kbahl21

C63's really shouldnt have problem, i never understood why they do, in a straight line at least they should have no problem beating M3's... i have raced M3's from a dig, 1st gear roll, 30 roll and 40 roll... The only time i lost was from a dig since the new ones have launch control. The car really just doesnt have to torque to keep up down low. I may have have 25less hp but i have 100 more torque.

jctevere

Well, technically I didn't "win". He had the nose of my car edged by maybe 1-2 feet, but was starting to gain momentum. It was more of a 35mph(ish) pull to about 100(ish) and only one pass. The road then had a turn and forced us to both slow down, and we both parted ways to our destination (it was a service road to the main highway).

I can say though, having previously owned a 2008 infiniti g37. The car was fast - MOST of the time. It seemed from a dig or a standstill the car had undeniable speed and power. But if you tried gunning it from a roll (especially around 40-50mph) the car just had no OOMPH. Perhaps this is due to the 5speed's gearing, and maybe the 7-speeds they rolled out in 2009.5 alleviate this issue. All I am saying is it happened.

Also, I find my car to pull MUCH stronger than other c300 (I own another 2011 4matic) and drive many of the loaners. I haven't done any real mods besides x-pipe and K&N drop in filters and dropped to 0w-40 from 5w-40 factory. My car also pulls very well in second at about 4krpm (this seems like the sweet spot). In fact, in some 0-60 times on flat ground I have gotten a 6.2 from the factory suggested 7 seconds (and my 2011 gets 7 seconds flat). So who really knows, maybe I got a good one.

Bottom line is, I know my car isn't "fast" I was just trying to say that even races where you are fairly certain of which car will win, does not always mean that car will win. A variety of things from variance between even the same model of cars, to maintenance, issues (leaks, clogged filters, etc), drivers, gear selection (auto OR manual) all have a BIG difference in the outcomes of races. So never give up and keep the pedal to the metal! lol

Improviz

Well, one race is a bit different; your previous post made it sound like it was more than one run:
When you say it "keeps" up, this is plural and indicates you've done it multiple times, etc...now, if it was one run only, that's a bit different.... As I said in my last post: if someone doesn't know how to drive, then yes, a slower car can beat a faster car, btdt, and in fact myself and several others have indicated this over the course of this thread.

What I found odd about your scenario is that *most* vehicles (the AMGs being one notable exception) with automatic transmission will downshift to the proper gear even if one is boneheaded enough to start out with the vehicle in the wrong gear. But I did some more searching, and as far as I can determin it is equipped with this feature, so he could have done exactly that.

Also, I read that if you don't shift the G37 auto about 600 rpm down from where you actually want it to shift, you'll hit the rev limiter as its shifts are delayed from where you actually execute them. Most people said it's best to just leave it in auto mode, so it was almost certainly a factor in your encounter.

I dunno, seems like this one made a pretty good showing against a CLK55 from a roll in two back-to-back rolling start runs, and the owner (who owns both cars) said it kept up very well to about 100 mph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x68ScbMefv0

Of course, this guy was in the proper gear!

No, that isn't it; for the 08 models the five speed G37 automatic actually had *more* agressive gearing in gears 1-3 than the manual:
.....5 A/T..... 6 M/T
1st 3.841..... 3.794
2nd 2.352..... 2.324
3rd 1.529..... 1.624
4th 1.000..... 1.271
5th 0.839..... 1.000
6th - 0.794
Reverse 2.764 3.446
Final drive ratio (:1) 3.692 (both)

I think that you'd be mostly in the lower three gears for a 30-100 run...it would redline around 90, so the last 10 would be in fourth, but below that he'd have stiffer gearing than the manual G37 would...so it sounds like several mistakes on his part probably shifted the race in your favor.

Sure, and all I'm saying is, if this happened, then your friend can't drive and goofed up, or something is very very wrong with his car. Those things trap at over 100, which is quite a bit faster than yours. If the vehicle can hit 100 mph in the 1/4 and yours is in the low (or even mid) 90's, then you'll get killed or fast-walked at a minimum unless he's got serious issues/poor gas on hot day, or is bouncing off the rev limiter each and every time he shifts or doing something else that's equally moronic.

Now, if we look at G37s timeslips at dragtimes.com and restrict the search to 2009 and less, we see that they're all in the 13.7-14.1 range, with traps ranging from 100.9 to 103.4. And all but one of these were 2008 models; any of these should easily pull a C300 from any speed. And in fact, one of the faster ones was a stock 2008 five speed auto which ran a 13.835 @ 101.89 mph:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Infiniti-G3...lip-16925.html

When C&D ran them (both manuals) in a 2008 comparison, they got:
C300:
0-60: 6.5
1/4: 14.9 @ 95

G37:
0-60: 5.5
1/4: 14.1 @ 102

So again, that's a 7 mph trap difference, which is huge. If I ran a car that trapped at 99 in my CLK55 which trapped at 106-107, I'd pull it with no difficulty, and the faster the speed the worse it was for the other guy. If you look at 0-xx times vs 0-xxx times, a 0.5 sec gap to 60 is a 2-3 sec gap to 100, and double digits to 130.

But obviously, these are all dependent upon driver doing everything well, and this manumatic mode in the G37 could screw him up if he didn't time everything just right/select the proper gear, etc..

Yeah, but neither of those will pick you up 100 hp, or anything close...that's just too big a gap. Now otoh, with the AWD off the line you'd stand a good chance against one as you'd be able to brake-torque it pretty good and get out of the hole very fast with no spin, so if he bungled his launch you could take him (I used to have an Audi S4, and that thing killed off the line if you didn't bog it), but rolling start it's harder to screw up. He'd have to give up a second or so's worth of mistakes for you to keep up, but if he selects the wrong gear or mistimes his shifts, it can happen...usually it's just best to leave it in auto mode, I'm sure he'd do better doing that.

As measured by what? Got anything a bit more illustrative, like a timeslip or something like that? It'd be interesting to see how it runs...

Sure, there are variances, but manufacturers shoot for a mean of xxx horsepower with a tight standard deviation, so you're not going to see huge hp differences within the same lineup, manufacturing tolerances are just way too tight for this these days. And yeah, if he's got a clogged air filter or fuel filter, of course that can slow him down...I figure that most folks who drive performance vehicle are a bit more careful about keeping their cars well-maintained, but there are exceptions....

And of course, if he bungles the gear/shift timing, or if it's a hot day and he's using 87 octane gas, then he'll definitely take a big hit...

Sure, but what makes the BIGGEST difference is the horsepower, weight, and gearing of the cars. If one has a 50% advantage over the other, then unless one guy screws up hugely or has a car in need of repair or ****-poor gas, or the other guy gets a gigantic jump, physics is physics.

What got myself and others heated is this: I've pulled faster cars, but I've never deluded myself into thinking that this means my car is faster than that car, which is what I find to be so annoying (well, one thing) about badblack and his ilk (you don't sound like you fit in this category, so don't take this as being directed at you). Obviously, other factors can result in a slower car beating a faster car, but the farther apart the cars' performance, the more unlikely this is to happen. Within a half second or so, absolutely, but when you start getting out in the 1+ second range, that requires a hosed vehicle or a boneheaded driver.

Anyway, I don't think we disagree on this point: mistakes will cost you.

Mka77

Great breakdown and explanation Improviz.

jctevere

Yeah, I admit that my first post was misleading, In high school I always got points of for using the wrong tenses and even switching them mid-sentence.

I by no means think that my c300 is faster than a g37. ESPECIALLY from a dig (0-whatever). And I never meant to make it seem like I WON from a roll - cause I didn't. I would say that my front tires never fell behind his rear tires though.

I have driven and raced my G37S automatic extensively. Had a 24 month lease when it first came out. It really was a great car and undeniably fast. I can confirm that the automanual driver shift function was garbage and really delayed - so I never used it. However, I ALWAYS had a gripe with how unresponsive it was when gunning it on highway speeds. The only way I can explain it is that the car would downshift, but never enough...

I regret not owning both cars at the same time (even if for only a day) to find out for sure, but I always floor it down the same block and judging by my pants-meter, the c300 never FELT much slower than the g37 gunning it down the same block (same speeds off the same turn and instantly flooring it). Until I hit about 80-mph, when I could definitely feel the c300 not pull as hard as the G37 did.

And it always bugged the heck out of me and I always wondered if I was going nuts, or if by some mystery my c300 wasn't much slower than the g37 in that scenario (a roll to 80ish). So I can't say I was REALLY surprised that my c300 didn't lose THAT much in this scenario - but yes, I lost.

I don't know for sure if he was running regular gas or not - I just assumed he was because I ran 87 octane in my g37 a few times and it ran like GARBAGE then (knocking, lurching on stops, terrible pickup). But I don't really think that he was running 87 octane.

The only thing I can think of is that the c300 7-speed will actually "skip" an entire gear, to get a really good downshift RIGHT in the power band, but the crappy 5-speed on the g37 only downshifted once (from common rolling starts it would only downkick to about 3krpm). And I think that the speed was probably closer to 40mph than 30 thinking back. Listen, I have no reason to lie about my experience, I really have no idea why you feel the desire to pick apart my experience and try to de-bunk it. If you don't believe me thats fine, I was just trying to share my experience with other people that I thought might find it interesting. I didn't expect it to be that close at all especially considering the HP gap...

Also, the YouTube video you linked with the CLK I have seen before. And I was VERY surprised that the g37 kept up with the clk that far... I can tell he was using the manual shift (either on the shifter or the steering mounted paddles) because the manual indicator was on the infotainment screen and when they panned over it showed he was in gear 4. So he was in a very good gear for the roll and would not have experienced this annoyance, even though it is a automatic.

The way I tested my 0-60 was by video and timed it multiple times with a stopwatch and took the average of my times. All of the tests were done on the same stretch of road. And while I wouldn't say its scientific or confirmed by slip times (as I have never taken my c300, or any of my cars, to the drag strip yet), I would feel comfortable saying that it isn't more than .1 off. Here is a link to my c300 YouTube video if your interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZWTwHosyWQ

And, thinking back, my experience is not alone. A while back even before I raced this g37, another fellow mbworld member had this exact same experience, only he won... And I actually responded second and even at that time, before I met up with this g37, I explained it was a fluke and that a manual will be a very different story. If your curious to see that too, that is located here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w...odded-g37.html

^ I have no idea if that guy is telling the truth or not. Honestly, I am skeptical that he said he won. The g37 is still fast despite the underwhelming pull from a roll, and faster than the c300 all day. But I don't think something far off my scenario happened, as I can confirm the same thing with my experience.

Klinh

Not true........ Here it is........

http://www.importdynamics.com/catalo...9-p-56114.html

cahiil55k

At $13000 an order, it's still pretty close to non-existent. You get free shipping though

Kevwood

Funny that this kit keeps popping up on websites as it is NOT available from Kleemann... Six months ago or so I contacted Kleemann HQ and asked them if this kit was actually available to the market (I was doing some research for BadBlackfoLife), I was told that it was not, they had been testing a kit for the 550's but nothing was finalized nor ready for production anytime in the immediate future.

The only thing you can get from Kleemann for it is a set of headers and an ECU flash.

Rudeney

Dang, I hate this it's just vaporware! I was really looking forward to dropping in the Kleeman and teaching this kid who works for me a lesson in his Roush Mustang.

Improviz

No problemo, just caused a bit of confusion on this end...

Possibly, though I'd think it would select the proper gear, I've never driven a vehicle that wouldn't do that at that speed....I'd say that if he was shifting himself, he probably just started in too high of a gear and that cost him dearly, a dumb mistake: if you're gonna drive it in manual mode, it behooves you to know the max gear speeds!

Again: your first post indicated that this had happened multiple times and that you could do this on a routine basis, and that's a big difference from a a single isolated race, as I pointed out in my last post: the latter is much more plausible than the former, and I've pointed out already the reasons why I think it's plausible, which hardly indicicates that I find it to be unbelievable.

And I'm not trying to de-bunk it; I'm saying and have said that in order for this to happen, he'd have to have something wrong with the vehicle or to have screwed up hugely.

Or, put more plainly, he selected the proper gear, and it makes a big difference.

Same thing with this one against a 335i; both were autos, all runs rolling start, and he managed to give the 335i several good runs, difference is exactly what I'd expect given the two cars' differences in trap speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHz6cajLxjA

Well, this isn't the most reliable nor accurate method for doing this, but if a RWD version can get a 6.5, I wouldn't be too surprised at an AWD version hitting it a few tenths faster; AWD versions normally are about that much faster from 0-60 as they can launch so much more agressively without spin. But even this puts you a full 0.7 sec off of what I've seen numerous G37s hit, so it won't explain your experience; again, I think it's driver error, pure and simple.

It could happen as many times as a C300 driver who has the smarts to just leave his car in D and stomp it finds a G37 driver who either picks the wrong gear or drives poorly, but my point is that with competent drivers in cars in proper working conditions, it would never happen. 100 hp is a huge gap, as is 0.7 in the 1/4 and 7 mph in trap.

jctevere

To which I would reply, Touche`. Very fair argument and I would have to agree. I do feel a bit persuaded to give the newer g37 with the 7-speed a try or at least a look at when my current lease is up. That really was my only gripe with the car (that, and MPG). I once averaged 9mpg for one week... HAHA. I drive like a maniac. Also, I think I would look into a awd variant as well.

I have to say, driving a RWD car is fun, but after driving an AWD car - it is a different experience, and dare I say - more fun. At least for me. I find that AWD is faster standing start from 0mph (and MUCH easier to get the power down) If you just want to simply mash the pedal, my c300 will feel about as fast as my father's SL550 (it just get the power to the road much smoother and better and faster), it feels much faster through the corners (stable and jsut seems to EAT it up), MUCH faster & safer in the wet (even if its a false sense of security), And although I can't do any drifts or donuts (unless they are 4-wheeled with serious power), I really love the characeristics of AWD, especially when you look at harsh condition capabilities.

RWD is fun, but if I EVER took off traction control on my g37, I nearly ended up killing myself. This one time to bystanders I looked like I did the craziest sickest drift ever like a professional race car driver, but I can assure you I was lucky as hell and it was pure reaction. I'm still young and don't have much driving experience, I think that AWD is perfect for what I am looking for. I just wish mercedes would make some AWD ///AMG!

Improviz

AWD rocks. That S4 I had was great, and extremely stable in all sorts of conditions. And off the line it would hook so well, I notched up some nice kills against faster vehicles whose owners hadn't exactly mastered the fine art of getting a high torque RWD vehicle off the line quickly.

Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. The new torque-vectoring stuff from Audi is amazing as well, although I'm not sure which variants do/do not offer it. But it's definitely worth a look, I really like their new stuff. The A5 is amazing, just gorgeous.

I think that BMW is also coming out with an AWD 335i, although not 100% on this one. That would be pretty killer, although as with most BMWs, I'm more enamoured of its exterior than its interior, although they've moved in the right direction (interior-wise at any rate, if not in handling and driving satisfaction) on some of their newer offerings.

Snap oversteer is definitely something you've gotta watch out for in a high powered RWD vehicle, *especially* if it doesn't have a limited-slip diff. I went around a corner one time in my CLK55 (which, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the folks at MB, is not standard equipment on their AMGs, although it's standard equipment on BMW M cars as well as $30K Musting GTs and Camaros) and goosed it a bit....that back end came around so fast I would've gone a$$-first into the curb were it not for the instinctive countersteer that I picked up way back when I was a teenager doing donuts in snowy empty parking lots in my old Trans Am.

That was some good experience in learning how to deal with oversteer, and has saved my bacon on several occasions, including one instance where I came over a ridge at 70 mph to find three deer standing in the road, instinctively hit the brakes and turned the wheel, had the back end step out, and intuitively countersteered my way out of what would have been a rollover-inducing spin (this was in an SUV, went through an offroading phase back in the day).

Given that I was too young and stupid to wear seatbelts back in the day, doing those donuts probably saved my life, more than once.

Anyhow, have fun and be safe!

Deuuuce

I believe that is an incorrect use of the term.

A non-LSD car is more prone to power-on oversteer which is what you described.

My assumption was that Snap Oversteer is associated with LSD-equipped cars and occurs when the outside tire in a "drift" or oversteer situation gains sudden traction and "snaps" the car into oversteer to the opposite side. What could also be called a power-on fishtail. Something a non-LSD car cannot do.

But Wiki says differently. Wiki states that Snap Oversteer occurs when lifting off the throttle in a turn, unloading the rears and causing oversteer. I'm not sure how an LSD would react, and I'm guessing here, since that is a deceleration moment (no throttle), LSD could help stablize the car like it is reported to sometimes do under braking (rear-engined Porsche 911s). Although brake "feel" is supposedly better with an Open Diff. That last statement coming from a well-known historic race-car shop in Hayward, CA.

Comments?

Improviz

Depends upon the reference.

Wikipedia sez:

But then this guy sez:
This guy sez that he's heard of two different definititions, which I suspect is the case here;
I googled the hell out of this thing, and can't find a definitive answer, but can find plenty of debates on the meaning of the phrase, so it may be a case of meaning is in the eyes of the beholder.

Anyway, when I typed it in I was thinking about the wikipedia definition/second definition by the last guy above, in case the person to whom I addressed it thought I was referring to the latter.

Improviz

Oops, I see that you were still editing while I replied!

I did a bit more digging and found a *second* wikipedia page, which naturally disagrees with the first one:
http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Oversteer

And also found this, trackepedia:
http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/Oversteer

Both of these claim that "snap oversteer" indicates lift-off oversteer, the back end rotating when power is removed mid-corner, for which the old Porsches were notorious.

So maybe this is what they mean...I dunno, I figured it was kind of a generic term to indicate the rear end just breaking loose and coming around, pronto (like a snap), so I would think that it would be applicable in either case, but maybe not...

Wrt the LSD, good question: I know that they help prevent power-on oversteer by transfering power from the lightly loaded/lower tractioned (is that a word?) inside wheel to the heavily loaded/higher tractioned outside wheel, preventing the oversteer by keeping the inside wheel from busting loose....but I don't know if the converse is true, i.e. if lifting off would, absent an LSD, cause the inside wheel to break loose more easily as well.

Don't have time to dig into the operation of LSDs today, but intuitively it seems like this could be the case: if you think of the LSD as kind of putting "more gearing" on the side of the outside wheel and "less" on the side of the inside wheel, then it makse sense to think that the engine braking effect induced by lifting off would be less pronounced on the inside wheel, thus lessing the possibility of a spin.

Interesting, I'll have to look into this when I get more time, it's something I'd never thought of before.

Kevwood

That is exactly how I remember my instructor describing "snap-oversteer" in race school many moons ago. He specifically covered it for drivers with LSD cars. As also mentioned though, various descriptions of it are out there, depends on who is describing it...

Deuuuce

For a very interesting technical discussion of LSDs from a well-known Porsche 911 LSD shop that rebuilds them, check out this thread:

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/g...sd-buster.html

Moedy

I know he was trolling but this is the most action the w209 section has brought in a while. At least he brought some entertainment. I have $20 on badblack his car is the ****!

Mka77