M3 CSL Top Speed Video
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
OK lt's do CSL (or even stock M3)
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
Last edited by M&M; Nov 14, 2004 at 11:49 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Originally Posted by M&M
OK lt's do CSL (or even stock M3)
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
M&M: Are your dyno figures for the M3 and CSL in top gear? Also, based on the formula that you just employed, what would a stock C32 top out at, assuming taller gearing? Any chance of my modded C32 (guesstimate of 350 RWHP; best run: 12.8@112) hitting 200 MPH with ideal gearing?
Last edited by Vomit; Nov 14, 2004 at 01:45 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
From: Westchester, NY
E55, C32, ML320
Originally Posted by M&M
OK lt's do CSL (or even stock M3)
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
cD = 0.32
frontal area A = 2.08 square metres
V = 180 mph = 288 km/h = 80 m/s
P = 0.5 * (rho) * Cd * A * v^3
= 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.32 * 2.08 * (80) ^ 3
= 221 kW
== 300 RWHP
So an M3 needs 300 rwhp to do 180mph.
CSL's dyno 310-315.
Stock M3's dyno 275-285.
CSL should top out at 182-183mph
Stock M3 at 177mph.
Based on those numbers, the M3 or CSL needs just over 312hp to make 180. That 1/10 on Cd takes the M3 out of the picture and significantly reduces its top end relative to the C32. It would also require the CSL to be making maximum power at that point.
And I was curious where you got the 2.21 for the C32? I had seen 22.5 sq ft published, which equates to just over 2.09 using sq ft * 0.0929.
Last edited by blando; Nov 14, 2004 at 02:20 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 802
Likes: 1
From: No specific place
SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by EKaru
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
OK, messed up the conversion to square metres for the C32's frontal area. It's actually 2.09 sq m. So it needs a few less hp to reach 175. Problem with the C32 is gearing. Once you past 6000rpm at around 175 mph, its game over due to the power drop off. If you could make the 5th gear longer it would make a difference.
M3/CSL with 2.09 frontal area makes almost no difference to the calculation. According to BMW.com the drag co-efficient is indeed 0.32:
http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/pr.../m3/index.html
So it needs 302 instead of 300hp to do 180. However, gearing is not an issue 'cos at 175 the M3 is wll in the powerband with no power drop-of. Also having shorter gears & final drive (Torque & hp multiplier) means the M3 is getting more power to the wheels at high rpm than the C32.
M3/CSL with 2.09 frontal area makes almost no difference to the calculation. According to BMW.com the drag co-efficient is indeed 0.32:
http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/pr.../m3/index.html
So it needs 302 instead of 300hp to do 180. However, gearing is not an issue 'cos at 175 the M3 is wll in the powerband with no power drop-of. Also having shorter gears & final drive (Torque & hp multiplier) means the M3 is getting more power to the wheels at high rpm than the C32.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
From: Westchester, NY
E55, C32, ML320
That's the first time I have ever seen 0.32 for the M3. All the mags I have seen publish 0.33. BMW's site here in the US publishes 0.33. But since we're talking the CSL, I looked the CSL up on BMW's site (in South Africa no less) and it is also 0.33. Here's the link:
http://www.bmw.co.za/Products/Automo...l/default.html
Thanks for clearing up the conversion issue on the C32. I think it supports the 190 top end with the "optional" final drive they talk about. Wonder how you get that option...
http://www.bmw.co.za/Products/Automo...l/default.html
Thanks for clearing up the conversion issue on the C32. I think it supports the 190 top end with the "optional" final drive they talk about. Wonder how you get that option...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
1996 C36 AMG, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbowagon
Originally Posted by SLK55_AMG
SMG II seems pretty well!
new v10 m5 tranny is too complicated to be shifted by a human.. so in come smg again (smg 3??)
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 694
Likes: 3
From: Bethesda, MD
Porsche
I guess it's safe to assume that the C55 will hit a higher top speed given that the C55 is running at only 5300 revs vesus 5650 @ 155mph?
C32 data:
redline 6220
Transmission: 5-speed automatic
Gear Ratio Overall ratio (Rpm) Mph
1st 3.59:1 10.99:1 (6000) 38
2nd 2.19:1 6.70:1 (6200) 64
3rd 1.41:1 4.31:1 (6200) 100
4th 1.00:1 3.06:1 (6200) 141
5th 0.83:1 2.54:1 (5650) 155*
Final drive ratio...3.06:1
Engine rpm @ 60 mph in top gear..2100
C55 Data:
redline 6250
5-speed automatic
3.59/10.99/(6250) 42
2.19/6.70/(6250) 69
1.41/4.31/(6250) 107
1.00/3.06/(6250) 151
0.83/2.54/est (5300) 155*
3.06:1
C32 data:
redline 6220
Transmission: 5-speed automatic
Gear Ratio Overall ratio (Rpm) Mph
1st 3.59:1 10.99:1 (6000) 38
2nd 2.19:1 6.70:1 (6200) 64
3rd 1.41:1 4.31:1 (6200) 100
4th 1.00:1 3.06:1 (6200) 141
5th 0.83:1 2.54:1 (5650) 155*
Final drive ratio...3.06:1
Engine rpm @ 60 mph in top gear..2100
C55 Data:
redline 6250
5-speed automatic
3.59/10.99/(6250) 42
2.19/6.70/(6250) 69
1.41/4.31/(6250) 107
1.00/3.06/(6250) 151
0.83/2.54/est (5300) 155*
3.06:1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
I'm confused. Why does the C55 turn lower RPMs than the C32 at the same speed in 5th gear when the transmission and final drive ratios which you have cited are identical?
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 694
Likes: 3
From: Bethesda, MD
Porsche
Originally Posted by Vomit
I'm confused. Why does the C55 turn lower RPMs than the C32 at the same speed in 5th gear when the transmission and final drive ratios which you have cited are identical?
Good question... by the way my source is Road & Track..
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=1602
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
From: MB - World
Originally Posted by M&M
Improviz, here's the formula for top speed. LEt's discuss it:
OR for power to reach a certain speed:
Where p = rho = air density (1.3 at sea-level)
cD = drag co-efficient
A = frontal area
v = velocity
Hell, where's torque. Guess what? Sir Isaac Newton decided to leave it out of the equation for top speed. Where's the power peak for the C32 & I can work it out for you guys?
OR for power to reach a certain speed:
Where p = rho = air density (1.3 at sea-level)
cD = drag co-efficient
A = frontal area
v = velocity
Hell, where's torque. Guess what? Sir Isaac Newton decided to leave it out of the equation for top speed. Where's the power peak for the C32 & I can work it out for you guys?
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 694
Likes: 3
From: Bethesda, MD
Porsche
Originally Posted by EKaru
I guess it's safe to assume that the C55 will hit a higher top speed given that the C55 is running at only 5300 revs vesus 5650 @ 155mph?
C32 data:
redline 6220
Transmission: 5-speed automatic
Gear Ratio Overall ratio (Rpm) Mph
1st 3.59:1 10.99:1 (6000) 38
2nd 2.19:1 6.70:1 (6200) 64
3rd 1.41:1 4.31:1 (6200) 100
4th 1.00:1 3.06:1 (6200) 141
5th 0.83:1 2.54:1 (5650) 155*
Final drive ratio...3.06:1
Engine rpm @ 60 mph in top gear..2100
C55 Data:
redline 6250
5-speed automatic
3.59/10.99/(6250) 42
2.19/6.70/(6250) 69
1.41/4.31/(6250) 107
1.00/3.06/(6250) 151
0.83/2.54/est (5300) 155*
3.06:1
C32 data:
redline 6220
Transmission: 5-speed automatic
Gear Ratio Overall ratio (Rpm) Mph
1st 3.59:1 10.99:1 (6000) 38
2nd 2.19:1 6.70:1 (6200) 64
3rd 1.41:1 4.31:1 (6200) 100
4th 1.00:1 3.06:1 (6200) 141
5th 0.83:1 2.54:1 (5650) 155*
Final drive ratio...3.06:1
Engine rpm @ 60 mph in top gear..2100
C55 Data:
redline 6250
5-speed automatic
3.59/10.99/(6250) 42
2.19/6.70/(6250) 69
1.41/4.31/(6250) 107
1.00/3.06/(6250) 151
0.83/2.54/est (5300) 155*
3.06:1
Can anyone shed any light on the difference in Revs despite the same gear/final drive ratios?
Eric...
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
From: .
.
Originally Posted by EKaru
Can anyone shed any light on the difference in Revs despite the same gear/final drive ratios?
Eric...
Eric...
i assume you were talking about why the c55 reaches 151 mph in 4th and the c32 141 mph in 4th with only a 50rpm difference in rpm!
Last edited by reggid; Nov 15, 2004 at 06:52 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Bowie, MD
03 C32 AMG Blk/Blk
Originally Posted by reggid
i noticed that to. The tyre sizes may be different or it could simply be a misprint
i assume you were talking about why the c55 reaches 151 mph in 4th and the c32 141 mph in 4th with only a 50rpm difference in rpm!
i assume you were talking about why the c55 reaches 151 mph in 4th and the c32 141 mph in 4th with only a 50rpm difference in rpm!
http://www.carsource.co.uk/guide3?ID...cle_id=7000040 is a page I found when quickly searching. But I have see it on countless webpages.
-Mike
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,645
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2002 C32 Black/Charcoal
Actually, I was focusing on top speed. At 155 MPH, the C32 is turning 5650 RPMs, while the C55 is turning 5300 (according to Eric's data). If the two cars have identical transmission ratios and final drive ratios, then the only possible explanation is mistake, or that the diameter of the tires is larger on the C55. Any thoughts?
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Bowie, MD
03 C32 AMG Blk/Blk
Originally Posted by Vomit
Actually, I was focusing on top speed. At 155 MPH, the C32 is turning 5650 RPMs, while the C55 is turning 5300 (according to Eric's data). If the two cars have identical transmission ratios and final drive ratios, then the only possible explanation is mistake, or that the diameter of the tires is larger on the C55. Any thoughts?
That is where I am going with it. I think it is off on 4th gear (149 on C32), so what I am thinking is with the stock 18's on the C55 (they are 18's correct?), and the mis-information, we get to the bottom of it.
So it's a little of both.
-Mike
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 694
Likes: 3
From: Bethesda, MD
Porsche
Originally Posted by doofoo
That is where I am going with it. I think it is off on 4th gear (149 on C32), so what I am thinking is with the stock 18's on the C55 (they are 18's correct?), and the mis-information, we get to the bottom of it.
So it's a little of both.
-Mike
So it's a little of both.
-Mike
I thought that C32 owners were able to do a simple swap with C55 wheels w/out any calibration...
Eric...
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: Bowie, MD
03 C32 AMG Blk/Blk
Originally Posted by EKaru
I thought that C32 owners were able to do a simple swap with C55 wheels w/out any calibration...
Eric...
Eric...
-Mike
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 277
Likes: 1
From: Newport Beach, CA
2006 Mercedes E350 Sport
for comparrison my clk55 went 155 and was at 4100rpms (i think) throttle was half way still felt like it was good for another 20mph atleast. Wouldnt try it without better aero though.
Sometimes cars have higher cd because of aerodynamics, such as wings, splitters, spoilers and so on. all designed to keep the car on the pavement at those high speeds
Sometimes cars have higher cd because of aerodynamics, such as wings, splitters, spoilers and so on. all designed to keep the car on the pavement at those high speeds
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
From: 43°38'N / 79°52'W
EuroCharged 2012 C63 BS Coupè
Originally Posted by EKaru
I thought that C32 owners were able to do a simple swap with C55 wheels w/out any calibration...
Eric...
Eric...
Last edited by NORTH 44 C63; Oct 10, 2007 at 05:12 PM.
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: Bologna, Italy
BMW Z4 M Roadster
