C55 vs M3 at the dragstrip
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Rendering the video as we speak. Should be up soon. Anyway, 1st the conditions. 95 degree heat, slippery track & 5000ft above sea-level. So a normally aspirated car would be losing 17% power compared to sea-level:
M3's best 13.68 @ 104.4 mph
C55's best 14.41 @ 100 mph
According to NHRA Altitude Correction Factor to convert to sea-level numbers:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html
M3: 12.8
C55: 13.5
M3's best 13.68 @ 104.4 mph
C55's best 14.41 @ 100 mph
According to NHRA Altitude Correction Factor to convert to sea-level numbers:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html
M3: 12.8
C55: 13.5
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: O.C./I.E., CA
05' MB C-dblenckel
Originally Posted by M&M
Rendering the video as we speak. Should be up soon. Anyway, 1st the conditions. 95 degree heat, slippery track & 5000ft above sea-level. So a normally aspirated car would be losing 17% power compared to sea-level:
M3's best 13.68 @ 104.4 mph
C55's best 14.41 @ 100 mph
According to NHRA Altitude Correction Factor to convert to sea-level numbers:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html
M3: 12.8
C55: 13.5
M3's best 13.68 @ 104.4 mph
C55's best 14.41 @ 100 mph
According to NHRA Altitude Correction Factor to convert to sea-level numbers:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html
M3: 12.8
C55: 13.5
M&M,
do you have a manual or SMG??
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Car is bone stock 6-speed manual. Didn't actually run 12.8. That was a corrected number for sea-level. I have run 13.0 at a sea-level track though.
Here's the times for the altitude run:
60ft 2.23 @ 34.12 mph
330ft 5.78 @ 64.75
660ft 8.81 @ 82.6
1000ft 11.44 @ 95.2
1/4 mile 13.68 @ 104.4
As you can see the 60ft is bad due to the slippery surface. I think the C55 sufferred a lot more because of the surface. The driver did try with ESP off & on.
Here's the times for the altitude run:
60ft 2.23 @ 34.12 mph
330ft 5.78 @ 64.75
660ft 8.81 @ 82.6
1000ft 11.44 @ 95.2
1/4 mile 13.68 @ 104.4
As you can see the 60ft is bad due to the slippery surface. I think the C55 sufferred a lot more because of the surface. The driver did try with ESP off & on.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
From: The Magic City
C63
Originally Posted by M&M
Car is bone stock 6-speed manual. Didn't actually run 12.8. That was a corrected number for sea-level. I have run 13.0 at a sea-level track though.
Here's the times for the altitude run:
60ft 2.23 @ 34.12 mph
330ft 5.78 @ 64.75
660ft 8.81 @ 82.6
1000ft 11.44 @ 95.2
1/4 mile 13.68 @ 104.4
As you can see the 60ft is bad due to the slippery surface. I think the C55 sufferred a lot more because of the surface. The driver did try with ESP off & on.
Here's the times for the altitude run:
60ft 2.23 @ 34.12 mph
330ft 5.78 @ 64.75
660ft 8.81 @ 82.6
1000ft 11.44 @ 95.2
1/4 mile 13.68 @ 104.4
As you can see the 60ft is bad due to the slippery surface. I think the C55 sufferred a lot more because of the surface. The driver did try with ESP off & on.
Oh, ok. That is an absolute horrible time for the C55, must have been one really, really bad driver.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Wouldn't the altitude prejudice the M3 in equal fashion? In other words, it does not make sense to say that the C55 got smoked because of the altitude. Logically, the gap between two normally-aspirated cars will be the same, regardless of altitude (unless the M3 has a new 'scuba tank' option that I am unaware of!).
The fact remains that, with both cars having the same altitude handicap, the C55 trailed the M3 by more that 1/2 second (about 8 car lengths, by my calculation) in the quarter mile. Granted, this appears to be an unusually quick M3 and, in all probability, the C55 driver suffered from "premature acceleration" (the act of shooting spurts of petroleum into the cylinder at such a rapid rate that the rear tires lose their love for the pavement). Nonetheless, 8 car lengths is shameful.
Not to drag up an old thread (see "Kill Stories" C32 v. 350Z, where certain individuals argue that it is "impossible" for a C32 to lose to a 350Z, under any circumstances), but the C55 time is just about in 350Z territory. . . At the very least, it is close enough that a good Z driver in the right gear could pull on a novice C55 driver in the wrong part of the C55 powerband.
The fact remains that, with both cars having the same altitude handicap, the C55 trailed the M3 by more that 1/2 second (about 8 car lengths, by my calculation) in the quarter mile. Granted, this appears to be an unusually quick M3 and, in all probability, the C55 driver suffered from "premature acceleration" (the act of shooting spurts of petroleum into the cylinder at such a rapid rate that the rear tires lose their love for the pavement). Nonetheless, 8 car lengths is shameful.
Not to drag up an old thread (see "Kill Stories" C32 v. 350Z, where certain individuals argue that it is "impossible" for a C32 to lose to a 350Z, under any circumstances), but the C55 time is just about in 350Z territory. . . At the very least, it is close enough that a good Z driver in the right gear could pull on a novice C55 driver in the wrong part of the C55 powerband.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Ok to be fair a couple of things count against the C55 more than the M3:
- Slippery surface. With the manual car, I could use the clutch to try to control the wheelspin.
- C55 only had 2000km's on the odo
- Altitude power loss. I know both cars are affected, but I have a feeling (which I can't prove) that the M3's VANOS system compensates better & loses slightly less power to altitude than the C55 does.
I drove the C55 afterwards & it is a great car. Beautiful V8 soundtrack & exquisite interior. Would make a great dailt driver.
- Slippery surface. With the manual car, I could use the clutch to try to control the wheelspin.
- C55 only had 2000km's on the odo
- Altitude power loss. I know both cars are affected, but I have a feeling (which I can't prove) that the M3's VANOS system compensates better & loses slightly less power to altitude than the C55 does.
I drove the C55 afterwards & it is a great car. Beautiful V8 soundtrack & exquisite interior. Would make a great dailt driver.
Excuses, excuses.... 
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 1
From: South Florida
STS,FGT,12C,P85D,M4
the Vanos system ads more oxygen to the air? no.... both cars should have affected very similarly.....
those correction numbers seem off.... has anyone seen a stock M3 run a 12.8 at sea level?
those correction numbers seem off.... has anyone seen a stock M3 run a 12.8 at sea level?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
From: The Magic City
C63
Originally Posted by Fikse
MiamiC55, when are you taking your C55 to moroso? I'll meet you up there with my C32.....
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by Fikse
the Vanos system ads more oxygen to the air? no.... both cars should have affected very similarly.....
those correction numbers seem off.... has anyone seen a stock M3 run a 12.8 at sea level?
those correction numbers seem off.... has anyone seen a stock M3 run a 12.8 at sea level?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
The trap speeds are wrong. The trap speed he's claiming for the M3 is too high for
a stock, non-CSL M3. He claims a 13.68 @ 104.4 mph. But, using the NHRA correction factors page he provided , which gives ET and speed correction factors of .9380 and 1.0661 respectively, this would translate to a 12.83@111.3. The recent M3 tests I've seen in Car & Driver and Road & Track have the car trapping at about 106.
Using the handy-dandy equation for calculating crank horsepower given trap speed and weight from Road & Track (hp = weight+driver*(spd/234)^3), we have (with 150 pound driver) M3 stock horsepower = 3600*(105.5/234)^3 = 334.6 horsepower, spot on for the car, which is rated at 333.
For the car to trap at 111.3, we have 3600*(111.3/234)^3 = 387 horsepower, 55 up from stock (16%). Doesn't sound possible. Not unless this is a CSL, anyway, or it's been stripped of about 500 pounds of weight.
The Benz's numbers seem a bit more plausible. He's saying it ran a 14.41 @ 100 mph, which corrects out to a 13.52@106.6. Trap speed is a bit off, as this calculates out to about 348 horsepower...with 362, I'd be expecting a trap speed of about 108: 3690*(108/234)^3 = 362.8 horsepower.
Using the handy-dandy equation for calculating crank horsepower given trap speed and weight from Road & Track (hp = weight+driver*(spd/234)^3), we have (with 150 pound driver) M3 stock horsepower = 3600*(105.5/234)^3 = 334.6 horsepower, spot on for the car, which is rated at 333.
For the car to trap at 111.3, we have 3600*(111.3/234)^3 = 387 horsepower, 55 up from stock (16%). Doesn't sound possible. Not unless this is a CSL, anyway, or it's been stripped of about 500 pounds of weight.
The Benz's numbers seem a bit more plausible. He's saying it ran a 14.41 @ 100 mph, which corrects out to a 13.52@106.6. Trap speed is a bit off, as this calculates out to about 348 horsepower...with 362, I'd be expecting a trap speed of about 108: 3690*(108/234)^3 = 362.8 horsepower.
Originally Posted by vadim@evosport
14.4 - Hmmm, at 100 MPH, Hmmmmm
Even at 5000 ft. seems slow..................................
We just did some tuning on C55, I will post results shortly.
Even at 5000 ft. seems slow..................................
We just did some tuning on C55, I will post results shortly.
