C55 vs M3 - Another 5 unimportant reasons ...
11-15-2004, 07:49 PM
#201
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by MrAMG
You are not just an idiot, I see that you are also dumb, wimp #@%$#^&*! But I won't argue with you. 
11-15-2004, 09:28 PM
#203
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Improviz
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!
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!
The whole reason i called it useless is that you can't say someones not trapping at 108 by using a formula, that by using common sense cannot be accurate enough to prove anything decisive.
(Yes at that point i had no idea how inaccurate it was, but any person with common sense can not expect answers to be better than the 5% error that you showed, there are too many variables and you were using the equation as if it gave definitive answers).
Then you then confirmed that there was about +/-~5% error. so when you said M&M's car needed 354 hp (21hp) over the rated number to get a 108 trap speed you concluded that he was lying and this from an equation that is hardly accurate to begin with.
Granted the equation is probably better than pulling numbers out of ones a$$ but anyway.
No i haven't seen the derivation, but how can the driveline, drag, traction etc etc etc be incorporated if the constant is the only other part of the equation besides hp and weight ( i'm talking in terms of using the equation to predict trapspeed given hp and weight). So effectively the constant accounts for all other variables besides hp and weight, and theres no way that all cars would have the same constant and thats why the error is 5% to enable a wide variety of cars to use the equation.
They probably used an empirical relationship based on test data from a variety of cars and fit a curve based on results. All you need is the manufacturers power ratings and weight. Then run them down the strip, record the speed, plot the results and fit an equation based on hp/weight v trap speed. Thats the simplest method. If you were to develop a formula for RWD manual and another for rwd auto etc etc you'd probably get different constants which would work better.
I have never backed away from anything or changed my mind on anything! The equation isn't accutate enough to be used as anything other than a rough estimate. So it doesn't prove that M&M's car was moded or stripped out and that was your initial argument.
I'm sorry if you can't see where i'm coming from
11-15-2004, 10:29 PM
#205
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He'll disappear for a few days from now
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.
bad bad troll
11-15-2004, 11:25 PM
#206
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's me at the track vs C55:
Here's me & some buds:
Here's a video of us on the skidpan:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
And here's a video of me at the track against a Scoob:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/M_M-M3.MOV
Of course there's the video of me vs the C55 4 times in a row, but I wouldn't want to post that again (unless you twist my arm)
For the doubters out there, I will take a pic today next to the car. What must I put next to the car?
Here's me & some buds:
Here's a video of us on the skidpan:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
And here's a video of me at the track against a Scoob:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/M_M-M3.MOV
Of course there's the video of me vs the C55 4 times in a row, but I wouldn't want to post that again (unless you twist my arm)
For the doubters out there, I will take a pic today next to the car. What must I put next to the car?
11-15-2004, 11:42 PM
#207
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
M&M, where is the video of your racing the C32 user on this forum who challenged you?
And where is the photo of your car next to his??
Oh, that's right; even though he challenged you on this forum to run, you didn't show up to race him!!! So, of course: there can be no video, and no photo, lol!
Nothing more than a troll, a pathetic Internet keyboard/magazine racer who won't show up to run when called out...
I did, however, find a picture of YOU:
AND I found your homepage!!!
Click here for M&M's homepage:
Btw, speaking of homepages: why is it that every link you provide of "your" car is from a different homepage? And why is it that none of the video links work?
Nonfunctional link you provided for "your" C55 vs. M3 video:
http://64.191.54.129/mid/M3VSC55.avi
Link you provided for "your" M3 with C55, other cars:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...Skidpan012.jpg
Nonfunctional link you provided for "your" M3 vs. the Scoobie in post above:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
Link for photos of "your" M3 lined up against C55 at dragstip in post above:
http://img74.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img74&image=M3vsC55.jpg
So, what's the deal, dude? Why are all of these images/videos of "you" coming from so many different sources?
And why do you post using so many aliases? 321ponies, then M3x2, finally 343bhp on the Audiworld S4 forums, M&M here, M&M and then EuroM3 on the roadfly boards. Even use different email addresses: SherwinS@nedcor.com on roadfly.com, and eurom3@roadfly.org on Audiworld. What's up with that??
In fact, this really gets quite interesting. You claim you're in South Africa. And yet the post I found on Audiworld.com, in which you posted the same video of your supposed C55 vs M3 race that you posted on the MBWorld C55 forum in this thread, then claimed that it was you driving, gives your email address as EuroM3@roadfly.org. Oh, and then there's this Audiworld post, where you posted the same photos you posted up above, using the same title as when you posted it here on MBWorld.
But if you search the username "EuroM3" on Roadfly.org, you find this post, where you seem to know New York quite well, and this one where you're trying to hook up with people going to the Bimmerfest East meet in NYC, and this one where you're asking for dealers in the Tristate area (which presumably isn't in South Africa), and finally this one where you claim to have found a great detailer in NYC.
Quite interesting, dontchathink?
Particularly when in this Audiworld post (by user 343bhp), you made the same claims that you made in this MBWorld post: that the race was at 5000' elevation, that you'd run him four times, and even provided the same link for the video.
Could you please explain this rather glaring discrepancy, sir?? Is he you, are you him, or is someone lying? And if so, who? This is very odd.
Oh, that's right; even though he challenged you on this forum to run, you didn't show up to race him!!! So, of course: there can be no video, and no photo, lol!
Nothing more than a troll, a pathetic Internet keyboard/magazine racer who won't show up to run when called out...
I did, however, find a picture of YOU:
AND I found your homepage!!!
Click here for M&M's homepage:
Btw, speaking of homepages: why is it that every link you provide of "your" car is from a different homepage? And why is it that none of the video links work?
Nonfunctional link you provided for "your" C55 vs. M3 video:
http://64.191.54.129/mid/M3VSC55.avi
Link you provided for "your" M3 with C55, other cars:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...Skidpan012.jpg
Nonfunctional link you provided for "your" M3 vs. the Scoobie in post above:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
Link for photos of "your" M3 lined up against C55 at dragstip in post above:
http://img74.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img74&image=M3vsC55.jpg
So, what's the deal, dude? Why are all of these images/videos of "you" coming from so many different sources?
And why do you post using so many aliases? 321ponies, then M3x2, finally 343bhp on the Audiworld S4 forums, M&M here, M&M and then EuroM3 on the roadfly boards. Even use different email addresses: SherwinS@nedcor.com on roadfly.com, and eurom3@roadfly.org on Audiworld. What's up with that??
In fact, this really gets quite interesting. You claim you're in South Africa. And yet the post I found on Audiworld.com, in which you posted the same video of your supposed C55 vs M3 race that you posted on the MBWorld C55 forum in this thread, then claimed that it was you driving, gives your email address as EuroM3@roadfly.org. Oh, and then there's this Audiworld post, where you posted the same photos you posted up above, using the same title as when you posted it here on MBWorld.
But if you search the username "EuroM3" on Roadfly.org, you find this post, where you seem to know New York quite well, and this one where you're trying to hook up with people going to the Bimmerfest East meet in NYC, and this one where you're asking for dealers in the Tristate area (which presumably isn't in South Africa), and finally this one where you claim to have found a great detailer in NYC.
Quite interesting, dontchathink?
Particularly when in this Audiworld post (by user 343bhp), you made the same claims that you made in this MBWorld post: that the race was at 5000' elevation, that you'd run him four times, and even provided the same link for the video.
Could you please explain this rather glaring discrepancy, sir?? Is he you, are you him, or is someone lying? And if so, who? This is very odd.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-16-2004 at 03:02 AM.
11-15-2004, 11:46 PM
#208
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
reggid, I *do* "understand where you're coming from":
You made it quite clear..remember???
You've got more flip-flops than a sandal shop, more positions than a Jenna Jameson movie, and more waffles than an IHOP. Stop jerking my chain and wasting my time, loser!!
You've got more flip-flops than a sandal shop, more positions than a Jenna Jameson movie, and more waffles than an IHOP.
Stop jerking my chain and wasting my time, loser!!
11-16-2004, 12:52 AM
#209
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Improviz
You made it quite clear..remember???
You've got more flip-flops than a sandal shop, more positions than a Jenna Jameson movie, and more waffles than an IHOP. Stop jerking my chain and wasting my time, loser!!
You've got more flip-flops than a sandal shop, more positions than a Jenna Jameson movie, and more waffles than an IHOP.
Stop jerking my chain and wasting my time, loser!! The idea that i changed my opinion is pretty funny
I suppose you only see what you want to see 
The fact remains that the equation is meant to be used as a rough guide and is useless to use it in any other way, which is why in my original post i said
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.
the "they are useless" implies it "serves no purpose" (straight from the Oxford) becasue its not accurate enough to show anything useful.
the "theres more to peak hp and weight" is so true, otherwise the c55's extra torque is serving no purpose.
So i haven't changed any of my opinions and haven't contradicted any of my arguemnents so the flip flop arguement is useless..........lol , and you are barking up the wrong tree, once and for all go and do some reading to find out why those simple equations can never give decent answers (<<1%) all the time. Remember 1% of the 1/4 mile is about a car length.
That is my whole arguement and i find it funny that you dispute something so obvious, i have an inkling that you know i'm right but are trying to cover up your blinding faith in all things simple enough for you to comprehend. :p
11-16-2004, 12:56 AM
#210
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
reggid, if the equation is so "useless" and "serves no purpose"...
...why don't you explain why it works so well, idiot:
give it up, flip-flopper. The equation works, as shown above, despite your BS claims to the contrary.
And in your astoundingly stupid statement about my exposing M&M's lies, you continue your little parade of BS; you claim that I used "lame evidence"; the FACT is that M&M claimed that the M3 was "bone stock", and the FACTS that I showed which can be easily observed in viewing the videos are these: 1) the car didn't have a front seat; 2) the car didn't have stock wheels.
Oxford tells us that "bone stock" means "unmodified in any way". Bonehead.
I'm starting to tire of arguing with you, because you, like Thai, seem to like arguing simply for the sake of arguing, and like Thai, once you are shown wrong, you simply change your argument and press on as though nothing has happened.
But again: your words are here for all to see.
So, I'll let them see them, and stop wasting time on you. I believe I've made my point.
give it up, flip-flopper. The equation works, as shown above, despite your BS claims to the contrary.
And in your astoundingly stupid statement about my exposing M&M's lies, you continue your little parade of BS; you claim that I used "lame evidence"; the FACT is that M&M claimed that the M3 was "bone stock", and the FACTS that I showed which can be easily observed in viewing the videos are these: 1) the car didn't have a front seat; 2) the car didn't have stock wheels.
Oxford tells us that "bone stock" means "unmodified in any way". Bonehead.
I'm starting to tire of arguing with you, because you, like Thai, seem to like arguing simply for the sake of arguing, and like Thai, once you are shown wrong, you simply change your argument and press on as though nothing has happened.
But again: your words are here for all to see.
So, I'll let them see them, and stop wasting time on you. I believe I've made my point.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-16-2004 at 01:06 AM.
11-16-2004, 12:59 AM
#211
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lexus GS 450h
The C55 is the best C-class ever but the M3 is still another league. The C32/55 has never beaten the M3 in any comparison in any magazine. Not in the US publications or the European publications. It still gets down to basics, manuals>automatics when it comes to these special edition sport models. The M3 is an EVO and CAR favorite year after year. The C55 they like. the M3 they love.
C55 has advantages. Rarer, larger accomodations, nicer interior, nice V-8 growl.
Neither car is wrong. Its what one prefers.
C55 has advantages. Rarer, larger accomodations, nicer interior, nice V-8 growl.
Neither car is wrong. Its what one prefers.
11-16-2004, 01:09 AM
#212
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
it depends on how it was developed! I think it was probably developed using test data rather than from 1st principles. In which case i mentioned in an earlier thread how it could be done. All you need is the manufacturers crank hp rating test weight and trapspeed and you can develop an empirical relationship if you test enough cars.
I have never doubted that you can get within 5% but in the context you originally used it in i don't think it was conclusive that M&M had modded his car. If i plug in numbers for a car and it spits out 100mph trapspeed then it may be 95 or 105 actually. It may be closer sometimes but not always, so how do you know if your at the outer end of the spectrum? Take it to the track is still the best way to find out. Equations are simple and all but its more fun doing a real test than plugging in a few numbers and you'll get a better result.
11-16-2004, 04:24 AM
#213
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK where to start. 1stly check the other thread about me where I posted some pics. 2ndly I don't post as eurom3. I post as M&M. One roadfly anyone can post as any name.
Then, on my trap speed of 108. Do you know how many factors are involved? If you get more wheelspin you trap higher. If you have a tailwind you trap higher. If its cool you trap higher. If you stage deep you trap higher. If you powershift each gear you trap higher. If you shift at the optimum points instead of just redline you trap higher. Does your formula take all that into account?
Then on the M3's in the videos. 1stly there is no way to prove they weren't stock. I did post what mods before each vid & did mention the seat was out for the 12.4 runs. But have a look at the stock runs. The seat is there. His best stock is 12.7 @ 106.
Can you tell me what kind of modd'd M3 only traps 106? And why over the months has hs trap gone up to now 111. Surely anyone with any form of intelligence can work out that the reason for those times is the 60ft. If a C32/55 had those 60ft's it would do the same times. Of course on the street he wouldn't get anywhere near that. But the point is if you can rev to 5000rpm & the surface is stickt enough to allow you to come out the hole with no wheelspin, then those times are possible. After all you spend 15% of your 1/4 mile time in the 1st 60 feet & less that 3% in the last 60ft. Where are their more gains to be had?
Then, on my trap speed of 108. Do you know how many factors are involved? If you get more wheelspin you trap higher. If you have a tailwind you trap higher. If its cool you trap higher. If you stage deep you trap higher. If you powershift each gear you trap higher. If you shift at the optimum points instead of just redline you trap higher. Does your formula take all that into account?
Then on the M3's in the videos. 1stly there is no way to prove they weren't stock. I did post what mods before each vid & did mention the seat was out for the 12.4 runs. But have a look at the stock runs. The seat is there. His best stock is 12.7 @ 106.
Can you tell me what kind of modd'd M3 only traps 106? And why over the months has hs trap gone up to now 111. Surely anyone with any form of intelligence can work out that the reason for those times is the 60ft. If a C32/55 had those 60ft's it would do the same times. Of course on the street he wouldn't get anywhere near that. But the point is if you can rev to 5000rpm & the surface is stickt enough to allow you to come out the hole with no wheelspin, then those times are possible. After all you spend 15% of your 1/4 mile time in the 1st 60 feet & less that 3% in the last 60ft. Where are their more gains to be had?
11-16-2004, 08:15 AM
#214
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Improviz
I'm starting to tire of arguing with you, because you, like Thai, seem to like arguing simply for the sake of arguing, and like Thai, once you are shown wrong, you simply change your argument and press on as though nothing has happened.
Hey, you're not boasting anymore about your EE degree and 4000 sq ft mansion??!! Yet another dumba$$ who thinks he is better than everyone else. Man, that's the funniest internet crap i have ever read! He actually thinks in his brain that those things should make people bow down to him....
Hint: this is a MERCEDES forum...not a Kia forum...most people here are in the upper half of the income bracket and likely educated beyond undergraduate studies.
Too funny. :p
Last edited by Thai; 11-16-2004 at 08:37 AM.
11-16-2004, 09:09 AM
#215
Originally Posted by Thai
Improv, you still have not answered my challenged from earlier...WHAT STOCK SUVS ARE BETTER THAN G-WAGEN IN OFF-ROADING???? You claim that you know MANY that are better...well???????? I have been waiting. I even PM'ed you. I would bet that you have no fukking clue. You just like to talk BS. Better start doing some research dumba$$.
) take G's rock crawling and that ain't pretty stuff.
11-16-2004, 09:36 AM
#216
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
Here's me at the track vs C55:
Here's me & some buds:
Here's a video of us on the skidpan:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
And here's a video of me at the track against a Scoob:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/M_M-M3.MOV
Of course there's the video of me vs the C55 4 times in a row, but I wouldn't want to post that again (unless you twist my arm)
For the doubters out there, I will take a pic today next to the car. What must I put next to the car?
Here's me & some buds:
Here's a video of us on the skidpan:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/skidpan.avi
And here's a video of me at the track against a Scoob:
http://www.jumbopc.co.za/M_M-M3.MOV
Of course there's the video of me vs the C55 4 times in a row, but I wouldn't want to post that again (unless you twist my arm)
For the doubters out there, I will take a pic today next to the car. What must I put next to the car?
Muahahahahaha and here is "me" in "my" C55 with my "buds":
Great!!! none of the links works and what's up with the random pictures of the cars?? Wich CARS are yours, remember you dont have a CAR you have "MANY CARS". I cant see you or your buds AL I SEE is you REPOSTING someone elses thumbnails at the track That dude has no idea that you are using his thumbnails here.
I sure could use Treynors pictures and track videos to pretend its me on hte M5board but that is reserved for clowns like you only.
JUST go into your garage with MANY CARS and take a picture of your dumb a ss next to them.
NExt time post pictures at the track of YOURSELF if yyou ever get there on your tricycle. Its a long way there from your room in the color of baby blue , clown. Like I said ----the ONLY skidmarks you are living now are those in your underwear.
Last edited by Belmondo; 11-16-2004 at 09:58 AM.
11-16-2004, 09:42 AM
#217
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thai
Improv, you still have not answered my challenged from earlier...WHAT STOCK SUVS ARE BETTER THAN G-WAGEN IN OFF-ROADING???? You claim that you know MANY that are better...well???????? I have been waiting. I even PM'ed you. I would bet that you have no fukking clue. You just like to talk BS. Better start doing some research dumba$$.
Hey, you're not boasting anymore about your EE degree and 4000 sq ft mansion??!! Yet another dumba$$ who thinks he is better than everyone else. Man, that's the funniest internet crap i have ever read! He actually thinks in his brain that those things should make people bow down to him.... Hint: this is a MERCEDES forum...not a Kia forum...most people here are in the upper half of the income bracket and likely educated beyond undergraduate studies.
Too funny. :p
Hey, you're not boasting anymore about your EE degree and 4000 sq ft mansion??!! Yet another dumba$$ who thinks he is better than everyone else. Man, that's the funniest internet crap i have ever read! He actually thinks in his brain that those things should make people bow down to him....
Hint: this is a MERCEDES forum...not a Kia forum...most people here are in the upper half of the income bracket and likely educated beyond undergraduate studies.Too funny. :p
Could you please show what YOU can do in G off roading , if you have one, that the other dude could not do in Jeep Cherokee, or a soccer mommmy in her LAnd Rover Discovery or a pompous dude in his Range -Rover?
Stop talking and just show us.
11-16-2004, 12:04 PM
#218
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Belmondo guess what? I was surfing the net looking for some cool pics of M3's then I found some whacko that put his kid in front of his car:
Here's another of the same kid at dyno day it seems. Note the stickers on the car look the same.
Note the pics are on a directory called M&M&M at Photobucket.
Note the stockers on the windscreen in this video at the skidpad:
Note the stickers on the windshield on this M3 at the drags with the C55. I believe there's a video as well:
I don't know hey. Must be quite a few M3's around with that exact same combination of windshield stickers. Guess what? Want another pic of that windscreen with an MBworld printout inside? Just say the word.
Here's another of the same kid at dyno day it seems. Note the stickers on the car look the same.
Note the pics are on a directory called M&M&M at Photobucket.
Note the stockers on the windscreen in this video at the skidpad:
Note the stickers on the windshield on this M3 at the drags with the C55. I believe there's a video as well:
I don't know hey. Must be quite a few M3's around with that exact same combination of windshield stickers. Guess what? Want another pic of that windscreen with an MBworld printout inside? Just say the word.
11-16-2004, 12:29 PM
#219
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
M&M and Thai, where to start.
Thai: I told you I was through wasting my time on you, and I meant it.
M&M, again: anyone can post pics of anything...your chance to prove who you are was to show up when challenged and run the guy in his C32. But you wimped out, end of story.
As to "your" trap speed: again, show up and run the guy in the C32, an independent voice on this forum, and you'll start being more credible. As it stands, I believe my posts showing your trolling behavior on other forums, use of multiple aliases, etc. have left your credibility in shreds, but if anyone still believes anything you have to say, well, I have some nice land in Florida I'd like to sell them.
As to the M3 in the videos: I already demonstrated here that the cars are NOT stock. I encourage anyone who doubts this to watch the videos, read the thread and decide for themselves whether your "stock" claim is accurate, particularly when it has been aptly demonstrated both in this post and in this post that you are here for only one purpose: to troll, flame, and incite flamefests.
As to "what kind of modded M3 traps at 106": both myself and others have answered this question at least three times now: one which has slicks or drag radials!! And as I already pointed out here,, both cars are NOT wearing stock wheels in those videos, and one of them in particular had mismatched front/rear wheels--a dead giveaway that he's temporarily mounted drag radials or slicks on the rear, just as our own Traynor does in his S600. I contend that a "bone stock" M3 is not capable of a 1.7 60' time on stock rubber, period, and you have presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
M&M, again: anyone can post pics of anything...your chance to prove who you are was to show up when challenged and run the guy in his C32. But you wimped out, end of story.
As to "your" trap speed: again, show up and run the guy in the C32, an independent voice on this forum, and you'll start being more credible. As it stands, I believe my posts showing your trolling behavior on other forums, use of multiple aliases, etc. have left your credibility in shreds, but if anyone still believes anything you have to say, well, I have some nice land in Florida I'd like to sell them.
As to the M3 in the videos: I already demonstrated here that the cars are NOT stock. I encourage anyone who doubts this to watch the videos, read the thread and decide for themselves whether your "stock" claim is accurate, particularly when it has been aptly demonstrated both in this post and in this post that you are here for only one purpose: to troll, flame, and incite flamefests.
As to "what kind of modded M3 traps at 106": both myself and others have answered this question at least three times now: one which has slicks or drag radials!! And as I already pointed out here,, both cars are NOT wearing stock wheels in those videos, and one of them in particular had mismatched front/rear wheels--a dead giveaway that he's temporarily mounted drag radials or slicks on the rear, just as our own Traynor does in his S600. I contend that a "bone stock" M3 is not capable of a 1.7 60' time on stock rubber, period, and you have presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
11-16-2004, 12:58 PM
#220
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF? Aftermarket wheels mean a car's not stock? Damn dude, grow up. Lots of people have aftermarket wheels. I've said before there is no way to prove those cars are stock or, in fact, modd'd. Hell I don't know those guys so they could be modd'd.
But lots of people have 2 sets of wheels. I have another set of wheels with semi-slicks (similar to what the CSL has) on them. I use that for track sessions on the circuit. No point in messing up your street tyres when racing.
Also, you you know of any MT's that come in 18"s? If you war drag radial you wil need to go 15". Then you will have to go with smaller brakes at the back to clear the caliper on an M3. Those wheels didn't look 15" to me.
If you're talking sem-slicks, then they don't really help in a straight line. They have stiffer sidewalls & less tread for cornering.
But let's say you right. The cars weren't stock & were running semi's or whatever. What's the big deal? It's worth maybe 0.1-0.2 on the 1/4. Maybe tha track is very fast. I believe stock E55's run 12.4 or less there. Do you hear me being immature & saying those cars aren't stock? If an E55 can cut a 1.8-1.9 60ft there on street tyres, why can't an M3? Grow up man.
And tomorrow you are going to look very stupid when I prove that car is mine. I can't wait to hear what excuse you come up with.
But lots of people have 2 sets of wheels. I have another set of wheels with semi-slicks (similar to what the CSL has) on them. I use that for track sessions on the circuit. No point in messing up your street tyres when racing.
Also, you you know of any MT's that come in 18"s? If you war drag radial you wil need to go 15". Then you will have to go with smaller brakes at the back to clear the caliper on an M3. Those wheels didn't look 15" to me.
If you're talking sem-slicks, then they don't really help in a straight line. They have stiffer sidewalls & less tread for cornering.
But let's say you right. The cars weren't stock & were running semi's or whatever. What's the big deal? It's worth maybe 0.1-0.2 on the 1/4. Maybe tha track is very fast. I believe stock E55's run 12.4 or less there. Do you hear me being immature & saying those cars aren't stock? If an E55 can cut a 1.8-1.9 60ft there on street tyres, why can't an M3? Grow up man.
And tomorrow you are going to look very stupid when I prove that car is mine. I can't wait to hear what excuse you come up with.
11-16-2004, 01:13 PM
#221
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
He's just trying to start another argument for the sake of arguing...
...and I'm not biting. This is the C55 forum, not the G500-offroad-comparison forum. But your question is valid: unless it can be demonstrated that the G500 is superior under tested conditions, it's just (yet another) empty Thai claim.
One thing is for sure: Peterson's 4 Wheel & Offroad Magazine didn't pick it as 4x4 of the year.
In fact, it was not even among the 16 vehicles they selected as meeting their test criterion to compete! If it were the best in the world, this seems like a rather glaring omission...and they *did* include the Hummer that Thai is criticizing...in fact, this magazine, which specializes in four wheel drive and offroad vehicles, has never tested it! Nor has Offroad magazine....
I'm sure it's a fine vehicle, but claiming it's the best offroad vehicle in the world requires proof.
One thing is for sure: Peterson's 4 Wheel & Offroad Magazine didn't pick it as 4x4 of the year.
In fact, it was not even among the 16 vehicles they selected as meeting their test criterion to compete! If it were the best in the world, this seems like a rather glaring omission...and they *did* include the Hummer that Thai is criticizing...in fact, this magazine, which specializes in four wheel drive and offroad vehicles, has never tested it! Nor has Offroad magazine....
I'm sure it's a fine vehicle, but claiming it's the best offroad vehicle in the world requires proof.
Originally Posted by Belmondo
Could you please show what YOU can do in G off roading , if you have one, that the other dude could not do in Jeep Cherokee, or a soccer mommmy in her LAnd Rover Discovery or a pompous dude in his Range -Rover?
Stop talking and just show us.
Stop talking and just show us.
11-16-2004, 01:29 PM
#222
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
M&M, busted in more lies:
Originally Posted by M&M
WTF? Aftermarket wheels mean a car's not stock? .
Additionally, you stated flat-out that the video "zoomed in" to where you could "see the Continentals". Now you're flip-flopping and saying you don't know, hoping people won't remember what you wrote earlier. Typical.
And as pointed out: the car's front seat is clearly missing in the in-car videos!! Removing the front seat *alone* is a serious modification when it comes to drag racing, probably 150-200 pounds. And it's a safe bet that if he went to the trouble of removing the front, he probably removed the rears too...and who knows what else he stripped out of there??
Finally, the yellow car plainly had non-stock wheels--on the rears only. I'm sure this was done for decorative purposes, not to throw drag radials on there for the strip
Originally Posted by M&M
Damn dude, grow up. Lots of people have aftermarket wheels. I've said before there is no way to prove those cars are stock or, in fact, modd'd. Hell I don't know those guys so they could be modd'd.
[QUOTE=M&M]But lots of people have 2 sets of wheels. I have another set of wheels with semi-slicks (similar to what the CSL has) on them. I use that for track sessions on the circuit. No point in messing up your street tyres when racing.
Originally Posted by M&M
Also, you you know of any MT's that come in 18"s? If you war drag radial you wil need to go 15". Then you will have to go with smaller brakes at the back to clear the caliper on an M3. Those wheels didn't look 15" to me.
Originally Posted by M&M
If you're talking sem-slicks, then they don't really help in a straight line. They have stiffer sidewalls & less tread for cornering..
The BFGoodrich g-Force T/A Drag Radial is a DOT-approved street legal drag racing tire that was developed to meet the needs of the drivers of sport compact vehicles by providing race winning traction and control at the strip from a tire that is fully streetable. The g-Force T/A Drag Radial is BFGoodrich’s first tire to combine a proprietary drag racing tread design with a special radial carcass construction. The g-Force T/A Drag Radial…fully streetable with hero-making traction for the strip.
On the outside, the g-Force T/A Drag Radial molds a new tread rubber compound into a 5.5/32” deep directional tread design that features massive competition developed tread blocks for quick response and optimized for straight-line grip.
On the outside, the g-Force T/A Drag Radial molds a new tread rubber compound into a 5.5/32” deep directional tread design that features massive competition developed tread blocks for quick response and optimized for straight-line grip.
Originally Posted by M&M
But let's say you right. The cars weren't stock & were running semi's or whatever. What's the big deal? It's worth maybe 0.1-0.2 on the 1/4. Maybe tha track is very fast. I believe stock E55's run 12.4 or less there. Do you hear me being immature & saying those cars aren't stock? If an E55 can cut a 1.8-1.9 60ft there on street tyres, why can't an M3? Grow up man.
And tomorrow you are going to look very stupid when I prove that car is mine. I can't wait to hear what excuse you come up with.
And tomorrow you are going to look very stupid when I prove that car is mine. I can't wait to hear what excuse you come up with.
Even if you prove the car is yours, so what? You haven't proved that you ever got a 13.0 at 108. I can post a photo of my (or any other) CLK55...doesn't prove squat.
Last edited by Improviz; 11-17-2004 at 02:32 AM.
11-16-2004, 01:37 PM
#223
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude look on you own freakin' forum. Look in the E55 section. There are guys runnin 1.8 with an E55 on street tyres. That's an auto that weighs SIGNIFICANTLY more than an M3 & you can't brake torque beyond a certain point.
Let's make a compromise. If I find a post with an E55 doing 1.8-1.9 60ft on stock tyres will you agree that an M3 can do so (or better) on the same surface. If you don't then there's no point arguing with you. Unless you want to say those E55 drivers are liars.
And yeah, you don't have to believe my times. But I do have a video of me vs C55. I guess that must be rigged as well?
Let's make a compromise. If I find a post with an E55 doing 1.8-1.9 60ft on stock tyres will you agree that an M3 can do so (or better) on the same surface. If you don't then there's no point arguing with you. Unless you want to say those E55 drivers are liars.
And yeah, you don't have to believe my times. But I do have a video of me vs C55. I guess that must be rigged as well?
11-16-2004, 01:50 PM
#224
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoaa MAMA! Did I dig up some stuff or what? But don't worry. I have faith that you will come up with some pathetic excuse as to why its bull****. ANything to avoid admitting the truth.
On this very forum read this:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...%2F4+mile+60ft
Ran a 12.331 Friday night in Cecil, GA the easy way. Stock everything, stock air pressure, ESP on, no burnout, no shifting, etc. Just floor it when it turns green.
60' 1.888
1/8 7.976
1/4 12.331
MPH 115.18
4300lb car running 1.88 60ft.
But wait, there's more. Here's whe Englishtown is such a fast track:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...ght=1%2F4+mile
I took the E to Englishtown today for the first time. My first run, with ESP on, stock tire pressure, stock EVERYTHING, netted me a 12.432 @ 116.84. I was very happy with it, considering that I eased into the throttle and was at about 1,200 rpm at the launch. My 60 foot time was a slow 2.145 sec., so I knew there was more to be had.
Got greedy on the second run, ran without ESP and launched hard. Had a better 60 foot time of 2.065 sec., but spun thereafter and had to get out of the throttle. Still finished with a 12.672 at 116.23 mph.
Lined up again, tire pressure now at 25 lbs, ESP on. Nailed the launch and pulled a 1.881 60 ft. time. Crossed the line at 12.071 @ 116.85. All my vette friends were amazed, especially when I told them that it just weighed in at 4340 lbs. on the scale.
Here are the increments:
R/T: .202
60': 1.881
330': 5.149
1/8: 7.828 @ 90.65
1000': 10.137
1/4: 12.071 @ 116.85
& here's another 1.8 60ft:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...highlight=foot
Now bear in mind that Autocar got 13.0 for the E55. So the track can make a big difference. C&D got 12.7. Why, Improviz are these guys faster than the mag tests?
Look again at the video ofthe yellow M3. 1.81 60ft. PLEASE, tell me that is beyond the realms of possibily 'cos I dying to call you a dumb-***.
On this very forum read this:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...%2F4+mile+60ft
Ran a 12.331 Friday night in Cecil, GA the easy way. Stock everything, stock air pressure, ESP on, no burnout, no shifting, etc. Just floor it when it turns green.
60' 1.888
1/8 7.976
1/4 12.331
MPH 115.18
4300lb car running 1.88 60ft.
But wait, there's more. Here's whe Englishtown is such a fast track:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...ght=1%2F4+mile
I took the E to Englishtown today for the first time. My first run, with ESP on, stock tire pressure, stock EVERYTHING, netted me a 12.432 @ 116.84. I was very happy with it, considering that I eased into the throttle and was at about 1,200 rpm at the launch. My 60 foot time was a slow 2.145 sec., so I knew there was more to be had.
Got greedy on the second run, ran without ESP and launched hard. Had a better 60 foot time of 2.065 sec., but spun thereafter and had to get out of the throttle. Still finished with a 12.672 at 116.23 mph.
Lined up again, tire pressure now at 25 lbs, ESP on. Nailed the launch and pulled a 1.881 60 ft. time. Crossed the line at 12.071 @ 116.85. All my vette friends were amazed, especially when I told them that it just weighed in at 4340 lbs. on the scale.
Here are the increments:
R/T: .202
60': 1.881
330': 5.149
1/8: 7.828 @ 90.65
1000': 10.137
1/4: 12.071 @ 116.85
& here's another 1.8 60ft:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...highlight=foot
Now bear in mind that Autocar got 13.0 for the E55. So the track can make a big difference. C&D got 12.7. Why, Improviz are these guys faster than the mag tests?
Look again at the video ofthe yellow M3. 1.81 60ft. PLEASE, tell me that is beyond the realms of possibily 'cos I dying to call you a dumb-***.
Last edited by M&M; 11-16-2004 at 02:41 PM.
11-16-2004, 03:06 PM
#225
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2004 Mercedes G500 Black
Originally Posted by Belmondo
Could you please show what YOU can do in G off roading , if you have one, that the other dude could not do in Jeep Cherokee, or a soccer mommmy in her LAnd Rover Discovery or a pompous dude in his Range -Rover?
Stop talking and just show us.
Stop talking and just show us.
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showth...?threadid=5881
Here is the PM i sent to Vraa, who asked me about the Rubicon:
My brother has a Rubicon...we just went off-roading in Colorado mountains. I am very impress with it's capability. It can surely go to a few more places than my G-wagen because it has all the essential tools (off-roading tires, LOCKERS, solid axles, and body-on-frame), small to fit into any place, and lightweight. The only thing is...it's not very comfortable over rough terrain and is a rather poor highway vehicle...ya know, you have to drive to Colorado before the off-roading begins!
None of the Land Rover vehicles have lockers...you have to go aftermarket. And then, you have to upgrade the differential and half-shafts to contend with the additional stress of a locker. So, it's $$$$ to make a LR very capable. Without lockers, you won't make it very far over slippery slopes or over big rocks. Yes, i am fully aware of LR Disco and Range Rover's 4wd system (4-wheel traction control). Their system just won't cut it over rough terrain...no matter what their brochure says. Lockers rule in off-roading. Thus, the current trend for SUVs to come with optional locker in the rear axle (aka, Hummer H2, LR LR3, VW Touareg, etc.).
BTW, don't get me started with Jeep Grand Cherokee. Their QuadraDrive system is crap. If you want me to elaborate, then please PM me. I love to talk SUV.
The ONLY vehicles on the planet to come with standard or optional lockers for both front and rear axles: G-wagen (standard), Rubicon (standard), and Hummer H1 (optional). Thus, these are the three that i consider to be most capable. BTW, the LR Defender does NOT come with lockers, but is very capable too due to it's awesome wheel articulation.
Thai.
