Good way to find 0-60 times, pretty accurate


0-60 time = weight of car in kilogrammes / maximum bhp of car * 0.9

 

You do, troll. Have a look at Motor Trend's report:

Mercedes claims a 5.2-second 0-to-62-mph sprint for the C55. In our test of the C-Class-based CLK55, 0-to-60 mph took only 4.9 seconds, so the factory's estimate for the C55 may be conservative.

Motor Trend's first report:

Furthermore, the source you're citing, Auto Motor und Sport, tested the E46 M3 at 5.2 seconds 0-60, 0.1 less than the C55 test you quoted, and this same car was tested at better than 4.9 in the US. 4.9 is entirely plausible, and the road tests should show this when they come out stateside.

 

My belligerent retarded little brother improviz. YOU DON'T, YOU WON'T and YOU CAN'T. Or maybe you can cause you're so special. "in our test" have you tested it with your junky boy-friends? You certainly haven't changed at all, have you. Still sexually frustrated I see, with a need to immediately attack someone and call names. That seems to be the norm on this forum. God forbid an opinion not matching yours comes out.

Shall we start this rhetoric again, you citing articles from American only magazines, when americans wouldn't know how to build a luxury / performance vehicle unless another manufacturer made it for them. Oh yeah wait, that the new merchrysler-cedes. I would love to meet you one day gimproviz. I really would. The the harsh reality of your meaningless life would come crashing down on you, as it probably does everyday.

So, lets start the banter as you so like to..

You said, he said, you're right, I'm wrong, your gay, thats obvious, you hate everyone who has an objective position on MBZ's, so me, you are too one sided to listen to anyone else's opinion other than your own due to the fact that you believe everything you read. Should I go on. Oh wait, right in "your reality of real life experiences." Coming from a NOS'd out honda to a benz, you are right. You are the MAN!

 

My point backed up by real world experience. Do the numbers..

https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c55-amg-w203/82833-c55-vs-m3-dragstrip.html

And what your saying, if correct is that the C55 is as fast or faster than say, and Audi RS6? Ok... Sure...

 

Because I'd really love to see you back it up. Where are you? I'll meet your punk *** anywhere, anytime, friend. Name the time and place.

You're a lameass troll, nothing more. All you do is come into these forums, all the time, spouting how (in your opinion) Bimmers are oh so ****ing superior to Mercedes, how much you hate Mercedes, and then get obnoxious like the 16 year old kid you really are when people defend the marque. Well, the only person you're convincing is yourself. If any of us wanted an M3, guess what: we would have bought one.

So, go back to jerking yourself and your obviously fragile ego (so fragile that you have this rather odd compulsion to troll Internet forums stirring up trouble, which seems to give you some bizarre sense of importance) off.

Oh, and I love how when you post a number, it's the new Gospel, but when I post a number, it's "opinion". Your command of facts is every bit as lousy as your grip on reality, hypocrite.

 

video to back it up. Thanks, but I'll wait for the mag tests, before I take the word of some BMW troll...I've spanked way too many E46 M3's to buy that load of sh*t.

Now, go back and toss off to this month's issue of Roundel like a good little TROLL.

 

Hey the **** is back. The queer from Texas. How you doin' jerky.. So which one is it. In another rant, where you were gettin' corn holed, you said you never believed the mags, because they weren't real world experience, now you're saying you do. Make up your mind. Your as bad as Kerry, "I did vote for article 38, I didn't, I did, I mean I didn't."

So really the C55 is faster than the Audi RS6? Really??

It's great to see you trying to get things started again. Hey do you think that you and I could maybe get together? I would really like to see your fat *** again.

 

Iow, I won't play in your territory. As to your threats: if you're ever in Texas and want to impress me, let me know. But I'm not going to mud wrestle with you in this thread, and will stick with facts from here on out.

I already showed in the thread you cited how the trap speed he claims to have gotten is impossible for a 3450 pound car with 333 horsepower. You can believe whatever you like, but I'll believe road tests and physics, *and* realistic real-world results; a 111 mph trap speed in a stock M3 is not realistic. The facts are these:

1) You're claiming the C55 cannot get a 4.9 0-60. Yet the test you posted shows that the C55 was tested at a 5.4 second 0-100km/h, exactly 0.1 off the 5.3 second 0-100km/h time the same magazine obtained. 100km/h is 62 mph. So, it stands to reason that the difference between the car's 0-60 times should be And several American mags have tested the M3 at 4.7 or 4.8 0-60....I realize math and abstract reasoning are tough for you, so I'll do it for you: 4.7+0.1 = 4.8. 4.8+0.1 = 4.9. So, if the M3 can hit 4.7 and 4.8, it is a safe bet the C55 will do it in 4.9 or better.

2) the new CLK55, which weighs in a few hundred pounds more than the C55, has already tested at ***4.5 seconds***, better than a 4.9, in Car and Driver. Drivetrain, gearing, tires, and motor are the same in the two cars...so, obviously, the lighter car will be....*slower*....NOT. At 200 pounds lighter, simple physics dictates the C55 should be faster, barring severe traction issues.

3) Yes, the mags' times were better for the M5 and M3, for one simple reason: because both cars have wider tires and limited slip differentials, which gave them faster launch times. The CLK55 and other AMG cars don't have limited slip, and are shod with skinnier tires than the M3 and M5, even though the CLK55 has more torque, which peaks at a lower RPM, than either. So, its 60' times suffer.

If you don't think 60' times matter in the 1/4, I would suggest taking a look at AWD cars like the Scoobie WRX: compare its 0-60 times with its rolling-start 5-60 times. It loses a full 1/2 second, because it loses the advantage of the AWD off the line traction. Each 0.1 you shave off the 60' time translates to a 0.2 gain in the 1/4.

Yes, I have run enough M5's and M3's to know who will win real-world, and have also seen (and posted here, for you and others) real-world testimonies of M3 and M5 drivers about encounters with the CLK55. IF you read the car mags, you'd see that an as-tested difference of 0.1 or so is statistically a tie, and that's with a pro driver driving and shifting. if I start seeing numerous real-world reports, and/or video, of M3's stomping C55's, I'll change my mind, but not before. The car has a superior weight/hp rating than the M3, and last time I checked, F=ma.

As to the C55 being faster than the RS6: wtf are you talking about? I never claimed any such thing. Step away from the crack pipe.

Now then: do you have any facts to contribute, or are you just wanting to engage in your favorite pasttime, inciting flamefests. Because if it's the latter, sorry to disappoint, but I've got better things to do. Either refute my points, or find someone else to flame bait.

 

Oooh I am soooo impressed. I have refuted your facts, that seem to be all that matter, so many times over with websites, articles, posts, that it makes me sick to think that I ma having this conversation with you, so, YOU WIN FAT ***... YOU WIN... I am not going to bother AGAIN, because no matter what anyone else says, provides, shows, it doesn't matter your word is gospel. Have fun in Texas. Maybe I will come pay you a visit. I will be down there soon enough.

Oh by the way, so what you are saying is, the CLK55 is the fastest rigth? Faster than the RS6 and certainly faster than the E55? Ok, you're right fatty.