they run about the same time stock for stock, and that's with a manual trans.
It's not like that 43 is a power house. Times were very different in 1998, the C43 was fast then. Fast forward 15 years and you can't expect them to still be a fast car. Imagine a computer made in 1998, even the best fastest 1998 computer, my cellphone is faster than it. Think of a tv from 1998 compared to current. Look at the old classic muscle cars, even the top dog cars with big blocks, super fast for their time, but they are not fast in todays world if stock original.
The problem with the c43 is not the gearing, it's geared fine. The problem is that it has no torque. Put a 55 in and that will erase thoughts about poor gearing.
the M3 of that same year is a great example, or 1999 z28 camaro, 3400 lbs, easily can do mid 13's stock and only had 305 hp (yes it did have 320tq), many, many others with similar or less power similar weight but faster 1/4 mile times from the same time frame.
so i do still stick to my gearing argument. but yes as was pointed out this car outperforms those same cars if you are talking about a 40mph roll or "highway race". this is not due to magic its all in the gearing.
and yes of course if you have tall gearing throwing torque at it will help the car power through it faster, not sure what point you are trying to prove there in relation to the discussion.
the inverse of that would be to keep the same power and torque but have shorter gearing and the car would run faster 0-60 and faster quarter mile. which is basically what myself and others are saying.
06-13-2014, 06:46 PM
#40
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'97 c36
Very little love for the 36... guess it's just time to throw a tarp over it so nobody has to look at it. Spare the pain of being reminded that it ever existed... Put it on blocks and let the black berries and weeds have it's way with it. Let it be a home for the wasps and spiders for only the lowly insects have interest in the poor red headed ******* of an AMG.
Last edited by Super B; 06-14-2014 at 02:20 AM.
06-15-2014, 12:04 PM
#41
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Very little love for the 36... guess it's just time to throw a tarp over it so nobody has to look at it. Spare the pain of being reminded that it ever existed... Put it on blocks and let the black berries and weeds have it's way with it. Let it be a home for the wasps and spiders for only the lowly insects have interest in the poor red headed ******* of an AMG.
06-15-2014, 12:46 PM
#42
Super Member
if you think those cars ran 9's off the showroom floor, well you're very very wrong!! even most of the big block cars were lucky if they could crack a 13. with a few parts they were deeper in the 13s but that is not stock. i'm talking about back then, not about what they're doing today with the current technology. my buddies 440r/t charger 4 speed was low 13s with headers.
well i guess you say it's a gearing problem, i say it's a torque problem. if it was geared much lower it would become not a very good freeway car. they're already running 3,000 rpm at 80mph in overdrive.
in the end it is what it is. you could list off many things that would improve it's times. weight, hp, tq, gearing, more speeds, faster shifting, better aero, on and on. i just think the number one problem is torque. it's not like it's geared taller than most cars, quite the opposite, most mb cars are geared well taller.
im not saying that the car wasnt "fast for its time" im saying that other cars with less power, or the same power and more weight are faster than the C43 int the quarter. and not even newer cars with better technology.
the M3 of that same year is a great example, or 1999 z28 camaro, 3400 lbs, easily can do mid 13's stock and only had 305 hp (yes it did have 320tq), many, many others with similar or less power similar weight but faster 1/4 mile times from the same time frame.
so i do still stick to my gearing argument. but yes as was pointed out this car outperforms those same cars if you are talking about a 40mph roll or "highway race". this is not due to magic its all in the gearing.
and yes of course if you have tall gearing throwing torque at it will help the car power through it faster, not sure what point you are trying to prove there in relation to the discussion.
the inverse of that would be to keep the same power and torque but have shorter gearing and the car would run faster 0-60 and faster quarter mile. which is basically what myself and others are saying.
the M3 of that same year is a great example, or 1999 z28 camaro, 3400 lbs, easily can do mid 13's stock and only had 305 hp (yes it did have 320tq), many, many others with similar or less power similar weight but faster 1/4 mile times from the same time frame.
so i do still stick to my gearing argument. but yes as was pointed out this car outperforms those same cars if you are talking about a 40mph roll or "highway race". this is not due to magic its all in the gearing.
and yes of course if you have tall gearing throwing torque at it will help the car power through it faster, not sure what point you are trying to prove there in relation to the discussion.
the inverse of that would be to keep the same power and torque but have shorter gearing and the car would run faster 0-60 and faster quarter mile. which is basically what myself and others are saying.
in the end it is what it is. you could list off many things that would improve it's times. weight, hp, tq, gearing, more speeds, faster shifting, better aero, on and on. i just think the number one problem is torque. it's not like it's geared taller than most cars, quite the opposite, most mb cars are geared well taller.
06-15-2014, 09:43 PM
#44
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'97 c36
Because every c36 is equipped with AMG's special unicorn ferry package. The magic is contained inside the heater core box but comes into full effect when the ECM activates the camshaft transmission at around 3,700 rpm
06-16-2014, 09:26 AM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America
Posts: 2,339
Received 171 Likes
on
139 Posts
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
a pretty important point: the C36 weighs slightly more and has slightly less HP/TQ, but puts up virtually identical numbers. Food for thought...
06-16-2014, 09:39 AM
#46
Senior Member
Thread Starter
well i guess you say it's a gearing problem, i say it's a torque problem. if it was geared much lower it would become not a very good freeway car. they're already running 3,000 rpm at 80mph in overdrive.
in the end it is what it is. you could list off many things that would improve it's times. weight, hp, tq, gearing, more speeds, faster shifting, better aero, on and on. i just think the number one problem is torque. it's not like it's geared taller than most cars, quite the opposite, most mb cars are geared well taller.
in the end it is what it is. you could list off many things that would improve it's times. weight, hp, tq, gearing, more speeds, faster shifting, better aero, on and on. i just think the number one problem is torque. it's not like it's geared taller than most cars, quite the opposite, most mb cars are geared well taller.
the point about 3000rpm at 80mph is valid. i never understood that about this car. when you are cruising at 80mph the car is in 5th/overdrive right? but the car can hit a top speed of 156mph?!? that is the longest 5th gear ever!
paired with the long first gear is strange. 75mph is 2700 rpms or so... too high IMO.2-3-4 gears are perfect. 1 and 5 too long! haha.
37mph in first gear is nice for autocross, not having to shift much, but i used to have a camaro that was a 4 SPEED auto, the same 4 speed that they put in the z28 and the corvette at the time and i dont think first gear went up to 37mph....in a 4 speed! so 37 in a 5 speed is unnecessarily high.
Would i like more torque, sure!
again, going back to the original point, this car should be faster in the 1/4 given just its power/torque and weight numbers and not looking at anything else. But i think we all agree it was never meant to be a fast quarter mile car.
if its not a quarter mile car then i would expect it for not spin 3000rpm at 80mph with its "156 mph" top speed. oh well, not trying to be a hater, i love this car but only those who love it are allowed to criticize it right??
06-18-2014, 09:53 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America
Posts: 2,339
Received 171 Likes
on
139 Posts
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/privatel...c_class_98_00/
ugh. AMG's own website for AMG owners only even claims 6.3 0-60 for the C43, and that the C36 was powered by a V6. What feckless intern did they put in charge of this?
ugh. AMG's own website for AMG owners only even claims 6.3 0-60 for the C43, and that the C36 was powered by a V6. What feckless intern did they put in charge of this?
07-16-2014, 10:39 AM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
OK all!
I finally found the time slips from my 2nd trip to the strip, they were in the jacket pocket i wore that night, that i never wore again since it had warmed up... like finding that $5 bill in your winter jacket from last year!
so these were my fastest 2 times, and my times from the first trip are at the beginning of the thread.
my fastest 1/4 time had a slightly lower trap speed but slower 60' time by jut over a 1/10th, so interesting to put the times of the 2 runs together to try and estimate an ideal run time in this car.
also i think it was mentioned previously but i probably could have ran lower pressures in the rear, i think i may have been at like 28psi or something like that.
im #128 on the slips...
oh and lastly, the weight of the car with me in it on that day was 3555.
I finally found the time slips from my 2nd trip to the strip, they were in the jacket pocket i wore that night, that i never wore again since it had warmed up... like finding that $5 bill in your winter jacket from last year!
so these were my fastest 2 times, and my times from the first trip are at the beginning of the thread.
my fastest 1/4 time had a slightly lower trap speed but slower 60' time by jut over a 1/10th, so interesting to put the times of the 2 runs together to try and estimate an ideal run time in this car.
also i think it was mentioned previously but i probably could have ran lower pressures in the rear, i think i may have been at like 28psi or something like that.
im #128 on the slips...
oh and lastly, the weight of the car with me in it on that day was 3555.
