I know its late and I just waiting for the wash to stop so I can put my close in the dryer. I was looking at this site that has all sorts of 0-60 and 1/4 times for all kinds of cars....So I was just looking to see what other cars I'm faster than or tied with. Based of a Stock C55 running 4.8sec 0-60 and a 13.2 1/4mile here is a list of cars that The C55 is faster than*
*according to this website http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-qu...mile-times.htm
I would say that this web site has some fuzzy numbers but whatever. Found it cool that my car is faster than A Lamborghini Countach by this websites numbers. anyway this list means nothing.

1997 Acura NSX-T 4.8 13.3
2006 Audi RS4 Quattro 4.8 13.3
2002 BMW M5 4.8 13.3
2004 BMW M3 4.8 13.6
1986 Buick Regal Grand National 4.9 13.9
2005 Cadillac CTS-V 4.8 13.2
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS 5.2 13.6
2005 Chrysler 300C Hemi 5.9 14.4
2005 Dodge Magnum SRT8 5.1 13.6
2004 Dodge Neon SRT-4 5.3 13.9
2004 Dodge Ram SRT-10 4.9 13.6
1992 Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo 5.7 14.2
1996 Dodge Viper RT/10 5.0 13.2
1995 Eagle Talon TSi 6.4 15.1
1980 Ferrari 308 GTS 6.9 14.9
1996 Ferrari F355 Spider 4.9 13.4
1997 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta 4.8 13.2
1986 Ferrari GTO 5.0 14.1
1986 Ferrari Testarossa 5.3 13.4
2001 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 4.8 13.5
2005 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 5.1 13.5
2000 Ford Saleen S281 Supercharged 5.1 13.8
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe 5.5 14.2
2004 Jaguar S-Type R 5.2 13.7
1986 Lamborghini Countach 5000S 5.2 13.7
1995 Mazda RX-7 R2 5.0 14.0
2002 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG 5.1 13.6
2001 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG 5.0 13.6
1997 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 4.8 13.6
1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.5 13.9
2004 Nissan 350Z 5.3 13.77
2005 Nissan 350Z 35th Anniversary Edition 6 Speed 5.8 14.3
1969 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 HO 455ci 5.9 13.9
1970 Plymouth AAR ‘Cuda 5.8 14.3
1973 Pontiac Firebird 455ci 7.3 15.0
1989 Pontiac 20th Anniv. Trans Am 5.1 14.2
2000 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (WS6) 4.9 13.4
2005 Pontiac GTO LS2 4.8 13.3
2001 Porsche Boxster S 5.6 14.0
2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo 5.4 13.8
1995 Porsche 911 Carrera 5.3 13.8
1993 Toyota Supra Turbo 4.9 13.4
1994 Toyota Supra 6.9 15.2
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.3 13.7
1995 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.1 13.5
1997 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.1 13.6

 

cool, thx for the info

 

Those are just numbers... I agree that most cars that are slower than ours but some are actually faster head to head. For e.g, I'm pretty sure a viper would rape our cars.

Cool infor though.. It always make me feel better to see the Ring time of C55 as well.

 

2002 Mercedes-Benz C32 AMG 5.1 13.6


HMMM, by whose standard?? A lot of these seem low and where did the C55 times come from??? From what I've seen, the numbers for qtr miles times can be all over the board, varying by up to a second in the qtr and 3/4 of a sec in the 0-60?? Even the magazines can vary by .5 seconds in the 0-60 and 1/2 in the qtr. It depends on many factors, not the least of which is driver, conditions, both track and weather, tire pressures, fuel, wind, etc etc. I dont give much credence to these numbers above just like the "stock" times on the dragtimes.com for the IS 350 (which I have never been able to replicate at Great Lakes WI )

 

At the track, the C55 turned in slightly slower times than the C32 we tested a couple years ago. The raw numbers came in at 5.6 seconds for the 0-60 dash and 13.95 for the quarter. Still quick, but one would rightfully expect that the V8 would be a few tenths quicker, not slower. As we have stated before, there are many variables that come into play when testing a car for acceleration — the track surface, weather conditions (cool air is better than warm) and driver differences.

So there you have it, according to Edmunds, the C55 is SLOWER than the C32. Only real way to tell is to track them both at US 41..............................

 

I have not seen till now a single magazine or article saying that a C55 runs 5.6 and 13.9? Slowest I have seen is 13.5 & 4.9 in car&driver test thatwas perfromed against the Audi S4. Btw I have the magazine. Can you post a link to those numbers?

 

i never go by what the magazine says, they are tested in optimal conditions by professional drivers, and sometimes even "corrected numbers". I'm used to cars being ALOT slower than advertized living in the high desert of new mexico, the density altitude is usually hanging around 6-8000' wich keeps even pulley/exhaust cobras in the 13's. i have the code 3 pulley/ intake, and k&n's on my c32 and am hoping for a 13.7

 

Ask, and you shall receive:

To give you perspective, here are laptimes of cars that are in the same "class" as the C55 from previous Sport Auto Supertests around the Nurburgring (considered by most to be a very good indication of the OVERALL performance of a car....acceleration and handling). Remember that they have used the same pro driver for all of their Supertests, so the driver factor should not be much of an issue. In order from slowest to fastest:


W202 C43 AMG: 8:51
B5 S4: 8:42
W203 C32 AMG: 8:37
E36 M3: 8:35
B6 S4 Avant: 8:29
E92 335i: 8:26
B5 RS4 Avant: 8:25
W203 C55 AMG: 8:22
E46 M3: 8:22
B7 RS4: 8:09 (on R-compound tires, which could shave 5-10 seconds off the time on a long track like this)
E92 M3: 8:05 (also on R-compound tires)
W204 C63 AMG: **coming soon**

 

I totally agree with you on numbers done by magazines, but post after post the C55 gets slower LOL. By the time we know it people are going to say it runs 15.00's in the 1/4 run.

 

It's the fastest thing on the road!

 

Thanks great info

 

Its always funny to see the c32 guys jump on and pull an article that says 13.9 for a c55 or something. Dude, lets all be real here, a stock C55 vs stock C32, the C55 comes out slightly ahead.

That said, while some drivers can pull a 13.2 out of a stock c55, its probably not the "norm" or "average"

 

Well I have to dissagree on times off magazines since most are biased

I read that stock the quarters on a C32 was 13.5 average
but as low as 13.2 average for the C55

At US41 I don't think a C32 or a C55 stock will be present...maybe one but not the other either way driver error could make it or break it for either car...

The best way is to run your car to get the best time personally

In comparison to a stock for stock a C55 should have a slight advantage while modded C32 to Stock C55 the advantage should be the C32 but evenly modded its a drivers race or the 55 has a slight advantage.

 

I'll put my "bolt-on" C32 against any "bolt-on" C55 out there.

 

I'm expecting to add a 32 or 55 to my garage before the year is up.

I don't hang out on this board enough to make up my mind quite yet....but....which has the potential to be ultimately faster with the mods available to each respective model ??

By faster I mean , street conditions. 0-100 runs.

Also, had anyone here owned both ? apples and oranges ?

Thanks in advance.

Mike

 

+1

But not all C32 guys think the same

On average times are hindered by drivers while some may do better other may do worse....one cannot assume that the cars rated numbers on 0-60 and quarters are easily done...practice makes perfect...

 

Vic, don't make me drive over there and test my C55 LOL.j/k! Good luck tomorrow.

 

It all depends on funds readily available to mod either...while I can't speculate the prices to mod a C55 I have heard its pretty expensive...but with new companies coming out it should be cheaper to mod a C55 eventually...that being the case I would prefer a C55 especially cause of the interior/exterior cues. But one can add those styling cues to a C32 a well...but at a cost...so not worth it to me.

Add a S/C to a C55 and its in the 55s court. That fact alone to me says that the C55 will be more moddable then a C32 but at a cost....But the LET TT project for the C32 will help push the C32 on top in modding advantage.

 

With your modds the better race would be AMG-Jerry or any other similiar modded car but I don't want to be a picture in your rearview mirror...

 

Vehicle I drive: goes 'round the 'ring in 8:22


Uh huh?? How many times have you taken YOUR car to the RING???? I've done both Hockenheim and Nurburgring and I can see how the C32 would fare so poorly. The C55 is probably better handling, BUT I still maintain that the C32 stock versus a stock C55 is a faster vehicle (drag) and thats the real world that I live in. Except for occasional stint at the Auto Bahn Country Club, the real world USA for me is stoplight to stoplight and the occasional highway stretch worrying about getting a love letter from Uncle Sam.

 

When is your next trip down to SoCal? I'll take you up on that bet.

 

[QUOTE=c32used;2826645]With your modds the better race would be AMG-Jerry or any other similiar modded car but I don't want to be a picture in your rearview mirror...[/QUOT
LOL, Vic I am dropping off the car in about two weeks to get the cams installed that should be fun after! I had forgot to mention it to you!! Btw modding this car is pretty expensive but the turnout is well worth it if done correctly.

 

[ Add a S/C to a C55 and its in the 55s court. That fact alone to me says that the C55 will be more moddable then a C32 but at a cost....But the LET TT project for the C32 will help push the C32 on top in modding advantage.
__________________

Thats the very reason I have NOT modded the 2001 ML 55; Theres not much, save headers, intake and ECM that you can do on the cheap. For $600.00 you can get 40 RWP for the C32. I looked at the Kleeman S/C for the ML 55 but it is $15 K or more. Anyone know of a better source of SC for the ML 55???

 

[
LOL, Vic I am dropping off the car in about two weeks to get the cams installed that should be fun after! I

Tell me more, tell me more!! On the ML forums, there's not been much modding done!! Shame, because in the wet slippery stuff, NOTHING will touch me off the dig, save for a 63 or SRT-8. I ran the truck at Great Lakes one time and it was actually a tad faster in the wet than dry due to so wheelspin being allowed taking off.

Glenn

 

Get a used Twin-Screw Kleemann for around $6-7K. They don't make them anymore but much better than current Roots design.