(yawn)...you still here, liar?

 

Again, I don't see any hp entry on the top speed chart of your mustang website. Tire diameter, Transmission ratio, axle ratio, and engine rpm. This is taking a 0 coefficient of drag in. A mini cooper with your axle ratio and transmission ratio would give you the same number.

 

Um, I know you're thin on physics, but a car must have gearing to get to a certain speed; power alone won't do it (ever try going 180 in first gear?). So, the theoretical top speed gearing was addressed at that site...and, since you obviously missed it the first time, I addressed the horsepower, drag, frontal area, rolling resistance, and weight...

HERE: <<<<<-----CLICK!!!

 

Sorry, notice the post times of those 2 posts. I was responding to your post calling me a dummy. This post was not yet showing during my reply. Can you enter my car's 'factory' stats in this equation and post what you get? (I slim in physics, remember?) Thanks. 319hp at crank using your 15% driveline loss 'anecdote', 50.57 lbs rolling resistance, .33 Cd, 26.8 sqft of frontal area. Since the car has already been tested at 180+mph, we will know if the hp is rated low if the calculation doesn't add up and vice versa. Please avoid name calling in your response, thanks. My cars aren't worth as much as yours so I'd hate to hear what you really think of me. Hopefully your wife judged you along the same premise you judge owners of lesser costing Mercedes when she picked you out. A match made in heaven! Hah! It appears your approaching your 1000th post here... Kudos.

 

Just to let all you guys know EuroCoupe know what he talking about.. .....I talk to him before.......He drove all kind of Benz include the Brabus E class 6.0 32V.........

 

F.o.b.ulous!!

 

Right or wrong I still hail Improvitz! Haven't seen you for a long time around here!

 

Now that's the definition of a true friend, 'hailing' him even though your car is worth about $140,000 more than his. He pities people who's cars are worth only 25-30K less than his, jeesh!

 

Now now, did he cite that? hmmm...

UnImprovitz like if he did that...

 

Very classy and tactful to start taking potshots at my wife. You're really a piece of garbage, in addition to being a dunce. Perhaps some time you'd care to meet up and take potshots at my wife in person rather than from behind a keyboard?...you are truly sad. Losing on facts, so you start taking cheap shots.

You can take shots at me, but leave family out of it. Talk about low class...you just keep proving beyond any shadow of a doubt what a hypocrite you are.

As to my car's rear wheel horsepower: again you demonstrate an inability to comprehend that which is written. The 290-295 rwhp for the W208 is from actual dyno numbers taken from the CLK55 forum I plainly stated that dyno numbers for the 208 CLK55 have repeatedly shown 290-205 rwhp. And you claim it's an "estimate". Fine...again: learn to read.

And I know it might come as a shock to you, who said that your car's horsepower was "conservatively rated", but Mercedes has been known to underrate their car's horsepower somewhat from time to time. Witness the E55's rated 469 compared to the SL55, CL55, and S55's rated 493...every dyno test done so far shows this to be a joke (even the 493 is low by about 30+), and clearly the CLK55 was making the same horsepower as the 349 horsepower-rated E55.

As to what your car would run top speed: well, as discussed before, the three main factors here are gearing, aerodynamics, and sufficient gearing to get there. Now, you've already written the following:

Yes, they are, which helps its top speed. Shorter gears lower top speed, as anyone with a clue knows. So let's look at your car's gearing.

Your car has the four speed auto with a 1.00:1 ratio in fourth, per data I obtained from the need for speed website you sent. I believe that it also redlines at 6,000 rpm. Correct me if I'm wrong, don't have the time to look them all up right now.

Now, per the handy dandy gearing calculation site I found earlier, let's look at the theoretical max top speed of your car based upon its gearing, shall we? Every gear has a maximum top speed, determined by the redline of the motor, as a physics whiz as yourself doubtlessly knows; of course, as I've already shown, once gearing is shown to be adequate for a car to hit a certain speed, it becomes a question of the power, aerodynamics, etc., but without being geared to allow car to get there, it won't get there, power be damned.

So using the calculator and 245-40/17 tires (I don't know what size yours has, so I used mine), the calculator shows that if it had sufficient power, your car with a 3.21:1 final drive, a 1.00:1 fourth gear, and those tires, will hit a whopping 136 mph in fourth gear at 6,000 rpm. At 6,500 rpm, this comes out to 146 mph. Even if your engine redlines at 7,000 rpm, which I seriously doubt, it will not exceed 157 mph regardless of its power with this gearing/horsepower combination.

Got taller tires, you say? Going back through the example with 255-50/17s gives a maximum of 157 mph, at 7,000 rpm. At 6,500 and 6,000 rpm redlines these decline to 155 and 143 respectively. Taller still? Let's use 235-55/17. That gets you to 148 at 6,000 rpm, 173 at 7,000 (and again, I doubt your redline is 7,000, but just in case).

And if you'd care to dispute the calculator, I invite you to run the following:

Here is the gearing site, which you incorrectly claimed works only for Pontiac GTOs (understandable since you don't understand that gearing and engine speed are directly related, and therefore by extension a vehicle's maximum possible in-gear speed at redline)
http://www.ultimategto.com/art29.htm

Here is a comparison of calculated versus actual speeds in gears using the CLK55's gear ratios, final drive (2.82:1), and rear tire size of 245-40/17, put next to actual test data from Road & Track's February 2001 issue for the CLK55 AMG:

gear calc. tested (road & track, 2/2001)
ratio max max
3.59 43 42
2.19 71 69
1.14 110 107
1.00 156 151
0.83 188 155* (*limited)

Wow, yeah, that's real innacurate, isn't it??

So, as I established: gearing-wise, my car can get there. Aerodynamically and power-wise, it can get there. Gearing-wise, your car as you've described it cannot.

So congratulations: by sticking a short rear end on your car, you've limited its
top end. 180 mph? Not with a 3.27....

Now, what was it you wrote before?

Seems like the handy physics lesson proved you wrong, and also proved that your car doesn't have a prayer of getting even close to this with a 3:27 rear end and a 1.00:1 fourth gear, unless you redline at 10,000 rpm.

So, one of us certainly "doesn't have a chance" of hitting 180 mph, but it sure ain't me. Get a taller rearend or gearing, or a new tranny and then we'll talk.

What I find to be amzaing is that you have been consistently factually incorrect throughout this debate, and yet you still go right on making incorrect statements, such as "my car's theoretical top speed is 200+ mph", and have been consistently shown to be wrong.

But you keep coming back for more. Without a shred of data to back up what you're claiming.

 

Correction: WAS worth. Your car is not currently in any way, shape, or form worth $180,000, or anything close to that. What it sold for new is irrelavent to this discussion. What is relavent is that any present-day AMG will dust you off like a broom at well below what yours cost, and judging by the tone of your attacks on the new ones, there might be more than a bit of sour grapes involved here.

 

What I said was that I think it's ridiculous for some wannabe (egutie6970) driving a 20 year old Benz which is currently worth $8,000 and would get dusted off by a Toyota Celica on any track to come in here and lecture AMG owners about other cars being "better" than theirs.

You wouldn't see me going to the SLR forum and cracking on them....

And if you want to see cheap personal attacks, have a look at this loser bringing my family into it, What a POS. Getting killed on facts, so he starts taking cheap shots.

So far, he's said his car would "dust" mine. Test data shows he's wrong.

He's said my car could "never hit 180 mph" if it had the governor removed. Calculated data shows 185. Gearing data is even higher.

He's said his car's theoretical max in-gear speed calculates out at over 200 mph with 3.27:1 rearend and 1.00:1 fourth gear. It doesn't even hit 180, meaning he either cannot understand how to operate a calculator, or he lied and didn't calculate it at all.

He's said his car would pull me on top end. With 3:27:1 gearing and 1.00:1 fourth gear, it won't even match me.

Now, as you might suspect, my pointing out these little, ah, "inconsistencies" has got him rather upset. Which is why he resorts to despicable tactics like insulting family members rather than debating with facts: because he loses on the facts.

 

Mb > Bmw.

 

We'll see when the M5 comes out what it's really got.However there is also a rumor that they will be sending 6spd manual shift M5's as well as the 7speed sequential manual shift(already available) ones to North America in 2006.That should be quite interesting and fun. I'm sure MB has a plan.I hope!

 

No, no, I said factory gearing. I modified the rear end to 3.27. I still have the factory rear end, 2.24 final drive ratio, in the garage. You said you need a chip to hit your top speed, I need my factory gearing to. The Hammers that are tested in the 180+ range all have factory 2.24 gears. Of course no car with 4 speeds and 3.27 gears is going to hit 180... BTW I was talking about James L's car, not mine. He claims to have a CL65, which, in fact, is worth $130-$140K more than yours. I never mentioned comparing it with mine, learn to read you 'dummy.' About the underated hp comment- I know! That's why I said it. If your hp is underrated, don't you think mine could be too? Hmm... Your taking the wife comment too seriously. You mentioned you have a fabulous wife. I was just wondering if she picked you based on your own outlook on people that you demonstrated earlier: "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." Boy, that comment is classic. Straight out the mouth of a true snob. That makes James L 3 times as smart as you and 5 times as smart as me. Judging by his car lineup, he might be. Don't meathead out and go the "say it to my face" route. This is a heated car debate, not UFC... Oh, tires are 245/45/17, 275/40/17, this isn't a C-Class chassis ya' know...

 

hahahahahaha :p good one euro

 

No, no, no, no, no, you did not. Here's what you wrote:

Nothing about factory gearing there.

And that wasn't all. You clearly stated that your car would beat mine up high:


You also wrote that you'd beat me up high because I am limited to 155:

Oh, no, you weren't talking about your car, now were you?

Oh, and we can add this to the pile:

Oh, sure, that wasn't about your car either, right?

No, it's a 1988 chassis, several generations old. Mine has two generations of chassis development over yours.

What does this have to do with the context in which I brought underrated horsepower up, namely the top speed capabilities of my car? I know it's difficult for you to keep up, but please try: I wrote this not out of thin air, but in response to your assertion that I was being optimistic with my power estimates for my car (this despite the fact that I was using dyno numbers). Whether or not yours is underrated is not germaine to whether mine has enough oats to hit 180+, which I've proven mine can. Can you cay "context"? Try to concentrate on it for a change...you're debating things which aren't even relevant.

But thank you for the tire info, as I can now calculate your max speeds in gears:
http://www.ultimategto.com/art29.htm
38
58
97
140

Wow, you can go 140??? Whoa, dude, you'd stomp po' li'l me up high!! I can only go 158 with my limiter on!!! ...hey, wait....

So your car's top speed is currently 140, but it would "get real ugly" from a 60-70 mph roll on if you ran me, and you'd beat me by "10-12 lengths"?? Care to elaborate, given that you'd run into a brick wall at 140?



Very amusing...keep 'em coming.

 

I dont think Improvitz will be beaten in his own game.

 

Ok, I went back and re-read we had written and will re-post them with corrections. Some of the data you have is incorrect....

From my AMG factory manual: 300E fitted with 6.0L 32v weighs 3295, the coupe weighs 3058. Run those numbers again... 155 lbs and 392 lbs lighter than your coupe, respectively. 375hp, 407tq, lighter, better cd, do the math. I deal in facts, remember. I was losing on this one, due to facts provided by you, but its cleared up a bit now. Where did you get your weights (I think I say Sparky, Cowboy, or Chum here)?
OK, lets talk stock. 2.24 gears, post my numbers according to your math chalkboard I get dizzy looking at. You get the benefit of having to go out and buy something to de-limit, why can't I get the benfit of putting my stock differential in? After I said you can't hit 185mph you state:
Again, you give yourself the ability to mod when necessary... Also, you have provided no tangible data of being able to hit that speed other than theoretical equations, which is fine since it may not be documented, but, you can find my information about AMG Hammers hitting 180+ on at least 4 publications, but you're giving me 140mph. C'mon, let it sink in. Being a hater of 'anecdotes' and non-real-world facts your quote here is poor at best at providing useable info:
I could throw magazine article statements of 'no traction in first and halfway through second and we still posted 13.2,' 'With stickier tires 0-100 would've came at 11 flat,' etc. But those should not be considered here...

I ask you were you get the 390 lb/ft of torque for your car and you reply:
EVERY source I looked up, including MB factory specs, lists 376lb/ft for the 2001 CLK55... I think the E55 owner manual reads that. If yours does, fine.

My request for you to enter the stats of my car with your equations:
Your response, after entering with the non-factory diff and me saying so:
Here you get a little mixed up. Go back and read... I was referring the the 300E Hammer, you know, the car that weighs 155 lbs less than yours and has 33 more hp and 31 more torque?

OK, so, try some of these out and let me know what you think. Let's not get hung up on this 3.27 gearing thing, I just want factory figures. BTW, the owners manual from my old 500SEC states the following speeds/gear with factory 2.24 diff: 1st- 43mph, 2nd-83mph, 3rd- 137mph, 4th-140mph, this with a 231hp euro 500 engine. Hope this helps.

 

I think if you unblock it.........you should be able to do top RPM at top gear......and that how you get your topspeed........ My car redline at 6000RPM at the topspeed of 181mph..........

 

So, what can my C43 do? I don't know my real axle ratio. When I plugged in the C36's ratio, it seems I get a top speed of 173. Although that seems about right, I thought I had heard somewhere (sorry about no specific source) that I could go faster.

 

There have been written sources from England that have stated that the c43 and W202 c55 are capable of traveling at speeds over 170mph .I will post the articles.

 

From information you provided. Specifically, from the following link you posted:

Here is the link:

Here is the post in which you supplied it.

I assume AMG posted accurate info in their data, no? Theirs has it at 3540 pounds, a hundred heavier than mine. The coupe is listed at 3707, which may have been the source of one of the mag articles I sourced, but the article did not refer to it as such.

Further, here is a post I found for one in the archives which specifies weight, which it gives at 3635.

No, I am debating. You said that my car could "never hit 180 mph", and I believe that I've shown quite convincingly that it will if the limiter is removed. You can act like a member of the flat earth society and claim that physics doesn't work, but if you want to cast aspersions on the accuracy of those equations, you've got one slight problem: they work.

Have a look at them applied to the 2006 Dodge SRT-8, which was tested in this month's Car & Driver. The car tested at 172 mph drag limited at 5200 rpm, below its power peak of 6200 where it makes 425 horsepower. Here I plug it into the equations:

Car hit 172 mph at 5300 rpm. Note that its rated power peak is 425 hp at 6200 rpm, so it was a matter of wind resistance, not power or gearing, that kept it from getting there (max gearing speed is 208.64 using C&D's figure of 32.6 mph/1000 rpm.

Rolling resistance: 4212 pounds*0.013 = 54.76 pounds

Air resistance: frontal area is 25.8 ft^2 . Car's Cd = 0.36 .

So, to go 172 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 25.8 ft^2*0.36* 0.00256 x (172)^2 = 703.43 pounds.

Completing the equation: the required bhp to go 172 is (703.43 + 54.76)*172/375 = 758.19*172/375 = 347.76 rear wheel horsepower.

This works out to a driveline loss of about 18%, *but* it's not producing peak power at 5300!! If it's within 3% of peak power at 5200, which it should be at that rpm, it comes out to 347.76/(.97*425), or 84%, exactly where my driveline loss would have to be to get 295 rwhp. Shazam...

Isn't physics wonderful?

No, but it may be proven. See above, and the post where I first performed the math.

Mercedes slaps the limiter on there, not me. And it can be removed for far less than what it would cost you to replace your diff. You are arguing about my car's capabilities, not published test data which will be affected by the limiter. Conversely, I have never argued that a Hammer would not exceed 180 mph in stock form.

And I can show you articles which also state that the CLK55's traction limited, same ol' same ol.

It does. I'll scan it if you'd like....I'll have to get it from home, though.

Again, you are trying to take things out of context and twist them. YOU said that YOUR car, meaning the one YOU own, calculated out to 204 mph using that calculator. You said NOTHING about "with stock gears". If that's what you meant, you did NOT attempt to communicate it, and I seriously doubt that that's what you meant, given that in a separate post you wrote that you'd take me from 65-180.

Twist and spin all you like, the facts are there to see.

This is a flat out baldfaced lie. You stated that running you from 65-180 you would beat me. Give it up, dude, the print is on the screen:

How about we do something even more fun? I can very quickly calculate the maximum wheel torque available for these cars: mine, yours, and a stocker. This way, we can examine the max possible torque at the wheels for each one, OK? I assume that you understand, having switched out your factory rearend, that gears directly affect acceleration, in that a lower (higher numerically) rearend increases torque multiplication.

So, let's have a look. I'll use the rating of 376 for mine, even though the same engine is rated at 390 in the E55 and Mercedes is known to derate the lower-priced models to keep the more expensive cars' owners happy.

These are the gear ratios for your car:
3.68
2.41
1.44
1.00

The final numbers through the rear end, from the same (can also be calculated by multiplying above by 2.24, the final drive ratio):
8.15
5.40
3.22
2.24

So, the max torque available in any gear will be 407 (engine's rated max torque) times the overall ratio. You can look them up for mine as well, but here they are, with the max torque after each in parenthesis (again, used the 376 figure just to keep you happy):
overall max (road & track, 2/2001)
ratio torque
10.12 3805
6.18 2324
3.98 1496
2.82 1060
2.34 880

And that's with 376. Engine puts out more than that, and if you'd like, again I can post the page from my owners' manual later on. Just say the word.

Hmm, interesting....so, how do yours stack up stock? Multiplying above overall ratios by 407 gives:
overall max
ratio torque
8.15 3317
5.40 2197
3.22 1310
2.24 911

And also note that this was in the days before dual resonance intake was used by Mercedes, which gives a flatter torque curve...i.e., your curve will be peakier than mine, which benefits from more modern engine development technology. My car's 376 rating is over a range, not a peak. If you know anything about NA motors, they do have a peak, and so therefore if the engine is guaranteed to be at a certain torque rating for an rpm *range*, its max torque is higher. But again, I can post the owners' manual page if you'd like.

So, let's see here. While your top speed would go up, I would have more torque to the wheels than you in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. So stock to stock, you would have a higher eventual top speed thanks to lower gearing and no limiter, but guess what: you'd lose in any run, from 0-xxx or from 65-xxx.

And before I waste time calculating your theoretical top speed (which I'll be glad to do), I'd like to understand why you'd like me to do it, since you seem to be casting aspersions on the equations themselves. Are they only valid when used on your car, or would you concede (particularly given the Chrysler data above) that they're pretty accurate and applicable to both of our cars?

Edit: just noticed, this makes it 1000 posts. Time flies...

 

ok, I got the right rear diff. ratio. It's 3.07, I believe. So, my car should go over 170 if left as is.

 

I was way off on the weights! I'm heating up my bowl of crow in the microwave right now. I was looking at the 3.2 AMG engine upgrade, not the 6.0. The tech data manual I have lists 6.0 sedan at 3650 and widebody coupe at the higher 3700 and change, due to someaddtional aerodynamics, including a flat panel to cover the undercarriage, giving it about a .24 Cd! I guess the engine doesn't really weight much more, (cast iron block vs aluminum), but the total redesign of the subframe using W126 components adds the weight. Sorry, totally my fault... I didn't see the results of the 2.24 swap. Its just blank after your last sentence... BTW, it wouldn't cost me more than your de-limiter mod to get a differential back in. My stock one is sitting in the garage, and any Mercedes boneyard will sell a stock diff from an old S-Class for $250, that's how I got my 3.27! You said you're not giving yourself the ability to mod, just debating. I thought I was debating too, no? Please don't be stuck on the 3.27 gears still...