First time taking C43 to drag strip
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
First time taking C43 to drag strip
was my first time out, kinda disappointed in times but not too worried since it was the first time, was lots of fun after understanding how the staging and lights are.
was at night here in Michigan, temp was about 60-65 degrees F, hardly any elevation, about 830 feet.
I got 6 runs in, listing my bests below (note they may not all be from the same run:
Best ET: 14.772 @97.76 (my 2nd to last run)
Best trap speed: 97.76mph (hit that twice, slowest was 96.62 mph)
Best reaction time: +0.1436 (all others were just over 4/10th's... ouch)
Best 60' time: 2.4180 (this was on my first run:14.91 ET, on my fastest run had 2.4181 60')
speeds on best run @:
1/8 mile: 76.28
1000': 88.71
1/4 mile: 97.76
one thing i notices was that my best reaction time was not my best 1/4 mile time, even though the reaction time was 3/10th's better, my 60' time was 8/100th's slower (yes 100th's). so i must have had quite a bad launch/bad time hooking up on that one.
In theory with the same reaction time paired with my best launch i should be able to get those extra 3/10ths back out of the ET, which would bring me down to roughly 14.47, which is where the car 'should' be.... does my math make sense there??
only performance mods are K&N filters, i dont think my tires are better than stock for grip right now though they are a bit wider (255). euro springs and bilstein sports probably hurt more than help in quarter mile, but i doubt its very significant.
I ran the rear tires at abut 37psi (that was the temp when i stopped for gas right before the racing after a 30 min highway drive). maybe running at 34 might launch better?
was at night here in Michigan, temp was about 60-65 degrees F, hardly any elevation, about 830 feet.
I got 6 runs in, listing my bests below (note they may not all be from the same run:
Best ET: 14.772 @97.76 (my 2nd to last run)
Best trap speed: 97.76mph (hit that twice, slowest was 96.62 mph)
Best reaction time: +0.1436 (all others were just over 4/10th's... ouch)
Best 60' time: 2.4180 (this was on my first run:14.91 ET, on my fastest run had 2.4181 60')
speeds on best run @:
1/8 mile: 76.28
1000': 88.71
1/4 mile: 97.76
one thing i notices was that my best reaction time was not my best 1/4 mile time, even though the reaction time was 3/10th's better, my 60' time was 8/100th's slower (yes 100th's). so i must have had quite a bad launch/bad time hooking up on that one.
In theory with the same reaction time paired with my best launch i should be able to get those extra 3/10ths back out of the ET, which would bring me down to roughly 14.47, which is where the car 'should' be.... does my math make sense there??
only performance mods are K&N filters, i dont think my tires are better than stock for grip right now though they are a bit wider (255). euro springs and bilstein sports probably hurt more than help in quarter mile, but i doubt its very significant.
I ran the rear tires at abut 37psi (that was the temp when i stopped for gas right before the racing after a 30 min highway drive). maybe running at 34 might launch better?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
also that day i found out i needed to upgrade my brake pads and my front tires were toasted, i think they were crap tires but the heat definitely got to them. i had a separate post about that. but i hear form others that Gingerman is really bad on tires.
i have another track day coming up at Grattan Raceway as well in 2 weeks im quite looking forward to.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 11
From: PNW
2001 E430
Reaction time is not reflected in your 1/4 mile time. The clock doesn't start until you leave the beams. In this youtube vid you can see blackbenzz waiting about 2 seconds after the green light, making sure his launch RPM is correct, before leaving and he still runs a 10.7
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
i thought i had heard that before, but i think i got lost in all of the numbers on the time slips there.
by the time you stage you really dont have much time to build revs to launch properly. i tried to catch the light every time so i barely could watch my rpms, i think near my later runs i was launching at around 3000 rpms?
also, most of the time i approached the start in first then bumped it into 3rd before the launch. shifting it manually didnt work too well since if i didnt nail the timing perfectly it would just hit the rev limiter.
I may look more into this ECU reset that people claim makes a ton of difference the next time i go to the strip for potentially some quicker shifts.
by the time you stage you really dont have much time to build revs to launch properly. i tried to catch the light every time so i barely could watch my rpms, i think near my later runs i was launching at around 3000 rpms?
also, most of the time i approached the start in first then bumped it into 3rd before the launch. shifting it manually didnt work too well since if i didnt nail the timing perfectly it would just hit the rev limiter.
I may look more into this ECU reset that people claim makes a ton of difference the next time i go to the strip for potentially some quicker shifts.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,437
Likes: 43
From: PDX
1999 C43, 2008 P30 E63, 2014 SQ5, 2024 Model Y Performance
i thought i had heard that before, but i think i got lost in all of the numbers on the time slips there.
by the time you stage you really dont have much time to build revs to launch properly. i tried to catch the light every time so i barely could watch my rpms, i think near my later runs i was launching at around 3000 rpms?
also, most of the time i approached the start in first then bumped it into 3rd before the launch. shifting it manually didnt work too well since if i didnt nail the timing perfectly it would just hit the rev limiter.
I may look more into this ECU reset that people claim makes a ton of difference the next time i go to the strip for potentially some quicker shifts.
by the time you stage you really dont have much time to build revs to launch properly. i tried to catch the light every time so i barely could watch my rpms, i think near my later runs i was launching at around 3000 rpms?
also, most of the time i approached the start in first then bumped it into 3rd before the launch. shifting it manually didnt work too well since if i didnt nail the timing perfectly it would just hit the rev limiter.
I may look more into this ECU reset that people claim makes a ton of difference the next time i go to the strip for potentially some quicker shifts.
Trending Topics
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
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
If you want to see the best 1/4 mile time you can get forget the reaction time. Stage and then focus on getting the best launch possible. Hold the brake and rev to around 1,800 RPM and hold it there. Once you are ready to launch let the brake off and slowly roll into the throttle, do not slam the pedal down. I would keep it in 4th gear and make sure you turned the ESP off.
i avoided leaving it in 4th just to be sure the car would not risk the 3-4 shift during the run, even though i think theres another 8-10 mph left in third.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
carshows, never seen one
autocross, never seen one
track days, never seen one
drag strip, never seen one
driving to work, never seen one
just saying
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 620
Likes: 35
From: north jersey
99 c43,90 mustang gt supercharged convertible,07 acura tl type s, Hummer H3t pickup
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 194
From: America
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
Yep. Though I don't know if it's lack of respect or just lack of knowledge. C36/43 just seems completely lost to history for some reason.
Though my wife's step-dad is a huge GM/Pontiac fan, he has nothing but praise for my old C43. Says it's one of the coolest, toughest old Benzes he's ever seen, and it's almost completely stock.
Though my wife's step-dad is a huge GM/Pontiac fan, he has nothing but praise for my old C43. Says it's one of the coolest, toughest old Benzes he's ever seen, and it's almost completely stock.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 40
From: Bay Area, CA
98 C43, 15 Alfa 4C LE, 18 Tesla Model 3 DM Perf, 08 Duc S1000, 02 Duc 998, 98 Duc 748, 01 Miata
I would drop your tire pressures in the rear. Mid to low 20's max. Running that high of a PSI will reduce your contact patch which is no good for hooking up off of the line. Haven't run the AMG down a drag strip, but my old car went 13.5 @ 97.5 mph with a 1.79 60'. Different animals, but shows what can happen with better grip. I think you could probably get into the very low 14's with a good tire setup out back.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
took the car out to the strip again a couple weeks ago. i have Bridgestone RE-11 tires now and was able to get a bit faster, best run was a 14.4, 98-99 mph trap speeds on all of my runs.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
The car is really strong in 3rd, pulls on a lot of cars but just can't get good 60' times or 1/8th mile in it. Think best 60' times were 2.2 and up. And that's with warm sticky tires and pretty good launches.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 40
From: Bay Area, CA
98 C43, 15 Alfa 4C LE, 18 Tesla Model 3 DM Perf, 08 Duc S1000, 02 Duc 998, 98 Duc 748, 01 Miata
Part of the problem is that sticky tires like the RE-11 are built to do cornering well and have pretty stiff sidewalls, which is not good for drag racing. If the traps are in the 98 to 99 mph range, it should be able to run a high 13 to 14 flat on drag radials. Just depends whether a better quarter time is worth the investment.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
Part of the problem is that sticky tires like the RE-11 are built to do cornering well and have pretty stiff sidewalls, which is not good for drag racing. If the traps are in the 98 to 99 mph range, it should be able to run a high 13 to 14 flat on drag radials. Just depends whether a better quarter time is worth the investment.
its just the way this car is geared that hurts it in the 1/4 i think. as discussed in many other threads here there is just really no excuse for a car with the power and weight that a C43 has runs that slow of a 1/4 mile time. shift times of the automatic probably account for 2/10ts vs great shifts in a manual or just a faster shifting auto, but then also the gearing i think has something to do with it as well, but im not an expert there.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 194
From: America
1999 C43 AMG, 2005 E55 Wagon
its just the way this car is geared that hurts it in the 1/4 i think. as discussed in many other threads here there is just really no excuse for a car with the power and weight that a C43 has runs that slow of a 1/4 mile time. shift times of the automatic probably account for 2/10ts vs great shifts in a manual or just a faster shifting auto, but then also the gearing i think has something to do with it as well, but im not an expert there.
running gear in the diff is FAR too tall, period. However, that same tall gearing is solely responsible for the car's uncanny ability to put power to the ground on the interstate. Pretty much anything above 35 MPH and the C43 will perform as though it has more than 300hp. But 0-35 and it's the opposite. It's a trade off, and I really don't mind it. I like my high MPG and long-distance comfort. It's a big part of what makes it such a comfortable and practical daily driver.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
ding ding! you're exactly right.
running gear in the diff is FAR too tall, period. However, that same tall gearing is solely responsible for the car's uncanny ability to put power to the ground on the interstate. Pretty much anything above 35 MPH and the C43 will perform as though it has more than 300hp. But 0-35 and it's the opposite. It's a trade off, and I really don't mind it. I like my high MPG and long-distance comfort. It's a big part of what makes it such a comfortable and practical daily driver.
running gear in the diff is FAR too tall, period. However, that same tall gearing is solely responsible for the car's uncanny ability to put power to the ground on the interstate. Pretty much anything above 35 MPH and the C43 will perform as though it has more than 300hp. But 0-35 and it's the opposite. It's a trade off, and I really don't mind it. I like my high MPG and long-distance comfort. It's a big part of what makes it such a comfortable and practical daily driver.
that being said its just a bummer because i bought the car as a hobby/enthusiast car that i use 90% for track days or autocross. now nobody in the world would recommend that this car was meant for those things, and i didnt think it was meant for that either, but i just use it as a great way to really enjoy the car. Just a shame that the gearing affects it so much at the strip and the front biased weight distribution paired with skinny front tires hampers it even moreso on the track
, so its quite easy to "max out" this car from a drivers perspective. That being said it is an AMAZING car for daily driving or road trips, but thats not its purpose in my stable
still debating if the 5.4 swap will help alleviate these issues for me or if it will just be the same with more power. Of course the extra power will be a big gain at the strip but dont think it will change the front end/handling issues at the track.
Last edited by Dziner82; Jun 11, 2014 at 01:58 PM. Reason: bad grammar
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
On your 60 foots, does the C43 really have that hard of a time getting out of the hole?
I was cutting 1.9 in my W209 CLK55 on all seasons(Haven't been back in almost 2 years). Also was able to cut 1.9s in my friends C55 at the track. I do remember my W208 having a harder time hooking, I think 60' were in the 2.1 range, with a few 2.0s.
Here is a vid of me, in my friends C55.
I was cutting 1.9 in my W209 CLK55 on all seasons(Haven't been back in almost 2 years). Also was able to cut 1.9s in my friends C55 at the track. I do remember my W208 having a harder time hooking, I think 60' were in the 2.1 range, with a few 2.0s.
Here is a vid of me, in my friends C55.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
sticky tires on the newer runs so should be able to see how much that made a difference.
but there is about a 80ft/lb of torque difference between 55cars and C43 that would make a big differene in 60' times. also would have to compare the gearing of those 2 cars to better understand as well, esp first gear. i would fully expect the 55 cars to be faster there as they are also 6-8/10th faster in the quarter overall, so it makes sense.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
it just seems to be the weakest point of the runs. i have to get my new timeslips and compare with the old and really look at the data, i have 3 of the new slips but a couple of my better runs are probably in a stack of papers or in pants pocket somewhere.
sticky tires on the newer runs so should be able to see how much that made a difference.
but there is about a 80ft/lb of torque difference between 55cars and C43 that would make a big differene in 60' times. also would have to compare the gearing of those 2 cars to better understand as well, esp first gear. i would fully expect the 55 cars to be faster there as they are also 6-8/10th faster in the quarter overall, so it makes sense.
sticky tires on the newer runs so should be able to see how much that made a difference.
but there is about a 80ft/lb of torque difference between 55cars and C43 that would make a big differene in 60' times. also would have to compare the gearing of those 2 cars to better understand as well, esp first gear. i would fully expect the 55 cars to be faster there as they are also 6-8/10th faster in the quarter overall, so it makes sense.
My CLK55's issue was keeping the wheel spin down. My XF was keeping it from bogging, but not to aggressive to trigger the T/C. (Even with it turned off)
Are you just spinning off the line or bogging?
I've never driven a C43, but drove a E430 back in the day. The E430 was able to light the tires just from stomping it, I assume a C43 can do the same.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 424
Likes: 13
From: Grand Rapids, MI
99 C43 AMG, 2001 CLK55 AMG
here is a vid my buddy just sent me from that night, i THINK this was the fastest run, i remember my fastest trun came against this car that was running 11's so it was bittersweet, haha.
the car inst bogging, if i launch with any more revs it will spin too much. I have about 16 runs in the strip under my belt, 5-6 this night with the new tires.
i dont think this car is capable of uner 2.0second 60' times IMO. maybe with slicks and soft rear shock setup etc. the gearing in first i dont think will get it there. anything under 2.0 60' is pretty darn quick out of the gate. unless you are in a FWD honda or something you arent gonna get under 2.0 in the 60" and then not break 14.4 in the quarter.
awd subarus and lancers easily do sub 2.0 and high power musclecars, but they dont have the gearing issue, or if they do they have enough power to push through it.
everything that is being thrown out as being able to do 2.0 or under are all cars wtih at least 40 more hp/tq and at least 4/10ths faster in the overall 1/4 mile. so i dont see how anyone is expecting this car to run 14.4 with a sub 2.0 60 foot time considering how strong it is on the top end. if it was possible for this car to do 2,0 it would be able to go faster than 14.4 in the quarter.
not arguing just discussing.
