RBYCC

Science aside, such a quaint and logical concept that only inexperienced Zach and boy racer Nick can't grasp....

Kudos...

RBYCC

The "widebody" is as much as a mental patient as you are young man....
I along with everyone else except you and the oft times incorrect "widebody" are the doubters with opinions formed from websites that neither of you fully comprehend....

Formulas, starting with Bernoulli along with calculators were posted early in the discussion and before the rabid Nick attempted to rescue you...

So bring it to a conclusion little boy, before you get on the yellow school bus..

I want you to prove any way you can how a stock powered 500E can attain 180+mph regardless of how much you lower it and how skinny the tires are...

You were given empirical data that the M117 Hammer reached 186MPH with a .25Cd and about 100 more HP then the M119 in the 500E...

Prove your point in your own words from knowledge in your head without the assistance of Google... or just fade into the background of the inane fantasy world that you've created for yourself...

zach1328

This isn't even about my hypothetical 180mph top speed anymore. But get the facts right RBYCC, the AMG Hammer didn't even have 75 more HP than a 500e. Its actually more like 60HP.

And I thought we all agreed that the 6 speed manual transmission will lose less HP to the wheels, therefore an AMG Hammer would really only have an extra 40HP to the wheels over the 500e.

And the difference in 180mph and 186mph is pretty big, those extra 6mph will easily use about 20-30hp of the 40 more it has over a 500e. Assuming a manual 500e can attain the same Cd as an AMG Hammer 180mph is easily possible.

Ofcourse, if weight has a big affect on top speed....I assume you can just strip the stock 500e's interior and reach 170 mph no problem, right?
And if you run it to top speed with only 1 gallon of gas in the tank, and a computer instead of an actual driver...you can probably reach 175mph in a 500e.
And lets not forget that body kit someone mentioned earlier. Surely that body kit will allow for an extra 15mph, for a new top speed of 190mph...?

Surely a 6 speed manual tranny and a 2" lowering kit can't add 5mph to the top speed of a 500e.
But a body kit and lighter weight should allow for an extra 15-25mph, right?

bsmuwk

How the hell can a stickshift change the drag coefficient of a car?

190E 16V

Please don't start off down another side road, Bsmuwk, LOL.
Manual tranny more efficient transfer of engine power to the wheels.

That's all, though.

zach1328

That's all I said. Thank you 190e.
I didn't mention anything about in decreasing or increasing Cd. A new manual transmission will probably just add about 10 RWHP (just an estimate).
The old automatic transmission isn't too efficient, and in general auto tranny's usually lose more power to the wheels. Although the HP to the crank will obviously remain the same.

But at speed over 160-170mph, the extra 10HP won't do too much. I can't imagine it increasing the top speed by much more than 2-3mph.

The point I've been trying to make all along is:
The top speed of a 500e is 165mph rev limited and 175mph DRAG LIMITED. A 6 speed manual transmission will easily get it to the 175mph DRAG induced top speed.

But the extra 10RWHP or so should allow for an extra 2 mph, making the new top speed 177 (Drag Limited).
So as long as a lowering kit can increase the top speed by another 3mph, then the 500e would be able to reach 180mph.
A lowering kit should increase top speed atleast slightly which is why I believe this is possible.

Maybe the 500e isn't actually DRAG limited to 175mph which could be why there have been some misunderstandings.

RHW

Thank you 190E
Really.

Vossen Wheels

Great post..at those speeds you need MOAR POWEEERRR!!

190E 16V

LOL - a very admirable Palin-esque distortion of the issue, and very funny (I'm assuming it was Tongue-in-cheek).

My earlier response was to try to forestall more repetitive rambling posts covering issues already put to rest.

Apologies RHW.

RHW

I read your comment 190E as peace-meaning, so acknowledged it as I still think you intended it.

ptoro01

I don't think a 6 speed is enough, it might need the fancy 7G transmission. Tho i'm not sure on ratios.

190E 16V

"Manual", as in, "no slushbox", but I take your point

neanderthal

Incorrect. Again. The Hammer came in several guises, with engines ranging in displacement up to 6.0 liters. In Europe catalytic converters weren't mandatory at the time whereas the 500E didn't come without a cat.

On this page there is a range given for horsepower. From 377 to 407. So depending on which cars you are making the comparison there is potentially a 40 to 80 hp difference. In this case both of you are correct. That does NOT make him wrong, it makes YOU wrong for saying he is.

See above.

An article I read (a long time ago) on terminal speeds of high performance cars stated that it took 70 more horsepower to go from 160- 170 mph than it took from 150- 160. And from 170- 180 would take exponentially more. This jives with what we know about drag increasing with the square of speed. Re- read that please.
Now, plug in the 20 odd horses you get from your transmission swap. Do you really think 6mph is viable at that speed? Really?

In this last sentence, are you implying that weight has an effect on top speed, because I could swear on the last page you were saying the complete opposite.


Here, the writer states that AMG had the Hammers top speed as "over 190mph." FYI.

the_widebody

take a car with the lowest level of internal friction possible.

speed it up till the exponentially large air friction is holding it at its highest speed.


ok, all you einstiens, at this point, will removing weight, and therefore reducing the very small value of internal friction make the car start to accelerate again?

in the real world, no it wont, because the internal friction isnt the limiting factor, it would be so small it wouldn't have an effect, ie it is so small in comparison to the friction of the air resistance it will make no noticeable difference, true it may hypothetically make 0.000000000000001 mph, but we cant measure it so ner ner n ner ner

ptoro01

2 negatives don't make a positive. In other words, you are wrong.

HERE'S an explanation.

Weight and air resistance are drag, think of them together, they work in the same direction, both act negatively on power.

You're forgetting the gravity vector, which, in my experience, is a very dangerous thing to do...

If you have a whole bunch of nothing and add to it some more nothing, you'll still have...

ptoro01

Oh Of course
Enough gears to drive to the moon and back is what I VVANT.

the_widebody

did you know that the undefined value of zero divided by zero can equal any value you want? true say!

ptoro01

Far out "zero theory", tho inapplicable.

Did you just edit out your huge post? WOW.

I HEREBY, THROUGH THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY RICHARD NIXON AND CHARLIE CHAPLIN, DECLARE YOU,

OWNED!

190E 16V

WOW!! It's gone!

the_widebody

i have realized that writing too much at one time just confuses people, so from ow on, i will write posts with no more than two or three statements, may reduce arguments

so, try this;

weight is not, in its self, drag.

ptoro01

And if my neighbor had wheels, he'd be a city bus.
Point is, getting my fat derriere out of bed every morning, is, a drag.

Don't reinvent the wheel, again.
Come back to Earth mr. wideboday

RBYCC

Young Nick...

Thanks for my morning chuckle...you are the "Master of Confusion"
So glad you come across the pond to allow us Yanks to scratch our head in wonderment of your wacky world of nonsense...

After all you are the laughing stock of the Brit Merc enthusiasts for taking the rarest UK AMG build and converting it to a worthless "Speed Racer" ricer...
If you woould have put the time,effort and money to restore it, you would have eventually a vehicle that when sold could help your children go to University...providing you don't fall off of your bike doing 190MPH or only 150MPH with your back pack on...
How do you pedal so fast....????
Zach is 16, and you're mental level is about the same...great judgment on your part, but you two "boy racers" know it all.

I know you're trying to get to 170MPH with your Jap wheels and six speed, but so far all you've managed to do is crash into your mate's car

Hoping for your witty response as it's always a laugh feast

RBYCC

First my errant young lad, let's better understand what you're trying to use as an example.
The Hammer was not built by Mercedes and used a head design that Mercedes never offered.
Try not to do mental calculations on what the difference in RWP between M117-6.0L 32V DOHC with a 722.3 auto box and your mythical 6-speed M119 500E.
Your forgetting that you have no knowledge of baseline information.
In fact the 375HP / 407 Torque of the 6.0L -32V Hammer is listed as "Net HP" in the 1987 "AMG Technical Guide".
This is info that is not easily "Googled" as the documents are extremely rare so misinformed young minds like you and the always laughable "Widebody" aren't privy to it..
In reality the net HP of the Hammer equates to close to 100+ BHP compared to the factory BHP rated M119 in the 500E

Young man, please stop fantasizing lest you end up like a court jester as "widebody" ....
Listen and learn not from the words of those more experienced but from the empirical and indisputable data they provide you..
To continue your incessant immature babbling over that which you don't have a clue makes you appear truly foolish...
Tending to set up a basic premise as you always do, asking for input, then disputing the responses because they don't equate to the answer you want is a bit bizarre.

Below are the pages from the AMG technical manual that I refer to above...
Also note that the very same Hammer sedan with the same aero factors but with the 5.6L instead of the 6.0L has a top speed lower by about 7MPH...
Why because it had 15 less NET HP..

Proving hopefully to you, but never to Nick as he is obssessed with me and desperately needs to prove his manhood fraught with poor life decisions to me, that my initial comments about power and weight do truly effect top speed with all other factors equal...

If you're Father has not taught you perhaps you can glean something in the knowledge that you learn by listening and comprehending instead of constantly challenging with what you believe or can't discern as factual..
The internet is full of "knowledge' but unlike vetted books of times past, the "knowledge" is oft time fraught with that which is not so true...

Ed A.

bsmuwk

Caught me. lol

zach1328

That comment was sarcastic.

And yes I have read that article about the AMG Hammer, and if it can truly reach "over 190mph" then I see no problem in a 500e reaching 180mph.
The difference in 180 and 190 is HUGE. Much more than a 40HP difference probably.

And although 500e's are no supercars they sure are very extraordinary cars. Amg Hammers even more so.
I can't think of any other sedan with under 400hp that can reach the 190mph mark.

CTS-V is a 192mph car with its 550hp.
Panemara Turbo S is a 191MPH car with its 550hp.
The 911 Turbo S is only 196mph with its 530hp.
GT3-Rs is 193mph with its 500hp.
Even the 414hp M3 sedan can barely reach 180mph.

Most people would easily assume a Gt2-RS and 911 Turbo S are just as aerodynamic as the AMG hammer, but they're not.
I'm sure their rear wings, the size of a dining table, don't really help much though.
I wonder what kind of damage the AMG Hammer could do with 600+hp?

This is getting too off topic, but my point is
If an Amg Hammer can reach 190mph, why can't a 500e reach 180mph?

And RBYCC:
I've actually been 17 for a while now. And If Nick and I are racers, shouldn't we know more than you?
Its one thing to do the research and read stuff on paper, but its completely different in the real world. You can't make assumptions without testing them.

I would gladly test my 180mph theory if I had a 500e.

And since you seem to hate me for my love for speed, I would like to let you know that I've already had my 535i up to the 155mph limiter countless times.
Actually, I reached 155mph the first time by myself with about 1 mile of road left.
The next time I had 3 passengers and I still got it to 155 but with only about a 1/2 mile to go.
(All of this was performed on the same closed road in the same direction)