Bux

just curious what they run

Nicholai_AMG

is the 1/4 miles the same as 1000m Da??

if yes....24.1 sec...

Harris

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesnt seem right.....

1 mile = 1609.3 meters

1/4 mile (0.25) = 402.325 meters

If your car take 24.1 sec to go 1000 meters, then your car will go 9.696 sec in 1/4 mile???? That is unbelievably FAST!!!!

But what does "Da" mean???

lvit

Harris,

>But what does "Da" mean???



I guess "Da" means "Yes" in Russian.

Therefore the answer is "Net" - No, 1000 m and 1/4 mile aren't the same distances.

Ebrigham

Not sure if Nicholia's #s are correct, but since the car continues to accelerate throughout the 1/4 mile, dividing 24.1 secs by 2.486 does not work. Simple division/multiplication in the way you performed it won't work.

Nicholai_AMG

lol

DA is not in russian!! it means Départ Arreté in french....(the car is stopped before launch)

this numbers were found in a zine where the m3 did 23.8, the xkr run 24.5 an the carerra 4s 24.5, too...

woodie

October 2003 Motor Trend stats:

2003 CLK55 AMG

0-60 = 4.9 sec

1/4 mile = 13.24 @ 107.41 mph

My Mercedes literature lists the 0-60 as 5.0 sec.

RJC

How do these stats compare to M/T's test of the 208-55?

woodie

Couldn't find the M/T test but the Road and Track test in the February 2001 edition had these 2001 CLK55AMG stats:

0-60 = 5.3

1/4 mile = 13.7 @ 105.6

RJC

Looks like the 209 may take the qrtr mile crown from the 208.

woodie

With 20 more ponies it seems to be faster from all the data I have seen. Not sure what the weight difference is.

RJC

I think about +/- 300 lbs heavier for the 209

Improviz

Horsepower has gone up, but weight has gone up too, so weight/hp remains the same for both. The Road & Track test of the 208 was a joke...several other mags got better times.

If the 209 has better traction control, it would help, and even the added weight would help it off the line, so it might be able to launch with less spin than the 208; spin was the big problem with the 208. It's extremely difficult to get out of the hole without the tires going up in smoke, thanks to the ridiculously skinny 245's MB stuck on there (and still puts on the 209, unfortunately).

I finally got sick of it and upsized the rears to 18" E55 rims, with 265/35-18s (didn't want 18's all the way around, for ride purposes, so I copied the 'vettes and used different sized rims f/r).

This made a huge difference, and I can get off the line much faster. With stock rubber, best time I could get was a 13.4@106, but that was limited by spin: I couldn't brake-torque (power-brake) it at *all*, so that 13.4 was punching it from idle.

Now, I can power-brake it a bit and get a better launch without excessive spin, and unofficially I am in the 13.1 range (haven't been able to get back out to track, as temp is way too high these days. Will go back when things cool off and verify).

But anyway, stock to stock, I know the European mags got the same times for both, about 5.3 sec. 0-100Km/h (about 62 mph).

woodie

So you think that both cars are about even when all the mags show the 209 to be slightly faster. I thought it may be the programing of the electronics.

AMG4life

some one is in denial here:o

Improviz

I have yet to see a test of the 209 in any US car mag. Those which I have seen, the results Auto Motor und Sport (a German mag) for both cars were the same. Do you have test results from an American mag yet? Someone mentioned the new Motor Trend has it, but I haven't seen it and it wasn't on their website.

But anyway, both edmunds.com and motorweek ran 13.4's in their 208 test cars:
MotorWeek:

Edmunds:

The rate at which a car will accelerate is very accurately predicted by its weight/hp ratio. And as I said, this is the same for both cars (following is from factory specs):

208:
Weight: 3,450 pounds
Net power 342 hp @ 5,500 rpm
lb/hp: 10.09
Net torque 376 lb-ft @ 3000-4,200 rpm
lb/ft-lb: 9.17

209:
Weight: 3,635 pounds
Net power 362 hp @ 5,750 rpm
lb/hp: 10.04
Net torque 376 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
lb/ft-lb: 9.66

So, weight/hp is same for both, but 208 has better weight/torque.

If anyone in DFW wants to do a few runs to see how they compare, I'd be more than happy.

Also, anyone got a timeslip for the new one yet? I can post mine.

Improviz

There is no denying physics, friend. F=ma. The force of the new one has increased, but so has the mass:

208:
Weight: 3,450 pounds
Net power 342 hp @ 5,500 rpm
lb/hp: 10.09
Net torque 376 lb-ft @ 3000-4,200 rpm
lb/ft-lb: 9.17

209:
Weight: 3,635 pounds
Net power 362 hp @ 5,750 rpm
lb/hp: 10.04
Net torque 376 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
lb/ft-lb: 9.66

So, weight/hp is same for both, but 208 has better weight/torque.

As I said: I'd be more than happy to run a new one. Anyone in DFW want to play??

RJC

Is the gearing the same?

Improviz

and tires is larger. AMG site lists 255/35-18's on 209, vs. 245/40-17 for 208. 0.5" difference in rolling diameter would decrease effective ratio of 3.06 close to 2.82, so not really enough there to make a big difference...

woodie

That must be the European cars. My USA spec W209 has 245/40-17's on the rear.

Improviz

Damn, they're still sticking 245's back there??? I guess the extra weight will help a bit traction-wise, but imo this car needs more tire with this much torque. Sheesh...I really don't know why they do that.

Anyway, the only way we'll know for sure is for some of you 209 guys to get out to the strip and see what they'll do!!

woodie

The AMG site I went to still had the HP listed as 342 for the 2003-04 models. I wouldn't put too much faith in their data.

As for your request for some mag. tests look at my 1st post in this thread.

Improviz

Fine, but as I said, the German car mag Auto Motor und Sport got the same time in the 209 that they got in the 208. So, with two mag tests I am now aware of, it was a tie in one, with the nod going to the 209 in the other.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new one run a 13.2, though: if you flip through the road test section of the Motor Trend and find their test for the previous gen E55, they ran a 13.3@107. This car had the same gearing, same horsepower, and weighed 200 pounds more than the 208 CLK55. Yet their test for the CLK55 got slower results...why? Read on.

So how is it that prev-gen E55 was faster, even though it was heavier and had same gearing? Simple: traction. It was heavier, and had 275's vs the CLK55's 245's, so it could get a better hole shot. The 209 is heavier, and therefore should be able to get better traction off the line with the same tires as the lighter 208. And the hole shot is everything in drag racing. But a pro will exploit that to the max; most drivers aren't that good..

Btw, if you read Motor Trend's comparo of the CLK55 Cab vs. M3 Cab, they note that off the line traction is a big issue with this car and hurt its times. They specifically mentioned that the CLK55 had heavy wheelspin, and that the M3 won due to superior traction off the line: MT test driver Chris Walton noted that the CLK55 produces lots of wheelspin off the line, while the M3 stays better hooked up....Despite being down 114 lb-ft of torque, the M3 won our acceleration test by a hair, thanks to better traction and even more aggressive gearing.

Spinning tires = lost time. This is why the CLK55's test results were all over the map: it is very dependent upon the test surface.

But if you're so certain you can lay the smackdown on a 208, how about this: come to TX, meet me at Texas Motorplex at Ennis for a Fast Friday, and we'll do some runs. I'm pretty certain the cars should be relatively equal, but if you guys think you'll bury us 208 guys, let's have a showdown and settle it. I'm not worried.

Or, you could always post a timeslip.

KompressorKev

"If your car take 24.1 sec to go 1000 meters, then your car will go 9.696 sec in 1/4 mile???? That is unbelievably FAST!!!!"


the 24.1 sec for 1000m sounds about right. remember, you're not travelling at a constant speed here, it takes time to accelerate. by the time he goes from the quarter mile to the 1000 meter, roughly 600 meters, he's starting that 600 meter distance at his quarter mile trap speed, maybe 104-110 mph. think of it this way, you don't just double your 1/8th mile time to get your 1/8 mile time. the 2nd half of the 1/4 mile, i.e. the 2nd 1/8th mile, is much quicker than your 1st 1/8th mile, because you've been traveling at a faster rate to begin with (first 1/8th mile starts from a stop, 2nd 1/8th mile is starting from the speed of the 1st 1/8th mile). i believe a c32 amg does the 1000m in 24.2 seconds, but it doesn't run a 9 second 1/4 mile, it runs about 13.2-13.7 seconds. remember, you are accelerating from higher speeds after the 1/4 mile, like over 100mph. though accel may be slower after 100mph than say from 40mph, you still are travelling a greater distance in the unit of time, it's common sense. i think maybe this was so logical that it bypassed you, no problem, every now and then every one of us makes that mistake.