E55 Vs. E60 M5 Video
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
I agree, this is getting old, but on the subject of modded vs. factory, there is no such thing as a 'factory' AMG car from before 1993. Every car tuned at the AMG facility prior to the Daimler collaberation is per the customer's request. Your magazine article simply had a detuned, emission compliant vehicle at the time. I have other magazine articles that show a 11.0 second 0-100 time and 13.0 1/4 miles times with cars with different gearing. Keep in mind there is a Hammer coupe out there as well, saving a few extra lbs and a Cd of around .24, tested at 187mph. These cars were faster than the Countach's of the same era. I'm only challenging you because of your ignorant, casual, "Enjoy your antique, along with the view of any new AMG's tail lights you'd get if you ever ran one" comment. A 500hp kompressor AMG, yes, a 349hp AMG, hardly.
Now can we get back to the BMW vs E55 argument.
Seems like BMW is about HP(cams,multivalve technology) while MB is about TQ(Pistons,displacement).
The quality of both cars are very good so now it's MB's turn to reclaim the crown since the E60 M5 has come back to temporarily reclaim it. W210 E55 vs E34 M5 then E39M5 comes to get back at W210E55.MB makes F/I E55 and it comes back to get E39 M5.Now E60 M5 comes back to get MB's F/I E55.So guess who's turn it will be next!It will never ever stop.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#52
I think AMG/Mercedes always knew the 32v heads were the way to go. They simply found a good way to make power with 24-valves so started there, fully knowing that they would need plenty of space for improvement, hence going back to 32v heads with similar technology as the 24v heads. I thought about what it would be like to have higher compression pistons put in and raise comression to 10 or 11 like most current models. AMG got 500hp in their offshore engines with my same motor with higher compression and different fuel injection. Watching the 6.3 bounce off the rev limiter the way a tuned NA motor can will be amazing. What next if AMG decides to keep winning the HP wars with NA motors?
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
I think AMG/Mercedes always knew the 32v heads were the way to go. They simply found a good way to make power with 24-valves so started there, fully knowing that they would need plenty of space for improvement, hence going back to 32v heads with similar technology as the 24v heads. I thought about what it would be like to have higher compression pistons put in and raise comression to 10 or 11 like most current models. AMG got 500hp in their offshore engines with my same motor with higher compression and different fuel injection. Watching the 6.3 bounce off the rev limiter the way a tuned NA motor can will be amazing. What next if AMG decides to keep winning the HP wars with NA motors?
#54
I've read HP figures will be similar to the 55 Kompressor engines. Torque should be welllll above 383. I would imagine they could squeeze out around 500 lb.ft from 6.3L and 32 valves. Nice thing about going to a larger NA motor is the tuning houses will no doubt launch a supercharger or turbo system to get them to the S/CL/SL 65 numbers or further. Maybe AMG will launch a 6.3L Bi-Turbo model late in production..? Isn't the current 65 motor actually 5.8L?
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Maybe AMG will launch a 6.3L Bi-Turbo model late in production..? Isn't the current 65 motor actually 5.8L?
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
#56
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
I'm only challenging you because of your ignorant, casual, "Enjoy your antique, along with the view of any new AMG's tail lights you'd get if you ever ran one" comment. A 500hp kompressor AMG, yes, a 349hp AMG, hardly.
#57
Hah, I tried to get back on topic! Since your car cannot go as fast as mine top speed wise, and I know I would lose 0-60 and 1/4 mile races due to hp to weight differences it doesn't make much sense to put money on anything. On paper, my car has 375hp and 407tq, your car has 342 bhp @ 5500 rpm and 376 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm. (I'm not giving you the E55's numbers 'just because they have the same engine' and I have no idea where you got the 390tq from after doing some research.) Your car weighs 3406, mine 3890. I don't have a chance at short distances. You don't have a chance at hitting 185mph. Let's just leave it at that. I just thought I could get you to show some respect for a 20 year-old 'antique' that cost as much as 2 2001 CLK55's + a C230 Coupe in 1985$ and the chances of you ever seeing one are slim to nil vs. the 4 E55's and 2 CLK55's I saw last week.
#58
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Hah, I tried to get back on topic! Since your car cannot go as fast as mine top speed wise, and I know I would lose 0-60 and 1/4 mile races due to hp to weight differences it doesn't make much sense to put money on anything. On paper, my car has 375hp and 407tq, your car has 342 bhp @ 5500 rpm and 376 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm. (I'm not giving you the E55's numbers 'just because they have the same engine' and I have no idea where you got the 390tq from after doing some research.)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Your car weighs 3406, mine 3890. I don't have a chance at short distances. You don't have a chance at hitting 185mph.
http://www.ultimategto.com/art29.htm
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Let's just leave it at that. I just thought I could get you to show some respect for a 20 year-old 'antique' that cost as much as 2 2001 CLK55's + a C230 Coupe in 1985$ and the chances of you ever seeing one are slim to nil vs. the 4 E55's and 2 CLK55's I saw last week.
And I never said I didn't respect the original AMGs; that's your opinion, but I can assure you that it is false. I was speaking of the non-AMGs in the first place, but since you decided you wanted to argue, I let you run with it...I'm always up for a good debate.
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
In fact, the 6.0L Hammer was and is remarkable for its time, and is in fact pretty damn quick even by contemporary standards, but the data I've seen, as I said, doesn't have me shaking in my boots. Respectful? Of course. Give me a good run? Sure seems like it. Afraid of losing to one? Not based upon what I've read, but again, your little thread hijack took this down a whole 'nuther alley from my original point. To wit:
I was merely stating that the original poster to whom I was replying was out of place to be lecturing W211 E55 owners about how their cars were "inferior" to M5s or whatever, and asked him to prove the M5 was "better"; he declined, because he obviously realized that subjective opinions can't be proven, which was, after all, my point. He, you might have noticed, is not driving an AMG Hammer, or anything close to it, but a car which will not even hang with a present-day C350, let alone any AMG...
Now would you mind trying a bit harder to keep from going
![off topic](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/ot.gif)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Clarita/Northridge CA
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
E350
Watch out guys the AUDI RS6 is coming at you with 500 horses.
What a pile. AUDI always falls short of the crown. AUDI has the chance to take over the entire performance sedan market, and what will they do. F up and not put out a real effort. Just like witht he Old RS6.
![tard](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tard.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPINA B12 5,7 Coupe #22/57
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Hah, I tried to get back on topic! Since your car cannot go as fast as mine top speed wise, and I know I would lose 0-60 and 1/4 mile races due to hp to weight differences it doesn't make much sense to put money on anything. On paper, my car has 375hp and 407tq, your car has 342 bhp @ 5500 rpm and 376 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm. (I'm not giving you the E55's numbers 'just because they have the same engine' and I have no idea where you got the 390tq from after doing some research.) Your car weighs 3406, mine 3890. I don't have a chance at short distances. You don't have a chance at hitting 185mph. Let's just leave it at that. I just thought I could get you to show some respect for a 20 year-old 'antique' that cost as much as 2 2001 CLK55's + a C230 Coupe in 1985$ and the chances of you ever seeing one are slim to nil vs. the 4 E55's and 2 CLK55's I saw last week.
Are you driving the "widebody" Hammer or the normal body ?
I remember well I read about the AMG that they claimed to ba able to hit 186 mph. AMG claimed 340 Hp but considering their preveous claims on Hp based on a few engines they made it was not taken seriously by many.
Also nobody belive a 340 Hp sedan would reach 186 mph.
But they had made some serious evort this time, and the secret was the extremly low Cw value on the E klass sedan. I belive to recall that the HP was increased after while but can not remember if it was to 360 or 375 as you claim for the 6.0.
The widebody Coupe did not come close to hit 186 mph, but the normal body E klass did and maybe the normalbody Coupe. This was tested several times at the highspeed track at Nardo.
I must admit I do not recall what was the "normal" body style on the Hammer, but I do not belive all Coupes was the widebody thing. Maybe you can enlighten me ?
Acceleration was as a E34 3.8 M5 until 125 mph, but the topspeed was much much higher due to the low Cw.
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by DancingBenzos
Watch out guys the AUDI RS6 is coming at you with 500 horses.
What a pile. AUDI always falls short of the crown. AUDI has the chance to take over the entire performance sedan market, and what will they do. F up and not put out a real effort. Just like witht he Old RS6.
![tard](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tard.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Back to topic:If the M5 is truly faster I hope MB stays tru to what they have been doing and go F/I,big displacement and go 4valves per cylinder.Then I hope they try to step up big time with suspension.We'll find out when people come out with their M5's at the track this season.
My car is fast and has great brakes but it is very dangerous handling wise at the limits for the amt of pwr it has.
![drive](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/driving.gif)
Last edited by ProjectC55; 06-07-2005 at 06:39 AM.
#62
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Ferrari F1 Factory
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F248 F1
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=bmw_m5
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by egutie6970
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=bmw_m5
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPINA B12 5,7 Coupe #22/57
Originally Posted by coolcarlskiC43
WOWWWWW!
I think the new V8 E90 M3 will be better around the track for obvious reasons though.Tiff Needle,I think that's how you spell his last name can drive his *** off.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Tiff Needle is a very very capable driver, I always enjoy looking at his shows.
Last edited by Erik; 06-07-2005 at 07:50 AM.
#65
Are you driving the "widebody" Hammer or the normal body ?
#67
[QUOTE=egutie6970]http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=bmw_m5
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that
Do you own one? No, of course not...you're a wannabe driving a 20 year old Benz that costs less than a new Corolla, talking **** about cars that by your own criterion are infinitely better than yours.
And you want to talk up BMW reliability? check Consumer Reports' reliability data for Mercedes and BMW. To state that BMW is appreciably more reliable than Mercedes is a joke, and I can attest to this personally because my wife owns one which we bought new in 2001, and it's had:
- sunroof repaired for coming off the track, twice;
- window regulators break four times (leaving the window stuck in the down position);
- power seat motor fail;
- check engine and brake lights came on and stayed on within a week of the car's delivery;
- main ventilation fan failed
Wow. Now that's reliable. In the meantime, my car has had three minor issues. I'll take that any day of the week.
Do you own a BMW? Do you own a modern Benz? Do you have anything other than idiotic assertions to back up one claim about the reliabliity of modern Benzes versus the old one? One data point? One survey? Anything?
I'm waiting, but for some reason you refuse to answer.
And a car's being faster around a racetrack is what makes it "better"? So you're saying that a Corvette Z06 is one of the best cars in the world, while a Rolls Royce is one of the worst? So given that a Celica GT will out accelerate, out brake, and outrun your 20 year old Benz around a racetrack, and is more reliable, then I guess it's a much better car--it does cost about 3x what yours is worth, so you can add price to the equation as well.
It doesn't surprise me that someone with brain power like yours is driving a Benz worth $8K...one has to be intelligent enough to make some real money to get a new one.
So? People complain a lot about BMWs too, and if you go to Lexus forums you'll see people complaining about their cars there too. Again and again you keep trying to cite anectodtal evidence as proof of fact, but there exists scientific data showing that you're wrong.
In addition to being a wannabe and a BMW troll, you, sir, are a goddamn liar. I have never asked nor posted about a single problem or issue on my car in this forum, ever. Produce one post showing otherwise, liar.
improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that
Originally Posted by egutie6970
and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent
And you want to talk up BMW reliability? check Consumer Reports' reliability data for Mercedes and BMW. To state that BMW is appreciably more reliable than Mercedes is a joke, and I can attest to this personally because my wife owns one which we bought new in 2001, and it's had:
- sunroof repaired for coming off the track, twice;
- window regulators break four times (leaving the window stuck in the down position);
- power seat motor fail;
- check engine and brake lights came on and stayed on within a week of the car's delivery;
- main ventilation fan failed
Wow. Now that's reliable. In the meantime, my car has had three minor issues. I'll take that any day of the week.
Do you own a BMW? Do you own a modern Benz? Do you have anything other than idiotic assertions to back up one claim about the reliabliity of modern Benzes versus the old one? One data point? One survey? Anything?
I'm waiting, but for some reason you refuse to answer.
And a car's being faster around a racetrack is what makes it "better"? So you're saying that a Corvette Z06 is one of the best cars in the world, while a Rolls Royce is one of the worst? So given that a Celica GT will out accelerate, out brake, and outrun your 20 year old Benz around a racetrack, and is more reliable, then I guess it's a much better car--it does cost about 3x what yours is worth, so you can add price to the equation as well.
It doesn't surprise me that someone with brain power like yours is driving a Benz worth $8K...one has to be intelligent enough to make some real money to get a new one.
Originally Posted by egutie6970
and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car
Originally Posted by egutie6970
and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.
#68
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
BTW, this top speed chart Improviz listed is calculated using the stock figures from a '05 GTO, 6.0 400hp, which I assure you, you are nowhere near. If you used the '04 GTO stats and changed the ratios, that's fine.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
I would also recommend that you take a look at the first Car & Driver test of the W210 E55, which has the same motor, gearing, final drive, and drag coefficient as mine:
Originally Posted by Car & Driver
Aerodynamic drag beyond triple-digit speeds does little to blunt its charge, and our E55 was still accelerating when it hit an electronic limiter at 158 mph. Hard enough to suggest a real top speed somewhere around 180 mph.
Last edited by Improviz; 06-07-2005 at 08:43 PM.
#69
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Ferrari F1 Factory
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F248 F1
You compare cars for what they were meant to do, in this case we are comparing a E55 AMG and your CLK 55 AMG vs. a M5...these cars are meant for luxury and racing down the track/cornering/speed etc. It's not the fact that my family can't afford a Benz, it's just they suck. My dad just blew nearly 65k on Ford Lariat King Ranch and paid cash; a MB didn’t even cross his mind. Let’s face it man if you debagged any I mean any Benz now days you will confuse it with another brand and I can go ahead in photo shop a Benz and another car, just debagged them and a common person won’t even know what brand it is! Simple as that. My father’s business owner friend got a 2003 S 600 for his birthday (his 2 sons bought for him) and he never drove it. He sold it ASAP and bought himself a caddy. His words were, I don’t like that car it's ugly and not reliable I don’t want to have to deal with it. I personally think the CLK is the ugliest out of all benz-thats my opinion, I have never liked that body style maybe someday it will grow on me but not now. To me the C, SLK, CLK, and M - I don’t consider them MB. Where I live theirs more E classes then Hondas.... I’m sick of these E classes.
oh p.s. lol
My gf : Hey honey i want an SL MB when we both become a doctor
Me: You mean an SL chrysler
gf: lol! yes the sl chrysler, your so mean about the new mb, i know they don't look unique but they are nice and confortable inside, maybe not as reliable but still.
me: lol your funny, well your not using my money to buy that chrystler of yours.
gf: actualy your right i don't really like them, i really like those cars with the aggresive look that you always talk about, what are they ?
me: BMW baby, the M power
that i will buy myself one
oh p.s. lol
My gf : Hey honey i want an SL MB when we both become a doctor
Me: You mean an SL chrysler
gf: lol! yes the sl chrysler, your so mean about the new mb, i know they don't look unique but they are nice and confortable inside, maybe not as reliable but still.
me: lol your funny, well your not using my money to buy that chrystler of yours.
gf: actualy your right i don't really like them, i really like those cars with the aggresive look that you always talk about, what are they ?
me: BMW baby, the M power
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by egxpimp; 06-07-2005 at 08:10 PM.
#70
Originally Posted by egutie6970
You compare cars for what they were meant to do, in this case we are comparing a E55 AMG and your CLK 55 AMG vs. a M5...
My question is, how? You still won't answer.
Originally Posted by egutie6970
these cars are meant for luxury and racing down the track/cornering/speed etc. It's not the fact that my family can't afford a Benz, it's just they suck.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
The remainder of your childish rant isn't even worth comment, so I won't. However, I see that you did not produce a single solitary post of mine "asking for help" on my vehicle, which of course you can't, because they don't exist.
And yet you claimed I'd made numerous such posts.
So you are proven to be a first-class liar.
'nuff said.
#71
For Eurocoupe: physics lesson
OK, you want the actual calculated top speed? Here you go.
You need three things: rolling resistance, air resistance, and rear wheel horsepower (and, of course, the gearing to get there, which was addressed previously).
Rolling resistance: 3450 pounds*0.013 = 44.85 pounds
Air resistance: calculated frontal area (based upon 67.8" width, 54" height) is 20.3 ft^2 . Car's Cd = 0.31 .
So, to go 185 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 20.3 ft^2*0.31* 0.00256 x (185)^2 = 551.37 pounds.
So then required bhp to go 185 is (551.37 + 44.85)*185/375 = 596.22*185/375 = 294 rear wheel horsepower.
CLK55s usually dyno out at 290-295 rwhp. So la de da, it calculates out to hit 185, with drag, frontal area, and rolling resistance factored in.
Now, please stop acting stupid about the car's ungoverned top speed capabilities.
You need three things: rolling resistance, air resistance, and rear wheel horsepower (and, of course, the gearing to get there, which was addressed previously).
Rolling resistance: 3450 pounds*0.013 = 44.85 pounds
Air resistance: calculated frontal area (based upon 67.8" width, 54" height) is 20.3 ft^2 . Car's Cd = 0.31 .
So, to go 185 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 20.3 ft^2*0.31* 0.00256 x (185)^2 = 551.37 pounds.
So then required bhp to go 185 is (551.37 + 44.85)*185/375 = 596.22*185/375 = 294 rear wheel horsepower.
CLK55s usually dyno out at 290-295 rwhp. So la de da, it calculates out to hit 185, with drag, frontal area, and rolling resistance factored in.
Now, please stop acting stupid about the car's ungoverned top speed capabilities.
Last edited by Improviz; 06-08-2005 at 12:17 AM.
#72
No, it is a simple gearing/speed calculation, which is POSTED on a website for a GTO, dummy. Learn to read.
It doesn't surprise me that someone with brain power like yours is driving a Benz worth $8K...one has to be intelligent enough to make some real money to get a new one.
#73
Hmm, what a fine example of hypocrisy in action we have here...first, EuroCoupe writes:
And then goes on to write:
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Yes, they did, thanks: I have a wonderful wife, a great job, a fabulous home, three excellent cars, give lots to charity, and help little old ladies with their groceries.
Now then, back to the calculators: The calculator I originally linked to is gearing-based. I have also produced equations which account for power, frontal area, rolling resistance, and drag.
In both cases, the car's top speed calculates at or above 185 mph.
Give it a rest.
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
Show some class/tact.
Originally Posted by EuroCoupe
What are you, 6?....Boy, your parents did a wonderful job...
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Yes, they did, thanks: I have a wonderful wife, a great job, a fabulous home, three excellent cars, give lots to charity, and help little old ladies with their groceries.
Now then, back to the calculators: The calculator I originally linked to is gearing-based. I have also produced equations which account for power, frontal area, rolling resistance, and drag.
In both cases, the car's top speed calculates at or above 185 mph.
Give it a rest.
#75
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Ferrari F1 Factory
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F248 F1
Yes, they did, thanks: I have a wonderful wife, a great job, a fabulous home, three excellent cars, give lots to charity, and help little old ladies with their groceries.
.
.
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
I doubt it but oh well. Still funny as hell.