C400 0-60 times, 4.6 seconds? wow
10-28-2014, 08:51 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
[QUOTE=c4004matic;6212243]
For the sake of others who may be interested, here are real-life milage figures achieved by Tesla owners (ie not claimed by the manufacturer): http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/for...eal-life-range
As for you, c4004matic, I do love having discussions/arguments with people who stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and keep yelling "I know math, this isn't true...I know math, this isn't true". Actually, no, I don't love it at all, so my discussion with you is over.
Wow, almost everything you said above is wrong (and has been repeatedly proven as such-look up those points individually), and you call others ignorant?[/QUOTE
People like you make me laugh.
Here learn something:
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-mode...on-127409.html
BTW, the most expensive Tesla battery, which costs as much as the whole Fit carries 85 kw. One gallon of gasoline is 33.7 Kw empg, ergo the largest pack can be expected to produce as much energy as 2.5 gallons of gasoline. See, you simply cannot beat MATH. Even the car with the smallest tank about 12 gallons Can do 5 times the amount of work a Tesla can be refueled in five minutes, anywhere on the planet. I'm I making any inroads in that rusty trap called a mind? Or are you too star struck by the guy selling you snake oil with a little microphone hanging from his ear?
People like you make me laugh.
Here learn something:
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-mode...on-127409.html
BTW, the most expensive Tesla battery, which costs as much as the whole Fit carries 85 kw. One gallon of gasoline is 33.7 Kw empg, ergo the largest pack can be expected to produce as much energy as 2.5 gallons of gasoline. See, you simply cannot beat MATH. Even the car with the smallest tank about 12 gallons Can do 5 times the amount of work a Tesla can be refueled in five minutes, anywhere on the planet. I'm I making any inroads in that rusty trap called a mind? Or are you too star struck by the guy selling you snake oil with a little microphone hanging from his ear?
As for you, c4004matic, I do love having discussions/arguments with people who stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and keep yelling "I know math, this isn't true...I know math, this isn't true". Actually, no, I don't love it at all, so my discussion with you is over.
10-28-2014, 09:00 AM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
I believe that many people who choose a C400 after initially looking at a C300 do so because the price difference turns out to be something like $3000 - assuming they were getting premium and sport packages (unless they changed something recently). That is not 25%, in fact, it is the obvious choice to me.
Yes, getting the sports package does shrink the gap, but not everyone gets the sports package.
Either way, my point is that $20K, when already spending $70K is not such a huge stretch.
My original plan was a GLA, but I was so disappointed by it once I saw it in person, and so impressed by the C class that the extra $7k for the C300 (the way I would equip both cars), or roughly 20% seems very worth it, and not that big of a stretch...assuming nothing better/different pops up by the time I'm ready to pull the trigger, around spring.
If the two cars were equivalent (ie both make you go to the pump, both cost you the same $ to run/maintain, both having the same environmental impact, both are the same size inside, etc.), then yeah-it would be easy to say "why spend $20K more on this when I can have that". But those other factors do give you 'bang for the buck' and even offsetting the extra cost substantially.
10-28-2014, 10:13 AM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
[QUOTE=mihaelb;6212307]
For the sake of others who may be interested, here are real-life milage figures achieved by Tesla owners (ie not claimed by the manufacturer): http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/for...eal-life-range
As for you, c4004matic, I do love having discussions/arguments with people who stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and keep yelling "I know math, this isn't true...I know math, this isn't true". Actually, no, I don't love it at all, so my discussion with you is over.
I just gave you the math. You are simply ignoring it since it shows you are wrong and delusional.
Like your testimonials I've also seen video testimonial that tout the secret government water carburetor and pieces of toast that without a doubt show the image of Jesus. You can hypermile anything when Honda insights and the Prius came out there were people that would get over 100miles per gallon. If you hypermile a c400 you can probably get 40mpg.
For the sake of others who may be interested, here are real-life milage figures achieved by Tesla owners (ie not claimed by the manufacturer): http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/for...eal-life-range
As for you, c4004matic, I do love having discussions/arguments with people who stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and keep yelling "I know math, this isn't true...I know math, this isn't true". Actually, no, I don't love it at all, so my discussion with you is over.
Like your testimonials I've also seen video testimonial that tout the secret government water carburetor and pieces of toast that without a doubt show the image of Jesus. You can hypermile anything when Honda insights and the Prius came out there were people that would get over 100miles per gallon. If you hypermile a c400 you can probably get 40mpg.
10-28-2014, 10:24 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
<<<@!1!@>>>
ok, last response (promise to myself).
math isn't that clear-cut. Gasoline engines aren't NEARLY as efficient as electric motors. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
You can spit out simple mathematical equations that only work in ideal theories in a vacuum all you want, as well as conspiracy theories about what you believe the real milage of the Teslas to be, but reality says different.
Oh, and by the way, EPA does NOT do hypermiling. They have a set course with accelerations, braking and driving at different speeds, and they rated the Tesla for a range of 265 miles.
ok, last response (promise to myself).
math isn't that clear-cut. Gasoline engines aren't NEARLY as efficient as electric motors. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
You can spit out simple mathematical equations that only work in ideal theories in a vacuum all you want, as well as conspiracy theories about what you believe the real milage of the Teslas to be, but reality says different.
Oh, and by the way, EPA does NOT do hypermiling. They have a set course with accelerations, braking and driving at different speeds, and they rated the Tesla for a range of 265 miles.
Last edited by mihaelb; 10-28-2014 at 10:26 AM. Reason: EPA
10-28-2014, 11:15 AM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
<<<@!1!@>>>
ok, last response (promise to myself).
math isn't that clear-cut. Gasoline engines aren't NEARLY as efficient as electric motors. Have a look: Engine efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can spit out simple mathematical equations that only work in ideal theories in a vacuum all you want, as well as conspiracy theories about what you believe the real milage of the Teslas to be, but reality says different.
Oh, and by the way, EPA does NOT do hypermiling. They have a set course with accelerations, braking and driving at different speeds, and they rated the Tesla for a range of 265 miles.
ok, last response (promise to myself).
math isn't that clear-cut. Gasoline engines aren't NEARLY as efficient as electric motors. Have a look: Engine efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can spit out simple mathematical equations that only work in ideal theories in a vacuum all you want, as well as conspiracy theories about what you believe the real milage of the Teslas to be, but reality says different.
Oh, and by the way, EPA does NOT do hypermiling. They have a set course with accelerations, braking and driving at different speeds, and they rated the Tesla for a range of 265 miles.
Just a little historical perspective swapping batteries is far from new. In the beginning of the 20th century, more than 100 years ago, electric street cars in many cities had swapping stations for batteries. Can you imagine where you would store the 2 ton battery packs for electric cars for a gas station that can serve up to a thousand cars a day? The Tesla is just like Elon Musk, who is not a scientist nor an engineer... full of hot air. Just because some one makes a billion bucks on a lucky stock bet doesn't make him intelligent, educated or a visionary, just lucky.
10-28-2014, 11:26 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
That 37 KW per gallon already includes a correction factor for efficiency which for gas engines is around 40% (electric engines is over 90). I already explained it to you, gasoline has around 10x the power density than the best available battery. Its just a chemistry fact. In order for a battery powered vehicle to compete with an internal combustion engine energy-wise, batteries would have to increase in capacity by a factor of at least 3 and, of course, that does not address the charging issue.
Just a little historical perspective swapping batteries is far from new. In the beginning of the 20th century, more than 100 years ago, electric street cars in many cities had swapping stations for batteries. Can you imagine where you would store the 2 ton battery packs for electric cars for a gas station that can serve up to a thousand cars a day? The Tesla is just like Elon Musk, who is not a scientist nor an engineer... full of hot air. Just because some one makes a billion bucks on a lucky stock bet doesn't make him intelligent, educated or a visionary, just lucky.
Just a little historical perspective swapping batteries is far from new. In the beginning of the 20th century, more than 100 years ago, electric street cars in many cities had swapping stations for batteries. Can you imagine where you would store the 2 ton battery packs for electric cars for a gas station that can serve up to a thousand cars a day? The Tesla is just like Elon Musk, who is not a scientist nor an engineer... full of hot air. Just because some one makes a billion bucks on a lucky stock bet doesn't make him intelligent, educated or a visionary, just lucky.
10-28-2014, 12:34 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 289 Likes
on
202 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
I think the C450 would be 60-70k, as the C400 starts at 50. Anyways, I do agree that the electric cars aren't in the forefront C class shoppers, but then again, they aren't in the forefront of most car shoppers' minds either.
If I were looking at a fast luxury sports sedan like the C450, and was looking at a 70k bill, the Tesla would be a major consideration for me, and probably would win out. a 25% stretch just isn't that big, which is why so many that originally came to look at buying a C300 ended up bumping up to the C400 instead.
If I were looking at a fast luxury sports sedan like the C450, and was looking at a 70k bill, the Tesla would be a major consideration for me, and probably would win out. a 25% stretch just isn't that big, which is why so many that originally came to look at buying a C300 ended up bumping up to the C400 instead.
M
10-28-2014, 12:35 PM
#58
Super Member
But you may want to get the premium package on the C400 as well, though (which actually costs $2000 more on the C400, in Canada at Least). So it doesn't shrink the gap
Yes, getting the sports package does shrink the gap, but not everyone gets the sports package.
Either way, my point is that $20K, when already spending $70K is not such a huge stretch.
My original plan was a GLA, but I was so disappointed by it once I saw it in person, and so impressed by the C class that the extra $7k for the C300 (the way I would equip both cars), or roughly 20% seems very worth it, and not that big of a stretch...assuming nothing better/different pops up by the time I'm ready to pull the trigger, around spring.
If the two cars were equivalent (ie both make you go to the pump, both cost you the same $ to run/maintain, both having the same environmental impact, both are the same size inside, etc.), then yeah-it would be easy to say "why spend $20K more on this when I can have that". But those other factors do give you 'bang for the buck' and even offsetting the extra cost substantially.
Yes, getting the sports package does shrink the gap, but not everyone gets the sports package.
Either way, my point is that $20K, when already spending $70K is not such a huge stretch.
My original plan was a GLA, but I was so disappointed by it once I saw it in person, and so impressed by the C class that the extra $7k for the C300 (the way I would equip both cars), or roughly 20% seems very worth it, and not that big of a stretch...assuming nothing better/different pops up by the time I'm ready to pull the trigger, around spring.
If the two cars were equivalent (ie both make you go to the pump, both cost you the same $ to run/maintain, both having the same environmental impact, both are the same size inside, etc.), then yeah-it would be easy to say "why spend $20K more on this when I can have that". But those other factors do give you 'bang for the buck' and even offsetting the extra cost substantially.
From this, upgrading from a C300 sport + Premium to a C400 costs $2,990 To me, that is well worth it. EDIT: Fixed my math above to the tune of the $25 that I missed.
I hear you on the 20% premium for $0 gas. But still the ROI, assuming $60/wk or $3120/yr is still about 6.5 years (for a $20k price diff). Not terrible, but not necessarily a no-brainer. Plus you are comparing MSRPs, not true cost. From what I am hearing, and I could be wrong here, discounts on C-classes are on the order of 10%+ where Tesla's are pretty much 0.
Regarding the other stuff, I don't give a rats azz about kW/Gal and most of that other stuff. At the end of the day, for me (and probably most people for that matter) 90-95% of the time I drive less than 200miles/day. So I could drive like a 16yr old and still have plenty left over by the time I plug it in in the evening. That works. Stored energy capacity limits are based on need. If you don't need it, then the value approaches zero pretty quickly. Plus the charging station infrastructure is growing. 20min for 80% or whatever it is, will also work even if it is less convenient to get me where I am going on the occasion that I want to drive medium - long distances. But that is me, for others that drive more or whatever the significance obviously changes.
Having said this, I don't believe in spending $85k for a car no matter how much I can afford. Sure, if I hit the lottery (or whatever) and have a couple hundred million burning a hole in my bank card, then things might change. I just won't be holding my breath.
Last edited by ddeliber; 10-28-2014 at 12:43 PM.
10-28-2014, 01:10 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
Things are probably different in Canada, but in the states the C400 comes with Premium and sport standard. From this, if you take a C300 and add Prem - $2700 and Sport - $2500 (depending on who you trust) that is $5,200 plus $40,400 base price and you get $45,600 + $925 destination and you get $46,525. The C400 is $49,515.
From this, upgrading from a C300 sport + Premium to a C400 costs $2,990 To me, that is well worth it. EDIT: Fixed my math above to the tune of the $25 that I missed.
I hear you on the 20% premium for $0 gas. But still the ROI, assuming $60/wk or $3120/yr is still about 6.5 years (for a $20k price diff). Not terrible, but not necessarily a no-brainer. Plus you are comparing MSRPs, not true cost. From what I am hearing, and I could be wrong here, discounts on C-classes are on the order of 10%+ where Tesla's are pretty much 0.
Regarding the other stuff, I don't give a rats azz about kW/Gal and most of that other stuff. At the end of the day, for me (and probably most people for that matter) 90-95% of the time I drive less than 200miles/day. So I could drive like a 16yr old and still have plenty left over by the time I plug it in in the evening. That works. Stored energy capacity limits are based on need. If you don't need it, then the value approaches zero pretty quickly. Plus the charging station infrastructure is growing. 20min for 80% or whatever it is, will also work even if it is less convenient to get me where I am going on the occasion that I want to drive medium - long distances. But that is me, for others that drive more or whatever the significance obviously changes.
Having said this, I don't believe in spending $85k for a car no matter how much I can afford. Sure, if I hit the lottery (or whatever) and have a couple hundred million burning a hole in my bank card, then things might change. I just won't be holding my breath.
From this, upgrading from a C300 sport + Premium to a C400 costs $2,990 To me, that is well worth it. EDIT: Fixed my math above to the tune of the $25 that I missed.
I hear you on the 20% premium for $0 gas. But still the ROI, assuming $60/wk or $3120/yr is still about 6.5 years (for a $20k price diff). Not terrible, but not necessarily a no-brainer. Plus you are comparing MSRPs, not true cost. From what I am hearing, and I could be wrong here, discounts on C-classes are on the order of 10%+ where Tesla's are pretty much 0.
Regarding the other stuff, I don't give a rats azz about kW/Gal and most of that other stuff. At the end of the day, for me (and probably most people for that matter) 90-95% of the time I drive less than 200miles/day. So I could drive like a 16yr old and still have plenty left over by the time I plug it in in the evening. That works. Stored energy capacity limits are based on need. If you don't need it, then the value approaches zero pretty quickly. Plus the charging station infrastructure is growing. 20min for 80% or whatever it is, will also work even if it is less convenient to get me where I am going on the occasion that I want to drive medium - long distances. But that is me, for others that drive more or whatever the significance obviously changes.
Having said this, I don't believe in spending $85k for a car no matter how much I can afford. Sure, if I hit the lottery (or whatever) and have a couple hundred million burning a hole in my bank card, then things might change. I just won't be holding my breath.
If you want to do ROI and stick strictly to the numbers (leaving the convenience of never having to go to the gas stations, much-lower environmental impact and reduced maintenance visits), then you also need to include the almost-nil maintenance costs of the Tesla. Can't be bothered with the exact numbers, but it'll reduce the 6.5 years too.
Dunno what the discounts on the Teslas are, TBH. Spending that much on a car right now doesn't make sense for me either at the moment. When you do hit the lottery, and said money is burning holes in your other bank card, buy me one too
Last edited by mihaelb; 10-28-2014 at 01:15 PM.
10-28-2014, 01:59 PM
#60
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,412
Received 1,886 Likes
on
1,323 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
Something to consider is when you start buying the highest end of a line, like the c450... Many things become standard... Look at the e350 and e400... Base prices are different but e400 comes with more standard items that are optional on e350
Point being that the c300 may start at a much lower price as may the c400 from the c450 but once the c400, for example, is optioned up to the c450 base level the price point won't be $20k between the c400 and c450. C450 without options will likely already have several nice packages included as well as the amg goodies
Point being that the c300 may start at a much lower price as may the c400 from the c450 but once the c400, for example, is optioned up to the c450 base level the price point won't be $20k between the c400 and c450. C450 without options will likely already have several nice packages included as well as the amg goodies
10-28-2014, 02:12 PM
#61
Super Member
ok so back on topic. C400 is quick. C450 will be quicker.
Where is the proof that the c450 is replacing the c400 for 2016? Also, there were confirmed spy shots of an actual c450 wagon which was pictured in all it's glory.
Was that a test mule and still 2 years in the making, or is everyone speculating at the moment and just providing opinions.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/27/m...for-primetime/
So since we are all providing opinions, to me, it looks like Mercedes is actually making a stripped down AMG model which is most likely the c450. Though price wise, it wouldn't make sense.
Where is the proof that the c450 is replacing the c400 for 2016? Also, there were confirmed spy shots of an actual c450 wagon which was pictured in all it's glory.
Was that a test mule and still 2 years in the making, or is everyone speculating at the moment and just providing opinions.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/27/m...for-primetime/
So since we are all providing opinions, to me, it looks like Mercedes is actually making a stripped down AMG model which is most likely the c450. Though price wise, it wouldn't make sense.
Last edited by DameMD; 10-28-2014 at 02:17 PM.
10-28-2014, 04:47 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
ok so back on topic. C400 is quick. C450 will be quicker.
Where is the proof that the c450 is replacing the c400 for 2016? Also, there were confirmed spy shots of an actual c450 wagon which was pictured in all it's glory.
Was that a test mule and still 2 years in the making, or is everyone speculating at the moment and just providing opinions.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/27/m...for-primetime/
So since we are all providing opinions, to me, it looks like Mercedes is actually making a stripped down AMG model which is most likely the c450. Though price wise, it wouldn't make sense.
Where is the proof that the c450 is replacing the c400 for 2016? Also, there were confirmed spy shots of an actual c450 wagon which was pictured in all it's glory.
Was that a test mule and still 2 years in the making, or is everyone speculating at the moment and just providing opinions.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/27/m...for-primetime/
So since we are all providing opinions, to me, it looks like Mercedes is actually making a stripped down AMG model which is most likely the c450. Though price wise, it wouldn't make sense.
BTW here is a picture:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/merce...#photo-2640759
10-29-2014, 10:32 AM
#64
Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 C400 4matic W205
just curious if anyone has tried break torquing a c400 like they did in the video in sport+ mode? I guess race start mode is reserved for the AMG models?
10-29-2014, 10:45 AM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200T
10-29-2014, 11:36 AM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Torque braking significantly improves times on all turbo engines since it eliminates turbo lag. On non-turbos it may help a bit or not at all depending on the torque converter the car has. The C300 does about 6.5 stomp and go and about 6 seconds with torque braking (according to tests). There are no other launch technique to improve the launch of an automatic cars. It also explains the consistent .5 sec difference between publications. Hope that helps. Sport plus also improves time very significantly since all the car's inputs, like pedal response, transmission mapping etc., are pushed to their limits.
A 300 on comfort mode probably runs 7 seconds to 60 at best. Which BTW is not bad but the car can do much more.
A 300 on comfort mode probably runs 7 seconds to 60 at best. Which BTW is not bad but the car can do much more.
10-29-2014, 03:27 PM
#67
Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2015 C400 4matic W205
Torque braking significantly improves times on all turbo engines since it eliminates turbo lag. On non-turbos it may help a bit or not at all depending on the torque converter the car has. The C300 does about 6.5 stomp and go and about 6 seconds with torque braking (according to tests). There are no other launch technique to improve the launch of an automatic cars. It also explains the consistent .5 sec difference between publications. Hope that helps. Sport plus also improves time very significantly since all the car's inputs, like pedal response, transmission mapping etc., are pushed to their limits.
A 300 on comfort mode probably runs 7 seconds to 60 at best. Which BTW is not bad but the car can do much more.
A 300 on comfort mode probably runs 7 seconds to 60 at best. Which BTW is not bad but the car can do much more.
10-29-2014, 04:29 PM
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
Minimal to none. Simply put your foot on the brake rev to about 1750. Then bury the accelerator when you lift your foot off the brake. There is no need to brutalize the thing, all you are doing is raising the revs while stopped to where the turbo is fully pressurized. I don't recommend doing it every time you take off from a stop, but the occasional jack rabbit start to smoke the guy on a 335 or audi s4 at a stoplight is harmless. Its akin to starting from a stop while towing a heavy load. BTW don't forget to turn off the traction control, I doubt that you will spin the tires (4matic) but if the system is predictive it will kill the whole process.
If you have never done it, you will be amazed with the improvement. On my F150 ecoboost it leaves ridiculous burnouts behind.
If you have never done it, you will be amazed with the improvement. On my F150 ecoboost it leaves ridiculous burnouts behind.
Last edited by c4004matic; 10-29-2014 at 04:36 PM.
10-29-2014, 04:35 PM
#69
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,412
Received 1,886 Likes
on
1,323 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
Minimal to none. Simply put your foot on the brake rev to about 1750. Then bury the accelerator when you lift your foot off the brake. There is no need to brutalize the thing, all you are doing is raising the revs while stopped to where the turbo is fully pressurized. I don't recommend doing it every time you take off from a stop, but the occasional jack rabbit start to smoke the guy on a 335 or audi s4 at a stoplight is harmless. Its akin to starting from a stop while towing a heavy load.
10-30-2014, 08:39 PM
#72
11-02-2014, 12:19 AM
#73
may not be accurate but this bloomberg review on the C400 shows 6.5 seconds
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-coddling.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-coddling.html
11-02-2014, 01:10 AM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
may not be accurate but this bloomberg review on the C400 shows 6.5 seconds
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-coddling.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-coddling.html
6.5 is the 300
