Actual performance
 

Has anybody done any real world testing with their GT/GTS? One thing that has always entertained me is 0-60. On MB website it shows 3.7 for the GTS and 3.9 for the GT. I feel that is a bit conservative. Furthermore, the GTR was stated to be 3.6, but the latest C/D review saw them post a 2.9 run. Curious what real world data has been gathered by real owners. Do you feel those numbers are spot on? Having driven both GT and GTS, I find it hard to believe a .2 difference to 60, especially if using race start in similar conditions. I cant honestly feel any difference. Any input would be great! :zoom:

Ditto,thinking of getting one of these ,trying to find out if someone makes a bigger turbo also

Ive seen Mags show anything from 3.1 to 3.4 and of course, those were all in controlled conditions with multiple launches. Because of the RWD and heavier tq down low (wheel spin), I can only guess that in the real world, the 3.7 number would be the delta due to conditions, reaction, wheel spin, etc. The only car that I know of that can just repeat a sub zero over and over (that is normally on the streets) is the Porsche Turbo and Turbo S.

My CLS63 vs. my GT S...
 

I traded a '14 CLS63S with "577 HP" and AWD for a rear-drive '16 GT S with "503 HP." Both have a Race Start setting which I have used. I believe that the HP and 0 - 60 times published by MB are both conservative, but I am convinced that the CLS63, although heavier, was is in fact quicker 0 - 60, primarily because of the AWD on the CLS. Every Race Start that I have executed on the GT has suffered from some shuttering due to lack of traction and intervention of traction control at the rear axle.

On the CLS, MB claims quarter mile stats at 11.5 sec and 125 mph. I consistently turned 11.8 sec. at 118 mph at 3000 ft. elevation on a 100 degree F day, so I think the MB claims are realistic. Here is a post by Benzinsider.com 'Five Fastest MB cars of All Time" :

http://www.benzinsider.com/2015/07/f...s-of-all-time/

The '14 CLS63 is listed at 2nd for 0 - 60 time, tied at 3.2 sec. with the SLS GT3 Race Car!

Here is the link to Motor Trend's comparison test of a E63 (same engine as the CLS) and an M5 in which they measure 540 hp at the wheels and, accounting for the losses in the AWD, estimate the engine output at 636 hp:

https://mbworld.org/forums/w212-amg/...ad-2-head.html

I have not had the GT S on a race track yet (but I will later this year with the BMW club on a track in Colorado where I have made over 1600 laps over the past 30 years.) I have tracked the CLS (and many other vehicles at many tracks, including my SLK55 AMG - see photos below.) The CLS is very hard on front tires (partly my own fault, pushing too hard) and I'd expect the GT to be much more at home on a road course track because of the excellent weight balance front-to-rear.

But bottom line: MB numbers are conservative and if you or I go head-to-head on a straight line run with an E63 or CLS63, be prepared to be surprised if they have the S-package.

https://mbworld.org/forums/attachmen...1&d=1490029346

https://mbworld.org/forums/attachmen...1&d=1490029348

I think you forgot the Teslas. :D

Some on this forum claim that the mags # are not exactly real and adjusted for conditions.
There are 2 cars on dragtimes that did 11.3X @ 125mph.
Motor trend has 11.6 @ 124mph, Motorweek 11.5 @ 126mph, Car and Driver 11.2 @ 127 mph and Road and Track 11.3 @ 125mph.
The 0-60 times is where it differs more as it ranges from 3.0 (C&D) to 3.5 (MW and MT). The RWD attribute of the car will make for more inconsistent numbers explaining the disparity for that metric.
My own conclusion is that MB's numbers seem to be pretty right on with the real world.
The documented time of GTS-JB show that he did an amazing job of cutting a 1.79 for 60' to achieve his 11.35. Not too many of us will be that good.
Interestingly enough he also documented his time with a tune and had a slightly slower time by 1 tenth because of traction issues but he was 5mph faster showing the car is making much more hp and tq.

Hopefully wider PS 4s will hook up better as well

RWD sucks for 0-60. Breaking news lol

Just to add a little note. I consistently ran low 11.4's and and one high 11.2 in my GTS with a tune on a cool night in South Texas. It's all about the launch. I could never launch what I thought was a good launch in race mode, went to Sport + and ran basically the same times and speed. And yes, it is tuned. No doubt there is more hp and torque with tune but useless with poor traction. From a rolling start I can hang with a non tuned 991 Turbo S and even pull away but from a dead stop in the 1/4 mile I just run out of real estate.

One thing I forgot to mention was that I ran on stock wheels and tires. Actually horrible continental tires. Max speed 126. No down pipes. I am not really impressed when I see posts of other GTS's doing 10.9's on slicks etc. Way too much trouble for the difference in speed and times.

Emericer quoted my times and they are absolutely real world. 0-60mph times dont mean much i think, i am much more interested in quarter mile times and speeds.

Stock, the magazines seemed spot on with the times and speeds I ran in my car. I went 125 stock and 130 tuned. Got a little slower time when tuned due to older tires and traction issues i to second gear. 130mph in the quarter is very quick. Huracan quick.

I did run a 1.79 60 foot time on stock tires, which I thought was great, proving that rwd does not in fact suck! The tesla i was racing had 4wd and a claimed 690 hp or something (P90D Ludicrous). It launch in the 1.6X range. It was fun to chase down the tesla with ease, but it was hard to beat that consistent electric beast to the line.

Dont worry about 0-60 times, thats heavily dependant on traction not power. You could just buy stickier tires. How does it feel when you stomp on the gas at 30mph? Strong!

You are correct and holy smoke it feels great to step on it at 30. When I hit the pedal (not even all the way down) at 70+mph my traction control kicks in.... a lot. Pretty cool. I am in south Texas and the humidity is ugly which doesn't help track times. BTW, I did my best run in sport+, no launch mode. Just old school foot on the break and launching from just under 3k rpm'. No burn out's.... ever

Density Altitude also plays a huge factor in how fast you run. Whenever someone says "my car is so and so fast" the only things I want to know are trap speed and density altitude.

Drag Times has a DA calculator for every 1/4 mile track in the US last I checked.

Trudat kumizi. One more note. My traction/launch control scared the hell out of me on one run. I launched the car using the launch control and the car made a really ugly LOUD noise, CLANK kind of sound (unlike other clanking the traction control does) and the car completely shut down. The car simply went nowhere and lost ALL power for about 2-3 seconds. I thought I broke the car. SCARY MOMENT. It slowly gained RPM's then went, not as fast obviously but it went. I drove the car around trying to listen for something funny or wrong but all was good and has been since.

Density altitude can matter, but it is more important for normally aspirated cars. Turbo cars do a good job of negsting its effect. Our cars are set to run a certain amount of boost and they do that, regardless of ambient pressure.

MGonz540, iteresting launch method. I used launch control all night both night and it worked great. Even after the tune. I tried all sorts of ways to get a good burnout going, as documented in my drag times thread here. After my tune, when i hit second, even in race mode with its accomodating travtion setting, my car would kill all power for what seemed like forever. I blamed old tires. I thought after that I should have tried short shifting into second as soon as i got some good momentum in first.

I am pretty sure you have that backwards, unless you're primarily referring to density altitude affected by elevation changes. In my limited experience, a turbo car will lose more performance on a 60 vs 110 degree day than a naturally aspirated car.

In your own dragtimes thread, you picked up .7mph going from 250DA at 6:45pm to -50DA at 9:30pm. On a hot day vs cool day in Texas, we can experience a 3000 DA delta. That is a solid 5mph difference IMO.

There's a reason all the turbo guys want to race when it gets nice and cool outside.

kumizi you are correct. High altitude as with anything else chokes a car. BTW, JB C63S's 60ft time is really good. The best I could get was 1.8 but consistently flat 2's. I will share something else with you guys. My 2014 non-tuned CTS VSport (twin turbo 6 4door) consistently hits the 60ft in 2.1 - 2.3. My 2014 non-tuned SRT8 hits in 1.9. Figure..... Of course once you hit the 1/8 mile my GTS is GONE.

Good info. Why no burnouts?

You are correct. No burnouts. There is no doubt that warm rubber sticks better but it really is a personal thing for me. I like to simply line up and go. I have done it with multiple high performance cars (not your typical drag cars) and the performance has always been roughly the same. The track is usually a little sticky anyway, I stay away from the water and focus on my RPM's and reaction time. I guess it really has a lot to do with the wear and tear on the transmission and brakes too. It's not worth it to me. A 10th or even two tenths of a second is not worth the wear and tear on my car especially when I am lined up next to a Camaro looking to make a name for himself off me. My ego has got the best of me before and it has cost me $$$$$. BTW, I have even ran with traction control on and off and that is a make it or break choice. You get it right in race mode and I would assume you will have a better run than in other modes. But again, I have done it with and without in multiple cars, 2012 458, 2012 MP4 12C, 2015 GTR even my Cadillac CTS V Sport (four door sedan twin turbo, not the super charged V8) and all my runs were better in the equivalent Sport+ mode. Maybe I just need more track time but for me that is not the real world.

An exception would be a current ZO6 claiming 0-60 in 2.85 and some have said they've done even better on the track. (OEM tires and no mods) That's an auto , not DCT and RWD.

Funny you mention the Z06. A newer Z06 or ZR1 (I tried not to pay attention) made damn sure he lined up against me, on NOS.. he took me off the line as I thought my traction control broke (I was in launch mode), everything shut down. Maybe he let off but by mid track I was running him down. He was running 11.3's all night. A Hellcat on NOS, same story. He was running 11.4's. His car was all taped up as he is clearly a regular. My stock Hellcat barely got under 12 seconds. In my humble opinion, Nothing launched like the MP4 12C. My stock GTR 11.5 (best run). But I did it when it only had 500 miles on it. When I had the first service done at 900 miles it became a different car. It was like a my GTR plus another 50% but I never tried it. This/these were my real runs. I have the Z06/ZR1 on video.. my friends ZR1 on slicks and NOS finally hit a 10.89. He is on his second transmission with this car. That transmission simply snapped. Too much torque.

I am in the process of going from a new Z to a GTS, so I'm not a Vette "fanboy". Sounds like your track was a little below average in times. Bone stock Zs routinely go high tens if the driver is any good at all. (auto) The forum record for bone stock on OEM rubber is around 10.4. With just an intake (no tune) they are just over 700 hp at the crank. I still want the GTS, though.

Don't know what to say. Maybe he lets off. It is what it is, I ran what I ran. I run what I run. My friend runs what he runs, every week. I have always stated, whether it be at a circuit or drag strip, what I lack in talent, I have to make up for in budget. This applies to my shifter kart too. Most fun I have is with my kart.

Just returned from the track yesterday. Car ran a 10.9 @ 127mph GTS tune only. better tires, no water box or burnout used.