Disappointing Track Results - C55
02-20-2008, 03:37 PM
#26
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C55 AMG
Now, this theory would not apply if you've got a 12 second car running against a 10 second car, whereas the 12 second car runs a 1.70 60', and the 10 second car spins with a 1.9 60', but can easily make up for the difference through the mid range and top end pull of the run. Again, it's all relative.
60' times are an excellent gauge though for how good a run can be. Getting "out of the hole" is critical in a drag race. Consider a top fuel dragster, who is already running 100 mph in the first 60', and then running 285 mph by the 1/8, and then finishing the 1/4 run at 325 mph. Think about him going from 0-285 mph in the first half of the track, and only picking up an additional 40 mph over the second half of the track. A key portion of that was all achieved in the first 60'.
I'm not sure why it was chosen to be marked at 60', instead of 50' or 75', etc, but that's simply the marker that has always been used to measure a very crucial part of the overall run. Obviously if you don't have traction, ie spinning off the line, your 60' time will suffer tremendously, and your overall ET will suffer. The only variation is that if you spin through the 60' marker, your overall mph will typically register higher assuming your car pulls up top. I'd prefer a better ET, therefore I'll accept a little lower mph assuming I'm not spinning.
I hope I didn't add to your confusion. It makes sense in my head...
02-20-2008, 09:26 PM
#27
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South FLA
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32 AMG
Since our cars are automatic, after the first 75 ft or so you just mash the gas. So there's not much debate as to what to do there?
The launch is the key.
02-21-2008, 12:30 AM
#28
Senior Member
I went to Houston Raceway Park yesterday to verify the published numbers on the C55. I was optimistic, as the car feels relatively quick. The results however were very disappointing. Mine is a pig compared to what I assumed it should run!
Car weighed 3920 lbs w/ me in it, (and approx 75 lbs in truck items), etc.
Temps were 72* at start and 67* by end of night.
Barometric pressure was 29 inches. HRP is at sea level.
1st run = 2.22 60', 8.93 @ 82.22 mph 1/8, 13.68 @ 104.01 mph 1/4.
ESC in "off" position, yet it still kicked in enough to kill the run.
2nd run = 2.22 60', 8.94 @ 82.26 mph 1/8, 13.67 @ 104.65 mph 1/4.
ESC in "off" position, yet it still kicked in enough to kill the run.
3rd run = 2.08 60', 8.74 @ 82.58 mph 1/8, 13.47 @ 104.19 mph 1/4.
Put car in Dyno mode, and manually shifted it myself.
The car felt like it was being held back by something. I honestly expected 107+ in the mph. I've gotta' figure this out, as these results do not sit well with me. I realize part of my disappointment stems from going from a mid-11 second daily driver to a mid-13 second driver, but I honestly expected to get much lower results
I remember reading something about bad catalytic converters with a MB recall or TSB on a certain range of the C55's, and I'm wondering if I might have some restrictive clogging there. Anyone know about this?
Car weighed 3920 lbs w/ me in it, (and approx 75 lbs in truck items), etc.
Temps were 72* at start and 67* by end of night.
Barometric pressure was 29 inches. HRP is at sea level.
1st run = 2.22 60', 8.93 @ 82.22 mph 1/8, 13.68 @ 104.01 mph 1/4.
ESC in "off" position, yet it still kicked in enough to kill the run.
2nd run = 2.22 60', 8.94 @ 82.26 mph 1/8, 13.67 @ 104.65 mph 1/4.
ESC in "off" position, yet it still kicked in enough to kill the run.
3rd run = 2.08 60', 8.74 @ 82.58 mph 1/8, 13.47 @ 104.19 mph 1/4.
Put car in Dyno mode, and manually shifted it myself.
The car felt like it was being held back by something. I honestly expected 107+ in the mph. I've gotta' figure this out, as these results do not sit well with me. I realize part of my disappointment stems from going from a mid-11 second daily driver to a mid-13 second driver, but I honestly expected to get much lower results
I remember reading something about bad catalytic converters with a MB recall or TSB on a certain range of the C55's, and I'm wondering if I might have some restrictive clogging there. Anyone know about this?
Don't be so hard on yourself!
Looking at your sig I'd like to say that I NEARLY bought a Regal/Grand National with a T-70 turbo in Channel View.
The owner and I had a "falling out" when I made him my offer on the car. We lost touch after that.
05-07-2011, 07:04 AM
#30
Yes, yes, yes, I'm quite aware of "the details". I've been an avid drag racer since 1991, and back in the day of Westheimer gatherings, I had quite a bit of "street cred" per my countless nights of street racing, before the ricer crowd killed it for everybody. I've also spent countless time at the track, with many event wins. So, I fully acknowledge the problem w/ the extra weight in the trunk, but as I stated previously --- I wasn't willing to allow some schmuck to walk off w/ my tools and stuff, per us not having a secure pit area this time.
Now, regarding the mismatched rear tires, that's irrelavent since I was able to get a 2.0 60' out of them. You really cannot expect much better than that from any radial tire aside from a drag radial, which these are not. The lousy 2.22 60' times I had on my first two runs were per allowing the car to think for itself and engage the ESC even with it being in the "off" position. Once I switched it to "dyno mode", and manually shifted it myself, the 60' time dropped by 2 tenths, which typically would equate to a drop of 3 tenths in overall 1/4 times, but this time it only worked out to an even .20 drop for whatever reason.
As for trying to match a magazine time, well, "yes" I had hoped to at least get close to the Motor Trend published times. My past dealings w/ magazine times is that I've always matched or beaten them in various GM vehicles I've owned, ie my Grand National(s), and my Z28. I've grown accustomed to having vehicles that were underrated by the OE MFR, as opposed to ones that appear to be accurately stated, ie my C55.
I'm not complaining about it. I was just a little disappointed because I tend to over achieve w/ track results, and this time I did not. However, it simply gives me something to shoot for by making some improvements, as well as taking care of the givens such as weight. Next time I'll get to the track in time to claim an upfront secure pit spot, therefore emptying all "dead weight" out of the trunk.
I'll also probably put some fresh plugs in it, as I don't like having 53k miles on any set of plugs, regardless of what the factory says they're good for. Personally, I'll take a good copper plug over any "long lasting" platinum plug any day, as I know a copper plug has a better burn rate overall, but it simply won't have it for as long of a timeframe, ie 100k miles. And I'll also change my oil before the next track trip, as I don't agree w/ MB's once a year plan, or 10k+ mile plan for oil changes.
So, to summarize, I agree I had some "rookie mistakes" per the weight issues, but I still expected a little more. Maybe I've just grown a bit greedy as time has gone on, and come to expect more, with less... Either way it's nothing we can't overcome in the future, and I look forward to posting some better times thereof.
Now, regarding the mismatched rear tires, that's irrelavent since I was able to get a 2.0 60' out of them. You really cannot expect much better than that from any radial tire aside from a drag radial, which these are not. The lousy 2.22 60' times I had on my first two runs were per allowing the car to think for itself and engage the ESC even with it being in the "off" position. Once I switched it to "dyno mode", and manually shifted it myself, the 60' time dropped by 2 tenths, which typically would equate to a drop of 3 tenths in overall 1/4 times, but this time it only worked out to an even .20 drop for whatever reason.
As for trying to match a magazine time, well, "yes" I had hoped to at least get close to the Motor Trend published times. My past dealings w/ magazine times is that I've always matched or beaten them in various GM vehicles I've owned, ie my Grand National(s), and my Z28. I've grown accustomed to having vehicles that were underrated by the OE MFR, as opposed to ones that appear to be accurately stated, ie my C55.
I'm not complaining about it. I was just a little disappointed because I tend to over achieve w/ track results, and this time I did not. However, it simply gives me something to shoot for by making some improvements, as well as taking care of the givens such as weight. Next time I'll get to the track in time to claim an upfront secure pit spot, therefore emptying all "dead weight" out of the trunk.
I'll also probably put some fresh plugs in it, as I don't like having 53k miles on any set of plugs, regardless of what the factory says they're good for. Personally, I'll take a good copper plug over any "long lasting" platinum plug any day, as I know a copper plug has a better burn rate overall, but it simply won't have it for as long of a timeframe, ie 100k miles. And I'll also change my oil before the next track trip, as I don't agree w/ MB's once a year plan, or 10k+ mile plan for oil changes.
So, to summarize, I agree I had some "rookie mistakes" per the weight issues, but I still expected a little more. Maybe I've just grown a bit greedy as time has gone on, and come to expect more, with less... Either way it's nothing we can't overcome in the future, and I look forward to posting some better times thereof.
For the longest time, I would never even look at a GM vehicle due to the appalling quality of the interior. No matter how fast they go, I can't stand the lego bricks. But I hear the new Buicks are pretty nice on the inside too.
05-08-2011, 09:41 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,589
Received 68 Likes
on
44 Posts
C63 507 AMG DA Car #19
Wow westheimer racing back in 91 brings back memories... as does Miami Subs 
I used to think I was something back then in a warmed up fox mustang.
Have you run your car again.?? (reviving this OLD post)>
I used to think I was something back then in a warmed up fox mustang.
Have you run your car again.?? (reviving this OLD post)>
