Motor Trend May Issue
04-06-2004, 10:54 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Denial is a powerful thing.
It is natural for one to see one's toy in the most positive light possible, but the fact remains that with four instrumented tests performed on the CLK500, all but one are in the high five to six second range.
Believe what you want, but facts don't lie, nor does physics: I already demonstrated to you in another post that: 1) the only way a car weighing as much as the CLK500 could hit the trap speed obtained in the second Road and Track test was if it had nearly 350 crank horsepower, and 2) the trap speed in the first Road and Track test was *exactly* what the car should have gotten with 302 crank horsepower.
I also backed this up by showing that the trap speeds of other cars, such as the BMW M3 and M5, Corvette Z06, etc. were exactly where they should be for the cars' rated horsepower.
I'm still waiting for you to post that sub-14 second timeslip...what are you waiting for? The strips are open...
Believe what you want, but facts don't lie, nor does physics: I already demonstrated to you in another post that: 1) the only way a car weighing as much as the CLK500 could hit the trap speed obtained in the second Road and Track test was if it had nearly 350 crank horsepower, and 2) the trap speed in the first Road and Track test was *exactly* what the car should have gotten with 302 crank horsepower.
I also backed this up by showing that the trap speeds of other cars, such as the BMW M3 and M5, Corvette Z06, etc. were exactly where they should be for the cars' rated horsepower.
I'm still waiting for you to post that sub-14 second timeslip...what are you waiting for? The strips are open...
04-06-2004, 11:03 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17
Posts: 5,824
Received 260 Likes
on
186 Posts
#1 I don't drag race, I stopped doing that many years ago and never said I would now.
#2 I don't own an SL600 and I'm inclined to believe that report as well.
#3 I was just a pleased when I a saw a W208 55 tested a couple of tenths below MB times.
#4 I like it when any car performs better than advertised, the quicker the times the better for me.
#5 The jury is still out on the CLK and SL
#2 I don't own an SL600 and I'm inclined to believe that report as well.
#3 I was just a pleased when I a saw a W208 55 tested a couple of tenths below MB times.
#4 I like it when any car performs better than advertised, the quicker the times the better for me.
#5 The jury is still out on the CLK and SL
04-06-2004, 12:26 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Fl
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLK63 Black Series
Re: Re: Motor Trend May Issue
Originally posted by RJC
They never once showed a picture of the clk showing off its pillarless design.
They never once showed a picture of the clk showing off its pillarless design.
=
winner!!! :v
04-06-2004, 01:01 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Whatever....
1) Physics still works in my world. And it is physically impossible for one car with a given engine and drivetrain to run 0.7 faster than another car with the same engine and drivetrain which weighs only 150 pounds more. There's this little equation, F=ma, Force=mass*acceleration; solving for acceleration gives acceleration=Force/mass. Force is the same, mass has changed by 3%, but to obtain the acceleration numbers seen by that SL600, it would require a 14% increase in horsepower, or a 16% decrease in mass. Period.
2) If the SL600 wasn't modified, how do you explain the fact that Car & Driver pointed out a feature of the car which is *not* available from the factory, but *is* part of the Renntech chip upgrade?
3) I too am glad when cars perform better than advertised, but there is a point where things start to smell fishy...a few tenths, fine...nearly a whole second? No. And my cynicism is not limited to brands other than Mercedes...I'm interested in the truth, not in what I want to believe.
4) There have been four instumented tests published for the CLK500. The fact that you are utterly discounting three and accepting one as factual, even though it has been plainly shown that to obtain the numbers the car would have been producing nearly 350 crank horsepower, nearly 20% more than advertised, is indicitive of extreme bias on your part. Three to one, and yet the one trumps the three? How? It's an automatic! There's no great variation in driver skill involved here, other than launch.
5) The jury is out? For whom? What facts have you, or anyone else, brought to the table to demonstrate that a 5.2 second 0-60/13.7@105 1/4 mile is believable for a car of the CLK500's weight and horsepower? Answer: none.
The previous CLK430 weighed 3350 pounds and had 275 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower ratio of 12.2, and was tested in the low-to-mid six second range 0-60. The new CLK500 weighs 3585 pounds and has 302 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower of 11.9:1. So, it has magically picked up a full second 0-60 after a whopping 3% reduction in its hp/weight ratio?? It magically obtains a 105 mph trap speed in the 1/4 without having the 350 horsepower calculations show would be needed to reach this speed? Preposterous.
Another rule of drag racing is that to pick up one tenth, one must either shave 100 pounds or add 10 horsepower. The previous CLK tested around a 14.3. To get it to a 13.7 would have required it to have added about 60 horsepower. This would change its weight/horsepower ratio to 3350/335, or 10:1. Your car is at nearly 12:1. It ain't gonna happen.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the facts simply don't back you up.
And this has nothing to do with the car; if someone came in here and claimed to have hit a 112 mph trap speed in a stock CLK55, I wouldn't believe it either. If a magazine tested a stock CLK55 at 112 in the quarter, I'd say the same thing: the motor was in no way, shape, or form producing only its rated horsepower.
Furthermore, if you'll recall, I also pointed out in a separate post that the trap speed of the 645i tested alongside the magic CLK500 was also too high for its rated weight and horsepower. But this is nothing new; myself and others have been accusing BMW of providing ringers for some time. What seems to have changed is that MB has recently decided to get in on the act.
To hit a given trap speed, a car *must* have a certain weight/power ratio. Physics dictates this, and it works.
2) If the SL600 wasn't modified, how do you explain the fact that Car & Driver pointed out a feature of the car which is *not* available from the factory, but *is* part of the Renntech chip upgrade?
3) I too am glad when cars perform better than advertised, but there is a point where things start to smell fishy...a few tenths, fine...nearly a whole second? No. And my cynicism is not limited to brands other than Mercedes...I'm interested in the truth, not in what I want to believe.
4) There have been four instumented tests published for the CLK500. The fact that you are utterly discounting three and accepting one as factual, even though it has been plainly shown that to obtain the numbers the car would have been producing nearly 350 crank horsepower, nearly 20% more than advertised, is indicitive of extreme bias on your part. Three to one, and yet the one trumps the three? How? It's an automatic! There's no great variation in driver skill involved here, other than launch.
5) The jury is out? For whom? What facts have you, or anyone else, brought to the table to demonstrate that a 5.2 second 0-60/13.7@105 1/4 mile is believable for a car of the CLK500's weight and horsepower? Answer: none.
The previous CLK430 weighed 3350 pounds and had 275 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower ratio of 12.2, and was tested in the low-to-mid six second range 0-60. The new CLK500 weighs 3585 pounds and has 302 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower of 11.9:1. So, it has magically picked up a full second 0-60 after a whopping 3% reduction in its hp/weight ratio?? It magically obtains a 105 mph trap speed in the 1/4 without having the 350 horsepower calculations show would be needed to reach this speed? Preposterous.
Another rule of drag racing is that to pick up one tenth, one must either shave 100 pounds or add 10 horsepower. The previous CLK tested around a 14.3. To get it to a 13.7 would have required it to have added about 60 horsepower. This would change its weight/horsepower ratio to 3350/335, or 10:1. Your car is at nearly 12:1. It ain't gonna happen.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the facts simply don't back you up.
And this has nothing to do with the car; if someone came in here and claimed to have hit a 112 mph trap speed in a stock CLK55, I wouldn't believe it either. If a magazine tested a stock CLK55 at 112 in the quarter, I'd say the same thing: the motor was in no way, shape, or form producing only its rated horsepower.
Furthermore, if you'll recall, I also pointed out in a separate post that the trap speed of the 645i tested alongside the magic CLK500 was also too high for its rated weight and horsepower. But this is nothing new; myself and others have been accusing BMW of providing ringers for some time. What seems to have changed is that MB has recently decided to get in on the act.
To hit a given trap speed, a car *must* have a certain weight/power ratio. Physics dictates this, and it works.
Originally posted by RJC
#1 I don't drag race, I stopped doing that many years ago and never said I would now.
#2 I don't own an SL600 and I'm inclined to believe that report as well.
#3 I was just a pleased when I a saw a W208 55 tested a couple of tenths below MB times.
#4 I like it when any car performs better than advertised, the quicker the times the better for me.
#5 The jury is still out on the CLK and SL
#1 I don't drag race, I stopped doing that many years ago and never said I would now.
#2 I don't own an SL600 and I'm inclined to believe that report as well.
#3 I was just a pleased when I a saw a W208 55 tested a couple of tenths below MB times.
#4 I like it when any car performs better than advertised, the quicker the times the better for me.
#5 The jury is still out on the CLK and SL
Last edited by Improviz; 04-06-2004 at 04:21 PM.
04-06-2004, 08:06 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17
Posts: 5,824
Received 260 Likes
on
186 Posts
Re: Whatever....
Originally posted by Improviz
1) Physics still works in my world. And it is physically impossible for one car with a given engine and drivetrain to run 0.7 faster than another car with the same engine and drivetrain which weighs only 150 pounds more. There's this little equation, F=ma, Force=mass*acceleration; solving for acceleration gives acceleration=Force/mass. Force is the same, mass has changed by 3%, but to obtain the acceleration numbers seen by that SL600, it would require a 14% increase in horsepower, or a 16% decrease in mass. Period.
2) If the SL600 wasn't modified, how do you explain the fact that Car & Driver pointed out a feature of the car which is *not* available from the factory, but *is* part of the Renntech chip upgrade?
3) I too am glad when cars perform better than advertised, but there is a point where things start to smell fishy...a few tenths, fine...nearly a whole second? No. And my cynicism is not limited to brands other than Mercedes...I'm interested in the truth, not in what I want to believe.
4) There have been four instumented tests published for the CLK500. The fact that you are utterly discounting three and accepting one as factual, even though it has been plainly shown that to obtain the numbers the car would have been producing nearly 350 crank horsepower, nearly 20% more than advertised, is indicitive of extreme bias on your part. Three to one, and yet the one trumps the three? How? It's an automatic! There's no great variation in driver skill involved here, other than launch.
5) The jury is out? For whom? What facts have you, or anyone else, brought to the table to demonstrate that a 5.2 second 0-60/13.7@105 1/4 mile is believable for a car of the CLK500's weight and horsepower? Answer: none.
The previous CLK430 weighed 3350 pounds and had 275 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower ratio of 12.2, and was tested in the low-to-mid six second range 0-60. The new CLK500 weighs 3585 pounds and has 302 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower of 11.9:1. So, it has magically picked up a full second 0-60 after a whopping 3% reduction in its hp/weight ratio?? It magically obtains a 105 mph trap speed in the 1/4 without having the 350 horsepower calculations show would be needed to reach this speed? Preposterous.
Another rule of drag racing is that to pick up one tenth, one must either shave 100 pounds or add 10 horsepower. The previous CLK tested around a 14.3. To get it to a 13.7 would have required it to have added about 60 horsepower. This would change its weight/horsepower ratio to 3350/335, or 10:1. Your car is at nearly 12:1. It ain't gonna happen.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the facts simply don't back you up.
And this has nothing to do with the car; if someone came in here and claimed to have hit a 112 mph trap speed in a stock CLK55, I wouldn't believe it either. If a magazine tested a stock CLK55 at 112 in the quarter, I'd say the same thing: the motor was in no way, shape, or form producing only its rated horsepower.
Furthermore, if you'll recall, I also pointed out in a separate post that the trap speed of the 645i tested alongside the magic CLK500 was also too high for its rated weight and horsepower. But this is nothing new; myself and others have been accusing BMW of providing ringers for some time. What seems to have changed is that MB has recently decided to get in on the act.
To hit a given trap speed, a car *must* have a certain weight/power ratio. Physics dictates this, and it works.
1) Physics still works in my world. And it is physically impossible for one car with a given engine and drivetrain to run 0.7 faster than another car with the same engine and drivetrain which weighs only 150 pounds more. There's this little equation, F=ma, Force=mass*acceleration; solving for acceleration gives acceleration=Force/mass. Force is the same, mass has changed by 3%, but to obtain the acceleration numbers seen by that SL600, it would require a 14% increase in horsepower, or a 16% decrease in mass. Period.
2) If the SL600 wasn't modified, how do you explain the fact that Car & Driver pointed out a feature of the car which is *not* available from the factory, but *is* part of the Renntech chip upgrade?
3) I too am glad when cars perform better than advertised, but there is a point where things start to smell fishy...a few tenths, fine...nearly a whole second? No. And my cynicism is not limited to brands other than Mercedes...I'm interested in the truth, not in what I want to believe.
4) There have been four instumented tests published for the CLK500. The fact that you are utterly discounting three and accepting one as factual, even though it has been plainly shown that to obtain the numbers the car would have been producing nearly 350 crank horsepower, nearly 20% more than advertised, is indicitive of extreme bias on your part. Three to one, and yet the one trumps the three? How? It's an automatic! There's no great variation in driver skill involved here, other than launch.
5) The jury is out? For whom? What facts have you, or anyone else, brought to the table to demonstrate that a 5.2 second 0-60/13.7@105 1/4 mile is believable for a car of the CLK500's weight and horsepower? Answer: none.
The previous CLK430 weighed 3350 pounds and had 275 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower ratio of 12.2, and was tested in the low-to-mid six second range 0-60. The new CLK500 weighs 3585 pounds and has 302 horsepower, giving it a weight/horsepower of 11.9:1. So, it has magically picked up a full second 0-60 after a whopping 3% reduction in its hp/weight ratio?? It magically obtains a 105 mph trap speed in the 1/4 without having the 350 horsepower calculations show would be needed to reach this speed? Preposterous.
Another rule of drag racing is that to pick up one tenth, one must either shave 100 pounds or add 10 horsepower. The previous CLK tested around a 14.3. To get it to a 13.7 would have required it to have added about 60 horsepower. This would change its weight/horsepower ratio to 3350/335, or 10:1. Your car is at nearly 12:1. It ain't gonna happen.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the facts simply don't back you up.
And this has nothing to do with the car; if someone came in here and claimed to have hit a 112 mph trap speed in a stock CLK55, I wouldn't believe it either. If a magazine tested a stock CLK55 at 112 in the quarter, I'd say the same thing: the motor was in no way, shape, or form producing only its rated horsepower.
Furthermore, if you'll recall, I also pointed out in a separate post that the trap speed of the 645i tested alongside the magic CLK500 was also too high for its rated weight and horsepower. But this is nothing new; myself and others have been accusing BMW of providing ringers for some time. What seems to have changed is that MB has recently decided to get in on the act.
To hit a given trap speed, a car *must* have a certain weight/power ratio. Physics dictates this, and it works.
Last edited by RJC; 04-06-2004 at 08:19 PM.
04-06-2004, 08:32 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Yawn...
...blind faith is truly amazing to watch.
Just out of curiosity, given that "the jury is still out" for the CLK500 after four mags have tested it, how many more mags does the "jury" require to test it before a "verdict" is reached?
My original challenge still stands, btw: the CLK55, which has a 10:1 weight/horsepower ratio, was tested in Road & Track at 5.3 seconds 0-60. This is the same magazine which tested the Magic CLK500, which has a weight/horsepower ratio of 12:1, a 20% increase, at 5.2 seconds.
Which is to say that according to the Test of the Magic CLK, a CLK500 will meet or beat the performance of a W208 CLK55.
Either this is true, or it is false. If it is true, which you seem to be arguing, perhaps you'd care to lay a little wager? Your stock CLK500 vs. a 208 CLK55? After all, according to the Magic CLK500 test, you have nothing to fear, right? After all, the two cars are equal according to Road and Track!!
Somehow I bet the answer will be "no".
Just out of curiosity, given that "the jury is still out" for the CLK500 after four mags have tested it, how many more mags does the "jury" require to test it before a "verdict" is reached?
My original challenge still stands, btw: the CLK55, which has a 10:1 weight/horsepower ratio, was tested in Road & Track at 5.3 seconds 0-60. This is the same magazine which tested the Magic CLK500, which has a weight/horsepower ratio of 12:1, a 20% increase, at 5.2 seconds.
Which is to say that according to the Test of the Magic CLK, a CLK500 will meet or beat the performance of a W208 CLK55.
Either this is true, or it is false. If it is true, which you seem to be arguing, perhaps you'd care to lay a little wager? Your stock CLK500 vs. a 208 CLK55? After all, according to the Magic CLK500 test, you have nothing to fear, right? After all, the two cars are equal according to Road and Track!!
Somehow I bet the answer will be "no".
04-06-2004, 08:38 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Re: I ran a best of 13.4@106....BUT:
Originally posted by Improviz
Since then, I have switched to 18" rear W210 E55 wheels (kept 17's on the front for ride quality), but I haven't been been back to the strip yet.
Since then, I have switched to 18" rear W210 E55 wheels (kept 17's on the front for ride quality), but I haven't been been back to the strip yet.
04-06-2004, 08:44 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Speaking of magazine claims, did anybody else see the March 2004 issue of Mercedes Enthusiast?
They compare the (CLK55) Kleemann 208 with a (CLK55) Kleemann 209 and make the claim that the 208 weighs 1805kg and that the 209 is lighter by 40kg
Everyone knows the 209 is heavier than the 208!
They compare the (CLK55) Kleemann 208 with a (CLK55) Kleemann 209 and make the claim that the 208 weighs 1805kg and that the 209 is lighter by 40kg
Everyone knows the 209 is heavier than the 208!
04-06-2004, 08:46 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17
Posts: 5,824
Received 260 Likes
on
186 Posts
Re: Yawn...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Improviz
...blind faith is truly amazing to watch.
Just out of curiosity, given that "the jury is still out" for the CLK500 after four mags have tested it, how many more mags does the "jury" require to test it before a "verdict" is reached?
My original challenge still stands, btw: the CLK55, which has a 10:1 weight/horsepower ratio, was tested in Road & Track at 5.3 seconds 0-60. This is the same magazine which tested the Magic CLK500, which has a weight/horsepower ratio of 12:1, a 20% increase, at 5.2 seconds.
Which is to say that according to the Test of the Magic CLK, a CLK500 will meet or beat the performance of a W208 CLK55.
Either this is true, or it is false. If it is true, which you seem to be arguing, perhaps you'd care to lay a little wager? Your stock CLK500 vs. a 208 CLK55? After all, according to the Magic CLK500 test, you have nothing to fear, right? After all, the two cars are equal according to Road and Track!!
Somehow I bet the answer will be "no". [/QUOTE
You just don't get it! I tried to tell you I'm not interested in going around and around this issue all over again, but you don't listen. This is my last response to you on this issue...Find someone else that cares about your opinion...I don't.
...blind faith is truly amazing to watch.
Just out of curiosity, given that "the jury is still out" for the CLK500 after four mags have tested it, how many more mags does the "jury" require to test it before a "verdict" is reached?
My original challenge still stands, btw: the CLK55, which has a 10:1 weight/horsepower ratio, was tested in Road & Track at 5.3 seconds 0-60. This is the same magazine which tested the Magic CLK500, which has a weight/horsepower ratio of 12:1, a 20% increase, at 5.2 seconds.
Which is to say that according to the Test of the Magic CLK, a CLK500 will meet or beat the performance of a W208 CLK55.
Either this is true, or it is false. If it is true, which you seem to be arguing, perhaps you'd care to lay a little wager? Your stock CLK500 vs. a 208 CLK55? After all, according to the Magic CLK500 test, you have nothing to fear, right? After all, the two cars are equal according to Road and Track!!
Somehow I bet the answer will be "no".
[/QUOTEYou just don't get it! I tried to tell you I'm not interested in going around and around this issue all over again, but you don't listen. This is my last response to you on this issue...Find someone else that cares about your opinion...I don't.
04-06-2004, 09:06 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17
Posts: 5,824
Received 260 Likes
on
186 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Motor Trend May Issue
See the story contained in that thread.
Last edited by RJC; 04-06-2004 at 09:10 PM.
04-06-2004, 11:58 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
265-35's...but I haven't run with those at the strip yet...
...the 13.4 was on the stock wheels/tires.
Originally posted by Chappy
What size rubber are you running on the 18s?
What size rubber are you running on the 18s?
04-07-2004, 12:05 AM
#38
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Improviz,
Get a picture of your car at the end of the track with the time and mph.
I am really interested. I think you have the fastest bone stock 01 CLK55 I have ever heard of.
Please do not get pissed and think that I do not believe you. There are alot of false claims made on here.
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
I do not mean you, but other people have done this...
Get a picture of your car at the end of the track with the time and mph.
I am really interested. I think you have the fastest bone stock 01 CLK55 I have ever heard of.
Please do not get pissed and think that I do not believe you. There are alot of false claims made on here.
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
I do not mean you, but other people have done this...
04-07-2004, 12:31 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Well, if I could go back in time, I would.
Unfortunately, that run was done in October 2002. There was another member of the forum who was there, though, with his CLK55, but I haven't seen him here for some time. His four best runs were all about 0.2 slower than my best four, so either mine was better-broken in (I recall his being a bit surprised at my mileage, so I assume his was significantly lower, and cars do get faster as they get more broken in), or it was just a bit hotter.
The fastest bone stock? In this thread, there's another owner who wrote that he'd run a 13.4, which makes it a tie. Also, skidz1 claimed to have run a best 13.4 in his, so that makes it a three-way tie...I don't know if anyone has done better than that, but it would be difficult with the stock 245's to get the low 60' you'd need; my run had a 2.1 60'.
And really, it isn't much of a stretch: the car's main issue is traction. The W210 E55, with the same motor, transmission, and gearing, was tested as fast as a 13.1 by Motor Trend...furthermore, there is one guy on the forum who's run a 13.1 in his W210 E55. The E55 has 275's stock and weighs a few hundred pounds more, which helps it to get that all-important 60' time.
Anyway, I've only been there once, and I fly solo...I'll go back sometime soon, but don't count on a video or photo. You'll have to take my word for it, or not.
The fastest bone stock? In this thread, there's another owner who wrote that he'd run a 13.4, which makes it a tie. Also, skidz1 claimed to have run a best 13.4 in his, so that makes it a three-way tie...I don't know if anyone has done better than that, but it would be difficult with the stock 245's to get the low 60' you'd need; my run had a 2.1 60'.
And really, it isn't much of a stretch: the car's main issue is traction. The W210 E55, with the same motor, transmission, and gearing, was tested as fast as a 13.1 by Motor Trend...furthermore, there is one guy on the forum who's run a 13.1 in his W210 E55. The E55 has 275's stock and weighs a few hundred pounds more, which helps it to get that all-important 60' time.
Anyway, I've only been there once, and I fly solo...I'll go back sometime soon, but don't count on a video or photo. You'll have to take my word for it, or not.
Originally posted by sajecw
Hey Improviz,
Get a picture of your car at the end of the track with the time and mph.
I am really interested. I think you have the fastest bone stock 01 CLK55 I have ever heard of.
Please do not get pissed and think that I do not believe you. There are alot of false claims made on here.
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
I do not mean you, but other people have done this...
Hey Improviz,
Get a picture of your car at the end of the track with the time and mph.
I am really interested. I think you have the fastest bone stock 01 CLK55 I have ever heard of.
Please do not get pissed and think that I do not believe you. There are alot of false claims made on here.
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
I do not mean you, but other people have done this...
04-07-2004, 01:18 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's cool. It doesn't really matter. I was just saying that I saw 13.6 to 13.8' for the stock E55 and CLK55.
My best was a 13.7 when it was just K&N's.
I will post my times from this weekend no matter what times I run.
I will get a pciture of the car at the finish line.
I hope I do not embarass myself on Sunday.
It may be on of those looks and sounds faster than it is days.
My best was a 13.7 when it was just K&N's.
I will post my times from this weekend no matter what times I run.
I will get a pciture of the car at the finish line.
I hope I do not embarass myself on Sunday.
It may be on of those looks and sounds faster than it is days.
04-07-2004, 01:31 AM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
There are some faster...pocholin, in the E55 forum, has run
a best of 13.128 @ 105.74 in his 210 E55...but I think that's with mods. Stock, I think he got a 13.3 or so with no brake-torquing...W208 CLK55 is about 200 pounds lighter, so a 13.1 would be doable with a proper 60' time, but I don't even know if drag radials would get you there in the stock size. Solution: upsize, baby!! 
Good luck at the strip! Try that technique I mentioned and see if it works...ideally, you want to get a *bit* of spin, maybe the first 15-20', to keep from bogging the motor, but too much and your time will suffer.
Good luck at the strip! Try that technique I mentioned and see if it works...ideally, you want to get a *bit* of spin, maybe the first 15-20', to keep from bogging the motor, but too much and your time will suffer.
Originally posted by sajecw
That's cool. It doesn't really matter. I was just saying that I saw 13.6 to 13.8' for the stock E55 and CLK55.
My best was a 13.7 when it was just K&N's.
I will post my times from this weekend no matter what times I run.
I will get a pciture of the car at the finish line.
I hope I do not embarass myself on Sunday.
It may be on of those looks and sounds faster than it is days.
That's cool. It doesn't really matter. I was just saying that I saw 13.6 to 13.8' for the stock E55 and CLK55.
My best was a 13.7 when it was just K&N's.
I will post my times from this weekend no matter what times I run.
I will get a pciture of the car at the finish line.
I hope I do not embarass myself on Sunday.
It may be on of those looks and sounds faster than it is days.
04-07-2004, 01:38 AM
#42
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: There are some faster...pocholin, in the E55 forum, has run
Originally posted by Improviz
a best of 13.128 @ 105.74 in his 210 E55...but I think that's with mods. Stock, I think he got a 13.3 or so with no brake-torquing...W208 CLK55 is about 200 pounds lighter, so a 13.1 would be doable with a proper 60' time, but I don't even know if drag radials would get you there in the stock size. Solution: upsize, baby!!
Good luck at the strip! Try that technique I mentioned and see if it works...ideally, you want to get a *bit* of spin, maybe the first 15-20', to keep from bogging the motor, but too much and your time will suffer.
a best of 13.128 @ 105.74 in his 210 E55...but I think that's with mods. Stock, I think he got a 13.3 or so with no brake-torquing...W208 CLK55 is about 200 pounds lighter, so a 13.1 would be doable with a proper 60' time, but I don't even know if drag radials would get you there in the stock size. Solution: upsize, baby!!
Good luck at the strip! Try that technique I mentioned and see if it works...ideally, you want to get a *bit* of spin, maybe the first 15-20', to keep from bogging the motor, but too much and your time will suffer.
My best run before the upgrade on boost and fuel was 13.09 at 109.99. That car was running real lean. I believe I have fixed or will be fixing the problem by the weekend.
This weekend I am running 5lbs of boost, 42 lb injectors and a 3.5" exhaust from the cats back.
I am running 19"'s and I really don't want to run street slicks. But if I do not pull a 12.7, then street slicks it is.
My goal is a sub 12.5 with no more than 7lbs of boost
04-07-2004, 01:42 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Oh...I didn't realize you were supercharged!
Scratch what I said about the braking...with that much torque, your 60' will be hosed no matter what!
Well, let us know how you do; good luck!
Well, let us know how you do; good luck!
Originally posted by sajecw
With the way my car is set up, I have tons of power thoughout the band and I can not hook up with anything better than a 2.2 60ft. If I come out to soft, I kill my 1/4 mile, but have a 111 trap speed. If I come out to hard I really kill both my 1/4 and trap speed.
My best run before the upgrade on boost and fuel was 13.09 at 109.99. That car was running real lean. I believe I have fixed or will be fixing the problem by the weekend.
This weekend I am running 5lbs of boost, 42 lb injectors and a 3.5" exhaust from the cats back.
I am running 19"'s and I really don't want to run street slicks. But if I do not pull a 12.7, then street slicks it is.
My goal is a sub 12.5 with no more than 7lbs of boost
With the way my car is set up, I have tons of power thoughout the band and I can not hook up with anything better than a 2.2 60ft. If I come out to soft, I kill my 1/4 mile, but have a 111 trap speed. If I come out to hard I really kill both my 1/4 and trap speed.
My best run before the upgrade on boost and fuel was 13.09 at 109.99. That car was running real lean. I believe I have fixed or will be fixing the problem by the weekend.
This weekend I am running 5lbs of boost, 42 lb injectors and a 3.5" exhaust from the cats back.
I am running 19"'s and I really don't want to run street slicks. But if I do not pull a 12.7, then street slicks it is.
My goal is a sub 12.5 with no more than 7lbs of boost
04-07-2004, 07:12 AM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally posted by sajecw
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
I love the guys with the picture of the car at the starting line and a picture of a time slip.
That means you were at the track, went down the track and probably picked up someone else timeslip.
Why not take a picture like Donnie did. It is the only proof that I think is valid.
sajecw, I completely understand your issue with this. In fact, I agree with you.
However, not everyone has the means/mode/opportunity to get the concrete documentation desired. Donnie is "in the business" while most of the rest of us are just enthusiasts. If Improviz goes to the track by himself, who's gonna get the documentation?
Fortunately, both times I have been to the track, I've gone with a large group of AMG guys. I figure they can vouch for me if I post details about my time slips. To date, I have only made 5 runs ever!
Three runs total last fall and two runs a couple weeks ago. BTW, Mercedes-Benz claims a 'factory' time for the W208 CLK55 of 13.33 in the quarter @ 109.8 and a 0-60 time of 4.89 seconds. This information is culled from MBCA's Star Magazine.
