And I posted a link from Car & Driver, one of the top three US magazines, showing that two M3's were tested SLOWER than the C55 they tested. And this same magazine has tested the new CLK55, which is heavier than the C55 and has the same motor, driveline, and gearing, at 13.1, twice. As usual, since these don't conform to your preconceived notions, you ignore them in your response. But despite your protestations to the contrary, this is not a slam dunk.

And I love how you, as usual, simply ignore the part from Motor Trend which shows that the AMG cars are traction-limited. Here it is again: why don't you comment on this, since you are supposedly such a wizard on drag racing:

Read the following M3/CLK55 comparison test from Motor Trend
With nearly identical curb weights and horsepower, this pair runs comparable 0-60-mph times-5.02 sec for the M3 and 5.23 for the CLK55. The difference closes slightly at the end of the quarter mile, with the M3 recording a 13.63/103.76, while the CLK55 runs a respectable 13.74/104.44. MT test driver Chris Walton noted that the CLK55 produces lots of wheelspin off the line, while the M3 stays better hooked up. The CLK's five-speed automatic transmission performs nearly perfect shifts, thanks to the Touch Shift manumatic gear selector. However, Walton found it harder to drive the M3 once it gets rolling because it's easy to hit the 8000-rpm rev limiter on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts of the six-speed manual transmission. A possible solution is BMW's optional Sequential Manual Gearbox ($2400). Derived from BMW's F1 cars, the system uses a manual transmission, an automated clutch (no pedal to push), and steering-wheel-mounted shift paddles. Despite being down 114 lb-ft of torque, the M3 won our acceleration test by a hair, thanks to better traction and even more aggressive gearing.

Not convinced? Read the following M5/E55 comparison test from Motor Trend
These cars aren't quick. They're genuinely fast: The M5 blisters 0-60 mph in a 911-like 4.6 sec. The Mercedes stays in the fours by 0.01 of a second at 4.99. The BMW's approximately 4/10 advantage hangs on through the quarter mile (13.08 at 109.41 mph versus 13.46 at 106.71). The difference isn't so much the old saw about power losses with an automatic transmission as that the Mercedes was all too happy to just smoke 'em at the starting line. In spite of a clutch that takes some practice to be smooth with, Senior Road Test Editor Chris Walton actually found the M5 easier to launch.

It's not a case of the AMGs being overpowered: it's the all-important 60' time. The LSD in the M cars helps their 60' time.

I'd like to see the link before commenting. Do you have it?

I've seen that video, but another guy demonstrated that it's simple to mod a video such that the sign shows a different time (in fact, this was done on the bmw forum where matt resides to show him how easy it was). I personally seriously doubt that it's possible to beat the times the professional drivers for the mags get by 0.6-0.8. If I saw it in person, maybe, but this is highly suspect, video or no. Videos can be altered.

I also understand that he's on either his second or third transmission. So, if he's pumping his fronts up to 60psi, stripping all of the weight out of his car, has drag radials on the back, powershifts and abuses the hell out of his transmission (a safe bet, given that he's on his third or whatever), he could probably pick up some time...but whose car will still be standing when the warranty expires??

And if you go to that forum and examine his posts, there were a lot of *M3* drivers who doubted his claims.

Yes--in 54 degree temps. Car mags (at least in the US) altitude- and temperature-correct their tests to sea level and 75 degrees. Each ten degree drop is, as far as I recall, equivalent to a 10 hp increase, and you gain one tenth with each 10 hp. So, this comes out to a 13.2, believable if he gets a good launch (or at least more believable than a 12.7).

Also note that this guy was playing around with his tire pressures; the magazines test at factory recommended settings. IF you pump your fronts up to 50 psi, guess what?? Your times will decrease due to the lowered rolling resistance of the fronts. And the mags test with a full tank of gas; if one runs with 1/4 tank, the weight reduction can add another tenth, as each 100 pounds of weight added/subtracted adds/subtracts a tenth from your ET. So, if someone pumped up their C55's fronts to 50 psi, etc., I'd expect to see a similar reduction in times.

This is why mag tests are at least a decent yardstick: they're all done with a full tank of gas, with stock tire pressures, and are altitude/temperature corrected.

According to the Car & Driver test I cited that you absolutely ignored? A 13.3@108, faster than both of the six-speed M3's they have tested.

Definitely better than both six-speed M3's they've tested.

I never said it's not possible; I'm arguing your seeming contention that 1) the mags are always showing the C55 slower (proven false by the tests I posted); and 2) if the C55 goes down, it's solely due to driver error (proven false by the mag tests). AND because, at least in my case, I've run dozens of them, and have always consistently pulled them by 2-3 lengths, be it down low, up high, whereever.

There are production tolerances, though, and it's entirely conceivable that both you and I got "hot" cars from the factory. Each and every M3 and C55/CLK55 which leaves the factory will not produce exactly their rated horsepower. Some will have more, some will have less. Each and every M3 and C55/CLK55 which leaves the factory will not produce the same driveline losses, etc...this is why the magazines *always* give a "significant difference" figure; vehicles within this figure are statistically tied, meaning that the winner of a run between the two cannot be predicted with a high level of certainty.

 

Per Road & Track's horsepower calculation, you can get very accurate crank hp figures by using the following: hp = w*(spd/234)^3 , where

w = weight of car with driver
spd = trap speed.

The mags have been testing the M3 at 105-106. Average this out and plug in using the 3450 pound curb weight plus 180 pounds for driver/equipment, and you get:

hp = 3630*(105.5/234)^3 = 332.6 horsepower, spot on for rated 333.

Using M&M's claimed 108 mph trap speed (assuming he's a svelte 150 pounds), we have

hp = 3600*(108/234)^3 = 354 horsepower, 21 over rated horsepower.

As I pointed out: if he's being honest about this whole affair, it would seem that his car is a bit more powerful, or lighter, than the ones tested by the mags here.

 

M&M:
Are you planning on getting the new M3 when it comes out? Just curious, plus I wanted an excuse to be part of this thread. j/k

Nick

PS cntlaw, you're an instigator...look at this thread you started and then when it nears completion you go and through in "is the slk55 faster than the M3. hahaha, you crack me up. I know it's not your intention...just giving ya a hard time, or is it? :p Also, did anyone notice that the comparison pic of the benz looks to be a C32 not a C55?

 

Improviz, you are a sore loser & I feel sorry for you. "They rigged the video". FOR F*** SAKE!!!!!!!! There were only a few hundred people there. I guess his timeslips are fake too? And what about the other 500 videos of him doing 12.8's. I guess his 12.4 modd'd video is also rigged.

And your theory about his car being modd'd shows your stupidity. Trap speed is the telling factor. 106mph. Now he traps 112 with mods. 1.71 60ft is the reason he ran 12's stock with stock tyres & full weight.

BTW C&D got an M3 to do 13.1 1/4 mile:

 

those simple formulas don't work well enough!!! They are useless, theres more to peak hp and weight, and so your unlikely going to get anything realistic from them.

 

You were in Houston?? When?? Why didn't you PM me??? I set up this forum to email me with any PMs. I am in Houston almost every other weekend.

I have no PMs in my mailbox from you. Wimped out?? Yeah, ok.

Your mouth should be washed with soap because it's full of BS....

 

True. SLK55 is what MB think their fans should get it to beat M3.
If everyone thinks of M3 a sport car , that is what MB thinks
"let's beat it with a more sporty car"

i.e the SLK55 AMG is going to kill M3 V8 400/440 hp


p.s. The photo I posted is indeed a C55

one more!



"the big brothers are waiting for the M5!!"

 

The only person who thinks he's winning or losing here is you...and frankly, I think you're quite pathetic. What exactly is it that possesses a fully grown man to come to both this forum and the Audiworld B6 S4 forum, where you're currently posting the same drivel as you're posting here, and troll like this? What odd, bizarre sense of satisfaction is it that pathetic losers like you and Thai get in coming to forums other than your own car and stirring people up?

Didn't mommy and daddy give you enough attention as a child?? What a sad little pathetic man you must be. Pathetic.

But I'd like to gain some insight into this twisted mind of yours....so please, enlighten me: exactly have I 'lost', troll?

And also, enlighten me: what exactly is it that you feel that you gain by coming here and to the Audiworld B6 S4 forum and trolling? What bizarre sense of self-fulfillment does this give you? Some people love Internet ****, you love trolling and annoying people. Go figure...takes all kinds of losers, I guess, and between you, Thai, Gabri343, and Kain, we get more than our share of them!

I'm saying, flat out, that that car doesn't have sufficient traction, running stock tires and stock engine, to run a 1.7 60'. I've driven it, and it just isn't in it. With drag radials, possibly, but not on stock rubber. And no video, edited or not, shot from 300' away will prove that that car was STOCK, which is the claim being made here. If one can mod a Honda Civic to run 10's, one can certainly mod an M3 to run 12's. But I'm saying stock, no way.

And are you saying flat out that it's impossible to mod a digital video? So, you're just as stupid about digital technology as you are about cars, eh? Hardly a surprise...given your immature fascination with trolling, I would imagine that you scarcely have time for anything else. What an interesting childhood you must have had to turn out like this: day in, day out, going to forums for cars different than yours and producing repeated trolling posts that are the intellectual equivalent of "nyah na na nyha na". How proud your mother must be!

I would say that your believing that a stock M3 on stock tires is capable of pulling a 1.71 60' time is beyond stupid and well into moronic and idiotic. But that's about what I'd expect from a grown man with the mentality of a kid who just got his first bike, stuck cards in the spokes, and decided to ride around the neighborhood trying to impress the other kids.

The only person you're impressing here is yourself. My car cost $20K more than yours, dimwit: if I wanted an M3, I could have gotten one and saved some scratch. Could you have gotten mine? I doubt it...otherwise, you'd have gotten a 996, which has superior track numbers to your M3, right? Because you seem to care about little else other than track numbers...which begs the question: why did you compromise and get a sedan rather than a true sports car like a Porsche 911, given your fascination with track numbers?

IN fact, although I had absolutely no difficulty finding the ten instances of you doing it to which I linked to in this thread (in fact, there were plenty more, but I thought ten was sufficient to make the point), I don't see Porsche guys trolling here...only BMW guys seem to do this....why is that? Is the M3 the car for the attention-starved inadequate crowd? Perhaps that explains why I and the others here didn't get one.

 

Here's the post. I challenged you to come to Ennis and run, $100 a race. I also told you that Pocholin would be happy to race you in his E55, and he *lives* in Houston. You said you would when you got tires. I take it you never got tires, because you WIMPED OUT and didn't show, even after you said the following:

Too bad you wimped out and didn't show; I'm sure you'd have made some money, lol...which is of course why I challenged you: because I was confident that I would lose money to you, lol...

Talk smack from behind a keyboard all you like, but the post shows that when I offered to take you up on your empty boasts, you were too chicken to put your money where your mouth is...and now you've conveniently "sold" your car, so you conveniently can't show up and put your money where your mouth is, but that doesn't stop you from trolling about the damn thing, now does it?

Pathetic. What a sad little loser...wouldn't even show up and put up. All talk...chicken.

 

According to Road & Track, this calculation is accurate to within 5%. Look at the M5: rated at 400 hp, usually trapped 106-108 mph. Average this out to 107, and figure 4180 with equipment and driver, and you get:

Horsepower = 4180(107/234)^3 = 399 horsepower. Car rated at: 394.

Z06 'vette: 3150 pounds, 400 horsepower, traps 116 mph. With driver/equip: 3330 pounds. 3330(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Car rated at: 405.

It works pretty well..try it with the road test results in the back of Road & Track.

 

One of the reasons I did not get the M3 because I did not want to be one of them. I like the MB+AMG philosophy - why waste time to build a 3200cc AMG engine with 360hp while they could do it 2 times cheaper and 10 times quicker to deliver a 5500cc to their C-Class fans before their lives end.
The AMG engineers did a great job.

 

Improviz, you are dumb. HOw do you mod a car to do a 1.7 60ft & then only trap 106? Huh? What kind of mod is that? Some kind of superchip? Some magical induction system that stips working after 60ft? Special high lift cams that work for 1000rpm?

C'mon accept it. He's not the only guy that's running 12's with a stock M3. In his video (there are 6 of them with him running 12.7-12.9 stock), the video starts out with him warming his tyres. The camera zooms in. YOU CAN SEE THE TYRES. HE RAN STOCK CONTINENTALS.

Enlgishtown happens to have very sticky surface & he says he comes off the clutch at 5000rpm with minimal wheelspin.

 

5% is not terribly accurate!!!

So if the formula says a trap speed should be say 100mph it could be actually 97.5 to 102.5 mph thats alot of variation and not good for applying it for two cars that trap within a mph or two of each other.

To name a few simple reasons why it doesn't take into account grip, engine power curve, gearing, drag etc etc etc etc etc.

A simple formula could be developed for a particular car by doing several tests, in theory it can then be used for the same car after a mod or two provided nothing drastic is changed. It can't however to be used for cars with vastly different mechanicals etc. You'd be better of forgetting about R&T and its BS equations.

If only the world was so simple.

 

Reggid you are 100% right. The formula is a guidline. It can get thrown completely off if you have a 30moh tailwind. Or if the temp is very low. Or if the track has exceptional traction Or if ........

There's too many variables involved.

 

OK I'd like the opinion of some of you guys as to whether these videos are rigged:

Here's his bone stock run 12.71 @ 106.8 (with street tyres 1.8 60ft):

http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0004.mpg

Here's another stock run 12.72:

http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0002.mpg

Here's his 12.63 @ 106 run (power pulleys, stock tyres):

http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=705&p=4

Here's 12.52 @ 107.96 (5200rpm launch, pulleys, chip):

http://www.daftproductions.com/video...520_107.96.mpg

Here's his 12.49 @ 109 runs (chip, pulleys, intake, no passenger seat):

http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/leedrag1.mpg
http://www.daftproductions.com/video...497_109-30.mpg

Here's the car in its current state (changed diff) Note how the trap speed has gone up from his stock run:

http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-482.mpg

For those that don't know, the driver used to drag race Mustang's professionally & has been featured in a few mags.

But here's a different M3 with a Lee driving also running 12.807. WIth the owner driving, the car runs 13.1. The fact that he does a 1.81 60ft IN ANOTHER GUY'S CAR proves his car wasn't modd'd:

http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-807.mpg

So to recap here's his timeslip bone stock, which is the record for an M3:



So we are all well educated guys here. What is the conclusion?

 

Why would i want to race an E55?? What part of that statement made sense to you???

I would not race for money...but i would gladly take on a friendly challenged. As noted in the thread, i consider it a personal reward to beat another car...i don't need cash that badly. You're right...i traded in my M3 for a G500...but do you think that i did this JUST to avoid your sorry a$$??!! Grow up.

What dumb self-centered thinking is that???!!!! What are you, 2 years old?!! I expected this type of thinking from my 2-year old, but not from a grown man/woman!

Hey, why didn't you come down to Houston??? All that talk, and you never came down!!! Didn't you tell me that you were gonna be in Houston???? Hmmmm. So, anyone who doesn't come out to Pocholiin (where the hell is that?!) to meet your challenge is a wimp???? Again, how old are you??!!

Are you dumb for real or just a good pretender???!!

 

In this already heated thread, one could at least use the right pic or risk being shot down.....

 

Goosh ! I thought posters here were already blind :p At least you are still sober!

 

SLK55 is a great car. I dig it.

 

SLK55 Rules!!


It s going to kill 997 !!!

 

Plebian question: What does the "^" in the hp=w(trap speed/234)^3 formula signify? If my modded C32 is running 111 MPH trap speeds with my 240 lb. **** inside, how much hp is it generating? (my car has no sunroof, and I shaved 30 lbs off of the car by swapping out the battery, so my car is probably 100 lbs lighter than the average C32).

 

And the examples I showed you were spot on, i.e. the cars' measured trap speeds in scientifically controlled tests gave EXACTLY the cars' rated horsepower using the equation at which you're throwing rocks. If that's not good enough for you, waste someone else's time. You obviously don't understand math or physics.

Demonstrating that you don't even understand the meaning of "accuracy". The accuracy of the equation is measured at its OUTPUT, not at its INPUT. I assume you have enough intelligence to operate a calculator, yes?

Oh, really? You saw its derivation?? No, you didn't. These were factored in, over certain ranges. Most production cars have a small range of drag coefficients, Einstein. Obviously, the equation wouldn't work on a vehicle with a Cd of 1.00, but production cars don't have that large of a variation. So, it is possible to approximate using a certain range, which is exactly what was done to derive the equation.

The NHRA uses this equation. Many people use this equation. It was provided by Road & Track, but it was not derived by them.

...which is why, for the three examples I've shown so far on cars with vastly different mechanicals, IT WORKED PERFECTLY

You'd be better off not spouting off about physics when you obviously don't know anything about it.

 

It was a W210 E55, dummy. Which the mags also said your POS M3 could have beaten. Another chance for one of you magazine racers to put your money where your mouth is...on the street, not from behind a keyboard.

So, why didn't you take on the friendly challenge, then, wimp?? The thread I provided plainly showed you stating that you'd run me when you got new tires, but you didn't: you pussed out, and never showed. Another keyboard racer who doesn't have the ***** to actually put his money where his big fat mouth is.

Hey, YOU'RE the loser who constantly comes in here trolling about how great BMWs are and putting down Mercedes...and yet you (supposedly) own one. THAT is a helluvalot more immature than anything I've ever said or done in this forum. What kind of pathetic dweeb has to constantly insult others' cars to feel good about himself? What kind of loser are you? I've got you pictured as about 5'7, 140 pounds soaking wet, with coke bottle glasses and a pocket protector.

Hey, you're the wimply little coward who wouldn't meet up in his hallowed M3 and put his money where his big fat mouth was. You wouldn't run me here, and you wouldn't run Pocholin in Houston. You're nothing but a big puss with no credibility, a keyboard racer who didn't have the ***** to put his money where his mouth was where it counted--at the track.

Loser.

 

It means take a number times itself a certain number of times. So, for example, 3^2 = 3x3 = 9. 3^3 = 3x3x3 = 27.

I'd have to know its weight with you in it to run the numbers...have you weighed the car? Your weight can be approximated.

 

That car could hit a 1.7 with drag radials on a sticky track, possibly, but not with stock tires. And the video I saw had no zoom-in. Do you have one that does? IF so, link it.

Btw, I don't intend to waste too much more time on you, because as I demonstrated, you are an obvious troll. I will be reporting your pattern to the moderators, though, and sending them the links of your doing this in other forums. You are a pathetic dweeb who is not here for any other purpose than to incite flamefests, and I've got documented proof of your doing it for over three years in another forum....loser.