C55 vs M3 - Another 5 unimportant reasons ...
#126
Here we go again:
Originally Posted by M&M
SO do I rally have to go through all this again? I have posted all the links from Track-challenge, SPort Auto, Autocar, Evo, Spanish, Greek, South Africa, Australian mags that all got the M3 quicker. What about my video where I beat a C55 by 0.5 seconds 4 times in a row?
And I love how you, as usual, simply ignore the part from Motor Trend which shows that the AMG cars are traction-limited. Here it is again: why don't you comment on this, since you are supposedly such a wizard on drag racing:
Read the following M3/CLK55 comparison test from Motor Trend
With nearly identical curb weights and horsepower, this pair runs comparable 0-60-mph times-5.02 sec for the M3 and 5.23 for the CLK55. The difference closes slightly at the end of the quarter mile, with the M3 recording a 13.63/103.76, while the CLK55 runs a respectable 13.74/104.44. MT test driver Chris Walton noted that the CLK55 produces lots of wheelspin off the line, while the M3 stays better hooked up. The CLK's five-speed automatic transmission performs nearly perfect shifts, thanks to the Touch Shift manumatic gear selector. However, Walton found it harder to drive the M3 once it gets rolling because it's easy to hit the 8000-rpm rev limiter on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts of the six-speed manual transmission. A possible solution is BMW's optional Sequential Manual Gearbox ($2400). Derived from BMW's F1 cars, the system uses a manual transmission, an automated clutch (no pedal to push), and steering-wheel-mounted shift paddles. Despite being down 114 lb-ft of torque, the M3 won our acceleration test by a hair, thanks to better traction and even more aggressive gearing.
Not convinced? Read the following M5/E55 comparison test from Motor Trend
These cars aren't quick. They're genuinely fast: The M5 blisters 0-60 mph in a 911-like 4.6 sec. The Mercedes stays in the fours by 0.01 of a second at 4.99. The BMW's approximately 4/10 advantage hangs on through the quarter mile (13.08 at 109.41 mph versus 13.46 at 106.71). The difference isn't so much the old saw about power losses with an automatic transmission as that the Mercedes was all too happy to just smoke 'em at the starting line. In spite of a clutch that takes some practice to be smooth with, Senior Road Test Editor Chris Walton actually found the M5 easier to launch.
It's not a case of the AMGs being overpowered: it's the all-important 60' time. The LSD in the M cars helps their 60' time.
Originally Posted by M&M
But I have no problem with Improviz's post. Its probably true. Problem is, I could go through BMW forums & dig up even more posts where the opposite has happened. Actually if I had time that is exactly what I would do. There was a guy on the one forum that bought an M3 & his dad had a C32. They went & tested ont he highway & he walked his dad easily. Then they swapped drivers & his dad walked him with the M3. What does that prove?
Originally Posted by M&M
I have run 13.0 @ 108 bone stock. Lee Rutter had run 12.72 with a bone stock e46 M3. His exit speed wat 107 & his 60ft was 1.71. Those speeds prove the car was stock. Anyway his car now has minor mods & runs 12.4 @ 112. Who want links?
I also understand that he's on either his second or third transmission. So, if he's pumping his fronts up to 60psi, stripping all of the weight out of his car, has drag radials on the back, powershifts and abuses the hell out of his transmission (a safe bet, given that he's on his third or whatever), he could probably pick up some time...but whose car will still be standing when the warranty expires??
And if you go to that forum and examine his posts, there were a lot of *M3* drivers who doubted his claims.
Originally Posted by M&M
HEre's a guy with a stock SMG M3 that ran 13.0:
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...ight=post+pics
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...ight=post+pics
Also note that this guy was playing around with his tire pressures; the magazines test at factory recommended settings. IF you pump your fronts up to 50 psi, guess what?? Your times will decrease due to the lowered rolling resistance of the fronts. And the mags test with a full tank of gas; if one runs with 1/4 tank, the weight reduction can add another tenth, as each 100 pounds of weight added/subtracted adds/subtracts a tenth from your ET. So, if someone pumped up their C55's fronts to 50 psi, etc., I'd expect to see a similar reduction in times.
This is why mag tests are at least a decent yardstick: they're all done with a full tank of gas, with stock tire pressures, and are altitude/temperature corrected.
Originally Posted by M&M
What does a stock C32/55 run.
Originally Posted by M&M
Definitely not better than 12.72.
Originally Posted by M&M
Why don't you guys just show some intelligence & concede that its possible for a strong stock M3 with a good driver to beat a C32/55?
There are production tolerances, though, and it's entirely conceivable that both you and I got "hot" cars from the factory. Each and every M3 and C55/CLK55 which leaves the factory will not produce exactly their rated horsepower. Some will have more, some will have less. Each and every M3 and C55/CLK55 which leaves the factory will not produce the same driveline losses, etc...this is why the magazines *always* give a "significant difference" figure; vehicles within this figure are statistically tied, meaning that the winner of a run between the two cannot be predicted with a high level of certainty.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-13-2004 at 05:46 PM.
#127
If he's trapping at 108 in a stock M3, he's putting out well beyond advertised hp.
Originally Posted by BenzoAMGpower
so your best run was 13.0 @ 108mph and your buddys 12.7 @ 107mph.... and you think u can beat a stock C55 under teh same conditions?
w = weight of car with driver
spd = trap speed.
The mags have been testing the M3 at 105-106. Average this out and plug in using the 3450 pound curb weight plus 180 pounds for driver/equipment, and you get:
hp = 3630*(105.5/234)^3 = 332.6 horsepower, spot on for rated 333.
Using M&M's claimed 108 mph trap speed (assuming he's a svelte 150 pounds), we have
hp = 3600*(108/234)^3 = 354 horsepower, 21 over rated horsepower.
As I pointed out: if he's being honest about this whole affair, it would seem that his car is a bit more powerful, or lighter, than the ones tested by the mags here.
#128
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ML350 '06
Originally Posted by M&M
Yeah SLK55 should beat an M3. But M3 is in its final production year. 4.5 V8 M3 with 440hp will be here in a year's time.
M&M:
Are you planning on getting the new M3 when it comes out? Just curious, plus I wanted an excuse to be part of this thread. j/k
Nick
PS cntlaw, you're an instigator...look at this thread you started and then when it nears completion you go and through in "is the slk55 faster than the M3. hahaha, you crack me up. I know it's not your intention...just giving ya a hard time, or is it? :p Also, did anyone notice that the comparison pic of the benz looks to be a C32 not a C55?
Last edited by Nickerz; 11-13-2004 at 05:52 PM.
#129
Improviz, you are a sore loser & I feel sorry for you. "They rigged the video". FOR F*** SAKE!!!!!!!! There were only a few hundred people there. I guess his timeslips are fake too? And what about the other 500 videos of him doing 12.8's. I guess his 12.4 modd'd video is also rigged.
And your theory about his car being modd'd shows your stupidity. Trap speed is the telling factor. 106mph. Now he traps 112 with mods. 1.71 60ft is the reason he ran 12's stock with stock tyres & full weight.
BTW C&D got an M3 to do 13.1 1/4 mile:
And your theory about his car being modd'd shows your stupidity. Trap speed is the telling factor. 106mph. Now he traps 112 with mods. 1.71 60ft is the reason he ran 12's stock with stock tyres & full weight.
BTW C&D got an M3 to do 13.1 1/4 mile:
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/M&M&M/CD302P110.jpg)
#130
Originally Posted by Improviz
Per Road & Track's horsepower calculation, you can get very accurate crank hp figures by using the following: hp = w*(spd/234)^3 , where
w = weight of car with driver
spd = trap speed.
w = weight of car with driver
spd = trap speed.
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Improviz
You didn't show. Wimped out. I offered to run you for $$$, and you didn't take it. End of story.
I have no PMs in my mailbox from you. Wimped out?? Yeah, ok.
Your mouth should be washed with soap because it's full of BS....
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Last edited by Thai; 11-13-2004 at 11:37 PM.
#132
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
Originally Posted by Nickerz
PS cntlaw, you're an instigator...look at this thread you started and then when it nears completion you go and through in "is the slk55 faster than the M3. hahaha, you crack me up. I know it's not your intention...just giving ya a hard time, or is it? :p Also, did anyone notice that the comparison pic of the benz looks to be a C32 not a C55?
True. SLK55 is what MB think their fans should get it to beat M3.
If everyone thinks of M3 a sport car , that is what MB thinks
"let's beat it with a more sporty car"
![](http://g.myspace.com/00031/39/98/31898993_l.jpg)
i.e the SLK55 AMG is going to kill M3 V8 400/440 hp
p.s. The photo I posted is indeed a C55
![](http://g.myspace.com/00030/05/87/30227850_l.jpg)
one more!
![](http://g.myspace.com/00031/95/87/31897859_l.jpg)
"the big brothers are waiting for the M5!!"
![](http://g.myspace.com/00031/91/80/31900819_l.jpg)
Last edited by cntlaw; 11-14-2004 at 12:25 AM.
#133
Lol, you are a pathetic little man...
Originally Posted by M&M
Improviz, you are a sore loser & I feel sorry for you.
![poke](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/stickpoke.gif)
Didn't mommy and daddy give you enough attention as a child?? What a sad little pathetic man you must be. Pathetic.
But I'd like to gain some insight into this twisted mind of yours....so please, enlighten me: exactly have I 'lost', troll?
And also, enlighten me: what exactly is it that you feel that you gain by coming here and to the Audiworld B6 S4 forum and trolling? What bizarre sense of self-fulfillment does this give you? Some people love Internet ****, you love trolling and annoying people. Go figure...takes all kinds of losers, I guess, and between you, Thai, Gabri343, and Kain, we get more than our share of them!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Originally Posted by M&M
They rigged the video". FOR F*** SAKE!!!!!!!! There were only a few hundred people there. I guess his timeslips are fake too? And what about the other 500 videos of him doing 12.8's. I guess his 12.4 modd'd video is also rigged.
And are you saying flat out that it's impossible to mod a digital video? So, you're just as stupid about digital technology as you are about cars, eh? Hardly a surprise...given your immature fascination with trolling, I would imagine that you scarcely have time for anything else. What an interesting childhood you must have had to turn out like this: day in, day out, going to forums for cars different than yours and producing repeated trolling posts that are the intellectual equivalent of "nyah na na nyha na". How proud your mother must be!
Originally Posted by M&M
And your theory about his car being modd'd shows your stupidity. Trap speed is the telling factor. 106mph. Now he traps 112 with mods. 1.71 60ft is the reason he ran 12's stock with stock tyres & full weight.
The only person you're impressing here is yourself. My car cost $20K more than yours, dimwit: if I wanted an M3, I could have gotten one and saved some scratch. Could you have gotten mine? I doubt it...otherwise, you'd have gotten a 996, which has superior track numbers to your M3, right? Because you seem to care about little else other than track numbers...which begs the question: why did you compromise and get a sedan rather than a true sports car like a Porsche 911, given your fascination with track numbers?
IN fact, although I had absolutely no difficulty finding the ten instances of you doing it to which I linked to in this thread (in fact, there were plenty more, but I thought ten was sufficient to make the point), I don't see Porsche guys trolling here...only BMW guys seem to do this....why is that? Is the M3 the car for the attention-starved inadequate crowd? Perhaps that explains why I and the others here didn't get one.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-14-2004 at 02:22 AM.
#134
Hey, loser...I called YOU out, and YOU didn't show. $100 a race, remember??
Here's the post. I challenged you to come to Ennis and run, $100 a race. I also told you that Pocholin would be happy to race you in his E55, and he *lives* in Houston. You said you would when you got tires. I take it you never got tires, because you WIMPED OUT and didn't show, even after you said the following:
Too bad you wimped out and didn't show; I'm sure you'd have made some money, lol...which is of course why I challenged you: because I was confident that I would lose money to you, lol...
Talk smack from behind a keyboard all you like, but the post shows that when I offered to take you up on your empty boasts, you were too chicken to put your money where your mouth is...and now you've conveniently "sold" your car, so you conveniently can't show up and put your money where your mouth is, but that doesn't stop you from trolling about the damn thing, now does it?
Pathetic. What a sad little loser...wouldn't even show up and put up. All talk...chicken.
Originally Posted by Thai
My M3 is at 19,500 miles and in desparate need of new rear tires. I am waiting for Discount Tire Co. to order the new Michelin Pilot Sport PS2. WHEN I GET IT, THEN WE CAN RACE. Ok??!! Geez.
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Talk smack from behind a keyboard all you like, but the post shows that when I offered to take you up on your empty boasts, you were too chicken to put your money where your mouth is...and now you've conveniently "sold" your car, so you conveniently can't show up and put your money where your mouth is, but that doesn't stop you from trolling about the damn thing, now does it?
Pathetic. What a sad little loser...wouldn't even show up and put up. All talk...chicken.
Originally Posted by Thai
You were in Houston?? When?? Why didn't you PM me??? I set up this forum to email me with any PMs. I am in Houston almost every other weekend.
I have no PMs in my mailbox from you. Wimped out?? Yeah, ok.
Your mouth should be washed with soap because it's full of BS....![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
I have no PMs in my mailbox from you. Wimped out?? Yeah, ok.
Your mouth should be washed with soap because it's full of BS....
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Last edited by Improviz; 11-14-2004 at 01:34 AM.
#135
Reggid, they do work. Check this out:
Originally Posted by reggid
those simple formulas don't work well enough!!! They are useless, theres more to peak hp and weight, and so your unlikely going to get anything realistic from them.
Horsepower = 4180(107/234)^3 = 399 horsepower. Car rated at: 394.
Z06 'vette: 3150 pounds, 400 horsepower, traps 116 mph. With driver/equip: 3330 pounds. 3330(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Car rated at: 405.
It works pretty well..try it with the road test results in the back of Road & Track.
#136
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
Originally Posted by Improviz
Is the M3 the car for the attention-starved inadequate crowd? Perhaps that explains why I and the rest of us didn't get one.
One of the reasons I did not get the M3 because I did not want to be one of them. I like the MB+AMG philosophy - why waste time to build a 3200cc AMG engine with 360hp while they could do it 2 times cheaper and 10 times quicker to deliver a 5500cc to their C-Class fans before their lives end.
The AMG engineers did a great job.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#137
Improviz, you are dumb. HOw do you mod a car to do a 1.7 60ft & then only trap 106? Huh? What kind of mod is that? Some kind of superchip? Some magical induction system that stips working after 60ft? Special high lift cams that work for 1000rpm?
C'mon accept it. He's not the only guy that's running 12's with a stock M3. In his video (there are 6 of them with him running 12.7-12.9 stock), the video starts out with him warming his tyres. The camera zooms in. YOU CAN SEE THE TYRES. HE RAN STOCK CONTINENTALS.
Enlgishtown happens to have very sticky surface & he says he comes off the clutch at 5000rpm with minimal wheelspin.
C'mon accept it. He's not the only guy that's running 12's with a stock M3. In his video (there are 6 of them with him running 12.7-12.9 stock), the video starts out with him warming his tyres. The camera zooms in. YOU CAN SEE THE TYRES. HE RAN STOCK CONTINENTALS.
Enlgishtown happens to have very sticky surface & he says he comes off the clutch at 5000rpm with minimal wheelspin.
#138
Originally Posted by Improviz
According to Road & Track, this calculation is accurate to within 5%. Look at the M5: rated at 400 hp, usually trapped 106-108 mph. Average this out to 107, and figure 4180 with equipment and driver, and you get:
Horsepower = 4180(107/234)^3 = 399 horsepower. Car rated at: 394.
Z06 'vette: 3150 pounds, 400 horsepower, traps 116 mph. With driver/equip: 3330 pounds. 3330(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Car rated at: 405.
It works pretty well..try it with the road test results in the back of Road & Track.
Horsepower = 4180(107/234)^3 = 399 horsepower. Car rated at: 394.
Z06 'vette: 3150 pounds, 400 horsepower, traps 116 mph. With driver/equip: 3330 pounds. 3330(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Car rated at: 405.
It works pretty well..try it with the road test results in the back of Road & Track.
So if the formula says a trap speed should be say 100mph it could be actually 97.5 to 102.5 mph thats alot of variation and not good for applying it for two cars that trap within a mph or two of each other.
To name a few simple reasons why it doesn't take into account grip, engine power curve, gearing, drag etc etc etc etc etc.
A simple formula could be developed for a particular car by doing several tests, in theory it can then be used for the same car after a mod or two provided nothing drastic is changed. It can't however to be used for cars with vastly different mechanicals etc. You'd be better of forgetting about R&T and its BS equations.
If only the world was so simple.
#139
Reggid you are 100% right. The formula is a guidline. It can get thrown completely off if you have a 30moh tailwind. Or if the temp is very low. Or if the track has exceptional traction Or if ........
There's too many variables involved.
There's too many variables involved.
#140
OK I'd like the opinion of some of you guys as to whether these videos are rigged:
Here's his bone stock run 12.71 @ 106.8 (with street tyres 1.8 60ft):
http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0004.mpg
Here's another stock run 12.72:
http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0002.mpg
Here's his 12.63 @ 106 run (power pulleys, stock tyres):
http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=705&p=4
Here's 12.52 @ 107.96 (5200rpm launch, pulleys, chip):
http://www.daftproductions.com/video...520_107.96.mpg
Here's his 12.49 @ 109 runs (chip, pulleys, intake, no passenger seat):
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/leedrag1.mpg
http://www.daftproductions.com/video...497_109-30.mpg
Here's the car in its current state (changed diff) Note how the trap speed has gone up from his stock run:
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-482.mpg
For those that don't know, the driver used to drag race Mustang's professionally & has been featured in a few mags.
But here's a different M3 with a Lee driving also running 12.807. WIth the owner driving, the car runs 13.1. The fact that he does a 1.81 60ft IN ANOTHER GUY'S CAR proves his car wasn't modd'd:
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-807.mpg
So to recap here's his timeslip bone stock, which is the record for an M3:
![](http://forum.e46fanatics.com//attachment.php?s=&postid=444806)
So we are all well educated guys here. What is the conclusion?
Here's his bone stock run 12.71 @ 106.8 (with street tyres 1.8 60ft):
http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0004.mpg
Here's another stock run 12.72:
http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0002.mpg
Here's his 12.63 @ 106 run (power pulleys, stock tyres):
http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=705&p=4
Here's 12.52 @ 107.96 (5200rpm launch, pulleys, chip):
http://www.daftproductions.com/video...520_107.96.mpg
Here's his 12.49 @ 109 runs (chip, pulleys, intake, no passenger seat):
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/leedrag1.mpg
http://www.daftproductions.com/video...497_109-30.mpg
Here's the car in its current state (changed diff) Note how the trap speed has gone up from his stock run:
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-482.mpg
For those that don't know, the driver used to drag race Mustang's professionally & has been featured in a few mags.
But here's a different M3 with a Lee driving also running 12.807. WIth the owner driving, the car runs 13.1. The fact that he does a 1.81 60ft IN ANOTHER GUY'S CAR proves his car wasn't modd'd:
http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/m3_12-807.mpg
So to recap here's his timeslip bone stock, which is the record for an M3:
So we are all well educated guys here. What is the conclusion?
Last edited by M&M; 11-14-2004 at 06:40 AM.
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Why would i want to race an E55??
What part of that statement made sense to you???
I would not race for money...but i would gladly take on a friendly challenged. As noted in the thread, i consider it a personal reward to beat another car...i don't need cash that badly. You're right...i traded in my M3 for a G500...but do you think that i did this JUST to avoid your sorry a$$??!! Grow up.
What dumb self-centered thinking is that???!!!! What are you, 2 years old?!!
I expected this type of thinking from my 2-year old, but not from a grown man/woman!
Hey, why didn't you come down to Houston??? All that talk, and you never came down!!! Didn't you tell me that you were gonna be in Houston???? Hmmmm. So, anyone who doesn't come out to Pocholiin (where the hell is that?!) to meet your challenge is a wimp???? Again, how old are you??!!
Are you dumb for real or just a good pretender???!!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
I would not race for money...but i would gladly take on a friendly challenged. As noted in the thread, i consider it a personal reward to beat another car...i don't need cash that badly. You're right...i traded in my M3 for a G500...but do you think that i did this JUST to avoid your sorry a$$??!! Grow up.
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
What dumb self-centered thinking is that???!!!! What are you, 2 years old?!!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Hey, why didn't you come down to Houston??? All that talk, and you never came down!!! Didn't you tell me that you were gonna be in Houston???? Hmmmm. So, anyone who doesn't come out to Pocholiin (where the hell is that?!) to meet your challenge is a wimp???? Again, how old are you??!!
Are you dumb for real or just a good pretender???!!
![wall](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
#142
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: HK (but constantly travelling)
Posts: 4,169
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
98 W210 Advantgarde
Originally Posted by cntlaw
True. SLK55 is what MB think their fans should get it to beat M3.
If everyone thinks of M3 a sport car , that is what MB thinks
"let's beat it with a more sporty car"
i.e the SLK55 AMG is going to kill M3 V8 400/440 hp
If everyone thinks of M3 a sport car , that is what MB thinks
"let's beat it with a more sporty car"
![](https://g.myspace.com/00031/39/98/31898993_l.jpg)
i.e the SLK55 AMG is going to kill M3 V8 400/440 hp
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![](http://auto.tom.com/img/assets/200402/2_040226135918.jpg)
#143
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55AMG W203; 330i E90
Originally Posted by Whitey
In this already heated thread, one could at least use the right pic or risk being shot down.....
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![](http://auto.tom.com/img/assets/200402/2_040226135918.jpg)
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![](http://auto.tom.com/img/assets/200402/2_040226135918.jpg)
#146
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Plebian question: What does the "^" in the hp=w(trap speed/234)^3 formula signify? If my modded C32 is running 111 MPH trap speeds with my 240 lb. **** inside, how much hp is it generating? (my car has no sunroof, and I shaved 30 lbs off of the car by swapping out the battery, so my car is probably 100 lbs lighter than the average C32).
#147
Hey, dude....if you can derive a better formula, let's see it.
And the examples I showed you were spot on, i.e. the cars' measured trap speeds in scientifically controlled tests gave EXACTLY the cars' rated horsepower using the equation at which you're throwing rocks. If that's not good enough for you, waste someone else's time. You obviously don't understand math or physics.
Demonstrating that you don't even understand the meaning of "accuracy". The accuracy of the equation is measured at its OUTPUT, not at its INPUT. I assume you have enough intelligence to operate a calculator, yes?
Oh, really? You saw its derivation?? No, you didn't. These were factored in, over certain ranges. Most production cars have a small range of drag coefficients, Einstein. Obviously, the equation wouldn't work on a vehicle with a Cd of 1.00, but production cars don't have that large of a variation. So, it is possible to approximate using a certain range, which is exactly what was done to derive the equation.
The NHRA uses this equation. Many people use this equation. It was provided by Road & Track, but it was not derived by them.
...which is why, for the three examples I've shown so far on cars with vastly different mechanicals, IT WORKED PERFECTLY
You'd be better off not spouting off about physics when you obviously don't know anything about it.
Originally Posted by reggid
5% is not terribly accurate!!!
So if the formula says a trap speed should be say 100mph it could be actually 97.5 to 102.5 mph thats alot of variation and not good for applying it for two cars that trap within a mph or two of each other.
So if the formula says a trap speed should be say 100mph it could be actually 97.5 to 102.5 mph thats alot of variation and not good for applying it for two cars that trap within a mph or two of each other.
Originally Posted by reggid
To name a few simple reasons why it doesn't take into account grip, engine power curve, gearing, drag etc etc etc etc etc.
The NHRA uses this equation. Many people use this equation. It was provided by Road & Track, but it was not derived by them.
Originally Posted by reggid
A simple formula could be developed for a particular car by doing several tests, in theory it can then be used for the same car after a mod or two provided nothing drastic is changed. It can't however to be used for cars with vastly different mechanicals etc.
Originally Posted by reggid
You'd be better of forgetting about R&T and its BS equations.
If only the world was so simple.
If only the world was so simple.
#148
Look at the wimp twisting...
Originally Posted by Thai
Why would i want to race an E55??
What part of that statement made sense to you???
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Originally Posted by Thai
I would not race for money...but i would gladly take on a friendly challenged. As noted in the thread, i consider it a personal reward to beat another car...i don't need cash that badly. You're right...i traded in my M3 for a G500...but do you think that i did this JUST to avoid your sorry a$$??!! Grow up. ![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
Originally Posted by Thai
What dumb self-centered thinking is that???!!!! What are you, 2 years old?!!
I expected this type of thinking from my 2-year old, but not from a grown man/woman!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Originally Posted by Thai
Hey, why didn't you come down to Houston??? All that talk, and you never came down!!! Didn't you tell me that you were gonna be in Houston???? Hmmmm. So, anyone who doesn't come out to Pocholiin (where the hell is that?!) to meet your challenge is a wimp???? Again, how old are you??!!
Are you dumb for real or just a good pretender???!!![wall](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
Are you dumb for real or just a good pretender???!!
![wall](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
Loser.
#149
It means "raised to the nth power", or "cubed":
It means take a number times itself a certain number of times. So, for example, 3^2 = 3x3 = 9. 3^3 = 3x3x3 = 27.
I'd have to know its weight with you in it to run the numbers...have you weighed the car? Your weight can be approximated.
I'd have to know its weight with you in it to run the numbers...have you weighed the car? Your weight can be approximated.
Originally Posted by Vomit
Plebian question: What does the "^" in the hp=w(trap speed/234)^3 formula signify? If my modded C32 is running 111 MPH trap speeds with my 240 lb. **** inside, how much hp is it generating? (my car has no sunroof, and I shaved 30 lbs off of the car by swapping out the battery, so my car is probably 100 lbs lighter than the average C32).
#150
Drag radials, dummy.
That car could hit a 1.7 with drag radials on a sticky track, possibly, but not with stock tires. And the video I saw had no zoom-in. Do you have one that does? IF so, link it.
Btw, I don't intend to waste too much more time on you, because as I demonstrated, you are an obvious troll. I will be reporting your pattern to the moderators, though, and sending them the links of your doing this in other forums. You are a pathetic dweeb who is not here for any other purpose than to incite flamefests, and I've got documented proof of your doing it for over three years in another forum....loser.
Btw, I don't intend to waste too much more time on you, because as I demonstrated, you are an obvious troll. I will be reporting your pattern to the moderators, though, and sending them the links of your doing this in other forums. You are a pathetic dweeb who is not here for any other purpose than to incite flamefests, and I've got documented proof of your doing it for over three years in another forum....loser.
Originally Posted by M&M
Improviz, you are dumb. HOw do you mod a car to do a 1.7 60ft & then only trap 106? Huh? What kind of mod is that? Some kind of superchip? Some magical induction system that stips working after 60ft? Special high lift cams that work for 1000rpm?
C'mon accept it. He's not the only guy that's running 12's with a stock M3. In his video (there are 6 of them with him running 12.7-12.9 stock), the video starts out with him warming his tyres. The camera zooms in. YOU CAN SEE THE TYRES. HE RAN STOCK CONTINENTALS.
Enlgishtown happens to have very sticky surface & he says he comes off the clutch at 5000rpm with minimal wheelspin.
C'mon accept it. He's not the only guy that's running 12's with a stock M3. In his video (there are 6 of them with him running 12.7-12.9 stock), the video starts out with him warming his tyres. The camera zooms in. YOU CAN SEE THE TYRES. HE RAN STOCK CONTINENTALS.
Enlgishtown happens to have very sticky surface & he says he comes off the clutch at 5000rpm with minimal wheelspin.