With all the controversy voiced on this board regarding which model is faster than what and who's numbers are bought etc,etc;
In this esteemed board's opinion, who's numbers has the greatest credibility? Domestic or European?(British, German,etc.) What is the reasoning behind your response?? I look forward to your input!

 

Brian, I'm not really sure what you're question is. Who is the "who" you refer to? The enthusiasts, like ourselves, the the manufacturer. Bear in mind, boards like this will usually have a bias towards their respective models. In general, most manufacturer's ratings are conservative, though some are a bit more optimistic than others. Mercedes is very conservative, while BMW tends to be more realistic to actual numbers.

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity. ( My wife was rushing me out the door)
Let me rephrase by saying; the term "who bought" their numbers was gleaned from a statement by a poster who speculated that some manufacturers "buy" their favorable test results from the numerous car publications. This raised a the question in my mind as to wether or not European publications are more forthcoming with the results of their performance tests. Also, are MBZ's, BMW's etc, numbers in their printed material for public consumption (sales brochures) accurate with regard to the comparisons between their OWN models?? Ie, M5 vs. M3 and CLK 55 vs. E 55?? What are your opinions? Hope this add some clarity to my original post...... In simpler terms, I wanna know who you guys think are the F$#king liars. There. Now I said it. I have way too much time on my hands.....

 

Mr. Vanos wrote:Agree, that the official MB acceleration numbers, which rates the 2002 CLK55 AMG 0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds, are conservative.

These acceleration stats are very conservative, because the CLK55 accelerates faster than my previous car, a 2001 Vette w/6 speed tranny, which accelerated to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds.

 

I will say from my own dyno testing and 1/4 mile times MB is accurate to conservative. I say this becuase you really can only refer to "wheel" horsepower on a chassis dyno (what we can test) vs "engine" dyno numbers refered to by MB. Trying to extrapolate drive train loss from wheel horsepower is anyone's guess - everyone has a different way of calculating it. Bottom line - dyno (at the wheels) and 1/4 mile numbers look good if not better than what MB is saying about their cars.

As far as magazine testing, almost all will have the E55 faster than the CLK55. This would seem to not make sense since the E is heavier (by a few hundred pounds?) than the CLK. The HP differences are due to the exhaust - not he motor. Given that, I mark that up to the E having 18/275s in the rear vs the CLK's 245/17s. Launching the car correctly is extremly difficult with so much torque off the line on 245s (I for one can't do it better than ESP can do it). I don't remember seeing any CLK testing by magazines having the CLK sub 5. Usually 5.0-5.2 for the CLK though I see the E55 sub 5 alot.

As far as individuals spouting crap? I don't give much credit to street racing results (though they're entertaining ramblings) and "seat-o-the pants" testing. Dyno numbers can be manipulated, different dynos give different results, even different wheel/tire set-ups will impact results, but i still think Dyno and 1/4 mile times give a good indication of what your car is really doing vs what the manufacturer is claiming. As I said - vs the numbers, MB is leaning on the money to conservative.

A G-Tech Pro is a decent enough little testing device (I have one - fun to play with), a Vericom 2000 (is that what it is called?) is REALLY accurate - that is what the magazines use (OK, that and radar guns).

Get the latest Motor Trend (unbelievably BMW biased in my opinion by I buy the damn thing anyway) - a whole issue of BMW "M" Power versus MB "AMG."

IMHO of course :p
~shell