Actual performance - MBWorld.org Forums



AMG GT/GTS The GT/GT S is the second sports car developed entirely in-house by Mercedes-AMG. Its front mid-engine design with a rear transaxle, the use of aluminium lightweight construction and its newly developed AMG 4.0-liter V8 biturbo engine underscores the hallmark of AMG driving performance.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Actual performance

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
Old 03-19-2017, 10:32 PM   #1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
xcfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
Posts: 73
Drives: G63
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Actual performance

Has anybody done any real world testing with their GT/GTS? One thing that has always entertained me is 0-60. On MB website it shows 3.7 for the GTS and 3.9 for the GT. I feel that is a bit conservative. Furthermore, the GTR was stated to be 3.6, but the latest C/D review saw them post a 2.9 run. Curious what real world data has been gathered by real owners. Do you feel those numbers are spot on? Having driven both GT and GTS, I find it hard to believe a .2 difference to 60, especially if using race start in similar conditions. I cant honestly feel any difference. Any input would be great!
xcfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 10:55 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 79
Drives: 03 E55
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Ditto,thinking of getting one of these ,trying to find out if someone makes a bigger turbo also
RBM113K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 11:17 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Vic55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Orange County, California
Posts: 10,035
Drives: 2015 Lamborghini Huracan, 2016 AMG GTS, 2016 Porsche Turbo S, 2016 BMW M5, 2012 C63 BS
Thanked 51 Times in 48 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcfisher View Post
Has anybody done any real world testing with their GT/GTS? One thing that has always entertained me is 0-60. On MB website it shows 3.7 for the GTS and 3.9 for the GT. I feel that is a bit conservative. Furthermore, the GTR was stated to be 3.6, but the latest C/D review saw them post a 2.9 run. Curious what real world data has been gathered by real owners. Do you feel those numbers are spot on? Having driven both GT and GTS, I find it hard to believe a .2 difference to 60, especially if using race start in similar conditions. I cant honestly feel any difference. Any input would be great!
Ive seen Mags show anything from 3.1 to 3.4 and of course, those were all in controlled conditions with multiple launches. Because of the RWD and heavier tq down low (wheel spin), I can only guess that in the real world, the 3.7 number would be the delta due to conditions, reaction, wheel spin, etc. The only car that I know of that can just repeat a sub zero over and over (that is normally on the streets) is the Porsche Turbo and Turbo S.
Vic55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 12:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
slk55er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 358
Drives: '17 GLC300 Coupe, '16 GT S, '10 GLK350
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My CLS63 vs. my GT S...

I traded a '14 CLS63S with "577 HP" and AWD for a rear-drive '16 GT S with "503 HP." Both have a Race Start setting which I have used. I believe that the HP and 0 - 60 times published by MB are both conservative, but I am convinced that the CLS63, although heavier, was is in fact quicker 0 - 60, primarily because of the AWD on the CLS. Every Race Start that I have executed on the GT has suffered from some shuttering due to lack of traction and intervention of traction control at the rear axle.

On the CLS, MB claims quarter mile stats at 11.5 sec and 125 mph. I consistently turned 11.8 sec. at 118 mph at 3000 ft. elevation on a 100 degree F day, so I think the MB claims are realistic. Here is a post by Benzinsider.com 'Five Fastest MB cars of All Time" :

http://www.benzinsider.com/2015/07/f...s-of-all-time/

The '14 CLS63 is listed at 2nd for 0 - 60 time, tied at 3.2 sec. with the SLS GT3 Race Car!

Here is the link to Motor Trend's comparison test of a E63 (same engine as the CLS) and an M5 in which they measure 540 hp at the wheels and, accounting for the losses in the AWD, estimate the engine output at 636 hp:

https://mbworld.org/forums/w212-amg/...ad-2-head.html

I have not had the GT S on a race track yet (but I will later this year with the BMW club on a track in Colorado where I have made over 1600 laps over the past 30 years.) I have tracked the CLS (and many other vehicles at many tracks, including my SLK55 AMG - see photos below.) The CLS is very hard on front tires (partly my own fault, pushing too hard) and I'd expect the GT to be much more at home on a road course track because of the excellent weight balance front-to-rear.

But bottom line: MB numbers are conservative and if you or I go head-to-head on a straight line run with an E63 or CLS63, be prepared to be surprised if they have the S-package.



Attached Thumbnails
Actual performance-clsatmiller-copy.jpg   Actual performance-slktrackpost-copy.jpg  

Last edited by slk55er; 03-20-2017 at 02:24 PM. Reason: Add photos
slk55er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 07:28 PM   #5
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
emericr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,431
Drives: 2017 GT
Thanked 42 Times in 40 Posts
I think you forgot the Teslas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic55 View Post
Ive seen Mags show anything from 3.1 to 3.4 and of course, those were all in controlled conditions with multiple launches. Because of the RWD and heavier tq down low (wheel spin), I can only guess that in the real world, the 3.7 number would be the delta due to conditions, reaction, wheel spin, etc. The only car that I know of that can just repeat a sub zero over and over (that is normally on the streets) is the Porsche Turbo and Turbo S.
emericr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:01 PM   #6
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
emericr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Naples FL
Posts: 2,431
Drives: 2017 GT
Thanked 42 Times in 40 Posts
Some on this forum claim that the mags # are not exactly real and adjusted for conditions.
There are 2 cars on dragtimes that did 11.3X @ 125mph.
Motor trend has 11.6 @ 124mph, Motorweek 11.5 @ 126mph, Car and Driver 11.2 @ 127 mph and Road and Track 11.3 @ 125mph.
The 0-60 times is where it differs more as it ranges from 3.0 (C&D) to 3.5 (MW and MT). The RWD attribute of the car will make for more inconsistent numbers explaining the disparity for that metric.
My own conclusion is that MB's numbers seem to be pretty right on with the real world.
The documented time of GTS-JB show that he did an amazing job of cutting a 1.79 for 60' to achieve his 11.35. Not too many of us will be that good.
Interestingly enough he also documented his time with a tune and had a slightly slower time by 1 tenth because of traction issues but he was 5mph faster showing the car is making much more hp and tq.
emericr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 11:26 AM   #7
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
AMG 17GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,432
Drives: R Nine T
Thanked 43 Times in 42 Posts
Hopefully wider PS 4s will hook up better as well
AMG 17GT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 05:10 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 130
Drives: Designo White AMG GTS
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
RWD sucks for 0-60. Breaking news lol
kumizi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:38 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
MGonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 37
Drives: '16 AMG GTS, '14 CTS V, '15 GTR, '12 458, '05 DB9, '79 T/A Resto, '14 SRT8, '01 996TT, '00 360 etc
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just to add a little note. I consistently ran low 11.4's and and one high 11.2 in my GTS with a tune on a cool night in South Texas. It's all about the launch. I could never launch what I thought was a good launch in race mode, went to Sport + and ran basically the same times and speed. And yes, it is tuned. No doubt there is more hp and torque with tune but useless with poor traction. From a rolling start I can hang with a non tuned 991 Turbo S and even pull away but from a dead stop in the 1/4 mile I just run out of real estate.
MGonz540 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:44 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
MGonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 37
Drives: '16 AMG GTS, '14 CTS V, '15 GTR, '12 458, '05 DB9, '79 T/A Resto, '14 SRT8, '01 996TT, '00 360 etc
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One thing I forgot to mention was that I ran on stock wheels and tires. Actually horrible continental tires. Max speed 126. No down pipes. I am not really impressed when I see posts of other GTS's doing 10.9's on slicks etc. Way too much trouble for the difference in speed and times.
MGonz540 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:53 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 145
Drives: 2016 GTS, 2016 GLE, 2013 SLK55, 2015 GLA, 2015 GLK, 2014 E350, 2013 GLK
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Emericer quoted my times and they are absolutely real world. 0-60mph times dont mean much i think, i am much more interested in quarter mile times and speeds.

Stock, the magazines seemed spot on with the times and speeds I ran in my car. I went 125 stock and 130 tuned. Got a little slower time when tuned due to older tires and traction issues i to second gear. 130mph in the quarter is very quick. Huracan quick.

I did run a 1.79 60 foot time on stock tires, which I thought was great, proving that rwd does not in fact suck! The tesla i was racing had 4wd and a claimed 690 hp or something (P90D Ludicrous). It launch in the 1.6X range. It was fun to chase down the tesla with ease, but it was hard to beat that consistent electric beast to the line.

Dont worry about 0-60 times, thats heavily dependant on traction not power. You could just buy stickier tires. How does it feel when you stomp on the gas at 30mph? Strong!
JB C63S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 08:08 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
MGonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 37
Drives: '16 AMG GTS, '14 CTS V, '15 GTR, '12 458, '05 DB9, '79 T/A Resto, '14 SRT8, '01 996TT, '00 360 etc
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You are correct and holy smoke it feels great to step on it at 30. When I hit the pedal (not even all the way down) at 70+mph my traction control kicks in.... a lot. Pretty cool. I am in south Texas and the humidity is ugly which doesn't help track times. BTW, I did my best run in sport+, no launch mode. Just old school foot on the break and launching from just under 3k rpm'. No burn out's.... ever
MGonz540 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 10:51 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 130
Drives: Designo White AMG GTS
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Density Altitude also plays a huge factor in how fast you run. Whenever someone says "my car is so and so fast" the only things I want to know are trap speed and density altitude.

Drag Times has a DA calculator for every 1/4 mile track in the US last I checked.
kumizi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 12:12 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
MGonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 37
Drives: '16 AMG GTS, '14 CTS V, '15 GTR, '12 458, '05 DB9, '79 T/A Resto, '14 SRT8, '01 996TT, '00 360 etc
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Trudat kumizi. One more note. My traction/launch control scared the hell out of me on one run. I launched the car using the launch control and the car made a really ugly LOUD noise, CLANK kind of sound (unlike other clanking the traction control does) and the car completely shut down. The car simply went nowhere and lost ALL power for about 2-3 seconds. I thought I broke the car. SCARY MOMENT. It slowly gained RPM's then went, not as fast obviously but it went. I drove the car around trying to listen for something funny or wrong but all was good and has been since.
MGonz540 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 09:25 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 145
Drives: 2016 GTS, 2016 GLE, 2013 SLK55, 2015 GLA, 2015 GLK, 2014 E350, 2013 GLK
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Density altitude can matter, but it is more important for normally aspirated cars. Turbo cars do a good job of negsting its effect. Our cars are set to run a certain amount of boost and they do that, regardless of ambient pressure.
JB C63S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 09:30 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 145
Drives: 2016 GTS, 2016 GLE, 2013 SLK55, 2015 GLA, 2015 GLK, 2014 E350, 2013 GLK
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
MGonz540, iteresting launch method. I used launch control all night both night and it worked great. Even after the tune. I tried all sorts of ways to get a good burnout going, as documented in my drag times thread here. After my tune, when i hit second, even in race mode with its accomodating travtion setting, my car would kill all power for what seemed like forever. I blamed old tires. I thought after that I should have tried short shifting into second as soon as i got some good momentum in first.
JB C63S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 10:54 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 130
Drives: Designo White AMG GTS
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB C63S View Post
Density altitude can matter, but it is more important for normally aspirated cars. Turbo cars do a good job of negsting its effect. Our cars are set to run a certain amount of boost and they do that, regardless of ambient pressure.
I am pretty sure you have that backwards, unless you're primarily referring to density altitude affected by elevation changes. In my limited experience, a turbo car will lose more performance on a 60 vs 110 degree day than a naturally aspirated car.

In your own dragtimes thread, you picked up .7mph going from 250DA at 6:45pm to -50DA at 9:30pm. On a hot day vs cool day in Texas, we can experience a 3000 DA delta. That is a solid 5mph difference IMO.

There's a reason all the turbo guys want to race when it gets nice and cool outside.

Last edited by kumizi; 03-22-2017 at 11:07 PM.
kumizi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 12:15 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
MGonz540's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: McAllen, TX
Posts: 37
Drives: '16 AMG GTS, '14 CTS V, '15 GTR, '12 458, '05 DB9, '79 T/A Resto, '14 SRT8, '01 996TT, '00 360 etc
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
kumizi you are correct. High altitude as with anything else chokes a car. BTW, JB C63S's 60ft time is really good. The best I could get was 1.8 but consistently flat 2's. I will share something else with you guys. My 2014 non-tuned CTS VSport (twin turbo 6 4door) consistently hits the 60ft in 2.1 - 2.3. My 2014 non-tuned SRT8 hits in 1.9. Figure..... Of course once you hit the 1/8 mile my GTS is GONE.
MGonz540 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Copyright 2001-2012 InternetBrands, Inc. / MBWorld.org. All Rights Reserved.