C55 vs M3 - Another 5 unimportant reasons ...
11-14-2004, 11:46 PM
#177
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Improviz
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...
I am listening...tell me more please. Let's talk stock SUVs that are better off-road than G500. I know...Hummer H1...but i can argue with you on that too.
Let's talk...Improv, oh wise (an EE degree too) and rich one! Your 4000 sq ft mansion...gosh, i can only dream of owning one of those one day!
Tell me the stock SUVs that are better than G-wagen in off-roading. Awaiting anxiously for your brilliant answers....
Last edited by Thai; 11-14-2004 at 11:54 PM.
11-15-2004, 12:03 AM
#178
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jon, I ran 13.0 @ 108 stock. I doubt I can do better than that stock as our tracks aren't that well prepped & traction sucks. But that's close enough for me to prove M3's can run 12's stock.
I posted the video of me beating the C55 by 0.5 seconds & trapping higher than him. What more do you want.
BTW Improviz, those cars have aftermarket wheels. SO what? Doesn't mean the car modd'd. Be a sore loser if you want. I actually don't care anymore. If anyone posts a vid of a C55 beating an M3 I'm gonna' say it was rigged.
I posted the video of me beating the C55 by 0.5 seconds & trapping higher than him. What more do you want.
BTW Improviz, those cars have aftermarket wheels. SO what? Doesn't mean the car modd'd. Be a sore loser if you want. I actually don't care anymore. If anyone posts a vid of a C55 beating an M3 I'm gonna' say it was rigged.
11-15-2004, 12:17 AM
#179
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
Jon, I ran 13.0 @ 108 stock. I doubt I can do better than that stock as our tracks aren't that well prepped & traction sucks. But that's close enough for me to prove M3's can run 12's stock.
11-15-2004, 12:18 AM
#180
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
I said i have difficulty believing that single equation can be used over a wide variety of vehicles.
You then confirmed my thoughts by giving example where it was out by about +/- 5% using examples from a broad range of vehicles. Which i stated is not accurate enough for using between the C55 and M3 which are very close (i.e a % or two).
I stick by claims that other factors are need to be considered to reduce the 5% error! Can't you understand plain english!!!
Thats all i said now get over it. You are a fool. I guess you are a pretty weak man then........lol
And as for the troll argument as soon as you know your wrong you try to get people banned so they can't destroy your own ignorant little dream world.
Fact, i have said several times that the C32 and C55 are faster than the M3 from a roll, so i'm not pro M, so exactly how does this make me a troll? I try to be unbiast any factual where possible and believe i have been less biased than you.
11-15-2004, 12:30 AM
#182
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK sorry. It's just a bit frustrating when everthing you post gets shot down as being rigged. It's not exactly like I'm posting something that's beyond the realms of possibility. I posted the C&D test where they got 13.1 for the M3.
Now take an owner that drops his rear tyre pressures, cools the manifold, etc. Stuff the mag testers don't do & I think under ideal conditions an M3 could do 12's.
The same could be said of the C32/55. If you posted vids of them doing 12's I wouldn't doubt it unless I thought it wan't possible. I have seen some amazing things in my time & have been forced to eat my words sometimes.
With a manual gearbox you can take advantage of a sticky surface & rev a lot higher.
Jon, I now have chip, induction & exhaust. I will run again this week-end but the difference isn't much on an M3. It is very highly tuned stock. But I knew that before. I may go 0.1-0.2 faster but the exit speed may be a bit up.
Now take an owner that drops his rear tyre pressures, cools the manifold, etc. Stuff the mag testers don't do & I think under ideal conditions an M3 could do 12's.
The same could be said of the C32/55. If you posted vids of them doing 12's I wouldn't doubt it unless I thought it wan't possible. I have seen some amazing things in my time & have been forced to eat my words sometimes.
With a manual gearbox you can take advantage of a sticky surface & rev a lot higher.
Jon, I now have chip, induction & exhaust. I will run again this week-end but the difference isn't much on an M3. It is very highly tuned stock. But I knew that before. I may go 0.1-0.2 faster but the exit speed may be a bit up.
11-15-2004, 12:42 AM
#183
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32AMG
Wow..I thought Ford vs Chevy was heated
I really don't care who is faster as I think the two cars are great and they appeal to different people with different needs. The straight line performance differences are close and the biggest variable is the driver.
Improviz I have used the equations that you use and they are fairly accurate and I use them to estimate my HP and my 1/4 mile, they do work
they are not perfect but what is? I have taken the car to the track and dynoed my car and +/- a few percent they work as you showed and that is good enough for me.
I have raced M3's on the track and on the street, when my car was stock - meaning as I picked it up from the dealer. No changing mags, no playing with tire pressure no swapping air cleaners NOTHING!! I have beaten M3's I am sure I will lose to an M3 one day too..because..the biggest variable is the driver.
M&M Those videos show a very fast M3 running deep into the 12's I respect that and the videos are great I enjoyed them thanks. I somehow doubt that on stock tires no matter how well it hooked that a 1.7X - 1.8X 60 ft is possible consistently. That would mean launching as hard or harder than an AWD car - S4, Evo, STi, Talon etc..The videos of the the silver M3, it does not have a passenger seat. Last time I checked M3's came with passenger seats. Was the car stock well yeah mechanically I guess, except it did not have a seat that makes a difference unless passenger seats are options on M3's.
I read in another post M&M that your car was stock when you ran the 13.0 very nice, but then you went on and said you were running 100+ octane gas? Then in another post somewhere else you mentioned your car was tuned to 350 HP? How is that stock if it was tuned and you were running 100+ octane fuel?
When I say I run stock that includes my booster cables blankets, tools and everything else I carry around in my car day in and day out. Therefore, the best I ran with 94 octane gas, 3/4 of a tank of it, all my crap in the trunk, stock tire pressures front and back, stock air filters (dirty at that) Full interior, no icing down the supercharger, in fact I left the car running in the staging lanes waiting for my run (approx 10 minutes) was a 13.2 with a 1.95 60 foot. I have even run the car with the Air con on. So, I like to say what I run on the street is what I can run at the track.
I figure with drag radials taking out my front seat fiddling with the tire pressures running some high octane gas I could probably pull a 12.9 If I could knock down my 60ft to a 1.75. Many racers say whatever you knock off your 60 ft translates roughly into about double that in the 1/4 mile.
So an M3 pulling a 1.7 60ft would/should be in the 12's.There is no doubt the M3 can go into the 12's but how about some honesty when you say stock, stock means as you got it from the dealer. No one really knows what the person in the videos is running.
I can really only see a 1.7x sixty foot on drag radials or DOT slicks (I don't consider those stock tires) I have done 1.98 and 1.95 on stock tires i.e. the ones from the factory. That was over about 40 runs. I raced a bug on slicks he pulled a 1.7 sixty foot and he pulled a wheelie at the same time, 1.7 on street tires - not drag radials - I find it hard to believe.
Bottom line, IMHO, the cars are close and the biggest variable is the driver and how consistent s/he is. I have raced several M3's they are fast but not fast enough form my STOCK C32 and now that I have my chip and pulley, I don't think so anymore but if they are modified...game on I am ready to win or lose
T
Improviz I have used the equations that you use and they are fairly accurate and I use them to estimate my HP and my 1/4 mile, they do work
they are not perfect but what is? I have taken the car to the track and dynoed my car and +/- a few percent they work as you showed and that is good enough for me.I have raced M3's on the track and on the street, when my car was stock - meaning as I picked it up from the dealer. No changing mags, no playing with tire pressure no swapping air cleaners NOTHING!! I have beaten M3's I am sure I will lose to an M3 one day too..because..the biggest variable is the driver.
M&M Those videos show a very fast M3 running deep into the 12's I respect that and the videos are great I enjoyed them thanks. I somehow doubt that on stock tires no matter how well it hooked that a 1.7X - 1.8X 60 ft is possible consistently. That would mean launching as hard or harder than an AWD car - S4, Evo, STi, Talon etc..The videos of the the silver M3, it does not have a passenger seat. Last time I checked M3's came with passenger seats. Was the car stock well yeah mechanically I guess, except it did not have a seat that makes a difference unless passenger seats are options on M3's.
I read in another post M&M that your car was stock when you ran the 13.0 very nice, but then you went on and said you were running 100+ octane gas? Then in another post somewhere else you mentioned your car was tuned to 350 HP? How is that stock if it was tuned and you were running 100+ octane fuel?
When I say I run stock that includes my booster cables blankets, tools and everything else I carry around in my car day in and day out. Therefore, the best I ran with 94 octane gas, 3/4 of a tank of it, all my crap in the trunk, stock tire pressures front and back, stock air filters (dirty at that) Full interior, no icing down the supercharger, in fact I left the car running in the staging lanes waiting for my run (approx 10 minutes) was a 13.2 with a 1.95 60 foot. I have even run the car with the Air con on. So, I like to say what I run on the street is what I can run at the track.
I figure with drag radials taking out my front seat fiddling with the tire pressures running some high octane gas I could probably pull a 12.9 If I could knock down my 60ft to a 1.75. Many racers say whatever you knock off your 60 ft translates roughly into about double that in the 1/4 mile.
So an M3 pulling a 1.7 60ft would/should be in the 12's.There is no doubt the M3 can go into the 12's but how about some honesty when you say stock, stock means as you got it from the dealer. No one really knows what the person in the videos is running.
I can really only see a 1.7x sixty foot on drag radials or DOT slicks (I don't consider those stock tires) I have done 1.98 and 1.95 on stock tires i.e. the ones from the factory. That was over about 40 runs. I raced a bug on slicks he pulled a 1.7 sixty foot and he pulled a wheelie at the same time, 1.7 on street tires - not drag radials - I find it hard to believe.
Bottom line, IMHO, the cars are close and the biggest variable is the driver and how consistent s/he is. I have raced several M3's they are fast but not fast enough form my STOCK C32 and now that I have my chip and pulley, I don't think so anymore but if they are modified...game on I am ready to win or lose
T
Last edited by TC32AMG; 11-15-2004 at 12:52 AM.
11-15-2004, 01:03 AM
#184
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32AMG
Originally Posted by M&M
With a manual gearbox you can take advantage of a sticky surface & rev a lot higher.
I may go 0.1-0.2 faster but the exit speed may be a bit up.
I may go 0.1-0.2 faster but the exit speed may be a bit up.
An automatic can also take advantage with a sticky surface by power braking to a higher rpm.
Your trap speed will definitely be higher.
Rock on M&MT
11-15-2004, 01:40 AM
#186
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cntlaw
Right, the SLK350 is close to C55 performance and surely will kill Z4 3.0
Likely that SLK55 will kill 997 S.
Likely that SLK55 will kill 997 S.
I don't know, I think its too early to tell.
11-15-2004, 02:19 AM
#188
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC32, sorry for the confusion. I have a few cars. I have an E36 M3 (euro pes 321bhp) that is turbo-charged. That is the one that was tuned to 350hp when it was NA.
My 13.0 was bone stock on street tyres. I did run race gas mixed with pump fuel 50/50. That's because our octane is below that required for optimim performance as per the owners manual. It says that all performance figures are quoted on 98RON. We have 93 RON here. I mix 102 & 93RON to get it up to 97/98. It seems to give a 0.1 second & 1mph gain on the 1/4 mile.
And I agree on the 60ft times of that M3. On the street it would be hard to replicate that. I guess maybe 1.9 is the best one can get in street conditions & a strong stock M3 should be close to 13 dead on the streets with a good driver.
My 13.0 was bone stock on street tyres. I did run race gas mixed with pump fuel 50/50. That's because our octane is below that required for optimim performance as per the owners manual. It says that all performance figures are quoted on 98RON. We have 93 RON here. I mix 102 & 93RON to get it up to 97/98. It seems to give a 0.1 second & 1mph gain on the 1/4 mile.
And I agree on the 60ft times of that M3. On the street it would be hard to replicate that. I guess maybe 1.9 is the best one can get in street conditions & a strong stock M3 should be close to 13 dead on the streets with a good driver.
11-15-2004, 09:05 AM
#189
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E320
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
11-15-2004, 10:16 AM
#190
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
TC32, sorry for the confusion. I have a few cars. I have an E36 M3 (euro pes 321bhp) that is turbo-charged. That is the one that was tuned to 350hp when it was NA.
I stil wish a few black dudes from near by township would catch your sorry lying as s and beat the c rap out of you and your tricycle. .
11-15-2004, 10:21 AM
#191
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 neoprufrok
I don't want to argue about this.. but are you sure about that? 997 S runs 0-60 in 4.1 seconds in many articles and that is very fast, I'm not sure if a SLK55 can match that?
I don't know, I think its too early to tell.
I don't know, I think its too early to tell.
I guess 4.7s may be more reasonable. 4.1s will be somewhat like the 911 Turbo performance already. You are right, there is no point to argue on that.Cheers
cnt
11-15-2004, 11:16 AM
#192
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C32, M3 SMG, VR-4, MR-S
997 S
Originally Posted by cntlaw
4.1 sec ......!! My memory is a bit blurr about so many 997 S articles I read; but I did not recall it is that fast I guess 4.7s may be more reasonable. 4.1s will be somewhat like the 911 Turbo performance already. You are right, there is no point to argue on that.
Cheers
cnt
I guess 4.7s may be more reasonable. 4.1s will be somewhat like the 911 Turbo performance already. You are right, there is no point to argue on that.Cheers
cnt
355bhp and 295lb ft
0-60mph: 4.6s
1/4mile: 13.0s@111mph
1000m: 23.4s@143mph
Btw it matches SLK55 exactly in 0-124mph(200km/h) at 17.5s
Damn... Porsche sure can run....
11-15-2004, 11:55 AM
#193
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cntlaw
4.1 sec ......!! My memory is a bit blurr about so many 997 S articles I read; but I did not recall it is that fast I guess 4.7s may be more reasonable. 4.1s will be somewhat like the 911 Turbo performance already. You are right, there is no point to argue on that.
Cheers
cnt
I guess 4.7s may be more reasonable. 4.1s will be somewhat like the 911 Turbo performance already. You are right, there is no point to argue on that.Cheers
cnt
11-15-2004, 12:47 PM
#194
Super Member
Originally Posted by 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
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=4
Maybe you guys missed this Post...
11-15-2004, 02:24 PM
#195
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Lol, so look at this: two supposed M3 drivers challenged, neither shows up!
What a couple of trash-talking chickens...all brave behind the keyboard, but when the time comes to PUT UP or SHUT UP, neither had the guts to SHOW UP!!! 
Money talks, and walks!! 
Money talks, and
walks!!
Originally Posted by Belmondo
Dufus did you ever show up at the track? I think the dude with the C32 still waiting for you there. Its very nice of you to invite him to the track and than dont show up. Vanish from hte MBworld for a while and than reappear with more BS. You sure "have " a LOT of hot air in your garage, clown .
I stil wish a few black dudes from near by township would catch your sorry lying as s and beat the c rap out of you and your tricycle. .
I stil wish a few black dudes from near by township would catch your sorry lying as s and beat the c rap out of you and your tricycle. .
11-15-2004, 05:02 PM
#197
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
So who wants a repost of me at the track. Problem is the poor C55 didn't enjoy that beating.
Furthermore:
Today, 07:19 AM #188
M&M
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Africa
Vehicle I drive: E46 M3
Posts: 132
TC32, sorry for the confusion. I have a few cars. I have an E36 M3 (euro pes 321bhp) that is turbo-charged. That is the one that was tuned to 350hp when it was NA.
YOu have a few cars? Why dont you post here pics of you in front of your "few" cars, than take one of those cars and show up at the track where the guy with C32 is waiting for you like for the last 30 days and show him what you can do with one of "your" cars. Untill that happens you are just a clown trolling various boards when not riding your tricycle in the kitchen.
YOu sure Leave Behind a lot of skidmarks on hte kitchen floor and in your underwear, clown.
11-15-2004, 06:04 PM
#198
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
I second that...these guys keep talking trash, but never back it up!!
BOTH of these guys do the same thing: talk how their cars will beat CLK55's and C55's/C32's, but when asked to back it up, they back out! What a couple of clowns.
And then, for "proof" that a "bone stock" M3 can hit the 12's, Dufus here posts what? Videos of two M3s, *both* of which are not stock; one has non stock wheels front and rear, *and* has its front seat missing, while the second clearly had non-matching wheels front and rear--a dead giveaway that the guy's running drag radials, *or* slicks. Trevor over in the S600 forum does exactly the same thing when he takes his S600 to the track...look at his videos for proof.
And taking out the front seat *alone* would save a big chunk of weight, particularly if it's a power seat, which would lower its ET...I could have sworn that "bone stock" M3's came with front seats!!! Who knows what else this guy pulled out of his "stock" car?? Who knows *what* tires were mounted on those non-stock rears? Who knows *what* aftermarket exhausts were on these "bone stock" cars?
Pretty pathetic. What a coupla losers....you vant trolls? Ve got trolls!!
And then, for "proof" that a "bone stock" M3 can hit the 12's, Dufus here posts what? Videos of two M3s, *both* of which are not stock; one has non stock wheels front and rear, *and* has its front seat missing, while the second clearly had non-matching wheels front and rear--a dead giveaway that the guy's running drag radials, *or* slicks. Trevor over in the S600 forum does exactly the same thing when he takes his S600 to the track...look at his videos for proof.
And taking out the front seat *alone* would save a big chunk of weight, particularly if it's a power seat, which would lower its ET...I could have sworn that "bone stock" M3's came with front seats!!! Who knows what else this guy pulled out of his "stock" car?? Who knows *what* tires were mounted on those non-stock rears? Who knows *what* aftermarket exhausts were on these "bone stock" cars?
Pretty pathetic. What a coupla losers....you vant trolls? Ve got trolls!!
Originally Posted by Belmondo
Dufus, there are no you at the track, period.Since when reposting someoneelses video puts you at the track ?
Furthermore:
Today, 07:19 AM #188
M&M
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Africa
Vehicle I drive: E46 M3
Posts: 132
TC32, sorry for the confusion. I have a few cars. I have an E36 M3 (euro pes 321bhp) that is turbo-charged. That is the one that was tuned to 350hp when it was NA.
YOu have a few cars? Why dont you post here pics of you in front of your "few" cars, than take one of those cars and show up at the track where the guy with C32 is waiting for you like for the last 30 days and show him what you can do with one of "your" cars. Untill that happens you are just a clown trolling various boards when not riding your tricycle in the kitchen.
YOu sure Leave Behind a lot of skidmarks on hte kitchen floor and in your underwear, clown.
Furthermore:
Today, 07:19 AM #188
M&M
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Africa
Vehicle I drive: E46 M3
Posts: 132
TC32, sorry for the confusion. I have a few cars. I have an E36 M3 (euro pes 321bhp) that is turbo-charged. That is the one that was tuned to 350hp when it was NA.
YOu have a few cars? Why dont you post here pics of you in front of your "few" cars, than take one of those cars and show up at the track where the guy with C32 is waiting for you like for the last 30 days and show him what you can do with one of "your" cars. Untill that happens you are just a clown trolling various boards when not riding your tricycle in the kitchen.
YOu sure Leave Behind a lot of skidmarks on hte kitchen floor and in your underwear, clown.
11-15-2004, 06:55 PM
#199
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
reggid...."Come on, baby....let's do the twist!!"
You are twisting like a wind charm in a hurricane, dude...let's just recap the posting history here, shall we?
In your last response, you state that your objection was never with the equation I provided, but rather with its accuracy.
And yet, in your very first response to my posting that formula, you said absolutely nothing about its accuracy. You wrote:
Uh huh...so, in your world, calling an equation "useless" and saying that one is "unlikely going to get anything realistic from them" is *not* the same as declaring that the equation is, well, useless?!?! Useless and unrealistic is not a question of the equation's accuracy; it is rejecting the equation as worthless out of hand. Give me a break!
So, I gave you a few samples to demonstrate that it does work, and told you that it has an accuracy rating of +-5% of rated crank horsepower. But rather than admit your error, you simply changed your argument and pressed on:
It's not bad; got a better one? How accurate do you think the average dyno is, oh great mechanical engineering wizard?
I wasn't "applying it for two cars"; I was using it to demonstrate that a stock M3 (supposedly M&M's) trapping at 108 would be producing about 20 horsepower more than stock, or weighing about 200 pounds less than stock. But you never let little things like facts bother you, now do you?
To which I pointed out, accurately (as you later admitted), you did not see the derivation of this equation, and therefore could not possibly have any knowledge of what factors were and were not used in its derivation.
Again claiming that the "BS equation" could not possibly be accurate with several different cars with different mechanicals.
In your next post, you again made this claim:
Um, no they're not reg...again: you have no idea what parameters went into the derivation of this equation, including drivelines, so you're dismissing it out of pure ignorance. I showed that it worked on four speed autos, five speed, and six speed manuals with AWD, FWD, and RWD drivelines.
OK, by this time I'd had enough, so it was proof time. I showed you that the equation worked on cars with vastly different Cd, with four cylinder engines, eight cylinder engines, supercharged and N/A, on four-speed auto, five-speed and six-speed manual transmissions, and in cars ranging from a Honda to a Ford pickup truck.
ONLY THEN did you start twisting and turning, trying to disavow what you'd written earlier:
reg, reg...when you first chimed in about the equation and called it "useless", I hadn't even posted its accuracy yet!!
And finally, you spew:
Um, no, you said it was a "simple formula" which "didn't work well enough", was "useless" and that I wouldn't get anything "realistic" from it, that it was a "BS equation", that it "can't be used with vastly different mechanicals" or with different drag coefficients, etc....
What's particularly funny is that even after I demonstrated that the equation *does* perform with the exact level of accuracy I claimed, in vehicles with different drag coefficients, supercharged V8's, normal V8's, four cylinder motors, FWD, AWD, RWD, four speed autos, five speed and six speed manuals, you keep right on trying to wriggle out of your ignorant, stupid, moronic original claims, even though the words are there for everyone to see!
Keep flip-flopping, dude...hilarious to watch!! I had waffles for breakfast today, lol!
In your last response, you state that your objection was never with the equation I provided, but rather with its accuracy.
And yet, in your very first response to my posting that formula, you said absolutely nothing about its accuracy. You wrote:
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.
So, I gave you a few samples to demonstrate that it does work, and told you that it has an accuracy rating of +-5% of rated crank horsepower. But rather than admit your error, you simply changed your argument and pressed on:
Originally Posted by reggid
5% is not terribly accurate!!!
Originally Posted by reggid
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.
Originally Posted by reggid
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.
In your next post, you again made this claim:
Originally Posted by reggid
i don't need to look at its derivation to say that its not particularly accurate across a wide variety of cars and conditions. 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
Originally Posted by reggid
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.
ONLY THEN did you start twisting and turning, trying to disavow what you'd written earlier:
Originally Posted by reggid
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!
reg, reg...when you first chimed in about the equation and called it "useless", I hadn't even posted its accuracy yet!!And finally, you spew:
Originally Posted by reggid
Are you thick or what? I have never backed away from my earlier statements.
Originally Posted by reggid
I said i have difficulty believing that single equation can be used over a wide variety of vehicles.
What's particularly funny is that even after I demonstrated that the equation *does* perform with the exact level of accuracy I claimed, in vehicles with different drag coefficients, supercharged V8's, normal V8's, four cylinder motors, FWD, AWD, RWD, four speed autos, five speed and six speed manuals, you keep right on trying to wriggle out of your ignorant, stupid, moronic original claims, even though the words are there for everyone to see!
Keep flip-flopping, dude...hilarious to watch!! I had waffles for breakfast today, lol!
Last edited by Improviz; 11-15-2004 at 08:43 PM.
11-15-2004, 07:30 PM
#200
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
e55211 traded in for CLS55
Originally Posted by Thai
I know...geez, these people! :p
BTW, you should not call these members on this forum, "idiots." That's just not nice.
BTW, you should not call these members on this forum, "idiots." That's just not nice.
