neoprufrok

Wow, this thread has taken on a life of its own! Good job CNTLAW!

Oh yeah, and that SLK55 AMG is incredible. I don't know if its a 997 killer or not - hard to beat a 996 even - but I'm sure it'll trounce the Z4 easily on a track and might do well against a Boxster S. The only reviews I've read have loved the car - but one major complaint has been the 7g transmission - apparently it seems to be too many gears for the car.

Thai

Improv,

Yet, hmm, isn't Reggid on your side?? Let's see how many more people you can **** off!!!

Again, why would i want to race an E55?? Which part of that statement do you still not understand??!! Dumb #1.

Never showed?? Wait, was there a specific time that you PM'ed me with?? No. So, what was i supposed to show up for?? Dumb #2.

You are so freaking blind that don't even see the link i have to pics of my G500. Read the thread again, dumbass! Dumb #3.

Yeah, you're a real man.... Geez. Try reading next time before opening that BS mouth of yours!

So self-centered...the best part was you accusing me of getting the G500 to avoid racing you!!

Good try.

cntlaw

Right, the SLK350 is close to C55 performance and surely will kill Z4 3.0
Likely that SLK55 will kill 997 S.


SLK350 Performance
0-100 km/h 5.5 seconds
Drag Coefficient 0.34
Fuel - (litres/100km) City/Highway 14.0/ 7.6
Maximum Speed (km/h) 250
Wheels & Tires

Wheels 7.5 J x 17
Tires Front: 225/ 45 R17 Rear: 245/ 40 R17


Weight & Capacity

Weight (kg) 1465
Trunk (m3) 208
Fuel Tank (litres) 70



Dimensions: Exterior (mm)

Wheelbase 2430
Length 4082
Width 1788
Height 1297
Track: Front 1526
Track: Rear 1549
Overhang: Front 803
Overhang: Rear 807



Dimensions: Interior (mm)

Headroom: front 950
Legroom: front 238
Hiproom: front 519
Shoulder-room: front 472

SLK55_AMG

do you think it will kill it?

Improviz

But everyone loves you, the arrogant, moronic, asinine BMW troll, right?

Hardly. Are you too stupid to realize that the W210 E55 was NOT supercharged and had the SAME engine, driveline, and gearing as my CLK55, *and* it was 300 pounds heavier? I.e., if you could beat my CLK55, you should have *killed* Pocholin's E55. But you wouldn't even take that one up, and are apparently too stupid to even understand the case I was trying to make. Hardly surprising, given your idiotic statements so far.

[QUOTE=Thai]Never showed?? Wait, was there a specific time that you PM'ed me with?? No. So, what was i supposed to show up for?? Dumb #2.

[QUOTE=Thai]You are so freaking blind that don't even see the link i have to pics of my G500. Read the thread again, dumbass! Dumb #3.

I never said, or implied, any such thing, idiot. Please: step away from the crack pipe. What I said was that it is very convenient that you first needed tires when I wanted to race your sorry, lame, punk *ss for money, then you sold the POS without being MAN enough to put your money where your mouth was and race me for money.

Face it, dude, the facts are clear: you came in here, trolling as usual and telling everyone how fantastic your POS, engine-blowing BMW M3 was. I finally got sick of your BS claims,issued the challenge to race you at $100/race, and you responded:

And I never heard from you again. You had the chance to step up, put your money where your mouth was, and be a man, but you pussed out, exactly what I'd expect from a wannabe keyboard racer with no *****.

*I* issued the challenge, and *you* said you'd run me when you got new tires. Never did...because you're nothing but a worthless wimp with no *****. If your car would have smoked me like you're claiming, you'd have won more than enough to pay for new tires, but it didn't, and you didn't show, because you're nothing but mouth. What a wuss...all keys and no *****.

reggid

If there's anyone who doesn't doesn't understand maths or physics its you because you claim that this approximation is accurate, it may be accurate in your eyes but thats because you are ignorant.

The inputs have accuracy associated with them, such as the weight and actual speed which have slight errors attached. Where else does the accuracy of the output come from besides the obvious flaws in the equation

you can always rearrange the equation so the "output" is speed anyway

spd = 234 x (hp/w)^0.3333 so your comments show you have NFI.

i don't need to look at its derivation to say that its not particularly accurate across a wide variety of cars and conditions.
Sure it may have a range over which it can be used but this will also provide a range of accuracy some will be close as you have shown but others not so close.
It would be better to develop a seperate formula for BMW's, and a seperate formula for mercede's etc etc.

drag coefficients range from 0.25 to 0.4 realistically but i suppose this is only small

not to mention that it uses engine power rather than rwhp and all transmissions are the same to

how many other factors would you like me to list? They can't all be accounted for by the "234" constant.

i know more than you'll probably ever know. btw what year of highschool are you in becasue you obviously haven't studied physics at all, don't mention the school because you'll give it a bad name.

you are the biggest tool on this forum

Improviz

You will note that as is his custom, 321ponies/343bhp (as he's known when he trolls the Audiworld B6 S4 forum, as he's been doing for over three years now)/M&M (as he goes by here) ignores part of my argument. I said two things: 1) that a ****STOCK**** M3 is not capable of a 1.7 60'/12.6 1/4 mile, *and* 2) that it is possible to modify digital video (as anyone who's ever worked with digital technology can attest).

So, he ignores the stock vs non-stock part of my argument, which is far more important, and posts videos, very carefully focusing on only the modded *video* portion, NOT the modded car part. Why? Well, I invite each and every one of you to examine the videos. NONE of them demonstrate that the cars are stock, and in fact ALL of them demonstrate that the cars were NOT stock. Which is why 321ponies/343bhp/M&M very pointedly did not argue this point; because he knew the videos would bust him. But I have a good memory. Here is what I wrote:

Below you can see what "evidence" M&M posted in reply. Here is a point-by-point commentary to each of the videos:

First video: a video from within a car. No time reference. NO way to verify car was stock or not.

Second video: same thing. NO way to verify car was stock or not.

Third video: the run I'd seen from the track. NO closeup of car; shot from bleachers, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced, and NO way to verify car was stock or not.

Fourth video: car is visible from side up close, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. No way to determine whether or not rubber is stock, but the wheels are DEFINITELY not stock M3 rims. NO way to verify car was otherwise stock or not.

Fifth video: same as first and second: inside car, NO time reference, NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.

Sixth: again: car not wearing stock wheels. No closeup from side; shot from distance in bleachers. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.

Seventh: No closeup from side; shot from side, very obviously NOT wearing stock wheels. NO way to verify car was running drag radials or not. NO way to verify whether car had been modified or had weight reduced.

Last, of him driving a different car: car is obviously modified: non-stock exhaust, AND front and rear wheels don't match. A dead giveaway that someone's got drag radials on the back; people normally keep the stock tires on the stock rims, and substitute the wheels with the drag radials on the rear when they go to the track.

Conclusive evidence that the cars were stock: zero. ALL videos show that the vehicles are NOT running stock rims, when by default means that they were NOT running stock rubber. NO videos show state of tune of the cars, or whether any modifications to vehicles were done, and BOTH cars clearly sound as though they're running nonstock exhaust.

Finally, a timeslip. There are about 500 websites out on the web where one can get a timeslip. Timeslips don't have any proof that a particular vehicle even produced them, let alone whether the vehicle in question is stock.

321ponies/343bhp/M&M, if you were in a court of law on this one, you would have failed to meet any burden of proof whatsoever. Nice try, loser, but those cars aren't stock.

EKaru

Sorry bro, the SLK55 won't kill a 997 S.... According to C&D, the 997 will do 0-60 in 4.1 sec, which is better than an E55 AMG. Given the 997 S's handling characteristics, it will likely leave the SLK55 behind in the curves too..

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=4

Thai

Moron, why would i want to race an E55 when i can race you?? Was my argument with the E55?? No, dumbass. I got tired of the M3's lack of all-weather capability and i sold it...and got something else (all-weather and off-roading). Why would i put on brand new tires and then sell my car??!! Maybe you do, but not me.

Would you like to see pics of my G500???? Improv, you're an idiot.

And to deflate you ego, i did NOT sell my M3 to avoid a race with you. What moronic self-centered thinking is that??!! How dumb is that logic??!! I am sure everyone on this forum can say that you're a dumbass for thinking that!!

Man, what a self-centered moron!

oggle

LOL LOOK MA! IT'S THE BATTLE OF WHO HAS THE BIGGEST INTERNET *****.

Improviz

Yeah, that's right, reggid: I have a Masters' in EE, a minor in Math, and over 60 college credit hours of Math and Physics courses, and I don't know anything about math or physics, lol.

[QUOTE=reggid]The inputs have accuracy associated with them, such as the weight and actual speed which have slight errors attached. Where else does the accuracy of the output come from besides the obvious flaws in the equation

you can always rearrange the equation so the "output" is speed anyway

spd = 234 x (hp/w)^0.3333 so your comments show you have NFI.



No, but you're one of the biggest punks on it, and I'll prove what a moron you are right here. Let's see how the equation works again, real world, using as-tested trap speeds from Road & Track, with cars having totally different Cd, cars' as tested weight, trap speeds, gearing, and (for good measure) drive systems, shall we?

Exhibit A: BMW M5, tested June 2003, 13.3@108.5, as-tested weight: 4040 pounds. 4040*(108.5/234)^3 = 402.73 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 394. Accuracy: +2.2%

Exhibit B: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra, tested July 2004, 13.4@107.0. Car's as-tested weight: 3870 pounds. 3870*(107.0/234)^3 = 370 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 390. Accuracy: -5%, but this 'stang is trapping low. Others have tested in the 110+ range, giving rated horsepower.

Exhibit C: Pontiac GTO, same test as 'stang. 13.9@103.6. Car's as-tested weight: 3960 pounds. 3960*(103.6/234)^3 = 343.65 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 350. Accuracy: -2%.

All of these cars were six-speed manuals with RWD. So, how about a five-speed manual with FWD:

Exhibit D: Honda Civic SI, tested July 2002. Car's as-tested weight: 2905 pounds. 15.9@87.8. 2905*(87.8/234)^3 = 153.45 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 160. Accuracy: -4%.

How about a FWD six-speed manual, with totally different gearing, from the same test:

Exhibit E: Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, same test. 2940 pounds, 15.6@90.3. 2940*(90.3/234)^3 = 168.95 horsepower. Rated: 175. Accuracy: -4.5%.

OK, so much for your idiotic theory about different drivelines. These two FWD cars, one a six-speed, one a five-speed, are both within the same accuracy as the six-speed RWD cars used earlier.

So, could it be less accurate when the horsepower varies by over 200%?

Exhibit F: Ford GT. Tested 12/2003. 3570 pounds, 12.2@121.6. 3570(*121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Rated: 500. Accuracy: +0.19%.

Gee, no, that doesn't work either, moron. So, how about an AWD car?? Surely *that* little variable will blow this "inaccurate" equation right outta the water, right??

Exhibit G: Audi S4, Tested 12/2003. 4080 pounds, 13.9@101.2. 4080*(101.2/234)^3 = 330.03 horsepower. Rated: 340. Accuracy: -3%.

Wow, I'll be screwed...STILL works, even with three completely different drivelines/drive systems!!

So, maybe the Cd will screw it up. I assume you'll concede that a Ford SVT Lightning pickup truck has a significantly larger Cd than any of the above cars, right? Unfortunately, Road & Track doesn't seem to have tested it, can't find it at Car & Driver...but Edmunds has it. They ran one against the Dodge SRT-10. The vehicle weighed 4670 pounds without driver. Add 180 for driver/equipment, you get 4850. Tested at 14.2@98.5 . 4850*(98.5/234)^3 = 361.74. Rated: 380. Accuracy: -5%.

This is with a four-speed automatic tranny to the previous ones' five/six-speed manuals, and in a pickup truck with a lousy Cd.

Still want to keep on acting like a moron, or are you ready to face facts??

Thai

Hmm, i thought you people were smarter....

reggid

What is EE? is it electrical engineering? Ecuse my ignorance. I also have a degree but i'm not going to brag about my credentials.

But anyway, i believe you that its about 3 or 4% accurate, infact i never doubted this. Its quite easy to correlate test data with equations but using a wide variety of vehicles as the sample limits its accuracy.

If you compare two cars and you want to know which has the higher terminal speed at 1/4 mile (by using the equation in reverse) its not accurate enough, its plain and simple the M3 and c55 will trap within a mph or two of each other (1-2%) which is too close to use this equation and achieve any decisive results, there are too many assumptions made (each assumption may be small but there are many assumptions).

That was the point i was trying to make, if you can't see that then you've wasted your education time, i'm sorry to say. Not that a degree means someone knows everything anyway!

btw you wasted your time with all those cals, but you may aswell do some more since your an expert. So tell me what will be the terminal speeds of m5 and e55, lets see how close you get. one of the mags will do a test sooner or latter! The eqns should work across magazines!

Improviz

Yes, dumbass. YOU were coming in here all the time quoting magazine articles and saying how the M3 would beat the CLK55. I realize that your limited intellect is too stupid to understand subtle arguments, which is why I spelled the answer to this question out in my last post. But since you have reading comprehension issues in addition to being an idiot, here it is again:

You claimed that you could beat a W208 CLK55. I challenged you to come here and run for $100 a race, OR gave you ANOTHER option: you could run Pocholin down there, because IF you could stomp a 349 horsepower 3450 pound CLK55 , then you could SURELY stomp a 349 horsepower, 3750 pound E55, right? Same motor, same gearing, same final drive...so, here was your big chance, and he's in the same town as you...but in BOTH cases, my chickensh*t little friend, YOU PUSSED OUT. Wimp.

Why would I care to see photos of a G500? I own a BMW, a Lexus, *and* a Benz, and live in a 4,000 square-foot, full custom home in one of the best areas in the city. Would I be impressed with what you've got? I doubt it, because if you had the means I had, you'd still have your POS M3 rather than incessantly booring us here with tall tales of how great it was.

Thai, you're a BS-talking little twerp who didn't have the ***** to defend his BS CLAIMS about his POS M3 beating AMGs. Spin and lie all you want, but the fact is clear that I called you out, and you *WIMPED* out! Friggin' coward...all tough behind a keyboard, but when the time came to step up and put your money where your mouth was, you pussed out like a little girl. What a pathetic little twerp.

And to point out a fact: I never said, or implied, that you did. Produce a quote if you've got one...you don't, because I didn't, and you know it...this is nothing more than yet another lie to deflect attention from the central fact, which is that when challenged to put up or shut up, stop being a magazine racer and start being a man, you chickened out with a "dog ate my homework" excuse. No excuses, dude...you're a wuss, bigtime, and nothing more than a crusty little pustile in my book.

EKaru

LOL! Grabbing another bag of popcorn....

Improviz

It seems doubtful that it's in any engineering or physics-related field, given that you don't even know what "EE" stands for, lol...

HAHAA, yeah, whatever...anyone can go back and see what you said about the equation....here are a few examples:

From another post:

Oh, no...you never, EVER called the accuracy of the equation across a broad range of cars into question, now did you reg?

All engines and transmissions are the same? I showed that it worked on five-speed manual, six-speed manual, four speed automatic, on compact cars, high-performance German sedans and American sports cars, and a pickup truck, with engines from four cylinder to V8, using FWD, RWD, and AWD drivetrains. You lose.

Sure. The equation solved for speed is spd = 234*(hp/w)^0.3333 If the new M5 weighs 4000 pounds and has 505 horsepower as advertised, plugging and chugging shows that it should trap at about 115 mph.

As to the E55: go to the E55 forum and search for "dyno". The car is producing far more than the 469 rated horsepower, as proven by two things: 1) the equation I provided, which estimates its crank hp at 520; 2) the dyno results, which are 420-430 hp at the wheels bone stock, which divides out to 520-530 horsepower.

Jon200

BS, u asked us to show intelligence and accept a strong stock M3 can beat C32/C55s, nowhere in ur posts u "tried" to claim they are dead even

Thai

Man, how childish are you??!! BTW, i mentioned my G500 because you stated that i may not have one in your post above. Damn, you can't even follow your own crap! Here is the statement that you made:

Ok, you own a BMW, Lexus, and MB...and get this everyone, a 4000 sq ft home!!! Wooowwww...yet, another arrogant ba$tard who thinks he has it all! Damn, i am ashamed to be a MB owner today. Damn, a 4000 sq ft home! Is that like a mansion...or a plantation?? I don't think that i can ever afford that *****!

Oh yeah, i have always wanted an '01 CLK!! Those things are the bomb, man! Wow, how much do those things cost?? Oh wait, you own a BMW and Lexus too?? I know...do you own a junkyard??

This is the funniest crap that i have ever read on the internet! I am gonna link this page to the other forums i visit...THANKS FOR THE LAUGH.

Hint: you shouldn't be a ***** so openly...you don't know what the other guy has....

Too funny. I hope that no one closes down this thread...it's getting funny.

Jon200

I read its a 4L V8 with 400bhp, i suppose these are the numbers u got from 99% car mags around the world

Improviz

...I've wasted enough time demonstrating that your empty M3 boasts are just that--empty. It has been aptly shown that when the challenge was laid down, you pussed out and didn't ante up like a man to put your money where your mouth was. Throw all the insults you like, but at least I was enough of a man to step up, and to tell you to put up or shut up...but like a true magazine-racing Internet hide-behind-the-keyboard coward, you did neither, lol! Talk sh*t about the AMGs all you want, but when the chance came to run them, you were nowhere to be found, chicken.

As to pretension: I'm sure that there are multiple SUVs available which will equal or better the off-road performance of the G500, without that fancy MB star on the hood...so please, spare me the sanctimonious crap. As evidenced by your posts here, you are all about show..but when the challenge was laid down, you were all about the go too...as in going away and hiding, WIMP!

Jon200

I agree with ur points, I looked at those so-called "stock m3" videos Mr Troll posted and i followed ur link in the Audi RS6 forum, this guy is one big troll, he would only post stories about him or his fellow M3 gods killing AMGs and had failed to acknowledge AMG killing M3 stories.

this thread is going nowhere, M&M is once again showing how much he knows about posting in forums without getting flamed and how much he knows about earning respect from people, not just AMG or benz guys but people in general. I do hope that this guy doesn'r represent the majority of the M3 drivers out there who think they have the biggest ***** on Earth

M&M
I know ur reading this, but i guess u won't reply to anything that u can't argue. All this time u hv been telling how M3s can do 12s stock whereas you never post a video link of YOURSELF doing 12s. Why don't you wait for those guys who actually did 12s to do the talking instead of you "trying" to be smart.

I won't be convinced that your anything besides a troll till you can show me ur stock M3 doing at any quicker than your claimed stock 12s

TALK THE TALK, before you WALK THE WALK

reggid

Hey is a first class honours degree in Mech Eng (ME) good enough for you......lol

But then again you probably wouldn't believe me because thats the type of narrowminded person you are.
In my part of the world we don't use that abbreviation anyway (i assume you are in the US, in which case i'm on the other side of the world).

i'm afraid thats wrong!!! Those are the reasons i gave for the 5% errors!!! If it truly could be used over various car configurations and types then there wouldn't be any +/-5% errors now would there!

Improviz

....exactly how accurate you thought that equation was:

From another post:

Oh, no...you never, EVER called the accuracy of the equation across a broad range of cars into question, now did you reg?

Stop lying and admit your error...this is getting tiresome. It takes a pretty weak man not to admit when he's wrong.

Jon200

*cough* *cough* like the troll

Improviz

to the moderators. I gave them links to document his long history of trolling. I would recommend reporting him too...if enough people complain, they'll eventually ban him as they have other trolls.