Fine, enjoy that crow!

I really don't know what you want to debate any more. As I stated in the previous post: I never claimed that a stock Hammer couldn't hit 180+; the point was, could mine hit 180+ unlimited? I believe I've shown quite convincingly that it can.

Further, I've shown that as I stated early on, the five speed I've got gives me a gearing advantage over yours stock to stock, and the torque multiplication figures I provided bear this out. Time marches on...now I find myself envying the new seven-speed autos!!

I also said that, contrary to your claims, I do have a great deal of respect for the Hammer, which dates to my Miami Vice days (no, I never dressed like that, but am guilty of having watched the show in my youth). It was (and still is) a killer Benz.

The question is, do you have any respect for the CLK55? Hopefully the data I've provided will shed some light on the car's capabilities. It's a killer...

But at this point, unless there's some specific point I've missed that you'd care to argue, I'm not sure what to debate anymore. Anyway, got work to do...will check back later and see if you still want to argue.

 

Ok, guess you were editing when I was reading. I see the rest of your post... So, in conclusion, we can agree that I was wrong about beating you at roll-on races with my 3.27 gears up to my max of 140, and you are conceeding that your car will not go as fast as mine (top speed)- WITH- both of us having our factory gears, AND you having a de-limiter... Does this sound right? AND, at this very moment, my car will only go 140 and yours 155, correct? I can live with that... and yes, I love the CLK55 and would trade my car for one, but I would end up selling it probably. My car only has 47K miles and I think it looks 'meaner' than the CLK's so it would be a tough decision, plus, there's probably less than 15 running 560SEC's with Hammer engines in the U.S. Now, back to the video topic! Oh, yeah, CoolCarski, your car will go faster than mine! Nice mod and rwhp figures!

 

Oh, of course: only way mine would go 180 would be for me to mod mine by getting limiter removed...stock to stock, only one of us could pass 158 or so, and it ain't me.

Roll-on, it looks like I'd get a stocker based upon gearing numbers I calculated previously (assuming their torque figure is not wildly underrated), due to their stock super-tall final drive. With your setup: I don't know, with your current 3.27:1 rearend you might even get me in a roll-on; your torque multiplication would be significantly better than the stock gear with that rear end. But even if you did, I'd pass ya after 140!

Too bad you're so far away; I'd like to run ya to see how it'd do!

OK, fine, we agree then...call it good. And since you're being nice now, I'll run the numbers for yours (with stock rearend), using your final post-crow weight figure of 3650. I'll shoot for 185:

Rolling resistance: 3650 pounds*0.013 = 47.45 pounds

Air resistance: I'll use the following you gave earlier: frontal area is 26.8 ft^2 . Car's Cd = 0.25 .

So, to go 185 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 26.8 ft^2*0.25* 0.00256 x (185)^2 = 587.02

Completing the equation: the required bhp to go 185 is (587.02 + 47.45)*185/375 = 634.5*185/375 = 313 rear wheel horsepower.

Which you should produce easily with 407 crank.

In fact, I ran the numbers for 190: it would require about 338 rwhp, also within the realm of possibility if your driveline loss is 18% or better.

So, it looks like a Hammer stock would still nudge mine by 5mph or so top end using the 185 I calculated for mine earlier...but in-gear acceleration is still mine! :v

OK, gotta run. Later...

 

Thank God guys.We can finally disagree without being disagreeable. Can we get back to the M5 vs E55 debate or is that officially over for now as well?

 

Improviz - you are always flaming people about how dumb they are, and you flame this poor guy about having English as a second language... Well you can't talk - look at your second sentence. It should read "Not too quick..."

You should put your pent up energy into constructive posts that add value for everyone, and not in the context of putting other people down!

 

Improviz, why don't you have an E55? Not being objectionable, so please don't flame me, I just wondered what makes you keep a CLK55 over an E55K since I haven't seen you make any comment along those lines?

 

Actually, I'm not "always flaming people". I believe that if you read the thread carefully, you'll see who went into flame mode first.

And a single typo (and a typo it was; I can assure you that I know fully well the difference between "to" and "too") is not comparable to a grammatical nightmare in the guise of a childish rant.

Further, I wasn't talking; I was writing.

Finally, I have no ideal what this guy's first, second, or third language is...the statement to which you refer is known as "sarcasm", which is a form of "humor". I do this because I am a "smart ***".

You should spend a bit of time researching my posting history before making such a statement, and you should learn grammar before you lecture people on its usage. One does not put energy "in the context". I have made many "constructive posts" here, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't suffer trolling fools gladly.

 

Because I like my CLK55, already own two other four door vehicles, and have no use for a third. Further, I personally prefer coupes to four doors.

Is there any particular reason why you're asking?

 

I must say though your humor is pretty clever but when you beat someone down with your keyboard thoughts you beat them down.LOL!I'm glad I own an MB as well..LOL!Whew!!!! This is Improviz the guy with the beat stick in his hand so be thorough and come correct with your info or you'll be the character on the receiving end the blows. Improviz and the theoretically misinformed poster LOL! :p

 

Actually my grammar is correct. I am not referring to putting pent up energy "in the context". If you decompose my sentence you will see that I am suggesting you put pent up energy into constructive posts, and that these constructive posts add value for everyone, and further, these constructive posts are not in the context of putting other people down.

Anyway, I don't want to pick a fight with you over the English language as I don't think we're really here to discuss that and you're clearly educated well in the language. I was just making the point I don't think you should berate people who perhaps don't have English as their first language or perhaps are not as well educated as some of us in the language.

BTW, I have researched your quotes quite a lot and they are incredibly well informed. My comment about putting pent up energy into adding value for everyone didn't mean your quotes don't add value, as they do. But there is some percentage (let's say 25% for arguments sake) of your quotes that take shots at the other person because they don't know what they are talking about, and then the remainder give valuable information. My only point was it would be great for the rest of us that learn things from your deep knowledge if that mix was more like 10/90. QED.

 

That makes a lot of sense. No obscure reason for me asking. It is clear you are into performance MB cars, and given the equivalence of the powerplant of your car and the W210 in 2001 I can understand your purchase at that time as the coupe is a nice car. But it seemed to me that when the W211 became available that you might have moved to that car given the difference in performance and the relative equivalence between its price and what you paid for your CLK. But in the context of the rest of the stable, retaining the CLK makes sense. Maybe you have those other cars listed in your profile and I could have deduced this, but I didn't bother to look... perhaps I should have done that first. Have a good day.

 

True, plus I'm not really interested enough to go dig out an English text and deconstruct your syntax, so I'll just summarize as succinctly as possible: "whatever".

Well, again: I have no idea what level of education (if any) the person in question has; this was a poke, a jab, pure unadultrated good ol' smart-assed insult...and remember: it was an insult in *response* to this guy's coming in here and butt-slamming Mercedes, which is, imo, rude. And I'm not really a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy, so color me guilty of fighting fire with sarcasm.

Thank you! (and this was not sarcasm ;-) ) I love to read, and manage to come across a lot of (to me, anyway) interesting material in the process...

Well, I appreciate that, and would be only too happy to keep it at that mix, if only we could get the ratio of trolls down, but the moderators here give the BMW trolls an incredible degree of latitude...far more, I might add, than we Mercedes guys get on any BMW board.

OK, thanks for the kudos and inputs, and welcome to the boards!

 

True, although this is my first Benz (never saw any I wanted before this one), and despite what the BMW trolls might think, I gave serious consideration to getting an M3 before getting this, but I'm glad I didn't.

Well, it is an amazing car and the performance is quite tempting, but I'm a coupe guy...I am tempted by the CLS55 more than the E, because it looks more coupe-like, but it's still a sedan, and I prefer to have a coupe or sports car for my second car...plus, I am put off by the weight a bit...I kind of try to keep an upper limit of around 3500 pounds for the toy cars. :-)

Ah, yeah, I see...I don't have the other cars in my profile; they're not Mercedes (one is a Lexus, and believe it or not, the other one is a BMW!), so what's the point...anyway, have a good one!

 

Lol!! Thanks....

Hey, btw did you get the ECU issue sorted out w/your car? I forget...what were the tire widths you were running, rearend, etc?? Have you taken that beast to a strip yet? I'm dying to see what it'll do....

 

Yeah, my first MB was a CLK as well. But I kind of ended up in mine "accidentally", but I was very happy about the look of it as I never thought I'd be a MB driver! I used to own a TVR Chimaera (in Australia) and that was a great car from a performance perspective, but it was plagued by the typical electrical problems in most English cars. So I had to move to something more reliable and because there were issues with the TVR distribution in Australia when I went to trade it, I had to appeal to the reasonableness of the dealer where I bought it to trade it for a decent deal, but the best thing I could get from them (at least in my price range as they had Aston Martins that were out of reach) was a used CLK320 or a Lotus Elise - so the MB it was.

Speaking of toys and keeping them under 3,500lb, that TVR was incredible. I had the "entry level" 4.0 litre Chimaera. It was the Rover V8 engine and only developed 240 HP, but it also only weighed 2,300lb. It had a 0-60 time that matched the new SLK55, but I suspect was slightly slower of the quarter (I never ran it to see). You might like this page: http://www.sleepy-fish.com/video_page.htm

In fact, this link is great - it shows a TVR doing a standing mile in 31 seconds! There is a full video of that race against some of the best supercars in the world, but I can't find it at the moment - this is a good summary: http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/vi...th_Cerbera.mpg

Cheers

 

Yes,the ecu issue has been sorted out.I sent back the E55 ECU(289whp 300ftlbs TQ) and traction control to the dealer and put back in the C43 ECU and traction control module.I was getting a tad more hp and a lil more TQ out of my modded C43 ECU with a modded chip prior to this recent chip install.So he felt that he was definitely on the right track.The tech who is a friend of mine,socketed the C43 motherboard so that we can try different chips.He can also flash our AMG ECU's.The chip I have in the car now has a modded E55 file that was emailed to my chip guy from England.Let me tell you ,the car is a monster. It's definitely a noticeable improvement and I'm almost positive that my car will dyno more than 293whp.I have yet to dyno it and track it because the vehicle was in a freak accident Tues 6/7,which I had nothing to do with I may add.So right now it's in the body shop waiting for the insurance agent to give an estimate.

Right now I'm using 255-18-35's on the rear 225-18-40's on the front. I still have my 17 inch mono's just sitting. I'll keep everyone posted and Thanks Improv for asking.

 

Wow, that's a sweet ride....I'd imagine that it was pretty hard to let that one go! Cool vids too...incredible machine, but alas, I know what you mean about the infamous British electical gremlins (although I'm sure you've learned by now that the Germans aren't exactly pure as the driven snow in that department either!) It's too bad, though: I love those things. Buddy of mine has a pristine MGB, and he loves it...

Yeah, the CLK was the first Mercedes I ever saw that made me think "wow, that's a really slick Benz"...well, except for the Hammers I saw on Miami Vice, anyway...but I do (obviously!) love the car.

OK, gotta run...ciao!

 

Good to hear it, and keep the updates coming! Enjoy that beast...that is one serious **** of a ride!!

 

Hi Euro.

I went thrue my old Sport Auto mags in search of any reports/test of the AMG 6.0 ltr cars.

I found 1 from 1983 in the 500E chassis. I have no clue on what W series that is. But if I am not totaly wrong, this car is not the same car as got the nickname " The hammer", because that was the earlier car probably based on the W124 body, and due to much better Cw got the +186 mph topspeed. Could offcourse be wrong.

http://www.amg-owners-club.org/board...adid=2020&sid=

Here is a thread where this is dicussed.

Quote from one of the post.

---------
Hi Steve,

no these cars are absollutly diffrent. The "E 60" based on the "500 E" {W 124.036}, fitted with an upgrated M 119.

The "Hammer" Types have been built during a time, Daimler Benz was not offering V 8 engines in the type W 124. The "Hammer" engine is different to the "M 119.974" - it was based on the "560" {M 117.968} an fitted with 32 Valve Heads. There has been two Versions, the 360 hp 5.6 Liter - and an 6 Liter version with 385 hp, later used in the "Hammer" Coupé {C 124.050} "300 CE 6.0"}.
I've never heard about real AMG Version than the "E 50" {W 210.072} and the "E 55" {W 210.074} and some upgrated "E 50" with 6 Liter M 119 engines.
May be someone has fitted cams and heads of the M 113.944 {"C 43"} engine to a "E 430" {W 210.070}, but that's not a real AMG.
nd heads of the M 113.944 {"C 43"} engine in a "E 430" {W 210.070}, but that's not a real AMG
-------------------


For what it is worth here are the result they got on the conversion they did on the E500.
In fact some claims the E500 was inpsired by the original Hammer AMG.


Numbers are in Kph.
0-100 5,8 sec
0-120 7,2 sec
0-140 9,2
0-160 12,2 sec
0-180 15,5
0-200 22,1

On this car they had a short 2,82:1 diff that is normaly the Swiss setup, the German had 2,56:1

 

I like your taste in cars, at lest the TVR part They make some amazing machines.

I actually raced one TVR Griffith 5.0 once, it was pretty fast. Actually the fastest car I have been up against.

Never driven anyone, but I am sure they are a blast to drive.
The Speed 12 must be a monster.

Do you have any experience on that one. They are very rare in Norway.

 

No I don't - only the Chimaera and the Cerbera - and the Cerbera was awesome! I didn't think the Speed 12 really made it into true production did it? At least not as a road car??

 

Come to think off it, I have olly read about the monster, never actually seen a readgoing example, so you could be right.

 

Have a look at this video - it's the Speed 12 racing - http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/vi...n_Track_hi.wmv

 

Probaly not yet, in the mean time you can enjoy this one.....

http://home.online.no/~g-skaala/bmwm5.wmv
A looooooooooot of tire smoke......

 

I just obtained a rare folder from the now defunct AMG North America from a former associate of EuroTek AMG, also out of business, here in Scottsdale. It has a test sheet containing W124 sedan, W126 sedan, and W126 coupe. BTW, the E60 is indeed a M119-engined car, whereas the Hammer is a M117 engined car. The first Hammers were introduced in 1985, and the E60's were developed starting in '91 I believe. Anyway, here are the results, in MPH, and final drive ratio used. All of these were tested with the 5.6L 32v unit, which produced 360hp and 377 lb/ft. My car has, and other Hammer models were available with the 6.0L, producing 15 more hp and 30 more torque in U.S. trim. Couldn't find any tests with that specific car in this book. I spoke with the former president of AMG NA 2 days ago trying to find out more about my car... Turns out it is a German unit, assembled in Affalterbach when I read him the coding stamped in the valve cover. Even better news! Anyway, conducted in October 1986:
Hammer Sedan / W126 SEL / W126SEC / Ferrari Testarossa
0-60: 5.0 / 5.9 / 5.8 / 5.3
0-100: 12.4 / 13.7 / 13.5 / n/a
1/4 mi: 13.5 @ 107 / 13.9@102 / 13.7@103 /13.4@106.5
Top spd: 186mph / 166mph / 171mph / 180mph
Lateral: .853g / .74g / .78g / .87g
FDRatio: 2.24 / 2.65 / 2.65 / 3.21