dan30252

Do you have any idea how much engineering there was behind the Veyron. It probably took them 300 tries to hit 253. THEN, they had to figure out how to make it happen EVERY TIME you want to hit 253 because you paid millions of $ for that capability. Watch the top gear video of that car where they get it up that high, and watch that car with DOUBLE the HP of a C63 struggle towards the end trying to get to 253 mph. Common sense tells you that the C63 if it doesn't lift off the ground and head for outer space, will struggle that same way trying to get over 180-185 or so. Of course, there are other factors that may allow you to get to 200 mph once in a while, like wind or god pushing from behind, but on a normal day, its not likely to happen.

A factory driver doing a top speed run in a completely controlled environment and some jackass on the internet doing a top speed run on the freeway are two totally different things. That's why I keep saying "Whatever you're dumb enough to try is the top speed." I'm sure MB engineers took into consideration decent road conditions when publishing 155 mph. What some idiot does that actually wants to come on here and say "I just did 291 mph" on I-75 is irrelevant.

And NO, they don't actually bother on all vehicles to test top speed, because its electronically limited for a reason. They also won't guarantee stability and performance much higher than the posted speed limit, for liability reasons of course.

Ron Scarboro

I actually think the Veyron is delimited to 6,250 rpm which is approximately 400kph, which is 253mph.

I think a delimited Veyron that could turn more rpm could exceed 253.

dan30252

If "if" was a fifth, I would be drunk right now.

If my aunt had *****, she'd be my uncle.

If the sun, moon, stars, and quasars all align, the world may end.

If George W never got voted in office, our economy may or may not have gone to crap.



That's my point. Theoretical top speed is whatever the car can achieve with stability time and time again and IMHO, its probably around 180's.

A Bugatti Veyron was designed to hit 253 mph time and time again. It may actually hit 256 mph once it a while. It may hit 260 mph. But, you paid millions of $ to hit 253 mph EVERY TIME you want to, and THAT is the car's claim to fame. That's what makes it a technological marvel, and other than that the car really isn't all that.

Ron Scarboro

I have a GT-R which pulled 195.1 for R&T. Given that my stock GT-R pulled 418rwhp versus my C63 that pulled 373rwhp, that the weight is similar, but the GT-R has a lower drag co-efficient, I'd think that is optimistic.

My guess would be 180-185 in stock form.

Although dan30252 lost me with the 170mph on a highway in Atlanta (I can only imagine him as the jerk-0ff in the passenger seat with the camera uploading to youtube now) I think he has a point on the stability of the C63 at 190-200 speeds. Getting both cars on the lift there has been a lot of attention paid to the undercarriage of the GT-R versus the C63. My guess is that a stock C63 would be scary as h3ll at 200mph.

Hans Delbruck

253mph, nicely done in this Top Gear report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1t6S737Cs

According to the report, it takes only 270HP to get the Veyron to do 155mph. It takes another 730HP to do the next 100mph.

Dan, "chassis" seems to be the wrong word. It's Power and AERO.
A smooth 'underbelly', a big wing, those are the things that make you "feel" stable. Unfortunately, as others have said.... "feel" is just that, right? Feel. NO street car is truly safe at that speed when you hit a bump or dip, no matter what it FEELS like just before it happens. Although if I couldn't be in an F1 car, I'd rather be strapped in a 4000lb Benz with 8 airbags than in a "supercar" with questionable crash protection.

I like this one of Hans Stuck taking the M6 to 194mph on the Autobahn. He got into traffic or he would have been over 200. And the M6 does not have a big wing, yet notice how stable the car was as he braked from 194mph down to 97mph in a matter of seconds. Impressive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DzsdSWTMug

PS Dan, have you driven at high speed in a front engine car? You'd be surprised how the weight in the front end contributes to the feel of stability at high speed. A rear (911) and mid-engined (Lambo) cars definitely feel more front end float, and more of that feeling like "they are going to lift off the ground" than a front engined car. IMHO.

dan30252

This is the 2nd post in this thread. THIS post is was set me off into a completely stupified state.

dan30252

Hey! I resent that! I was about crapping my pants. I had no idea we were about to do more than 10-20 over the speed limit. Definitely wasn't prepared for 170, and had I known I wouldn't have gotten in the car. I have a thing against other people driving at those kind of speeds. I'm fine if I'm doing 100, but if someone else is driving doing 100 I don't feel comfortable. I'm a control freak.

Ron Scarboro

sorry, I missed the remorse in the below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Scarboro
Note to self, avoid Atlanta. Take it to the track...

Definitely, ATL traffic is crap. But, I'd watch out for people trying to do 200 mph in C63's instead of worrying about the Lambo's

dan30252

Also see that M6 taking turns at 180 or so in that video? The C63 will definitely have you feeling "oh crap" if it sticks to the ground. Don't know, not willing to try.

I own a C63. I've had it up there around 160's on the track.

dan30252

And this one I really don't get. The C63 is a C-Class with some bells. We'll just call all the goodies "bells." Yet, it keeps getting put up against an M5, M6, Ferrari's, Lambo's, etc? Why? Totally different leagues of cars.

Don't get me wrong, I love the C63. I bought it for a reason. Its a wonderful car. However, its sure as hell not an M5, M6, E63, S63, and sure as hell not a super car.

Why is everyone comparing the C63 against $20K + more $ than the C63? Just because a M6 which costs almost $30K more than the C63 PP can do 194 + MPH doesn't mean the C63 can do it.

Its irrelevant! Compare it to something in its own class. The closest comparison thus far has been the GTR.

Hans Delbruck

No but the only one talking about turning at 160mph in this thread is you. I guess you could start a new thread though....

dan30252

Forgot to ask you Ron, what do you think of the GTR? Never really seen one up close or got inside one. Does the interior feel "Japanese?" Is it built like a Nissan (if you know what I mean..."

dan30252

But this is the "loss" that I'm at. Turning and top speed really don't equate any differently. You have a point of no return right? Lets call it "lose it."

In a turn, if the chassis (i.e. suspension, body roll, drag coefficient, down force, etc.) gives, you "lose it." Correct?

At REALLY high speeds, the same "force" is placed on the chassis. Correct? Suspension compresses from down force, minor movements induce some body roll, excessive down force on the car, etc.) Correct?

Thus, if the chassis gets "upset" in a turn, you spin out. If the chassis gets "upset" at high speed, you more than likely die, but for arguments sake you spin out. Correct?

A super car can handle higher corner speeds, correct? This is because the chassis is designed for it. They don't design Ferrari's for drag racing. Therefore, a super car chassis can handle more than a C63. Correct?

If a super car chassis can handle more than a C63, it will be more stable at higher speeds. Correct?


THE C63 IS NOT A SUPER CAR, yet in this thread, some people are stating that this car, can achieve super car speeds. We'll say 200 mph, because after all, any car that is advertised with a top speed of 200+ is a high dollar ride and more than likely considered a super car. Correct?

The ONLY MB that I have ever seen advertised of 200+ MPH is the SLR. lol

SebringSilver

Dan, I don't know exactly how much was spent on the Veyron's R&D (and neither do you), but I'm going to guess it was a lot. My point is not whether the Veyron was tested in a controlled environment to determine its top speed. I'm sure it was. My point is also not about whether a bunch of yahoos ripping the C63 on a public road would be a scientific measure of the car's true capability either. It certainly isn't, and I don't believe I said anything to that effect. What I am sure about is that there is a moment in time that the C63 can be determined to be traveling at its maximum speed, in a controlled environment, right before take off, right before gearing, drag, power, weight, and every other factor that has an influence on speed takes effect, and it is at that moment that we can say "this is the car's top speed".

Even in your Veyron analogy coupled with your insistence that "top speed" is only as fast as you're willing to dare drive your car, if the driver of a Veyron decided he'd had enough at 170 mph and wasn't going to push it any harder, it does not mean the car's top speed is 170 mph, does it?

dan30252

That's way out in left field. I'm sure they do. Land speed record vehicles and a stock C63 are two different things.

tyanger

(forget it, against my better judgment I got sucked in to this - I'm deleting my posts - gotta remember to stop feeding the seagulls)

dan30252

The problem is as I see it, in theory, this. The limitation of the top speed, controlled is obviously higher than in an uncontrolled environment. However, the limitations on this car are the chassis. The chassis as I reference it is:

Drag Coefficient
Down Force
Suspension
Body Roll

You know, pretty much what keeps the car planted on the ground, right down to tires.

In a completely controlled environment, hell, lets even say its a masterpiece of a surface and the pavement is completely flawless, just the aerodynamics of the car inhibit it from getting close to 200 mph. I'd say the resistance at 180-190 and lack of HP to fight that resistance is what's going to stop you, even if there is nothing outside of resistance stopping you from hitting 200 mph.

BUT, the problem is this, the "chassis" of the C63, especially the suspension, is not set up for anywhere near those speeds. The down force on the car will compress the suspension to the point that the car gets sloppy. Some people may be willing to drive a car that is "sloppy" but I still doubt even if you had the ***** to hold the car once it gets to the point that its sloppy, that you can break 190.

If you look at the Veyron video, how it struggled at one point to even gain a few MPH, I would bet the C63 would do the same at about 180. If it does, there is absolutely no way in hell without a lot more HP (talking double) to fight the resistance of the wind.

SebringSilver

ROFL

dan30252

Yes, I read the title of the thread. It's "C63 TRUE Top Speed."

dan30252

Don't get what's so funny?

True top speed as the thread is labeled, is what the car can actually do when:

A. Its in a lab type environment?
B. What the math says it can do on the design engineers compuer?
C. What it can do on a public road, regardless of if its right to do it or not?

Are we talking different things here, cause I"m talking about C.

SebringSilver

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to ROFL at this revised post as well.

SebringSilver

Instead of just reading the thread title, why not read my opening post?

*smacks forehead*

dan30252

And actually, to be honest, half of this i'm just arguing simply because I"m stuck at work waiting to dial in on a conference call.

So... I keep putting a dollar out there to see which stripper wanders over.

But, at the same time, I'm somewhat serious trying to understand WTF, and why in hell does anyone want to do the top speed of a 4 door sedan anyways? Who gives a ****? I bought it cause its fun to drive, and I can fit 4 women in the back seat on the way to the bar.

dan30252

Because regardless of what you asked, I "saw an accident" and my eyes wandered over to that. The accident was the 2nd post of the thread. lol

SebringSilver

I can see it now, next new thread on the forum is "How many women can you fit in the back seat of the C63 on the way to the bar?"