Torque Split?
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 22
Likes: 1
C43
Torque Split?
Hey guys,
does anyone know what the power split between front:rear is for the facelift c207??
theres a lot of info on the c43 for example with a 45:55 or similar split, but i was curious about the c207
thanks!
does anyone know what the power split between front:rear is for the facelift c207??
theres a lot of info on the c43 for example with a 45:55 or similar split, but i was curious about the c207
thanks!
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 954
Likes: 245
E550 Coupe 2wd (2016)
My guess is that % is BS. To keep a steady 40-60 split, for example, is impossible with the current setups, "imo"...
So in your case; before I'd worry about 40-60 vs 45-55 etc, I'd like to know how they come up with that # and how accurate it really is.
The number 40-60 gives people the impression that the car is applying 40% of the power to the front at all times, like a steady 30mph on flat ground, or full throttle from a stop all the way to top speed and everything in between. I say; not possible.
So my guess is that "on avg" a brand new 40-60 car may put a little more to the back than a 45-55 car under certain circumstances, but I'd be surprised if either # is very accurate at all, and especially surprised if it's remotely consistent. Reminds me of all the anti-lock brakes I've had, which were all pretty much a joke and remind be of a kid with playing cards taped to his spokes in an attempt at something cooler, yet sooo far from it. The scariest brakes I've never had were Mercedes. Sure they may work better and be safer "on avg" for Ma Kettle, but imo they're dangerous. I digress, but the point is I believe the tq spit is unlikely to be any better, but I'm open to an explanation (by anyone) that says otherwise. An explanation that is not a stab in the dark btw, or a regurgitation of some MB ad, but one that actually explains how they come up with the # and how it is maintained while driving.
I don't mean to hijack your thread skrskrr, I just think the # needs to be proven accurate before we can start to worry about it.
So in your case; before I'd worry about 40-60 vs 45-55 etc, I'd like to know how they come up with that # and how accurate it really is.
The number 40-60 gives people the impression that the car is applying 40% of the power to the front at all times, like a steady 30mph on flat ground, or full throttle from a stop all the way to top speed and everything in between. I say; not possible.
So my guess is that "on avg" a brand new 40-60 car may put a little more to the back than a 45-55 car under certain circumstances, but I'd be surprised if either # is very accurate at all, and especially surprised if it's remotely consistent. Reminds me of all the anti-lock brakes I've had, which were all pretty much a joke and remind be of a kid with playing cards taped to his spokes in an attempt at something cooler, yet sooo far from it. The scariest brakes I've never had were Mercedes. Sure they may work better and be safer "on avg" for Ma Kettle, but imo they're dangerous. I digress, but the point is I believe the tq spit is unlikely to be any better, but I'm open to an explanation (by anyone) that says otherwise. An explanation that is not a stab in the dark btw, or a regurgitation of some MB ad, but one that actually explains how they come up with the # and how it is maintained while driving.
I don't mean to hijack your thread skrskrr, I just think the # needs to be proven accurate before we can start to worry about it.
