by the way, how much does it cost to roll the fender?

thanks!

 

10 inch wheels are better looking and you can put a wider tire on the back resulting in a greater contact patch.

As far as fender rolling is concerned, is depends on where you live. It can be as little as $50 a fender and go up to $200 depending on how much you have to roll and whether or not it is the front fender or the rear fender. If you choose the right wheel/tire/offset combination, you can get away with not rolling it.

 

being delivered to the wheel? in other words i realize there will be more grip, but will the larger size/weight hurt the amount of power being delivered? or is it negligible? thanks again

 

Weight plays a large role in acceleration. For every 2 lbs to the wheel +/-, you can expect a difference of about 3 HP. As for the wider wheels, essentially they would way more than skinnier wheels of the same model. More rubber on the road means better handling, but slower acceleration. I would definitely get 10s in the rear, but go for a light weight wheel.

 

Mach430

If this is true, than the CLK 55 AMG Coupe must have 135 more HP,

because the CLK 55 AMG Cabriolet weighs 360 lbs more than the Coupe.

Both Coupe and Cabriolet are rated as 342 HP.

(This is based on one wheel carrying 90 lbs extra and using your figures for computation .)

Something is wrong. Maybe not. Pls. comment. tnx

????????? ?????????

 

Dude! It's the difference in weight of the wheel, not the entire car.

Think about the the torque required to rotate a heavy wheel as opposed to a light one.......

 

What exactly does fender rolling entail? Is it just increasing clearance on the inside of the fender or is the outside body shape actually changed? Thx.

 

bigbadpig wrote
Mach430 seems to have gotten an "A" in dynamic/quantum physics, that's why I asked HIM to address the following stated previously above:

quote:

For every 2 lbs to the wheel +/-, you can expect a difference of
about 3 HP.




Mach430

If this is true, than the CLK 55 AMG Coupe must have 135 more HP,

because the CLK 55 AMG Cabriolet weighs 360 lbs more than the Coupe.

Both Coupe and Cabriolet are rated as 342 HP.

(This is based on one wheel carrying 90 lbs extra and using your figures for
computation .)

Something is wrong. Maybe not. Pls. comment

 

or that is what I have always heard!

So, say you are running a 15.1 in the quarter - dump the spare tire, jack, passenger seat, etc - presto! you are in the 14s!!!

I think it was colin chapman (lotus) that said - don't look for one place to lose a hundred pounds, but a hundred places to lose one pound.... (I might be way off on that one - but you get the idea)

of course that is from a guy that was so extreme about weight that some of his cars only lasted one race (too fragile)

 

Ok Karl, and the sarcasm in your posts indicate that you must have an A in .... well I'll leave that to your imagination.

IT'S THE WHEEL/TIRE/BRAKE WEIGHT. ANYTHING THAT HAS TO BE PHYSICALLY REVOLVED. THINK ABOUT IT, THE LIGHTER IT IS, THE EASIER TO SPIN. IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ WHAT THE INITAIL POST WAS ABOUT (10" WHEELS), YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT MY RESPONSE WAS REGARDING WHEELS, AND NOT THE WEIGHT OF THE CAR, OR HOWEVER FAT THE PASSENGERS MAY BE.

 

bodyart wrote:

Thanks bodyart27.

I was trying to get some rational/factual correlation of weight and speed.

Unfortunately, I liked initially what Mach430 posted, however as a follow-up question, he became defensive and used the ad hominem tactic as a dubious defense re weight v power/speed.

Using your formula - bodyart27 - the CLK 55 AMG Coupe should be approx. 1 sec. faster in the 1/4 mile compared to the CLK 55 AMG Cabriolet, which weighs 360 lbs more than the Coupe. Both Coupe and Cabriolet are rated as 342 HP.

Again, appreciate your response.

 

If you want to see the correlation between weight/horsepower and quarter mile times go to this site. http://www.onlineconversion.com/horsepower.htm

 

360 lb ~ .36 seconds or .3-.4 seconds slower.... not 3 seconds slower using my ghetto math